TO MY COMMENTS ON CHUCK'S LETTER
The following brief correspondence was initiated by Kim, a sister that I engaged in a Christian chat room over her idea that we can account for the formation of the New Testament canon entirely apart from the councils of the early Church. Kim forwarded to me the following material from a brother named Chuck. At the bottom of this page I have linked the further correspondence.
ON 06-17-98, CHUCK SENT THE FOLLOWING TO BOTH KIM AND MYSELF:
Bellow you will find a debate that I had with another member online in regards to the Canon. I am forwarding this to you because it covers a lot of what I have said in the room.
**************************************************************************
You really need to read a good book on how the Bible was put together. The best laymen- level book is A General Introduction to the Bible by Norman Geisler and William E. Nix (2nd edition, Moody Press); This book is all about how the Bible was put together and is not an introduction to the theology of Christianity. If you happen to know some Greek, then a book called New Testament Introduction by Donald Guthrie (4th edition, 1990, InterVarsity Press, 1161 pp.).
I am not sure why you entered into a discussion of the Septuagint (Hebrew Old Testament), since it really adds nothing to the point you are trying to make in regards to Oral teachings. I do see that you are trying to make two points that I feel should divided into two separate issues. (1) being the issue of Oral teaching verses the written Word. (2) Being the issue of the Apocrypha. I will gladly respond to both issues, however I will do so in separate Emails, simply because you can't do justice to either topic when you write a couple of paragraphs and tangle the two together. In this Email I will discuss the topic of Oral tradition and the avalibility of the written word.
I think it is important to look at the dating of some of the Manuscripts that we now have in order to establish a foundation for this discussion, since you are making the claim that the primary method that the early church used in communication was via oral traditions. In this paper I want to point out the following:
(1) The writings were indeed available early in church history;
(2) Scripture itself shows that they were in fact read by the churches of that day;
(3) Early church Fathers quoted from the books extensively before 150 AD.
The writings were indeed available.
The belief that large gaps of time passed between the time of Christ and the writing of the New Testament is no longer tenable, and all conclusions based on such speculation must be rejected. In his recent book Eyewitness to Jesus, Dr. Carsten Thiede provides a detailed and authoritative look into the dating of ancient New Testament Manuscripts. The following is a partial list of manuscripts and their dates, based on information provided by Dr. Thiede. Keep in mind that these dates reflect copies rather than the original manuscripts. So we can safely assume that the originals had a much earlier dating.
Magdalean Papyrus (P64) contains Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23 and 31 ....... Dated before 66 ad. Dead Sea Scroll MSS 7Q4 contains Mark 6:52-53 .... Dated before 68ad. Dead Sea Scroll MSS 7Q4 contains 1 Timothy 3:16-4:3 ..... Dated before 68ad. Barcelona papyrus (P67) contains Matthew 3:9, 15; Matthew 5:20-22, 25-28 ....... Dated before 66ad. Paris Papyrus (P4) contains Luke 3:23, 5:36 ...... Dated 66ad. Pauline Codex (P46) contains Paul's epistles ...... Dated 85ad. Bodmer Papyrus(II) (Johannine Codex P66) contains almost complete Gospel of John ..... Dated 125ad.
Also allow me to quote from Evidence Demands a Verdict, Vol I (Page 62-63), Josh McDowell:
"We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about 80 a.d., Two full generations before the date between 130 - 150 a.d. given by the more radical New Testament critics of today." (Dr. William Foxwell Albright, the distinguished archaeologist.)
Since these writings were available, and they were copies of the originals, then that leads us to believe that the early church had more than just oral teachings to communicate God's purpose. Since these were copies, we can also assume that they were deemed to be very important documents. There were no printing presses in that day and everything had to be done by hand, therefore only documents that were very important would have been copied by a Scribe. I am making this point to show that these writings were valuable to the early church and were treated as such.
Scripture shows that they were read by the churches of that day:
Col. 4:16 - "And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea."
2 Pet. 3:15-16 - "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
Rev. 1:3 - "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand."
The above verses show that the epistles of Paul were read by the churches, and that we can also come to the same conclusion in regards to John's writings. Now to refute your point that people could not read in that day because of a lack of education, I will now ask HOW these letters were read? Paul did not seem to have a problem with someone being able to read them., nor did John. It appears that you are trying to mislead when you make the statement "the vast majority of people were illiterate, so they couldn't even read a Bible even if they owned one".
The point of the matter is that there were copies of the Scripture that churches read to the congregations. You may assume that reading the Scriptures was somehow Oral teaching. I suppose that would depend on how you define Oral teaching. I maintain that regardless of someone reading for them or their reading it themselves, it was still Scripture that was being read, so your point seems to be null.
Early Church Fathers quoted from the books extensively before 150 AD.
Now to further show the importance of the written word lets go on to the Early Church Fathers. (Yes these are the ones that you have assumed that I have not read):
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, was martyred around 180ad. He was a student of Polycarp, the long-lived disciple of St. John himself. Extant quotes of Irenaeus' writings include quotes from Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, 1 Corinthians, I Peter, Hebrews and Titus. Ignatius (70ad-110ad) quoted from Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Galations, Colossians, James, I and II Timothy, and I Peter. Barnabas quoted from the New Testament around 70ad, Hermas 95ad, and Tatian 170ad. Clement of Alexandria, who lived 150-212ad, quoted from all but three books of the New Testament. Justin Martyr in 133ad quoted from the Gospels, Acts, Revelations, and both Pauline, and other epistles. ( cf. McDowell, pp 51-52).
The number of such quotations of the Bible known from early Christian literature is vast. Over 36,000 quotes are known from before the Council of Nicaea in 325ad. Sir David Dalrymple found thru his research that all but 11 verses of what we now know as the New Testament can be reproduced using nothing more than the writings of the early church fathers prior to 325ad. Many of those writings as I have already shown were produced before 150ad. I hardly think that your point of people not being able to read is a valid one! Nor do I find your point that Scripture was not known to be authoritative by the early church a valid one. Seems that they quoted it often enough to make your point a null one.
The question of the 27 books of what we now call the Cannon of Scripture was not even a question in the early church. (With the exception of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, and Revelations). 20 of the 27 books were never debated in regards to their being inspired books by any Council that I am aware of.
Another point that I would like to make clear is in regards to the Gnostic writings (Thomas, etc). The reason for the Council of Laodicia was that many Gnostics were introducing books that they called inspired. In an effort to combat those false writings the early church called together a Council. (Laodicia) in order to put an end to the attacks. That was the whole purpose of the Council. It was never to decide what was accepted by the early Christians as being the divine Word of God, but rather to put an end to false writings that were being introduced.
What did the Early Church fathers have to say in regards to Scripture?
Irenaeus(130 - c. 200): "2. According to this course of procedure, therefore, man would always be inquiring but never finding, because he has rejected the very method of discovery. And when the Bridegroom comes, he who has his lamp untrimmed, and not bur ng with the brightness of a steady light, is classed among those who obscure the interpretations of the parables, forsaking Him who by His plain announcements freely imparts gifts to all who come to Him, and is excluded from His marriage-chamber. Since, herefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them; and since they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others, formed all th gs by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown from the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to which we belong testifies, by what falls under our notice, tha one Being made and governs it,—those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]; but they put fetters upon themselves, and every one of them imagin , by means of their obscure interpretations of the parables, that he has found out a God of his own. For that there is nothing whatever openly, expressly, and without controversy said in any part of Scripture respecting the Father conceived of by those who hold a contrary opinion, they themselves testify, when they maintain that the Saviour privately taught these same things not to all, but to certain only of His disciples who could comprehend them, and who understood what was intended by Him through me s of arguments, enigmas, and parables. They come, [in fine, ] to this, that they maintain there is one Being who is proclaimed as God, and another as Father, He who is set forth as such through means of parables and enigmas. 3. But since parables admit many interpretations, what lover of truth will not acknowledge, that for them to assert God is to be searched out from these, while they desert what is certain, indubitable, and true, is the part of men who eagerly throw themselves into danger, and act s if destitute of reason? And is not such a course of conduct not to build one's house upon a rock which is firm, strong, and placed in an open position, but upon the shifting sand? Hence the overthrow of such a building is a matter of ease." Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume I, "Against Heresies," II:27:2-3 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.
Irenaeus: "1. WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Sc ptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from e dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [ nt] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rom and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume I, "Against Heresies," Book 3 :1 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.
Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215): And after a little again he draws the inference that the Scriptures owed their origin to the divine providence, asserting as follows: "For we know that God enjoined these things, and we say nothing apart from the Scr tures." Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume II, "The Stromata," Book VI, Chapter XV. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.
Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): "To a widow. I Hope to find a suitable day for the conference, after those which I intend to fix for the hill- country. I see no opportunity for our meeting (unless the Lord so order it beyond my expectation), other than at a public conference. You may imagine my position from your own experience. If in the care of a single household you are beset with such a crowd of anxieties, how many distractions, think you, each day brings to me? Your dream, I think, reveals more perfectly the necessity of making provision for spiritual contemplation, and cultivating that mental vision by which God is wont to be seen. Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need n ther of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right." Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume VIII, "Letters - Letter CCLXXXIII," Section (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.
Cyril of Jerusalem: "17. Have thou ever in thy mind this seal , which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the div e and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, un ss thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene an Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume VII, Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lectures, Lecture IV, "Of the Holy Ghost" (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.
It is strange that you would say that if I ever read church history or the early fathers then I would no doubt become a Roman Catholic. Well, I read them and I remain a Baptist. If anything the writings have served to futher support my belief that Scripture is the rule and guide to our lives, and futhermore it is the rule by which we measure everything, including the mandates of the so-called Roman Catholic Church. If you somehow think that I have been selective in my quotes from the Early Church Fathers in these matters, then I will be more than happy to send you a document of 9413 words (15 pages) that contains nothing but statements made by those same fathers in regards to the very subject.
Was the Council of Nicea Roman Catholic??
Now another point that I would like to make is in regards to your statements about the early Catholic Church. I do not believe said Church was in anyway "Roman Catholic." If it was indeed Roman Catholic then we today should see the marks of the Roman Catholic Church in the decrees and historical documents that were handed down to us. The following are some of the points that I will submit that show my case to be a valid one.
When we look at the Bishop of Alexandria (no greater example can be found of the Nicean Church) we find that his view was toward Scripture. He defended the faith by referance to Scriptural passages, not some oral tradition!! The following are some of the many examples of what this man said in that regard;
" ... For the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources ... " (De Decretis, 31)
"But since Holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things." (Ad Episcopos, 4)
"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faiths sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in Divine Scripture." (De Synodis,6).
"The Holy and Inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the preaching of the truth." (Contra Gentes, I:1)
"These books are the foundation of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them: in these alone the school of piety preaches the Gospel; let no man add to or take away from them." (Fest. Ep, 39)
Now lets look also at a statement which demonstrates that the Bishop of Rome (pope) had no greater authority than any other Bishop of that day.
"Let the ancient custom in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges." (Sixth Cannon, Niacean)
Strange that the Bishop of Rome was not given any power above any other Bishop in the land of that day!!! Where is the Pope at Nicea?????
Despite some strained attempts at getting around the plain meaning of these words, the statement is clear! The Bishop of Rome is seen as having jurisdiction in his own territory, which plainly is not worldwide, but is limited by geography, just as Alexandria, Antioch, etc. Nothing has changed since Cyprian had said eighty years earlier in the Council of Carthage:
"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of dogment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another."
Therefore we see that the Council of Nicaea was not the Roman Catholic Church, for Rome cannot be defined outside of a functioning Papal system, and no such system existed in A. D. 325. In fact if we read history we find that Leo I (440ad) and Gregory I (590ad) were major figures in the development of what is now know as the papacy. Also a man named Damasus is historicaly significant in the development of the papacy, because he was the first to affirm Rome as the Apostolic See and to claim the authority allegedly given to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18. (cf. Clouse, Pierard, and Yamauchi, Two Kingdoms: the Church and Culture Through the Ages, Moody Press, 1993, pp. 95,96,97).
A final word on the subject of the origins of the canon of Scripture.
One cannot look at the actual history of the New Testament and say that those in the early Church did not have access to them. Nor can we say that the only method of transmitting God's will was thru nothing more than "oral tradition." Yes those men spoke and communicated the Gospel message in a verbal manner. However, to imply that this was the only method is begging the question. Nor can one say that such oral tradition was somehow a communication of something that could not be weighed in light of the Scriptures.
"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." ACTS 17:11
Not only were these people able to read, but they also tried the very words of an Apostle against the Scriptures!! Now considering that Paul did not live 300 years, and the people that Paul spoke to sure didn't have the decree of the Council of Laodicia to tell them that the Scriptures they were searching were part of the Canon, my question would be "How did they accomplish this task?" And another question is "Why did Paul accept the fact that these people had the gall to question his teachings?"
You have not proven your case. Your theory ignores 300 years of Church history where these people had available to them the very books of the Bible. Inspired writings that you claim were not available. I have shown that those books were quoted from, read, and examined in the light of what men said in an oral manner.
Thank you,
Chuck