tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post2357267405269576916..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Be Careful the way you communicate the issue of the canon in the early churchJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-84550054055688971212014-08-08T23:56:00.162-04:002014-08-08T23:56:00.162-04:00Steve wrote: Question - Didn't Jerome divide t...Steve wrote: <i>Question - Didn't Jerome divide the canon? No? </i><br /> <br />What St. Jerome did was translate that which he was commissioned to do. The Latin Vulgate is the same canon declared so by name at Trent.<br /> <br />Scott<<<<br />CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11555309542380876999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-42752694781674768702014-08-07T11:02:28.375-04:002014-08-07T11:02:28.375-04:00http://christiantruth.com/articles/Apocryphapart2....http://christiantruth.com/articles/Apocryphapart2.htmlKenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-81133726176455697112014-08-07T09:16:46.747-04:002014-08-07T09:16:46.747-04:00Trent could not have used Jerome's canon, for ...Trent could not have used Jerome's canon, for Jerome specifically held that the Apocrypha books of the Intertestimental period (between Malachi/Chronicles 430 BC - until the time of John the Baptist and Jesus) were not canonical nor inspired. <br /><br />http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html<br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-223284828820886222014-08-06T22:50:55.129-04:002014-08-06T22:50:55.129-04:00Thanks Scott for the comment clarifying when the o...Thanks Scott for the comment clarifying when the official declaration was made. Question - Didn't Jerome divide the canon? No? <br /><br /><br />Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10356697645808228238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-76383945908963818562014-08-06T21:11:49.335-04:002014-08-06T21:11:49.335-04:00Steve wrote: Scott says ... it [the canon] was ult...Steve wrote: <i>Scott says ... it [the canon] was ultimately declared by the Church through the Holy Ghost.<br /><br />When was that?</i><br /> <br />sw: The <i>canon</i> was completed in the late 4th, early 5th century. The official declaration would come after Protestants were dividing the <i>canon</i> and the Church utilized the charism of infallibility to declare the <i>canon</i> at the Council of Trent - keep in mind, Trent used St. Jerome's <i>canon</i> by name.<br /> <br />Ken, I never denied the alternative use of the term <i>canon</i>, and that still doesn't make the subject/context of this thread about that <b>other usage</b>. <i>Canon lists</i> start very early in the Early Church - but the process took nearly 400 years to come to a completed <i>canon</i>. That was really what Andy Stanley's point was - though I agree, his point was poorly worded. I would also disagree with Stanley's statement that the Early Church didn't gather together to read what they held as <i>canonical</i> during the first 400 years. Was it <i>The Bible</i> as we know it today? No, but much of it was theopneustos (God breathed) Scripture. There is no doubt that many of the books are rightly declared as being part of the <i>Canon of Sacred Scripture</i> in the earliest of <i>canon lists</i> - but likewise several books were included in these lists which eventually were not included while others were excluded but eventually made it into the official <i>canon</i>. <br /> <br />Scott<<<CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11555309542380876999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-53550932036007742152014-08-06T13:29:42.776-04:002014-08-06T13:29:42.776-04:00Since the rule / canon of faith is basic doctrine ...Since the rule / canon of faith is basic doctrine that later became the creeds, and was used as the main standard for what is Christian and what is not in the 1-4 centuries before Athanasius list in 367 AD and the provincial councils of Hippo and Carthage (380s-400 ) [regarding the NT], and all of the rule of faith is in the Scriptures, and the NT books existed by 96 AD, this is very important to the context. <br /><br />Origen's confirmation of the canon is also important, around 240 AD.<br /><br />Irenaeus and Tertullian also important to the context since they affirm most all the NT books in 180-220 AD.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-19129366449626085042014-08-06T13:23:58.631-04:002014-08-06T13:23:58.631-04:00One of the first recorded canon lists was the Marc...<i>One of the first recorded canon lists was the Marcionian Canon, and while Marcion was declared an heretic, it was not because of his canon - though it was controversial.</i><br /><br />It was related, because his heresy of rejecting the God of the OT, rejecting God's Sovereingty and God's right to judge sin and His holy anger; and rejecting creation as good, was the reason why he rejected the OT and the pastoral Epistles, and Matthew, (becuase of so much OT in it), because they taught, "everything created is good", and for marriage. Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-18932288675679814432014-08-06T13:20:06.904-04:002014-08-06T13:20:06.904-04:00That should have been Galatians 6:16
And those w...That should have been Galatians 6:16<br /><br /> And those who will walk by this rule (kanon, τω κανονι from κανων) , peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.<br /><br />the principle of the new creation, in verse 15.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-13472711938442181492014-08-06T13:12:11.392-04:002014-08-06T13:12:11.392-04:00Scott wrote:
Yes, the word "canon" or &q...Scott wrote:<br /><i>Yes, the word "canon" or "kanon" also has the meaning of a "rule" or "criterion," but in this context we're speaking of the lists which were put together, several of them in the Early Church.</i><br /><br />Yes, but I am saying the use of the word canon, meaning "measuring rod", "rule", "criterion", "standard" - Galatians 6:15, Irenaeus (180-200), Tertullian(190-220 AD), Origen (250 AD) makes it very important background as to why it later had the meaning of "list of NT inspired books". The context includes the historical background/development of the word and concept. Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-36160930604222300872014-08-06T13:08:48.297-04:002014-08-06T13:08:48.297-04:00Origen seems to have had the same 27 NT book canon...Origen seems to have had the same 27 NT book canon as Athanasius in his commentary on Joshua, though he makes other comments about 2 Peter and Jude in other places and contexts.<br /><br /><br />"So too our Lord, whose advent was typified by the son of Nun, when he came sent his apostles as priests bearing well-wrought trumpets. Matthew first sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel. Mark also, Luke and John, each gave forth a strain on their priestly trumpets. Peter moreover sounds loudly on the twofold trumpet of his epistles; and so also James and Jude. Still the number is incomplete, and John gives forth the trumpet-sound in his epistles and Apocalypse; and Luke while describing the acts of the apostles. Lastly however came he who said, I think that God hath set forth us Apostles last of all, [1 Cor. 4:9] and thundering on the fourteen trumpets of his epistles threw down even to the ground the walls of Jericho, that is to say all the instruments of idolatry and the doctrines of philosophers."<br /><br />From Origen's Homilies on Joshua, viii. 1. (about 240 AD - ?)<br /><br />see here also:<br />http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/05/twenty-seven-book-new-testament-before.htmlKenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-13221638338242254402014-08-06T13:03:35.994-04:002014-08-06T13:03:35.994-04:00Scott says ... it [the canon] was ultimately decla...Scott says ... it [the canon] was ultimately declared by the Church through the Holy Ghost.<br /><br />When was that?Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10356697645808228238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-23658010164665867932014-08-06T01:54:24.125-04:002014-08-06T01:54:24.125-04:00Ken,
What is the context of this discussion? Beyo...Ken,<br />What is the <b>context</b> of this discussion? Beyond etymology, we're talking about <b>canon lists</b> of the <b>Canon of Sacred Scripture.</b> Yes, the word "canon" or "kanon" <b>also</b> has the meaning of a "rule" or "criterion," but <b>in this context</b> we're speaking of the <b>lists</b> which were put together, <b>several of them</b> in the Early Church. So, when we speak of the <b>Canon of Sacred Scripture</b>, these books were not <b>canonical</b> until there was a <b>canon</b> or <b>list</b> to which they belonged. One <b>canon</b> of the Old Testament is the Septuagint or Greek canon, another is the Palestinian or Hebrew canon. Catholics, along with Jesus and the Apostles, used the Greek canon; Protestants and post-Christian Jews adhere to the Palestinian canon. Pre-Christian Jews followed a mix between the Alexandrian (Greek) canon and the Palestinian (Hebrew) canon.<br /> <br />Then there came the New Testament canons. One of the first recorded canon lists was the Marcionian Canon, and while Marcion was declared an heretic, it was not because of his canon - though it was controversial. Irenaeus argued for a 4 book Gospel canon and Origen presented a canon quite similar to the current New Testament canon, except he did not include James, 2 Peter 2nd and 3rd John and he did include the Shepherd of Hermas. I could go on, but the point is <b>which canon list?</b> If <b>any</b> book belonged to <b>any</b> canon, then it was "canonical" per <b>that canon</b>. The <b>final canon</b> of Scripture does not exist until the late 4th century, so per <b>that canon</b>, while many books were not disputed by that time, <b>none</b> were part of <b>that canon</b> until <b>that canon</b> existed.<br /> <br />Scott<<<CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11555309542380876999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-10595478407850092742014-08-04T12:52:44.591-04:002014-08-04T12:52:44.591-04:00Before the word "canon" was used as a li...Before the word "canon" was used as a list of NT books, it meant "rule", "criterion", "standard" in the explanations of "the rule of faith" or "canon of truth" - in Irenaeus(180-200 AD), Tertullian(190-220 AD), Origen (250 AD) (D. L. Williams, The Free Church and the Early Church, page 17) and was basically organized around the Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:18-20; and is basically, the same doctrinal content as what later became the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Chalcedonian and Athanasian Creeds. <br /><br />This "rule of faith" or "canon of truth" was also called "the tradition", "the faith", "the teaching" (Athanasius, To Serapion, on the Holy Spirit, Epistle 1, 28) or "the preaching" (Irenaeus) <br /><br />So, you are wrong. The standard, rule, criterion was the doctrinal truths of Christianity (which Protestants agree with because they came from Scripture and were taught to new converts before baptism, and functioned as "the standard" until all the NT books were discerned and discovered and put togehter under one "book cover", so to speak.<br /><br />So, I did not make an etymological fallacy.<br /><br />There was no real debate over the four gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, 1 John and 1 Peter.<br /><br />Clement and Pseudo Barnabas seem to allude to 2 Peter. <br /><br />Irenaeus, Tertullian - 180-220 AD affirm most of the NT books, both Irenaeus and Tertullian affirm the book of Revelation - before those 2 writers, there is just not much extant from the earlier writers; their output was small - Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Papias. What we have of their writings is too small to even quote or allude to very many of the NT documents, though they do allude to and quote from some. Clement, very early, uses Hebrews. <br /><br />The only debate was over Hebrews, Revelation, James, Jude, 2-3 John, 2 Peter. (mostly Eusebius tells us that there was debate over these books.)<br /> <br />But Revelation (Irenaeus, Tertullian) and Hebrews (Clement) are mentioned and affirmed early. 2 Peter by Clement and Psedo-Barnabas.<br /><br />The power of the NT documents is self-evident and they eventually won because of their self-evident power and quality as being "God-breathed". <br /><br /><br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-34747610336757486372014-08-03T13:50:20.761-04:002014-08-03T13:50:20.761-04:00> KT: Words have meanings, yes.
> But the o...> KT: Words have meanings, yes. <br />> But the original meaning of <br />> "canon" was not a list, rather <br />> "criterion" / "standard" / <br />> "rule" - the meaning of "list of <br />> sacred books" came much later. <br /><br />sw: Without going into the etymological fallacy, the <b>use</b> that <b>we</b> are talking about is <b>clearly</b> the <b>use</b> of <b>canon lists</b> as produced (several different ones) in the first 400 years of the <b>C</b>hurch. <br /> <br />The <b>real underlying point</b> here is that the canon did not determine itself. If the canon were self-determining, there would not have been <b>any</b> debate over it - much less 400(+) years of said debate! No, it was ultimately declared by the <b>C</b>hurch through the Holy Ghost.<br /> <br />The real reason you do not accept this explanation is that it is quite damning to the concept of <i>sola scriptura</i> because you accept, without exception, <b>the canon</b> of the New Testament as declared by the Catholic Church through the Holy Ghost.<br /> <br />Scott<<<<br /> <br />CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11555309542380876999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-15957025225363632862014-08-01T15:25:33.573-04:002014-08-01T15:25:33.573-04:00. . . words have meanings. A "canon" (in...<i> . . . words have meanings. A "canon" (in this context) is a LIST or COLLECTION of sacred books which are accepted as genuine. </i><br /><br />Words have meanings, yes. But the original meaning of "canon" was not a list, rather "criterion" / "standard" / "rule" - the meaning of "list of sacred books" came much later. <br /><br /><i>(the writer first had the inspiration and THEN put it to paper/papyrus).</i><br /><br />No; 2 Timothy 3:16 says the writings are God-breathed, not the person. The person was guided by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21), using their own personality, but it was the writings themselves that are God-breathed. Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-42692980145762940832014-07-31T23:04:22.692-04:002014-07-31T23:04:22.692-04:00Joey,
I understand what you're saying - but I ...Joey,<br />I understand what you're saying - but I must stress - words have meanings. A "canon" (in this context) is a LIST or COLLECTION of sacred books which are accepted as genuine. Thus, to say a book or collection of books is "canonical" BEFORE the LIST or COLLECTION is assembled is purely anachronistic. To be "canonical" does not equivocate to being "inspired." In the case of Scripture, those books which were eventually included in the Canon of Sacred Scripture are indeed ALSO inspired (God breathed) and the inclusion into the canon did not make them inspired. They were, indeed, inspired even prior to them being penned (the writer first had the inspiration and THEN put it to paper/papyrus). By the same token, just because something is not in the formal canon does not mean it is not inspired! Many other books are considered worthy to be read and could be considered inspired and inspirational - they just were not part of the official canon.<br /> <br />Back to the point - NONE of the books were "canonical" prior to the establishment of a "canon." In simpler terms, NONE of the books were part of the "list" prior to the "list" being compiled. <br /> <br />Also keep in mind, there were SEVERAL "canons" prior to the 4th-5th century. <br /> <br />Words mean things.<br /> <br />Scott<<<CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11555309542380876999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-30639147906397607452014-07-31T07:21:30.736-04:002014-07-31T07:21:30.736-04:00Scott, you have to define what you mean by canon. ...Scott, you have to define what you mean by canon. If canon for you means that there should be a canonical list defined by an ecclesiastical body, then you correct in saying that it is anachronistic to assert the canon prior to the list.<br /><br />However, the definition of what is a canon and when a book becomes canonical is at issue. For me, the canon is a result of inspiration. When God inspired some books and not all books, he basically created the canon. Thus, the canon exist even if no ecclessiatical body defines it.Joey Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04383054573751843392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-9527979162956476922014-07-28T19:38:18.545-04:002014-07-28T19:38:18.545-04:00And I would agree as well... except for the point ...And I would agree as well... except for the point of "just making use of space." In the time before the printing press (and we're talking more than 1000 years prior to it) adding to the "space" was much more laborious and thus not a very logical argument. So, while it "could be argued...", such a paradigm is quite unlikely. The more likely is that they appreciated the Shepherd, Barnabus, Didache, etc. and included them because they did preach the Gospel message - but for any number of reasons (and there are a few) the later counterparts decided against their inclusion in the canon.<br /> <br />As for the point about them being "canonical" at the time they were penned, while it is true they were and are God's Word at the time they were penned, it is a bit anachronistic to argue they were canonical prior to the existence of canon lists.<br /> <br />Scott<<<<br />CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11555309542380876999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-86213294467457200992014-07-28T16:05:24.794-04:002014-07-28T16:05:24.794-04:00Basically I agree, if there is enough time to make...Basically I agree, if there is enough time to make clear that the individual books were already canon when written, because they are "God-breathed".<br /><br />But I suppose you are also wanting books like Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, Didache, Wisdom of Solomon, and Apocalypse of Peter to be mentioned as possibly considered by some (Muration Canon and Codex Siniaticus) as "canon" also. But it could be argued that Codex Siniaticus is just making use of the space and material, not proof that they thought they were canonical. <br />Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-52999071436826862692014-07-26T19:31:00.810-04:002014-07-26T19:31:00.810-04:00The fact that there was no "Bible" prior...The fact that there was no "Bible" prior to the 4th-5th century is quite true. It is also true that all the books which comprise that which would be declared to be "The Bible" were all written prior to 96AD. That some books were widely read in the early churches MAY be true, but the fact is that there were few copies available in the first 300 years of the Catholic Church and not because they were forbidden, but because all copies would have been hand-written. There is no doubt that many of the books are rightly declared as being part of the Canon of Sacred Scripture in the earliest of canon lists - but likewise several books were included in these lists which eventually were not included while others were excluded but eventually made it into the official canon. <br /><br />Should pastors be careful in how they describe the early canons? Yes, I would agree with that! They should also be honest about how the canon developed and was not 100% accepted.<br /> <br />Scott<<<CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11555309542380876999noreply@blogger.com