Christianity and how the bible was put together

[Thinkingstuff]

The evidence of the NT is the citation of the Law and the Prophets several times, which is known as the 39 (22) books. Nothing else is cited as Scripture, and the Law and the Prophets never refer to anything more than the 39 books.

Furthermore, there were NT books that were accepted as Scripture as Peter reminds us in 2 Peter 3.

Following your argument the the literature that was Poetic would not be considered since they are neither law nor prophets. That leaves out 5 books that we have in our 22 or 39. What also about the historical books after the books of the law such as Joshua (could be prophet) Judges (not every judge was a prophet) 1 and 2 chronicals and 1 and 2 kings. Was Ruth a prophet or Boaz? How about Esther? Why not inlcude all of Daniel? Which would leave the 22 or 39 even more depleated. Interesting btw that we use in our bible the Greek organization and title of books rather than the hebrew but don't include all the LXX in it. If you argue that the 5 poetic books are prophet based then I could argue that the books in the DC are also Prophet based and were necissarily included. Macc. is definately historical based. So that is not a sufficient argument. Sorry. What hard evidence can you give that only 39 books we currently have in the OT is what Paul was talking about.

As far as 2 Pet 3

2I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.

It's a good point. And it gives credance to some of the gospels but would it necissarily include Luke who was not an apostle? How about hebrews who may have been writen by an elder not necissarily Paul? I also wonder and the singular use of Command. I could only assume it could be referring to a specific command. It also seems to indicate an oral tradition passed on to the apostles who were responsible for passing it on.

 

[Matt Black]

First, you are changing the discussion by saying "churches in the NT" when I referred to NT churches, that is churches that are characterized by their following of the NT.

Thank you for clarifying this. PLease also clarify what you mean by 'following the NT'.

Second, even churches in the NT had some of the NT, and had all of it by the end of hte century.

On what basis do you suggest that?

The books themselves were written to the churches in the first century,

Are you saying that all 27 books were written to all 1st century congregations?

so to say that they didn't have it is simply incorrect, though it may have been the product of writing too quickly without thinking about what you were saying.

Not at all - see my last question

But even 2 Peter 3 refers to the writings of Paul as Scripture, so his writings were well known.

...to the addressees of 2 Peter, perhaps. But to all the Christian congregations...?

As I pointed out, TS's comment was misguided. I have pointed out what the NT writer meant by "all Scripture,"

Where? How?

and you have yet to refute it. There is no evidence that the NT writer

Just one?

included the DC in the "All Scripture."

No evidence they didn't. The 'default Scripture setting' for the OT in the Greek speaking world was the LXX which included the DCs, so you will have to adduce evidence that the Greek -speaking and -writing NT writers disapproved of its use; to use your own words, "It just isn't there."

 

[Pastor Larry]

Following your argument the the literature that was Poetic would not be considered since they are neither law nor prophets. That leaves out 5 books that we have in our 22 or 39. What also about the historical books after the books of the law such as Joshua (could be prophet) Judges (not every judge was a prophet) 1 and 2 chronicals and 1 and 2 kings. Was Ruth a prophet or Boaz? How about Esther? Why not inlcude all of Daniel? Which would leave the 22 or 39 even more depleated. Interesting btw that we use in our bible the Greek organization and title of books rather than the hebrew but don't include all the LXX in it. If you argue that the 5 poetic books are prophet based then I could argue that the books in the DC are also Prophet based and were necissarily included. Macc. is definately historical based. So that is not a sufficient argument. Sorry. What hard evidence can you give that only 39 books we currently have in the OT is what Paul was talking about.

This is a question that is easily answered by knowing how the Jews referred to their Scriptures. The Law and the Prophets was the whole OT. It is sometimes called the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, or the Tanach by Jews (the word being made up of the initial letters of the three parts: Torah, Nebe'im, and kethubim). There was not "poetry" in their understanding. Poetry is a genre, not a classification of the books.

The historical books are the prophets, though some historical books (such as 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah) are technically part of the Kethubim, or the writings. This arrangements is seen in the Hebrew text arrangement where the order of the books shows their classification of them. But much of hte hsitorical books are part of the prophets, known as the former prophets vs. the latter prophets (what we typically think of as prophets).

All that to say that if you take the time to understand how the Jews viewed their Bible, you haven't made an argument that makes sense.

As far as 2 Pet 3

The verse I was referring to in 2 Peter was v. 17 where the writings of Paul are said to be part of the Scriptures. So the first century church did have the NT.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Thank you for clarifying this.

Couldn't have imagined it would have been unclear. My bad.

PLease also clarify what you mean by 'following the NT'.

Churches that "do church" as the NT prescribes.

On what basis do you suggest that?

On the basis that the NT was completed about AD 95, which means that the church in the first century would have had access to all the books because they were already written.

Are you saying that all 27 books were written to all 1st century congregations?

Of course not. But they were circular and were passed around.

...to the addressees of 2 Peter, perhaps. But to all the Christian congregations...?

I didn't say all, but something can be well known without everyone knowing about it. When you look at who Peter was writing to, you see that it is Christians all over Asia Minor, which is a wide swath, and if Peter was writing from Rome as some suggest, it would have included them as well (though I am not convinced he was writing from Rome).

Where? How?

In my response to that post.

No evidence they didn't.

Why didn't they cite it as being part of Scripture? They didn't.

I think there is some historical blindness and theological blindness going on here. You are not seeing some things because of your traditions, and I find that a dangerous way to do theology, whether the tradition is Baptist, Anglican, Orthodox, or anything else. The fact remains that there is no evidence that the early church believed the DC were canonical, and there is evidence that they did not. I see no reason to depart from that for the sake of tradition.

 

[Matt Black]

Your post begs far more questions than it answers:-

What do you mean by 'do church' as per the NT? Which part of the NT? Do you, for example, 'do church' as per Acts 2:42-44ff ie: are all the members of your congregation Jewish and own everything communally?

What evidence do you have that the NT was circulated? How? By whom? Where? How did all the congregations have access to all the books by the end of the 1st century? There was no internet back then!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

the fact remains that there is no evidence that the early church believed the DC were canonical, and there is evidence that they did not. I see no reason to depart from that for the sake of tradition.

This is the point that must be proved.

The Jewish classification of the books do not detract from the fact that the LXX was accepted by the early christians which included the DC. We can assertain that at least some of the DC were included in the LXX by their use in the NT. The final authority on Jewish literature classification as books that can defile the hand seems to have conviened at the council of Jamnia and I speculate maybe in responce to the converted Jews though I have no evidence to prove this is true (which would necissarily take out books heavily regarded as messianic by christian beleivers from the DC). The NT recorded use of DC passages shows an inclusion of that literature with the LXX. Your argument for exclusion would be stronger if NT did not quote from the DC. However, it does. I can point to the NT and say they quote the DC from the LXX. All quotes from the OT are also from the LXX. So when Paul is mentioning scriptures it is likely he is quoting the LXX not to a standard that was established at a later date. Also consider the Qumran find. it seems that at least for the Essense that they reverrenced books other than the 39 (22) listed in our scriptures. Qumran has shed some serious light on the thinkging of these early Jews and early christian. The Essenses may have been the group John the baptist may have associated himself with though admittedly it is speculation.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The verse I was referring to in 2 Peter was v. 17 where the writings of Paul are said to be part of the Scriptures. So the first century church did have the NT.

Well that leaves out the John the Revelator and James.

However:

2 Pet 1: 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."[

2 Pet 2:17These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them

2 pet 3:17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position

????????????

 

[Matt Black]

One has also to bear in mind the fact that the Jews at Jamnia rejected the LXX because, amongst other things it was used by the Christians as Scripture and the Jews wished to distance themselves from these minim (sectaries) as much as possible.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I think there is some historical blindness and theological blindness going on here. You are not seeing some things because of your traditions, and I find that a dangerous way to do theology, whether the tradition is Baptist, Anglican, Orthodox, or anything else. The fact remains that there is no evidence that the early church believed the DC were canonical, and there is evidence that they did not. I see no reason to depart from that for the sake of tradition.

I would disagree with that, and so would many others (including noted Church historian JND Kelly.) There are several quotes in the earliest church fathers such as Clement of Rome and Polycarp (not to mention Irenaeus and Tertullian) which quote the DC books in the same manner they quote the protocanonical Scriptures. (I'll give specific examples when I get home tonight.) Also, we have the same early councils (like Hippo and Carthage) which basically 'fixed' the 27 book NT canon also include the DCs among the OT canon. In addition, we have early copies of the OT which include the DCs, not at the end as in some sort of appendix, but mixed in with the protocanonicals according to genre/classification. It wasn't until toward the end of the second century that some hesitation crept in among some of the Eastern fathers (noted with Melito of Sardis for example), as the church began to respond to the polemics of Palestinian Jews who didn't include the DCs (nor the NT writings for that matter).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The verse I was referring to in 2 Peter was v. 17 where the writings of Paul are said to be part of the Scriptures. So the first century church did have the NT.

I never said that the early church did not have all the NT books we have now. What I have said is that they were not canonized or listed as such in the group we have now until Athenasius. That does not mean they were not considered authoritative until then but there were other books that were considered to have value and authoritative as well and we can see this by their circulation during the early church such as the Sheperd of Hermas and the Didache.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I wont' address all of this because it is getting a little silly. But I will address this.

What do you mean by 'do church' as per the NT? Which part of the NT? Do you, for example, 'do church' as per Acts 2:42-44ff ie: are all the members of your congregation Jewish and own everything communally?

Again, it is hard to imagine all the ways that people can mangle simple ideas. The NT prescribes and gives patterns for certain things in the NT church. That is what I mean. The NT church was never solely Jewish. It was very quickly becoming more cosmopolitan. And the church never owned everything communally. I think that is a pretty bad misreading of the passage. But we must recognize a distinction between what is normative (or descriptive) and what is prescriptive. There are many ways that churches can do the described things. But a NT does all the prescribed things.

What evidence do you have that the NT was circulated? How? By whom? Where?

Do you really not read your Bible? Colossians is clear that the books were circulated (Col 4:16 if I recall correctly). The book of the Revelation was a circular, traveling from church to church according to Rev 2-3. Peter wrote to churches all over Asia Minor so we know that was circulated. Again, it seems like this is so obvious.

How did all the congregations have access to all the books by the end of the 1st century?

I don't know of anyone who says that they did. Do you?

 

[Pastor Larry]

The Jewish classification of the books do not detract from the fact that the LXX was accepted by the early christians which included the DC.

Our accepted Bibles today include many things that are not accepted as Scripture.

The NT recorded use of DC passages shows an inclusion of that literature with the LXX. Your argument for exclusion would be stronger if NT did not quote from the DC. However, it does.

As I poitned out the obvious, it also quotes from other sources that you are not claiming the title of Scripture for, so that disproves your argument. (It doesn't necessarily disprove your conclusion, but it renders your argument invalid.)

I can point to the NT and say they quote the DC from the LXX.

As well as quoting from other sources as well.

All quotes from the OT are also from the LXX.

That is nowhere nearly unanimously accepted. Study the issue and you will find there is a great deal of debate about what was being cited, whether the LXX or personal translations of the Hebrew texts.

So again, to point out the obvious, there are serious flaws in your understanding and in your argumentation. I encourage you to do some more study on this.

 

[Matt Black]

I wont' address all of this because it is getting a little silly.

In what way? I would say it's quite important

Again, it is hard to imagine all the ways that people can mangle simple ideas.

Er...it's quite a complex idea, actually. There's no one 'template' for 'doing church' in the NT. That's because the NT was never intended to be a 'how to do church' manual.

The NT prescribes and gives patterns for certain things in the NT church.

Which NT congregation are you talking about? Early Acts Jerusalem? Colossae? Early Pauline Corinth with its charismatic free-for-all? Early Ephesus with its five-fold leadership of apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers and evangelists? Or the later Ephesian church of the Pastorals with its much more hierarchical and proto-Catholic/Orthodox structure of bishops and presbyters?

The NT church was never solely Jewish.

Er...I think you'll find it was excsluively Jewish at the start - right up until the conversion of Cornelius.

And the church never owned everything communally. I think that is a pretty bad misreading of the passage.

Really? I think you must be reading a different Bible to mine.

But we must recognize a distinction between what is normative (or descriptive) and what is prescriptive.

And on what basis do you judge between the two?

Do you really not read your Bible?

Of course I do; what a silly question!

Colossians is clear that the books were circulated (Col 4:16 if I recall correctly).

Yes, one letter to the nearby congregation at Laodicea (one congregation.

The book of the Revelation was a circular, traveling from church to church according to Rev 2-3.

Again, one book to the congregations of the Asian littoral.

Peter wrote to churches all over Asia Minor so we know that was circulated. Again, it seems like this is so obvious.

Yes, but none of this proves your point: it's a massive leap from these examples of two or three books doing the rounds of a few Asian congregations to claim that the NT was generally circulated and available to the whole Church by tne end of the first century!!

I don't know of anyone who says that they did. Do you?

You seem to be claiming that the NT was available to the whole Church by the end of the first century, which means you are saying that they did. However, the evidence as demonstrated above is to the contrary

 

[Pastor Larry]

In what way? I would say it's quite important

In that some of the things that are being said are completely devoid of historical and biblical basis. It seems that some have no idea of the biblical doctrine of Scripture.

Er...it's quite a complex idea, actually. There's no one 'template' for 'doing church' in the NT. That's because the NT was never intended to be a 'how to do church' manual.

Well, no. It's not that complex.

Which NT congregation are you talking about? Early Acts Jerusalem? Colossae? Early Pauline Corinth with its charismatic free-for-all? Early Ephesus with its five-fold leadership of apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers and evangelists? Or the later Ephesian church of the Pastorals with its much more hierarchical and proto-Catholic/Orthodox structure of bishops and presbyters?

You would have a nearly impossible task to show this supposed division. We could look at each of these individually and see that there is no substantive difference in the organization of the church after it got started.

Er...I think you'll find it was excsluively Jewish at the start - right up until the conversion of Cornelius.

Um, no. In Acts 9 you have the Samaritans. In Acts 6, you have Hellenists. In Acts 2 you have Peter preaching to the multitudes from all nations. And all of these happen before Cornelius. What we should say is that the church was primarily Jewish, but not exclusively.

This is one reason I ask if you read your Bible ... somewhat tongue in cheek, but not entirely. There are some very simple things that you should know and appear not to.

Really? I think you must be reading a different Bible to mine.

So if they owned everything communally, how did Annanias and Sapphira sell their property and give it to the church? How did they meet in people's houses? It makes no sense to say that they owned everything communally. It is in direct contradiction to the Scriptures.

And on what basis do you judge between the two?

A number of ways as any introductory hermeneutics text willd discuss. Context is a key one and looking for underlying foundations is a key one.

Of course I do; what a silly question!

It's really not all that silly given some of the things you are saying here, Matt. I don't mean to be offensive to you, but there are some key things that it seems you are totally unaware of.

Yes, but none of this proves your point: it's a massive leap from these examples of two or three books doing the rounds of a few Asian congregations to claim that the NT was generally circulated and available to the whole Church by tne end of the first century!!

It would be a far stretch from what i said to say that I claimed that the NT was generally circulated and available to the whole Church by the end of the first century. I have not said that.

You seem to be claiming that the NT was available to the whole Church by the end of the first century, which means you are saying that they did.

No, I don't seem to be saying that. I am saying nothing of the kind.

 

[Matt Black]

I'll give you the Samaritans but the Hellenists and the multitude at Pentecost were Jewish. Ananias and Sapphira's story demonstrates they were expected to hold property in common; you can still refer to 'each other's houses' and hold property communally as this can merely refer to the person who lived in the house

There's a massive difference between Early Pauline and Later Pauline Christianity

 

[Pastor Larry]

I'll give you the Samaritans but the Hellenists and the multitude at Pentecost were Jewish.

They were "Hellenistic" which mean Grecian. They may have been of Jewish descent or they may have been proselytes, or both. But the fact is that while the early church was predmoniantly Jewish, it was not exclusively Jewish.

Ananias and Sapphira's story demonstrates they were expected to hold property in common;

No it doesn't. They sold the property, likely to get the fame for doing so. They didn't even give all the money, and are not condemned for doing so. They were killed for lying about giving all the money.

There's a massive difference between Early Pauline and Later Pauline Christianity

Not massive. As the church developed certain structures in the church developed along with it. You have also the factor of apostolic leadership. But the NT is pretty clear on how the church is to be organized.

 

[Matt Black]

'Jewish' does not exclusively mean 'Palestinian.' Oh, and in case you were still wondering where you said that the NT churches had all 27 books by the end of the first century, it was here:

Second, even churches in the NT had some of the NT, and had all of it by the end of hte century. The books themselves were written to the churches in the first century, so to say that they didn't have it is simply incorrect, though it may have been the product of writing too quickly without thinking about what you were saying.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

As I poitned out the obvious, it also quotes from other sources that you are not claiming the title of Scripture for, so that disproves your argument. (It doesn't necessarily disprove your conclusion, but it renders your argument invalid.)

I haven't excluded any writings as you have. In fact, my question was exactly what did Paul mean by "all"? Which would question not just the DC. Your reasoning was that they were evident. Ok what was evident? We know of the LXX use in the NT we also know of the use of 1st Enoch (which the Copts still consider canon) we can speculate the use of the Assumption of Moses because it seems to flow from the use in Jude. We can also speculate on writings that are no longer extant. We see similarites in beliefs by the essenes and early christians and we can speculate there as well. I think the only point of agreement between us is that the 39 books or 22 are not inquestion. But studing early christianity it seems that they drew from other sources with authority other than the 66 books we have now. So my question necissarily follows what is the authority that you or others accept only the books listed?
The council of Jamnia which has dubious origins or designs? Why would the widely accepted Alexandrian texts suddenly take second place to a council long after Jesus Resurection by an opposing religion? Since Scriptures themselves do not really clarify these questions I took a look at early christian writings and what did I find? Referrences to the DC by Ignatius of Antioch.

You may be right I should look deeper into these matters. After all I didn't go to seminary. However, there are seminarians who have the same questions I do. And the answers that are put off by "you just don't know" are disingenious. Since I don't know explain it to me so that I may which is why I'm here to begin with.

 

[Pastor Larry]

'Jewish' does not exclusively mean 'Palestinian.'

No kidding. No one said that it did. Again, you are missing the point in a big way.

Oh, and in case you were still wondering where you said that the NT churches had all 27 books by the end of the first century, it was here:Second, even churches in the NT had some of the NT, and had all of it by the end of hte century. The books themselves were written to the churches in the first century, so to say that they didn't have it is simply incorrect, though it may have been the product of writing too quickly without thinking about what you were saying.

I am not sure what you are responding to. Your previous statement was that I said the NT was available to "the whole Church." But when you try to prove I said that, you cite something completely different where I said that the "churches ... had all of it by the end of the first century." I didn't say any one church at it all. I didn't say that all churches had it all. I said what I said.

It reminds me of one of the key problems in communication, both in this type as well as in Scripture. Sometimes people do not speak clearly, and as I have often said, it is impossible to anticipate all the ways in which someone might misread something. But equally problemmatic is that some people simply do not read carefully and think about what is said, and as a result read their own biases into it. That is what you have done.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I haven't excluded any writings as you have.

I am confused. So now you are saying that the philosphers and poets quoted in the NT are in fact Scripture? When I asked you earlier I thought you said that they weren't. Now you are saying that you aren't excluded any writings.

In fact, my question was exactly what did Paul mean by "all"?

And I think that question has been sufficiently answered by looking at the Scriptures themselves which refer to the OT as the Law and the Prophets, not the Law and the Prophets and the DC. The fact that you don't accept an answer doesn't mean that it is not correct, nor that it wasn't given. There is no reason biblically to think that the DC was considered part of the HOly Scripture. There are in fact a number of good reasons why they should not be.

And the answers that are put off by "you just don't know" are disingenious.

But when someone "just doesn't know," how else do we answer? I have taken a fair amount of time pointing out both factual and argumentative errors in your position. But there are sources far more qualified and well-written that are widely available that will give further insight into what I have said here. I understand not everyone has gone to seminary, and so I have great patience with questions. I am not sure that it is profitable to keep asking the smae questions over and over again after they have been answered and discussed. The kind of resources and citations that perhaps you are looking for are not suitable for this board, and my time schedule doesn't allow me to do that anyway.