RossGr Quote:
<< I am sure that many of works were accepted BY SOME as early 300ad, but the acceptance was not universal at that point in time they could not even agree on the nature of christ, that issue was not "resolved" until his deification by Constitine around 300 - 400 AD. This major issue was resolved as means of keeping the peace rather then through convincing theological arguments. >>
OK, I'll leave the deity of Christ argument alone and focus on the historical argument about the validity of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. I don't think it is wrong or improper to question why the curent 27 books were included, why some others were excluded, or whether or not the histroic Christian church practiced inappropriate censorship. After all, we are dealing with an historical process here, not mathematics. Hence, the question of canonicity can never be perfectly resolved with the same degree of certainty that a "purely" scientific issue could be.
But to suggest that the New testament wasn't significantly, historically established until 1000 A.D. is simply not good scholarship. If one is looking for a particular church council or document that clearly lists the twenty seven books of the New testament, the evidence is abundant.
1)The Gospel of Truth, critically dated to 140 A.D., quotes so much from the canonical writings that it strongly suggests that these writings were existant and well circulated by that time. The Gospel of Truth was found in Rome.
2) Marcion the Gnostic established is own canon in 150 A.D. Marcion taught that there were two gods: the "harsh OT god" and the "loving NT god, Jesus." Although his teachings were decidedly non-conformist to say the least, his canon contained the Gospel of Luke, eight of Paul's latters, and several other writings.
3) The Canon of Muratori. This text was dated at 170 A.D. This canon recognizes all the same books as our New Testament today except for the following exclusions: 1 John, 2 Peter, James, and Hebrews.
4) Origen of Alexandria (185-253 A.D.) Origen listed the "books being confessed" and the "books being argued against." All of the books in our current NT were listed in the "confessed" works except Hebrews, 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter, James and Jude. Other books that were "argued against" were The Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Didache, and The Gospel of Hebrews. Origen accepted all of our current NT books except possibly 2 & 3 John.
I could list quite a bit more, but I doubt many will read even to this point. I will stop here because I think it establishes historical credibility to the current NT manuscripts. Plus, it establishes this credibility well before Christianity was a politicall acceptable religion. The Roman culture tended to despise Christianity in general and often actively persecute it. The last Roman persecution ended under Diocletian in 303 A.D.
The early church was quite methodical in evaluating manuscripts. They looked for several signs of legitimacy:
(A) was it written by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle?
(B) was it consistent with "undisputed", already accepted Scripture?
(C) was it widely circulated in the early churches?
(D) did it "resonate" with the Holy Spirit?
Granted, #4 is subjective, but the first three are pretty objective and reasonable historical criteria. Yes, some books have less evidence (2 Peter, Jude, Hebrews), and other books were seriously considered before being excluded (The Didache, the Shpeherd of Hermas), but for the most part the legitimate books stand on their own given the methodology the church used. And that methodology seems reasonable as a way of tracing back our roots to what the Apostles themselves taught.
Once Christianity was accepted as a legal religion and the church was given freedom to meet openly, it did not take long to establish the Canon. Eusebius (270-340) wrote a list of books , and the Easter Letter of Athanasius (367 A.D.) gave a list of the same twenty-seven books that we have today. Athanasius was the bishop of Alexandria, Egypt and wrote that letter to exclude a large number of Apocryphal writings that were popping up in Egyptian Christianity.
I would draw special attention to the Muratorian Canon in 170 A.D. It lists the same books we have today except 1 John, 2 Peter, James, and Hebrews. If one took those books out of our NT, would that change the basic teachings of the New testament itself? It would be a tragic loss, but no core concept of Christianity would be altered.
By any reasonable historical criteria, one would seem bound to draw the conclusion that the NT represents core Christianity, in all essential elements authentic and unchanged from the time of the Apostles. Whther one agrees with that core Christianity is a personal decision. But the historical evidence is overwhelming by the standards of historical criticism.
Facebook
Twitter