When was the finalized NT accepted?

[Agnus_Dei]

What were the criteria the church used to determined the inspired canon as opposed to the Gnostics' writings and so on?

Well, Councils met to discern and formally confirm what was already generally accepted within the Church at large. These Councils didn’t legislate Scripture as much as they set forth what had become self-evident truth and practice within the Churches of God. These councils sought to proclaim the common mind of the Church and reflect the unanimity of faith, practice, and Tradition of the local Churches represented.

Some of the criteria off the top of my head would have been:

1. It had to have been written by or by a scribe of an Apostle
2. It had to be considered inspired by God
3. It had to be accepted by the Church
4. It had to conform to the oral Tradition of the Church and rule of faith taught by the Church.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[TCGreek]

Well, Councils met to discern and formally confirm what was already generally accepted within the Church at large. These Councils didn’t legislate Scripture as much as they set forth what had become self-evident truth and practice within the Churches of God. These councils sought to proclaim the common mind of the Church and reflect the unanimity of faith, practice, and Tradition of the local Churches represented.

Some of the criteria off the top of my head would have been:

1. It had to have been written by or by a scribe of an Apostle
2. It had to be considered inspired by God
3. It had to be accepted by the Church
4. It had to conform to the oral Tradition of the Church and rule of faith taught by the Church.

ICXC NIKA
-

1. Yes, they all make sense.

2. Esp. on #4 critics have used that to claim that the Jesus of the Church is the embellished Jesus and is different than the true, historical Jesus.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Was the church aware of the 27 books before Athanasius Letter? I think the church was, but Athanasius made it sort of official. What do you think?

Oh I'm sure the Church was "aware" of all 27 books well before Athanasius's Letter--it was matter of when were these 27 (and these 27 only) books considered the NT Canon.

Eusebius, several decades earlier lists the following six books as "known to most", but still disputed by many (ie not yet universally recognized):
James
Jude
2Peter
2 & 3 John
Revelation
(pg. 115 The Church History tr. by Paul Maier)

The Codex Sinaiticus (4th cent) contained all 27 plus Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas

 

[Doubting Thomas]

1. Yes, they all make sense.

2. Esp. on #4 critics have used that to claim that the Jesus of the Church is the embellished Jesus and is different than the true, historical Jesus.

However, it can be shown that #4 (oral tradition, "rule of faith") dates back very early (much earlier than the Gnostic gospels and other so-called alternative "Christianities") and is consistent with the historical Jesus of first century Jewish Palestine. This is expressed in sermon summaries (the kerygma) and early creed-like summaries that, though found in the NT, predate the NT writings (eg. the various Apostolic sermons recorded in Acts preaching the crucified and risen Christ as fulfilling the Jewish OT; Romans 1:2-4, 1 Cor 15: 1-9 , Phil 2:5-11, 1 Tim 3:16, etc)

 

[Eliyahu]

We do not have much resource to support the earlist time of acceptance for the NT, but simply we can wonder what was the canon of the NT during 100-350AD.
I believe there could have been minor controversy about the NT canon, about the epistles of James or Jude. As for others, I can easily believe they were well accepted and well defined immediately, especially during the time of Persecution by Roman Empire.

As for Sinaiticus, only the people who have never compared to other texts can consider it as a text. In fact it was a garbage, an antique garbage.

It starts from Salomon for Solomon ( in Mat 1), then Mt 6:28 says ου ξενοσιν( not strange) αυξανανει ( αυξανοσιν) ( grow)

What a difference !

There are hundreds of spots where Aleph differs from majority texts. This can be a good treatise for the Doctors.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

We do not have much resource to support the earlist time of acceptance for the NT, but simply we can wonder what was the canon of the NT during 100-350AD.
I believe there could have been minor controversy about the NT canon, about the epistles of James or Jude. As for others, I can easily believe they were well accepted and well defined immediately, especially during the time of Persecution by Roman Empire.

As for Sinaiticus, only the people who have never compared to other texts can consider it as a text. In fact it was a garbage, an antique garbage.

It starts from Salomon for Solomon ( in Mat 1), then Mt 6:28 says ?? ???????( not strange) ????????? ( ?????????) ( grow)

What a difference !

There are hundreds of spots where Aleph differs from majority texts. This can be a good treatise for the Doctors.

Leaving aside Sinaiticus, there is enough historical evidence to state the following regarding the NT canon before Athansius, in 367, was the first to list exactly the same 27 books in the NT we have to day:

(1)First, the Four Gospels and Paul's Epistles were both circulating as units probably by mid-second century at the latest, and were the earliest widely accepted "core" of the canon.

(2)Second, Acts (since it was associated with Luke and Paul), 1 Peter, and 1 John were also very widely accepted by the end of the second century

(3)Next, the following 7 books were in dispute in parts of the Church up until the mid to late 4th century:
Hebrews
James
Jude
2 Peter
2 & 3 John
Revelation

Again, Athanasius's letter in 367 and the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) seem to have been the key factors in officially finalizing the closing of the canon.

(4)Last, the following books seemed to enjoy a measure of local canonicity in certain areas for a while before ultimately being left out of the final "universal" canon:
1 Clement
Shepherd of Hermas
Epistle of Barnabas
Didache
Apocalypse of Peter
(and possibly Gospel of Hebrews)

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

...
[FONT=&#48148]http://www.sdadefend.com/Living-Word/Wilkinson/AuthorizedBibleTOC.htm[/FONT]

He has numerous citations (from "fa1" in Chapter 1 to "f55" at the end) that are not linked to any footnote, endnote, or bibliography.

Where is he getting his information?

What are these references?

CA

 

[Eliyahu]

He has numerous citations (from "fa1" in Chapter 1 to "f55" at the end) that are not linked to any footnote, endnote, or bibliography.

Where is he getting his information?

What are these references?

CA

Have you checked the followings one by one?

[FONT=바탕]ft6 Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, p. 86.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft7 Burgon and Miller, The Traditional Text, p. 163.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft8 Dr. Philip Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament, p. 115, N. 1.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft9 Dr. Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T., Vol. II, p. 270.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft10 Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 27.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft11 Horts Introduction, p. 143. See also Burgon Revision Revised, p. 134.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft12 Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 27. Note.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft14 Burgon and Miller, The Traditional Text, p. 128.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft15 Dr. T. V. Moore, The Culdee Church, Chapters 3 and 4.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft16 Dean Stanley, Historic Memorials of Canterbury, pp. 33, 34. Quoted in Cathcart, Ancient British and Irish Churches, p. 12.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft18 Dr. Clarke, Commentaries, Comment on Matt. 1:18.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft19 Jacobus, Catholic and Protestant Bibles Compared, p. 200, Note 15.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft20 Fulton in the Forum, June, 1887.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft21 Jacobus, Catholic and Protestant Bibles, p. 4.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft22 Von Dobschutz, The Influence of the Bible on Civilization, pp. 61, 62.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft23 J. N. Andrews and L. R. Conradi, History of the Sabbath, pp. 581, 582.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft24 See Cathcart, Ancient British and Irish Churches, p. 16.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft25 Idem. p. 17.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft26 Neander, History of the Christian Religion and Church, Vol. 1, pp. 85, 86.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft27 Gilly, Waldensian Researches, pp. 118, 119.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft28 Allix, Leger, Gilly, Comba, Nolan.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft29 Comba, The Waldenses of Italy, p. 188.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft30 Leger, General Hist. of the Vaudois Churches, p. 165.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft31 W. S. Gilly, Waldensian Researches, p. 8, note.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft32 Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI. p. 338 (Christian Lit. Ed.)[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft33 DeSanctis, Popery, Puseyism, Jesuitism, p. 53.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft34 Gilly, Waldensian Researches, p. 80.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft35 Comba, Waldenses of Italy, p. 169, note 596.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft36 Gilly, Excursions to the Piedmont, Appendix II, p. 10.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft37 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Christian Lit. Ed.). Vol. II, p. 542.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft38 Allix, Churches of Piedmont (1690), p. 37.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft39 Idem. p. 177.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft40 Scriveners Introduction, Vol. II. p. 43.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft41 McClintock & Strong, Encycl., Art. "Waldenses."[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft42 Gilly, Researches, pp. 79, 80.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft43 Allix, Churches of Piedmont, pp. 288, 11.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft44 Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, pp. 169, 170.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft45 Leger, History of the Vaudois, p. 167.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft46 Leger, History of the Vaudois, p. 167.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft47 Comba, The Waldenses of Italy, p. 191.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft48 Idem, p. 190.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft49 Idem, p. 192.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft50 Idem. p. 191, note 679.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft51 Dr. Benjamin Warfield of Princeton University, Collections of Opinions[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]and Reviews, Vol. II, p. 99.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft52 Dr. Frederick Nolan, Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pp. xvii, xviii.][/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft53 Scrivener, Introduction, Vol. II, pp. 299, 300.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft54 E. G. White, Great Controversy, pp. 65, 66, 69.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft55 Nolan, Inquiry, p. 413.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft56 Horts Introduction, p. 143.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft57 Swete, Introduction to Greek O. T., p. 86.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft58 Jacobus, Cath. and Prot. Bibles, p. 4.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft59 Price, Ancestry, pp. 69, 70.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft60 Jacobus, p. 6.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft61 Horts Introduction, p. 138.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft62 Jacobus, p. 203.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft63 Swetes Introduction, pp. 85, 86.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft64 Price, Ancestry, p. 70.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft65 W. H. Green, The Text of O. T., p. 116. Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 6, p. 338.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft66 Jerome against Helvidius.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft67 Jacobus, p. 4.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft68 Quoted in Nolan, Inquiry, p. 33.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft69 Fulke, Defence of Translations of the Bible (1582), p. 62.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft70 Demaus, William Tyndale, p. 105.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft71 Idem, p. 73.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft72 Brooks Memoir of Life of Cartwright, p. 276.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft73 Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus, pp. 232, 233.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft74 Idem p. 64.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft75 Wylie, The Papacy, p. 92.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft76 Froude, Erasmus, p. 267.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft77 Two Members of the N. T. Company on the Revisers and the Greek Text., pp. 11, 12.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft78 Demaus, Life of Tyndale, p. 130.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft79 E. G. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 234, 235.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft80 R. W. Thompson, Ex-Secretary of Navy, U. S. A., The Footprints of the Jesuits, p. 51.[/FONT]
[FONT=바탕]ft81 Macaulay, Essays, pp. 480, 481.][/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]ft lasts up to 493 and I couldn't list them all here.[/FONT]

 

[Eliyahu]

He made 500 footnotes but I couldn't post them all in one post above.

It is my understanding that the Old Latin dating back to 157 AD was claimed by many people such as Beza, Olivetan, F Scrivener, and William Tyndale and KJV Translators believed it, and Westcot-Hort-Kurt Alland, Dean Burgon accepted it.

I have noticed the following documents are available and requested University of Toronto for them, it may take a week or two for them to be delivered to me.

Itala; das Neue Testament in altlateinischer Überlieferung nach den Handschriften. Hrsg. von Adolf Jülicher, im Auftrage der Kirchenväterkommission der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, zum Druck besorgt von Walter Matzkow Jülicher, Adolf, 1857-1938,
Bible. N.T. Latin (Old Latin). 1938


The four Gospels from the Codex Corbeiensis (ff [or ff2] being the first complete edition of the MS. now numbered Lat. 17225 in the National Library at Paris; together with fragments of the Catholic epistles, of the Acts and of the Apocalypse from the Fleury palimpsest (h) now numbered Lat. 6400 G in the same library and for the first time completely edited with the aid of the printed text of Berger--‘Le palimpseste de Fleury’

The Key issue is the Itala itself and how it was delivered and preserved., but I am not sure the above cover those points.well enough.