Johnny Skeptic

This topic should be fun, at least for the skeptics. Will a moderator please add an "s" to the word "book" in the topic?

Steven Avery

Greetings Folks,
Hi Johnny, actually, an an inerrantist, and something of an 'un-skeptic' in terms of the scripture text .. I am all ears on this one.

Especially since I am frequently correcting much misinformation about the canon and Nicea and Constantine, so I would be very interested in any discussions that really reference primary source material on this question.

The misinformation includes ascribing the canon to Nicea and Constantine, to various votes, such as Daniel and Revelation winning by one vote to piles of books being considered (there is a 'thrown on the staircase' story there) to the infamous 'correctores' quote ascribed to Eberhard Nestle, combined with misinformation about rounding up and burning books, to much more. Even the Library of Alexandria destruction often gets fast-forwarded to match this age and context.

I think the first report of any known Council decrees about the canon were about 370 AD. My understanding is that the real issues at that point didn't have to do with any books that would be included that we do not have, but that there was still some concern or opposition to certain books. Hebrews and 2Peter come to mind, and in the east there was the NT Peshitta that omitted five books of our current canon (including 2Peter). So in that sense any of the canon declarations or votes, late as they are, ended up affirming the books with some opposition as scripture, but did not seriously entertain any other books.

Anybody have one of the books on early church councils and able to extract some primary source material ?

Will be much appreciated here.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

PS. - Let's not forget that there are similar issues with the Tanach, where many ascribe the canon to a vote or decisions at Yavne, (eg. as a response to the Messiah movement) yet a closer examination supports an accepted canon much earlier.

Johnny Skeptic

Hello Steven,

May I ask why you are an inerrantist? You said that there is misinformation about the New Testament canon. That is plausible, but I am more interested in the criteria that were used to choose which writings were chosen for the canon than the details about voting. For instance, what about the book of Galatians would have indicated to anyone that it should have been included in the canon as opposed to some of Paul's other letters that were not included? The Bible admits that tampering with the texts is possible. Revelation 22:18-19 say "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." If tampering with the texts were not possible, there would have been no need for the warnings.

You mentioned misinformation, but what are your sources for information regarding how the books of the New Testament were chosen and how the books of the Old Testament were chosen?

Steven Avery

Hi Johnny, In a nutshell, inerrancy is the consistent Messianic faith, and brings shalom before God. This becomes a very conjectural type of question, since we have either little or no idea about non-included Pauline epistles. We do know that Peter referred to Paul's letters as scripture at an early date, an indiction of an early collection, which would fit well with the reality that there was little opposition to any of Paul's letters as scripture in early church times. There were controversies on 2 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation and some others, but virtually zilch on letters with internal Pauline authorship. And the modern critical scholarship attempt to make some of the letters as later forgeries is simply a side herring. Sure, the alexandrian manuscripts Aleph and B are a perfect example of such tampering.
On a practical level there are lots of good articles, such as those at www.ntcanon.org , giving the history. On Tanach there used to be a very good article by Nehemiah Gordon, Karaite, showing the closed canon, only half of which seems to be up now. However it is easy to mix about four different issues. The actual fact of the fixed canon, the human agencies that were used of God to get us there, the providential design and guidance to achieve those ends, and the various details at manuscript A or writer B or council C. A little too wide-ranging for a short answer

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Johnny Skeptic

There is no logical correlation that can be made between the lack of opposition and the truth. There was once little opposition to the claim that the earth was flat. You said "We do know that Peter referred to Paul's letters as scripture at an early date," but what were Peter's criteria for making such an assessment?

Equinox

I'll leave the irrationality of inerrancy to the many other threads that deal with it.

To anwer your question about the books, remember that the books of the Bible were chosen in the 3rd and 4th centuries by popular and political actions, not by a vote at a single or multiple meetings. The very earliest time anyone lists the canon as it is today is Athanasius in 367. Luther wanted to change the New Testament Canon as well, so we very nearly had a different new Testament between Catholics and Protestants (Luther of course hated the book of James because it talks about works over faith).

Remember also that it is only the decisions of the Roman Catholic church that determined the books of the Bible. There were literally dozens of other Christian Churches, and they each had their own sacred scripture. In fact, our earliest list of any kind of numeration of the accepted books is by one of these other church leaders (Marcion), who listed only the Gospel of Luke and some Pauline letters (he of course didn't list the 3 Pauline most widely recognized as forgeries today).

In all the discussions then, the Roman Catholic Church used these criteria:

1. The book had to contain the correct Roman Catholic teaching - any book that did not must be corrupted or otherwise not acceptable.

2. Apostolic - the book had to be written by someone who somehow had some vague connection to some apostle. This one was pretty loose, since Hebrews has no connection to any apostle, and "a friend of a friend" qualified. However, since Catholics are making this assesment, they often decided that any book, if they didn't like what it said, must not be written by an apostle, since of course they were right and so an apostle would be right and wouldn't write something that supported the other Christian churches.

3. Widespread use - the book had to be in widespread use among Roman Catholic churches. The books use in other Christian churches didn't count, and often gave negative points.

4. Ancient - the book had to be ancient, regardless of what it said. Thus, the "Shepard of Hermas" was excluded, even though it agreed with Catholic Doctrine.

But of course don't take my word for it - learn about it from other sources and compare what different sources say, and see what makes sense and is supported by evidence. A good place to start is to get the University course on the history of the Bible on tape or CD. It's only $20 here:

http://www.teach12.com/store/course....anon&pc=Search

It makes a nice holiday gift too, either to ask for or to get someone else.
Take care-

-Equinox

Orthodox_Freethinker

The Emergence of the New Testament Canon
Daniel F. Lieuwen

Copyright (c) 1995 Daniel Lieuwen Permission is given for the non-commercial reproduction of this material in any format with the proviso that only the whole paper may be reproduced and no more than five copies may be made. Reproductions must credit the author, and include this copyright notice. Other use requires special permission to protect the integrity of the thought unit.

Conciliar Press is editting this paper to produce a booklet.
http://www.orthodox.net/faq/canon.htm

Peace.

Roger Pearse

You know my collection of material on the bible and Nicaea, no doubt:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Johnny Skeptic

The point is, Roger, no matter who chose the writings that were included in the New Testament canon, and when the choices were made, what indicated to the choosers that they were choosing Scripture as opposed to non-Scripture? Surely Paul wrote letters to various churches other than the ones that are in the New Testament. Roman Catholic cardinals choose new popes by faith alone. Weren't the writings of the New Testament chosen by faith alone as well?

Steven Avery

Most assuredly :-) In fact I am going to post the link on the WhichVersions list where we recently dealt with this stuff.

btw, the claim I found most interesting was a supposed Ebernard Nestle "correctores" quote, simply bogus upon checking, that is used by a lot of folks playing the Nicea card.

btw.. I also recently found your Celsus quotation page helpful, as Hoffman was quoted as if it were a real Celsus quote by a qodesh namer.

Always appreciate your research, and your special attention to the integrity matters.

Shalom,
Steven Avery