jbernier

The classic work on Christian canon formation is Campenhausen's Formation of the Christian Canon. It is a bit dated, however. I would also recommend Lee McDonald's Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon.

Toto

Campenhausen's Formation of the Christian Canon (out of print)

Lee McDonald's Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon

Several Amazon reviewers give this book a thumbs down - cannot be recommended to the church! Doubters guide to the bible! High praise indeed.

EffBeeEye

Not to mention Nicodemus and the others who helped change the Bible into what we know today.

Heck - why not go as far back as the The Apostolic Council in Jerusalem of year 51 AD where the Apostles first realized that to be Christian you had to be a Jew according to scripture. That was the first Christian meddling with scripture and teachings to make the Bible (or what was to become the Bible) say what they wanted.

Amazon has a book on "The great rejected books of the biblical apocrypha" (or via: amazon.co.uk)

An interesting comaprison of Isaiah's Apocolypse and John's may be found in a book titled Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation. I have not read it but it does look somewhat iteresting.

I ran across this list of books which are studies of groups who worshipped and studied early Christian bibles. Could be a nugget in there too.

Do some research and see what you can find on "Chester Beatty Library and Gallery of Oriental Art". They have some of the most widespread (geographically) material on early Christians. I found mention of it HERE but you need to join to read the article.

This page at books.google.com, and the book being sold, speaks to the early Christians and how the Gospels *may* have been formulated, since Jesus never wrote a word that we know of. It is intersting unto itself, but down at the lower sections are links to other books that may be interesting as well.

steve

Quote from EffBeeEye: (I hope I got that right)

Heck - why not go as far back as the The Apostolic Council in Jerusalem of year 51 AD where the Apostles first realized that to be Christian you had to be a Jew according to scripture. That was the first Christian meddling with scripture and teachings to make the Bible (or what was to become the Bible) say what they wanted. End quote.

This snagged on my brain and I wanted to know more. Where in the scriptures does it say this? The reason I want to know is that I've been interested in the formation of the bible and the reasoning for it and this seems to be a biggie in the slanting of the bible toward gentiles.

Please excuse the possible off topic question.

Thanks
Steve

Roger Pearse

Perhaps this quotation from the Muratorian canon, a stray list of books considered canonical in the late 2nd century AD in Rome, and accidentally preserved, will help:

But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after [their] time.

As Tertullian remarks in Adversus Marcionem book 4, the authors of the canonical material were apostles; or else apostolic men, men belonging to the apostolic circle and in contact with them.

The fathers did have an idea of their own history, and how that related to the lists of emperors and olympiads used in contemporary accounts of events. They had lists of bishops in each see. As we see above, they could work out when people lived, in general terms. They were, after all, far closer to all these events than we are, and had 100 times more literature than we do.

They also knew (in general terms) when various people came along, and tried to introduce their own ideas into the apostolic teaching (which, remember, they were in a position to consult via an oral tradition which certainly extended to the late 2nd century, e.g. Irenaeus). These people, known as heretics after the contemporary term for a group of people who've invented their own school of philosophy *, are listed in heresiologies which indicate who taught what at what date, and in what order. Such teachers would naturally introduce their own ideas into works of their own composition. Justin Martyr, for instance, wrote a heresiology.

Consequently the fathers could date various works by the fingerprint of the heretic who originated them. Something that talked about Aeons had to be Valentinian, and therefore mid 2nd century on. Material discussing the theotokos must be after 400 AD. Similar criteria are used today, of course, for the same purpose.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

* Note that the use of the term got much vaguer later, especially after the reformation when it degraded into a term of insult. The early heretics are more precisely defined at the time.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Roger,

I believe that all that the Muratorian quote indicates is that some Christian groups believed "the Shepherd" should be included among the books of "the Prophets" and by other groups that it should be included among the books of "the Apostles". The Muratorian fragment author claims both are wrong and offers a third alternative. This would indicate that early Christian groups did not know where or when their material was coming from.

The dating of the Muratorian Canon is uncertain as it has been placed by various scholars in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries. Apparently, the phrase "our time" is ambiguous. It can be taken as a reference to the recent past, within 50 years or so, or, if taken in apposition to the time of the apostles, (their time/our time) it may be virtually any time after the Second century.

Since the writer does not deem to tell us how he knows that the brother of Bishop Pius wrote the work, and we have no idea who the writer of this fragment is, we cannot say if this information is true or simply being made up for political reasons.

It cannot be used to support the idea that Christians knew where their texts originated.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Roger Pearse

Unfortunately none of these points seem valid to me. Ancient data is one thing; modern speculation another.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

I have some information about Constantine here. Constantine was the equivalent of a fourth century malevolent despot and military supremacist.

Then Constantine could not have had him strangled and the Councils of Antioch and Nicaea would never have happened. Perhaps christianity would not have existed.

Have a look at the pious rhetoric embedded in the Decretum Gelasianum - An Index of Apocrypha c.491 CE ....


Best wishes,


Pete

EffBeeEye

Not a problem Steve,

Personally I think we need to look at other books and resources to get the whole picture - thus the Concordances and dozens of Christian Bible versions that are intended to be used by dertain people who feel this way or that. After all they couldn't fit timelines in the Bible and they didn't have access to all the historians that we do now.

It's not discussed in Scripture. Apparently he wrote the Epistles to the Galations before or during the year of the council. After googling it I came across the Orthodoxphotos.com site. The link is a brief history and description of how the Eastern Orthodox church formed and its differences between others (Mostly the RC Church.)

At THIS LINK they discuss it in detail.:

There's a book out too that looks sorta interesting "Either Jew or Gentile: Paul's Unfolding Theology of Inclusivity" and Chapter 3 discusses the council and its effects.

THIS DISCUSSION of "The Apostolic Age" focuses on the Biblical Book - The Acts of the Apostles. In

"General Character of the Apostolic Age.

The apostolic period extends from the Day of Pentecost to the death of St. John, and covers about seventy years, from AD 30 to 100."

It's also touched on HERE, another Eastern Orhodox site describing Paul.

With THIS GOOGLE you shoulod be able to come up with lots more reading.

spamandham

These same men readily appealed to the miraculous, to authority, to arguments from antiquity, were quick to kill anyone who disagreed with them, and saw no distinction between propaganda and history.

Why should we trust their assessments?