Duck

As the New Testament canon was being finalized, there were various guidelines and standards for determining what is Scripture and what isn't. And, to some extent, tradition played a role.

I'm wondering, though, how the early Christians decided that divine inspiration of the written word was finished.

Revelation 22:18-19 says: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

They didn't think that this passage refers to the entire collection of Biblical books, did they?

Steven Avery

Revelation 22:18-19
For I testify unto every man that heareth
the words of the prophecy of this book,
If any man shall add unto these things,
God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words
of the book of this prophecy,
God shall take away his part out of the book of life,
and out of the holy city,
and from the things which are written in this book.

Hi Duck,

We don't seem to have a lot of early commentary on the verse.
Irenaeus does apply it to the change from 666 to 616 within Revelation.

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf0...#P9303_2719209
Irenaeus Against Heresies - Book V Chapter XXX

"Now, in the first place, it is loss to wander from the truth, and to imagine that as being the case which is not; then again, as there shall be no light punishment [inflicted] upon him who either adds or subtracts anything from the Scripture, under that such a person must necessarily fall. "

While chastising those who would tamper with the word of God, Irenaeus says..

"Now, as regards those who have done this in simplicity, and without evil
intent, we are at liberty to assume that pardon will be granted them by God."

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Duck

Thanks praxeus.

Although there is little early commentary, what are your thoughts on why the early Christians decided that the canon is closed? Also (straying from the OP) what are your thoughts on why God stopped revealing himself through the written word?

Also, I'm wondering why you quoted the same passage from the KJV.
At first, I thought that you were putting the passage into a broader context, but you quoted exactly the same verses as I did. Do you prefer the KJV? Or you don't like the NIV?

hatsoff

It seems to have been victory by primacy. If the 27-book NT wasn't the very first published collection, it was certainly close to it. I would imagine it was the first collection to be popularized enough to generate dogmatic resistance against any other canon. Of course, this is all speculation. Likely we will never know the whole story.

Equinox

There is a whole course on that, by a world-renowned scholar, available here:

History of the Bible: The Making of the New Testament Canon - Teaching Co


I’ve listened to it, and highly recommend it. I would suggest waiting for it to go on sale though, to keep the price down. I’ve listened to literally hundreds of hours of teaching company classes during my commute.

Basically, they decided early on that the canon must be closed for practical reasons – you can’t very well use the church to dominate if new scriptures can spring up that you don’t have control over. But please do look into all this. It certainly wasn’t decided by primacy, since the first list we have of today’s NT is from Athanasius in 367 – over 3 centuries after Jesus. Marcion’s canon is from around 150, well before that. The muratorian canon is different too, and it’s from the early 3d century or so.

It’s also interesting to note that your lines from revelation about “not adding to” the scriptures predate many of the books of the NT, such as the pastorals and 2nd Pt. So should Peter burn in Hell? : )

Of course, modern Christians do use that passage to talk about the whole bible, though at the time it does appear to have just mean Rev.

Have a fun day - Equinox

Steven Avery

Hi Duck,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck Thanks praxeus. Although there is little early commentary, what are your thoughts on why the early Christians decided that the canon is closed?

Welcome. There really was very little controversy about recognizing the inspired writings. Mostly as to whether certain books should be included, such as Revelation itself. My view is that this was a providentially-guided spiritual sensitivity, in line with God's promises to inspire and preserve His word.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck what are your thoughts on why God stopped revealing himself through the written word?

I think you mean .. why He has not added to the revelation He has given us through the written word with additional writings ? Suffice to say ... Tanach and NT are sufficiente .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck Also, I'm wondering why you quoted the same passage from the KJV. At first, I thought that you were putting the passage into a broader context, but you quoted exactly the same verses as I did. Do you prefer the KJV? Or you don't like the NIV?

Yes, I view the KJB as the scriptures, the word of God, and the NIV as grossly deficient on many levels, including translation and underlying text. In this case the NIV has one major corruption .. 'tree of life' instead of 'book of life'.

Many have written about this, and I posted on the "Textual Criticism" forum.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textua...m/message/2285
[textualcriticism] Rev 22:19 - book of life - tree of life

Shalom,
Steven Avery

S.C.Carlson

The NT canon was finalized in the 4th century not so much on the basis of recognizing inspiration directly but rather more indirectly with the criteria of apostolicity, orthodoxy, and catholicity.

No, it refers to the copying of this particular book as it expressly says.

Stephen

judge

Which NT canon? The Roman Catholic one? The etheopic one? The Church of the East one?
Or are you saying one of these is the real one and the other ones are not real?

Gamera

It might be better to say that the gospel canon is closed. The commentaries, which include Paul, on the gospel, continue to proliferate to this day. Christian denominations don't call them canonical, but it amounts to the same thing.

The four gospels are the real canon, and the commentaries on them have never ceased to aggregate.

Duck

The "real" canon? According to whom?

Are you saying that Paul's epistles are commentaries on the four gospels?