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

[hatsoff]

"common enough knowledge that you can verify it all for yourself using Google"

"I'd be surprised if more than a decade of work went into codifying the New Testament. And I wouldn't call that work "scholarship.""

You know what I wouldn't call "scholarship" - your blanketed replies that offer no proof, maybe I am not as trusting in you as I am in the large numbers of historians that contradict your claims.

The New Testament was decided upon, as it were, in the fourth century, in part as a result of the first ecumenical councils. Their conclusions are not known to have reflected any serious scholarship, but rather the consensus of laypersons of the time. In truth, though, it is unknown what really went on, there.

If you're concerned about my interpretation of "scholarship," why not get it from the horse's mouth, so to speak? Try Google to verify my statements. Or go to Bible.org and browse through Daniel Wallace's articles. He's Christian, and although I don't agree with him in every topic, his style of logic is compatible with mine.

Like I keep saying, though, if one of my claims seems to contradict the evidence, challenge me! I would be happy to show you why I (and most scholars) believe the way we do.

Edited February 18, 2007 by hatsoff

[hatsoff]

No. the boy is just an over-reaching juvenile in some game of pretense, at which he isn't very good. I'm getting to an age where I no longer graciously tolerate such useless tom-foolery.

Good. Then you can step aside and make room for logicians.

[CSLewis]

"Since this is my thread, I should probably point out that most of the above quote is not true. For example, we don't know much about the first 300 years of Christianity, so any statements about that time period are rather tentative. At the close of century II, there was no codified "New Testament," and many if not most of the circulating collections contained apocryphal texts. The NT makes great changes to OT theology, so I wouldn't say one "falls in line" with the other--certainly no more than apocryphal texts. GThomas, Barnabas and the Didache were written no later than century II and quite possibly in century I. Etc..."

The apocryphal texts - are you referring to the Deuterocanonical books or referring to the gnostic gospels? They didn't need a canon until Christianity became threatened with gnosticism. None of the canons contained the gospel of Thomas. It is a heretical book. What scholar dates the apocryphal books early as the first century? Google that one for me because I am not able to find it.

"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."

actually they paint a very good picture of what the early church was like. Including worship practice, liturgical prayers- interestingly though there was much disagreement over the nature of the trinity (It is a paradox after all) there was little or no disagreement in the early church about the liturgy and which texts were used. I am not saying that it was the same everywhere but that the churches didnt disagree with each other and were ecumenical. The reason is because the early church fathers were in direct succesion of the apostles and authors of these books. The apostolic tradition passed down through the apostles helped determine the gnostic texts.

[CSLewis]

I am really interested if you have read G.R.S. Mead "Fragments of a Faith Forgotten" which is highly unscholarly, misleading and not taken as fact by any of the leading historians.

[Kansasdad]

OH I just can't help myself

Let me see if I am understanding the original question a little better.

What you are wondering about is, how can a "Christian" accept the canon of the bible as being legit if they do not accept Apostolic Tradition as the authority that makes them legit. If you throw out Apostolic Tradition then how was one book chosen over another, by what criteria?

Is that accurate?

That's part of it, yes. What are your thoughts?

I also find that far too often when this question is asked many can't understand the question.

They can't

[hatsoff]

The apocryphal texts - are you referring to the Deuterocanonical books or referring to the gnostic gospels? They didn't need a canon until Christianity became threatened with gnosticism. None of the canons contained the gospel of Thomas. It is a heretical book. What scholar dates the apocryphal books early as the first century? Google that one for me because I am not able to find it.

All scholars who accept Q place it in the first century AD. About the Gospel of Thomas, I've already quoted Ron Cameron as saying "The earliest possible date would be in the middle of the 1st century." Johnathan Drapier writes, "a date for the Didache in its present form later than the second century must be considered unlikely, and a date before the end of the first century probable" (Gospel Perspectives, v. 5, p. 269, as quoted by P.Kirby). John D. Crossan discusses the date of the Epistle of Barnabas, saying, "Richardson and Shukster have also argued for a first-century date... They propose a composition 'date during or immediately after the reign of Nerva (96-8 C.E.)'" (The Cross that Spoke, p. 121, quoted by P.Kirby). Laurence Welborn notes that 1 Clement "is customarily dated to the end of the reign of Domitian (95 or 96 C.E.)" (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 1, p. 1060, quoted by P.Kirby). And who knows what other books, now lost, may have been written before century II?

actually they paint a very good picture of what the early church was like. Including worship practice, liturgical prayers- interestingly though there was much disagreement over the nature of the trinity (It is a paradox after all) there was little or no disagreement in the early church about the liturgy and which texts were used. I am not saying that it was the same everywhere but that the churches didnt disagree with each other and were ecumenical. The reason is because the early church fathers were in direct succesion of the apostles and authors of these books. The apostolic tradition passed down through the apostles helped determine the gnostic texts.

Apostolic succession is far from given. It is unknown if Peter really was the first Bishop of Rome, or if he was just assigned that position through legend. And even if he was, the passing down of traditions was extremely unreliable. Taking the church fathers at their word about issues related to history and textual origins would be ill-advised, given that they were prone to both religious bias and scholarly error. Simply speaking, they deserve great attention, but little trust.

[Joshua-777]

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.

Amen

[Kansasdad]

Apostolic succession is far from given. It is unknown if Peter really was the first Bishop of Rome, or if he was just assigned that position through legend. And even if he was, the passing down of traditions was extremely unreliable. Taking the church fathers at their word about issues related to history and textual origins would be ill-advised, given that they were prone to both religious bias and scholarly error. Simply speaking, they deserve great attention, but little trust.

Which makes perfect Human sense. Subsequently, the only way to believe is through faith that God would protect his word. God gives us a covenant that he will protect his word for all generations. Thus the only way a person can accept the canon of the Bible is to also accept that God did in fact protect his word as he promised. The only way this is possible is through Apostolic Tradition. So if a person rejects Apostolic Tradition then they reject Gods covenant. It truly is a matter of faith in God. I would point out though, that history does not disprove this possibility, it only offers alternative possibilities. It is very possible that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and there is definitely evidence to suggest this. It is also very possibility that the knowledge of the Apostles was handed down from generation to generation through appointed church leaders and there is much evidence to support this. There is also much evidence that teachings that were not supported in scripture were never adopted as sacred Apostolic Tradition, thus further evidence that God indeed does keep his promise. But you are correct it does come down to Faith. Do you believe that God could protect his words by using flawed human beings.

[Floatingaxe]

Apostolic succession is far from given. It is unknown if Peter really was the first Bishop of Rome, or if he was just assigned that position through legend. And even if he was, the passing down of traditions was extremely unreliable. Taking the church fathers at their word about issues related to history and textual origins would be ill-advised, given that they were prone to both religious bias and scholarly error. Simply speaking, they deserve great attention, but little trust.

Actually, as an unbeliever, you are very right!

[Kansasdad]

Apostolic succession is far from given. It is unknown if Peter really was the first Bishop of Rome, or if he was just assigned that position through legend. And even if he was, the passing down of traditions was extremely unreliable. Taking the church fathers at their word about issues related to history and textual origins would be ill-advised, given that they were prone to both religious bias and scholarly error. Simply speaking, they deserve great attention, but little trust.

Actually, as an unbeliever, you are very right!

Then answer his question. If you reject Apostolic Tradition by what criteria do you accept the canon of the bible? If God did not do it through Apostolic Tradition then How did he do it?