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.
My preceding post merely recognizes the "official" stamp made by the closest thing to an Ecumenical council. Obviously, the books of the New Testament were already accepted and recognized long before 1545.
Most of the Church Fathers looked at the whole process as involving the Holy Spirit speaking to the church.
A lot of people are frustrated by what appears to be a rather "informal" process of canonization. On the other hand, had there been some sort of authoritarian council demanding and commanding obedience, then most of these same folks would cry out say that such a thing was the work of the devil.
Personally, I like the way it happened. It was a completely free and open process and it involved a large measure of chaos and circumstances that were simply out of the control of any one party or interest. Maybe it really was the Holy Spirit speaking to the church?
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.
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?
"the Canon" is a subjective term here. What do you mean? Do you mean when did man collect them into one book or do you mean when was the word finished?
God inspired the men, apostles, prophets,scribes to speak and to record. Nobody knows when the last letter was written but probably around 80 AD, since the Apostles were getting pretty old and dying off.
The bible is not a History so there is no reason for it to mention Jerusalem. The books of the bible were not written all in the same time frame or in the same location. So someone writting it in 70 AD over in some far corner of the world, might have also written what they wrote before hearing of Jerusalems fall.
A Canon is merely a collection of books that were already written and in use. So church leaders collected those books already written and in use. They examined them. They saw if there were any internal and external contradictions that would lead them to believe the letters were either spurious or contained interpolations. If they did they rejected them as Canon.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Let it be noted that this verse was not scripture when it was written. It was merely part of a letter. It was referring to other scripture.
Rev 22:18 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: Rev 22:19 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.
The words of warning about adding or taking away of the words of this book, is referring to the book of Revelation. Nowhere does it state in the bible about not adding to the bible. Maybe 500 years from now, Andrew Urshan's book would be considered for cannon! Who knows?
__________________ Words: For when an emoticon just isn't enough.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Let it be noted that this verse was not scripture when it was written. It was merely part of a letter. It was referring to other scripture.
Rev 22:18 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: Rev 22:19 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.
The words of warning about adding or taking away of the words of this book, is referring to the book of Revelation. Nowhere does it state in the bible about not adding to the bible. Maybe 500 years from now, Andrew Urshan's book would be considered for cannon! Who knows?
uh... no.
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
As Pel says, there was no real formal process (until the middle of the 3rd Century and into the 4th Century). By that time tt was very after-the-fact though. The writings the community shared were not looked at as a relic. How they viewed scripture, I believe, was a lot different than our Western grid that we peer through.
"the Canon" is a subjective term here. What do you mean? Do you mean when did man collect them into one book or do you mean when was the word finished?
God inspired the men, apostles, prophets,scribes to speak and to record. Nobody knows when the last letter was written but probably around 80 AD, since the Apostles were getting pretty old and dying off.
The bible is not a History so there is no reason for it to mention Jerusalem. The books of the bible were not written all in the same time frame or in the same location. So someone writting it in 70 AD over in some far corner of the world, might have also written what they wrote before hearing of Jerusalems fall.
A Canon is merely a collection of books that were already written and in use. So church leaders collected those books already written and in use. They examined them. They saw if there were any internal and external contradictions that would lead them to believe the letters were either spurious or contained interpolations. If they did they rejected them as Canon.
Linear Mode
