Yeah correct.But lets assume the thology was on point whould they be considered written by those persons they say they wrote them?Would the church accept them as such?Same here with the epistles.Maybe another writer wrote them but just because the theology is on point the church accepted them
OK so there are some epistles attributed to Paul that are fully accepted as such; Romans, Cor 1 and 2, ⌠etc and some others (Ephesians, Colossians, Timothy 1 and 2 and Titus) that have been questioned on linguistic or stylistic grounds.
One answer has been that Paul may have used secretaries who he instructed to write on his behalf, not quite dictation, but indicating its content, and then signed it at the end.
The answer to your question is that some in the early Church did and some didnât.
Eusebius (c.260-337 AD)
Ecclesiastical History, 3.25.1-7.
It is reasonable to sum up here the writings of the New Testament that have been mentioned. First place must be given to the holy tetrad of the Gospels, followed by the Acts of the Apostles. (2) Next one must list the epistles of Paul; after them the so-called first epistle of John must be recognized, as well as the epistle of Peter. Following these, if it should seem appropriate, one must put the Revelation of John; we shall set forth opinions about this book in due time. (3) These then belong to the accepted writings.
Among the disputed writings that are, nevertheless, familiar to the majority there is extant the epistle said to be by James, that of Jude, the second epistle of Peter and the so-called second and third epistles of John, whether these are by the evangelist or by someone else with the same name. (4) Among the spurious writings must also be counted the Acts of Paul, the so-called Shepherd, the Revelation of Peter, and, in addition, the so-called Epistle of Barnabas and the work known as the Teachings of the Apostles and, moreover, as I said, the Revelation of John, if this should seem to be the right place for it. For some, as I said, reject it as spurious, while others reckon it among the accepted writings. (5) Now some have also counted among these writings the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is especially favored by the Hebrews who have accepted Christ. (6) These would all be among the disputed writings, but we have been obliged to make a list of them also, thereby distinguishing the writings that according to the ecclesiastical tradition are true, genuine, and accepted and those that, in contrast to these, are not [encovenanted] but disputed and yet known to most people in the church.
We have done this in order that we might be able to know these writings as well as those published by the heretics under the names of the apostles, on the pretense that they comprise the gospels of Peter and Thomas and Mathias or even some others besides these, or the Acts of Andrew and of John and of the other apostles. Not a single one of the ecclesiastical writers through the years has thought any of these worth mentioning. (7) Moreover, the type of language is different from apostolic usage and the thought and purpose of these writings is totally at odds with true orthodoxy, showing clearly that they are the work of heretics. For this reason, then, these must not even be classified among the spurious writings but instead shunned as totally absurd and ungodly.
Eusebius makes three categories for texts,
Accepted/Acknowledged
the holy tetrad of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the epistles of Paul, first epistle of John, the epistle of Peter, the Revelation of John
Disputed/Spurious
James, Jude, the second epistle of Peter, second and third epistles of John, the Acts of Paul, Shepherd, the Revelation of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, the Teachings of the Apostles, the Revelation of John
Absurd/Ungodly
the gospels of Peter and Thomas and Mathias or even some others besides these, the Acts of Andrew and of John and of the other apostles
It seems that in Eusebiusâs list there were two basic ways the books were evaluated, (i) genuine authorship, and (ii) orthodox teaching. Eusebius puts books into his second category of âdisputed/spuriousâ when they are of dubious provenance but are thought to contain orthodox teaching. It may also be the case that an additional factor is that Eusebius found evidence of their use in churches.
The way Eusebius tried to construct his list was based on his historical analysis of the writings of Christians.
âaccording to the ecclesiastical tradition are true, genuine, and accepted and those that, in contrast to these, are not [encovenanted] but disputed and yet known to most people in the church.â
âNot a single one of the ecclesiastical writers through the years has thought any of these worth mentioning.â
For analysis of Eusebius see Everett R. Kalin, âThe New Testament Canon of Eusebius,â in The Canon Debate , eds. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders
As Bruce Metzger notes in The Canon of the New Testament: Origins, Development, and Significance, Eusebius was in a position to be able to access texts produced by Christians
âThe âFather of church historyâ had at his disposal the library at Caesarea which Origen built up⌠He had read a prodigious number of authors, and in the extracts that he gives from their writings he never fails to note the use they made of Scripture, the list of books they quote in passing or fully discuss, the judgments they pronounce on them.â (pp.201-202)
Analysis of manuscript data of early Christian texts by Larry Hurtado in The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins gives a similar picture.
Also using Biblindex (http://www.biblindex.mom.fr/) as a rough estimate of allusions and quotations up to 325 AD correlates well with Eusebius and the manuscript data.
Augustine (354-430 AD) and Jerome (347-420 AD)
When we get to Augustine and Jerome we see a different approach to canonicity,
On Christian Doctrine, 2.12
Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.
Augustine doesnât consider authorship to be a reason to receive or reject a text.
Jerome says this about the author of Hebrews,
Letter 129
âIt does not matter who is the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, for in any case it is the work of a church-writer and is constantly read in the churchesâ
2 Likes
Yes, the Pastoral Epistles (1&2 Timothy and Titus) seem the least have actually been written by Paul.
Another quote from Eusebius:
âChapter 3. The Epistles of the Apostles.
- One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures.â
Excerpt From
The History of the Church
Eusebius of Caesarea
This material may be protected by copyright.
Yes but if the letter is not from Paul why did the included it in?That alone raises questions about if something else from the bible has been changed
The canon was established based on the use of the letters in the churches, not based on the authority of the author.
Not really .If people are freely to write anything about God and still somehow fall on correct theological terms then everybody would have done that.So they are not from the same author but rather a majority of authors,and that i thunk makes it problematic
The canon is established. You arenât accurately representing the process.
What i was trying to say is if a majority of people write a book rather that one author it raises problems.For example if the Gospel of Mark was not written by mark but by several authors there are questions raised like:Were these authors eye-witnesses to the events?Were they heard these stories and decided to write them down?etc etc
But those are questions that we do not need to answer now. The gospels were vetted and accepted as authoritative by their contemporaries who had the ability to actually check with eye-witnesses and the apostles, and that is what matters.
Whoâs process? And when? And why?
Christians have given different answers at different times to these questions.
You seem to prefer the approach of Augustine and Jerome. What makes Eusebiusâs approach and those like his invalid? How do we decide between models for canonicity beside just assuming our model is right?
It is not the case that âthe canonâ was established on this basis, rather some canons were.
As @beaglelady noted,
The letter to Laodicea was widely used parts of the chruch up until the council of Florence in 1439-43 where it an official canon was declared by the Roman Catholic Church that did not include the letter.
Martin Luther put James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation in an appendix.
It seems to me that things like this make taking a snap shot of Christian history and saying âThis is when the canon was established because of use in the churchâ problematic.
Why shut down critical inquiry? Were they properly vetted? How do we know?
If it is indeed the case that the Pastorals are a mid-2nd century forgery with problematic theology does that not matter?
1 Like
Actually, multiple canons have been established.
To name a few:
- the Roman Catholic
- the typical Protestant
- Ethiopian (actually, I think they have two â a larger and a smaller)
- Church of the East.
Generally the canons were set by church councils, although there are canons for which we canât point to a council.
The earliest declaration of a canon that I can find is the Council of Carthage in the late fourth century, which set the Roman Catholic canon.
I donât have the details on when the Church of the East canon was set, but it appears to be significantly earlier than the Council of Carthage. I prefer the canon of the Church of the East.
Protestants mostly appeared to begin with the Roman Catholic and sometime in the 1800s began deleting the apocrypha.
It is likely the goal of seeking the canon was to decide which books could be read in church services as sacred scripture.
The process of canonization that gave us the canon we have.
Itâs not invalid, it just didnât win. I donât personally think we are in a place to re-litigate the decisions that gave us the canon we use, whether it be the Protestant one the Catholic one, or one from a different tradition.
3 Likes
Thatâs fine. I disagree however.
I think that if you want to belong to a credal, confessional faith such as Christianity, you have to at some point draw lines as to what in the tradition must be accepted on authority and what is open to critical inquiry. I am open to the idea of thinking of some books of the Bible as less âinspiredâ than others based on their place on the overall canonicity spectrum. Iâm not so open to the idea that each individual Christianâs critical inquiry supercedes church councils and the authority of early church leadership.
2 Likes
This just raises spectres of Eusebius, Jerome, Augustine again. You decided who wins. I donât think history bears out a neat who âwonâ. Just different decisions at different times (Iâm not saying I think all the decisions are all equal just that history has this character).
I may or may not agree with you to one extent or another. I accept Jesusâs authority but I only accept Jesusâs authority based on the results of critical inquiry.
No, I didnât. The church authorities did. As a Christian, I agree to submit to some degree of religious authority. Thatâs part of the deal with orthodoxy. Otherwise itâs not Christianity, itâs Jesus infused personal spirituality. Christianity involves a lot of specific truth claims that you canât arrive at by critical inquiry alone and that go well beyond Jesusâ teaching. You need to accept the historic church was guided by God to the truth. Should every Christian personally re-litigate the Aryan controversy, just to make sure Athanasius got it right?
3 Likes
Thatâs up to the individual Christians involved. I donât see it as a matter of âshouldâ. Each person needs to make their own decisions and take their own stands. Youâve taken your stance Iâve taken mine.
I see this as problematic because I think it is a fiction. There have been different decisions at different times. To take this stance one needs to choose one who and when or a series of them at the exclusion of others. In order to make this decision it seems a certain amount of ciritcal inquiry is necessary.