How do you determine which NT-era books are authoritative?

[CSLewis]

The ecclesiastical community held (for the most part, though compromises were made) and canonized the scriptures in the Septuagint and the Vulgate. Widespread acceptance and use in the church continued until the Reformation- The Council at Trent reaffirmed the church

[apothanein kerdos]

or example, we don't know much about the first 300 years of Christianity, so any statements about that time period are rather tentative.

So Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement of Alexandira, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Athanasius, Bardesanes, Eusibias, Justin Martyr, Origen, Polycarp, Tacticus, Pliny the Younger, Hermias, Aristides the Athenian, and hundreds more are all people who wrote about the first three hundred years of the Church, during the first three hundred years of the Church. It is said that there is more historical evidence and knowledge of what occurred in the first three hundred years of Christianity than from 700-1200. What you said is just ignorant to the hundreds of sources we have from this time.

At the close of century II, there was no codified "New Testament,"

There was still an accepted standard. Again, Marcion attempted to remove certain texts from the Bible, which prompted people to condemn him for doing so. If there were no unified standard that was acceptable to the masses, then what he did would not have been a problem.

The apocryphal texts you refer to were also Old Testament issues, not New Testament issues. It stems from the people using the Septuagint.

The NT makes great changes to OT theology, so I wouldn't say one "falls in line" with the other--

Name one great change that it makes. The fact is, this merely shows you don't understand OT theology.

GThomas, Barnabas and the Didache were written no later than century II and quite possibly in century I.

Are you kidding?

The Coptic version of the Gospel of Thomas is dated to 340 AD...being that it is Gnostic in nature, the writing style, etc...it most likely originated out of Alexandria. This means, at the earliest, it could have been the second century, with a low possibility of being in the 1st Century.

The earliest manuscript we have of the Gospel of Barnabas is the sixteenth century. That's a ways away from the first century, wouldn't you say?

The Didache was not accepted as cannon due to not that many people accepting it, and it's instructional nature instead of revealing nature.

Mate, you're not going to get me on this discussion. I've spent much time studying this issue. You do need to do some serious study on this issue, because what you're saying is 90% wrong.

[CSLewis]

Great post AK.

Back when I was an atheist - one of the things I couldn't wrap my mind around was the fact that the early christians were so adamant about defending the faith- even in the face of torture and martyrdom. The more Rome fought it the more Christ won. The disciples who felt rejected on the road to Emmaus were martyred. What happened? How could someone who had seen all that Christ had done on earth and doubted (like Thomas) become a martyr? Unless the impossible happened. Unless the resurrection was true. I urge you- go back, clear your mind of atheistic dogma and read the gospel for the first time. All history, tradition, truth rests on the paradoxicality of the cross.

peace

[hatsoff]

So Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement of Alexandira, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Athanasius, Bardesanes, Eusibias, Justin Martyr, Origen, Polycarp, Tacticus, Pliny the Younger, Hermias, Aristides the Athenian, and hundreds more are all people who wrote about the first three hundred years of the Church, during the first three hundred years of the Church. It is said that there is more historical evidence and knowledge of what occurred in the first three hundred years of Christianity than from 700-1200. What you said is just ignorant to the hundreds of sources we have from this time.

Unfortunately, these authors (and I doubt there are over a hundred, much less "hundreds") don't tell us very much about the state of Christianity as a whole during the time in which they wrote. And what they do tell us is subject to error, conflation and intentional deception. They do, of course, give us some valuable insight into their respective niches, but that is far too little to paint an adequate picture of the religion's growth.

There was still an accepted standard. Again, Marcion attempted to remove certain texts from the Bible, which prompted people to condemn him for doing so. If there were no unified standard that was acceptable to the masses, then what he did would not have been a problem.

The apocryphal texts you refer to were also Old Testament issues, not New Testament issues. It stems from the people using the Septuagint.

There is no known "accepted standard" prior to century IV. This goes to what I talked about above, about us not having enough evidence about the first few hundred years of Christianity. Could there have been a generally-accepted canon in 200 AD? Perhaps, but there could just as easily have been nothing of the sort. Marcion's is the first known canon, so it is inappropriate at best to say that he "attempted to remove certain texts from the Bible;" the Bible didn't exist in 140 AD (Marcion's time), and in my opinion it is unlikely that an orthodox canon was even nearing completion at the time.

Also, GThomas, Barnabas and the Didache are Christian, not Jewish, texts.

Name one great change that it makes. The fact is, this merely shows you don't understand OT theology.

Ritual cleansings were abolished. Non-kosher foods were permitted. Circumcision was forgotten as a requirement. Etc.

Are you kidding?

The Coptic version of the Gospel of Thomas is dated to 340 AD...being that it is Gnostic in nature, the writing style, etc...it most likely originated out of Alexandria. This means, at the earliest, it could have been the second century, with a low possibility of being in the 1st Century.

The earliest manuscript we have of the Gospel of Barnabas is the sixteenth century. That's a ways away from the first century, wouldn't you say?

The Didache was not accepted as cannon due to not that many people accepting it, and it's instructional nature instead of revealing nature.

You're confusing the dates of the mss. with the dates of the original compositions. The Didache, for instance, was probably known by Clement of Alexandria (c. 190 AD, cf. Stromata I.100.4), and is written using early "Apostolos" terminology, among other clues. Clement seems to have known Barnabas, as well, though I cannot provide the exact citations at this time. One of the two (or is it three?) Greek GThomas fragments is dated c. 200 AD, and probably known by both Hippolytus (c. 220) and Origen (c. 240); it seems to have been produced during the explosion of Gnostic texts c.130-180 AD, though plausible arguments have been made that it was a first-century sayings Gospel, in the same genre of Q, which was merely adopted by the Gnostics later on.

Mate, you're not going to get me on this discussion. I've spent much time studying this issue. You do need to do some serious study on this issue, because what you're saying is 90% wrong.

It's good that you're not willing to discuss this, because it really is off-topic. But I can assure you that if I have said anything wrong, it is only due to poor wording on my part--and I doubt I am even guilty of that.

Edited February 12, 2007 by hatsoff

[apothanein kerdos]

Unfortunately, these authors (and I doubt there are over a hundred, much less "hundreds") don't tell us very much about the state of Christianity as a whole during the time in which they wrote. And what they do tell us is subject to error, conflation and intentional deception. They do, of course, give us some valuable insight into their respective niches, but that is far too little to paint an adequate picture of the religion's growth.

You haven't read a single one of them, have you?

Clement seems to have known Barnabas, as well, though I cannot provide the exact citations at this time.

\

Because he didn't. Not a single scholar will put it any earlier than the 8th century. The reason is that it conforms to Islamic beliefs.

The Greek Thomas ms. is dated c. 200 AD, and probably known by both Hippolytus (c. 220) and Origen (c. 240); it seems to have been produced during the explosion of Gnostic texts c.130-180 AD.

Try again mate. They both quoted the Infancy Gospel of Thomas which was not Gnostic - the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas is only known in Coptic.

It's good that you're not willing to discuss this, because it really is off-topic. But I can assure you that if I have said anything wrong, it is only due to poor wording on my part--and I doubt I am even guilty of that.

No, you've been wrong on your dates and everything else mate. Look, you don't know this period of history all that well, you need to study it.

[CSLewis]

"There is no known "accepted standard" prior to century IV."

I do not think that this is true. The standard was the apostolic tradition passed on by the apostles through the historic episcopate. Because of the Gnosticism cropping up at that time - the ecclesiastical community felt the need to have a "canon" or rule of scripture. There was no canon prior to the fourth century because there felt no need for one. Ecclesiastical authorities (historic episcopate) helped reach an agreement of the canonization of the gospels excluding the Gnostic gospels as heresy during the Diocletian persecution (303 CE) Origen

[hatsoff]

You haven't read a single one of them, have you?

Of course I have, though I prefer the writings of later authors who seem to have been more concerned with the bigger picture. Not that it matters what I personally have and have not read.

Because he didn't. Not a single scholar will put it any earlier than the 8th century. The reason is that it conforms to Islamic beliefs.

Perhaps I wasn't clear: I'm speaking of the Epistle of Barnabas, not the Gospel of Barnabas.

Try again mate. They both quoted the Infancy Gospel of Thomas which was not Gnostic - the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas is only known in Coptic.

They didn't quote anything; they simply referred to a Gospel of Thomas, which may or may not be the sayings Gospel we're discussing. Anyway, its date doesn't rise or fall with those sources. As I said, the Greek fragment dates from about 200 or so.

The Greek fragments are described on wikipedia:

P.Oxy. 1: fragments of logia 26 through 33.

P.Oxy. 654: fragments of the beginning through logion 7, logion 24 and logion 36 on the flip side of a papyrus containing surveying data.

P.Oxy. 655: fragments of logia 36 through 39, comprised of 8 fragments named a through h, whereof f and h have since been lost.

No, you've been wrong on your dates and everything else mate. Look, you don't know this period of history all that well, you need to study it.

Sorry, but I beg to differ.

Edited February 12, 2007 by hatsoff

[hatsoff]

"There is no known "accepted standard" prior to century IV."

I do not think that this is true. The standard was the apostolic tradition passed on by the apostles through the historic episcopate. Because of the Gnosticism cropping up at that time - the ecclesiastical community felt the need to have a "canon" or rule of scripture. There was no canon prior to the fourth century because there felt no need for one. Ecclesiastical authorities (historic episcopate) helped reach an agreement of the canonization of the gospels excluding the Gnostic gospels as heresy during the Diocletian persecution (303 CE) Origen

[CSLewis]

There is no need to make a firm determination. The early church already did that 1700 years ago. A better question is whether the Deuterocanonical books should have been anulled by the Reformers.

[Adarian]

Back when you were still a Christian?

The Holy Spirit of God witnesses to our spirits that we are His.

It is only by the Spirit of God that a man can say that Christ walked in the flesh, and that Jesus is Lord.

If you are able to abandon Christianity, you have yet to be a christian at all. If you had the Spirit of God dwelling in you, you would not be able to leave, or to deny, because in your heart and soul you would know the undeniable truth.