When Was The Canon Established?

[Dedicated Mind]

Was the canon established before 70 AD by the apostles, since the destruction of Jerusalem is not mentioned in the scriptures, or was the canon established by the later roman councils such as Nicea in 325 AD? Can you provide any evidence or support for your position?

[pelathais]

There are no historical records that the apostles of the First Century ever had a NT canon. They were certainly aware of the writings that were circulating (2 Peter 3:15-16). One curious note is that the NT writers themselves used "non-canonical" books from the OT time period and quoted them in the exact manner that they quoted other Scripture.

But, given the disputes that arose as early as the end of the First Century, it is clear that the Apostles themselves had not prepared anything like a list of writings that were to be considered "Scripture." None of the combatants in this issue even claims that such a list existed.

The earliest "list" of a canon of the NT was made by a "heretic" - Marcion of Sinope (A.D. 85-160). His attempt at "rewriting" NT theology was then answered by a flurry of others who proposed the more orthodox canons.

It seems that this "heretic" was the impetus behind the whole notion of a NT canon and was the catalyst of the various canons. What's interesting is that no "Ecumenical" Church council had "fixed" a NT canon until the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Develop...estament_canon

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by pelathais

There are no historical records that the apostles of the First Century ever had a NT canon. They were certainly aware of the writings that were circulating (2 Peter 3:15-16). One curious note is that the NT writers themselves used "non-canonical" books from the OT time period and quoted them in the exact manner that they quoted other Scripture.

But, given the disputes that arose as early as the end of the First Century, it is clear that the Apostles themselves had not prepared anything like a list of writings that were to be considered "Scripture." None of the combatants in this issue even claims that such a list existed.

The earliest "list" of a canon of the NT was made by a "heretic" - Marcion of Sinope (A.D. 85-160). His attempt at "rewriting" NT theology was then answered by a flurry of others who proposed the more orthodox canons.

It seems that this "heretic" was the impetus behind the whole notion of a NT canon and was the catalyst of the various canons. What's interesting is that no "Ecumenical" Church council had "fixed" a NT canon until the Council of Trent (1545-1563).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Develop...estament_canon

I guess my real question is who established the canon and when? Was it 1st century christians or the roman church?

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

I guess my real question is who established the canon and when? Was it 1st century christians or the roman church?

Interesting article here:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/xn-canon.html

[NotforSale]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Interesting article here:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/xn-canon.html

Great article and great thread. Pel, appreciate your insight and obvious research.

One thing about the above article; it didn't point out that Authorship of the Gospels is not clear, and, that many believe they were written by men who were not the Apostles.

History suggests the actual writing of the 4 Gospels didn't take place until 30-160 AD, depending on who you want to believe.

Many may feel this is not important, but I disagree. Not being able to trace the Authenticity of a past writing by including a genuine Author leaves room for corrupted variance and a never ending argument. It is these small things that get past us in the name of protecting what our mothers and fathers taught us. “God forbid we would question the Bible”, can haunt the mind with FEAR, leading to the acceptance of things only because we were told, “Thou Shalt Not”.

The article also pointed out the period where science and "Proof" began to conflict with the Canon, such as the period of Galileo when his findings conflicted with the Church and "Scripture". There are many more things about the Gospels that veer us from modern findings, which I feel shouldn't be the case, bringing greater light upon those who suggest that these Books are accurate and inspired by God.

For instance; Demons possessing a person. The Gospels point out that people who were "Crazy" seemed to be demon possessed and needed to be exorcized. Today we know that the mentally deranged or handicapped are not demon possessed via modern medicine.

I believe situations such as these should be included in the debate of whether or not Books are considered part of the "Canon". It seems, whenever science and the facts about our Earth and Human Life are ignored in the name of Faith or a Tradition, we derail the most important thing needed in developing a solid Faith in God; Trust.

If I'm told to just believe something "Just because", the Generation behind me will stand up and call me fool if a modern day Galileo defies my idea with the facts after I’m gone.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

I guess my real question is who established the canon and when? Was it 1st century christians or the roman church?

That depends on how you look at it and what you mean by "The Roman Church."

The Roman Catholic Church as it exists today didn't really come into being until about the Eleventh Century. Many people within the Roman establishment certainly argued that their authority extended over all of the other bishops, but that wouldn't really come into actual practice until after the "Great Schism" between East and West. It was also at about this time that a lot of practices that we recognize as "RCC" came into being: celibacy and non-married clergy, prohibition on beards being worn by the clergy, etc.

What the early Christians believed was that they were "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20). So, anything said and taught by Jesus Christ and His apostles was considered "Scripture."

The winnowing and selection of just what documents represented these teachings took some time. Most of our NT today was "universally accepted" pretty much from the start. There were other books that were accepted in some regions but questioned in others. Given the lack of any means of modern communication between the various regions, it simply took some time for the "universally accepted" stamp to be applied to all of the books that we recognize today.

A lot of people want to believe that there was some apostle (usually John) who sorted through everything and set the canon. The fact is, no one even made such a claim until centuries and centuries later. Marcion's heresy seems to have really caught the church off guard. If there was some sort of authentic canon at that time, the follow up to Marcion would not have been as jumbled as it was.

The straight answer to your question is: The Council of Trent - 1545.

[*AQuietPlace*]

What was he referring to, here?

2 Tim. 3:16

King James Bible
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

What was he referring to, here?

2 Tim. 3:16

King James Bible
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Timothy 3:15 - the "Scriptures" that Timothy had known "from a child." This prepositional phrase would appear to have Paul not taking his own writings into account in the statement that follows in verse 16.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by pelathais

2 Timothy 3:15 - the "Scriptures" that Timothy had known "from a child." This prepositional phrase would appear to have Paul not taking his own writings into account in the statement that follows in verse 16.

The Scriptures that Timothy would have studied... was it the Old Testament as we know it? The Torah? Something different altogether?

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by pelathais

2 Timothy 3:15 - the "Scriptures" that Timothy had known "from a child." This prepositional phrase would appear to have Paul not taking his own writings into account in the statement that follows in verse 16.

So it wasn't until the New Testament canon was established that Paul's writings were considered 'scripture'?