[Awzmgd117]

Ok, i'm not against doing my own research, but, its hard when your already a full time student and your just trying to do another project for your own benefit, you dont' have a lot of time to go digging until you find what you want, you want to be able to go right to it...so, heres what i'm looking for, can someone point me to a good reference, a book or series of books, articles, text, something that explains how the bible, as is accepted by Protestants today, came together. ie how did the letters of Paul all come together and become accepted as holy scripture, the OT was obviously in existance at the time of Christ, but what is known about how it came together, (though i'm more interested in the NT)...

note i'm not currently not interested in debate, opinions and theories from individuals, the gnostics, or other pieces of text and why htey should be accepted.... all i'm asking for is direction in where to look for a history of the canonization of the Bible.. thanks

[goldenchild]

Sorry. Can't be of help. I don't know why Protestants accept the books they do or why they do. So I have no sources for ya.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Sorry. Can't be of help. I don't know why Protestants accept the books they do or why they do. So I have no sources for ya.

I'm just going to post a source as soon as my professor emails me back. I wrote a paper on it one time... oh yeah! *runs and finds paper*

“Introduction to the New Testament” by Raymond F. Collins

that was my source for the paper.

A much older source, perhaps the first source on the origional canonization of the OT was from “Decree of Damasus” 382 a.d.

Unfortunately, I don't know where the online source is. However, in a reply to goldenchild, I'll comment that the list of cannonized books of the Bible was actually the same as the Protestant Bible is today. So if anything, I'd say that protestants disagreed with the reasons that the Catholic church added those books after the origional canonization (which is funny, because a cannonization is supposed to be the end of people being able to add or take away).

When my professor emails me, it will be an online source. So that should help this a great deal.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

However, in a reply to goldenchild, I'll comment that the list of cannonized books of the Bible was actually the same as the Protestant Bible is today. So if anything, I'd say that protestants disagreed with the reasons that the Catholic church added those books after the origional canonization (which is funny, because a cannonization is supposed to be the end of people being able to add or take away).

Yup which took place at the council of Rome which included all the books. It is supposed to be the end of adding and taking away. So why did Luther take away books?

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Yup which took place at the council of Rome which included all the books. It is supposed to be the end of adding and taking away. So why did Luther take away books?

I'd assume because the council of Rome wasn't an ecumenical council. What year was that council in?

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

I'd assume because the council of Rome wasn't an ecumenical council. What year was that council in?

382. Every single council since then affirmed what this council said and the books were included in every single council that dealt with the canon. It was simply reaffirmed at Trent because of the confusion Luther was raising. The people at the time obviously considered the council of Rome important because there was no fighting over the canon after this. But this exact same discussion is taking place in another thread here. It's probably best to go over there where it's gotten a little further along than this.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

382. Every single council since then affirmed what this council said and the books were included in every single council that dealt with the canon. It was simply reaffirmed at Trent because of the confusion Luther was raising. The people at the time obviously considered the council of Rome important because there was no fighting over the canon after this. But this exact same discussion is taking place in another thread here. It's probably best to go over there where it's gotten a little further along than this.

That is when the "Council of Rome" was held? You're going to have to be less vague than that. I know that that date was the date of canonization. But what was the list of canonized books? Every early source I've read pretty much has the Protestant NT in it. So when is the date that the other books were added?

[Awzmgd117]

ok, but these don't have to be online sources, i can go to the library and get books. out of curiosity which books did luther want to subtract, i know he had some isssues reconciling books like james but everything i ever heard said he did believe they should be there, he just didn't know what to do with it

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by Awzmgd117

ok, but these don't have to be online sources, i can go to the library and get books. out of curiosity which books did luther want to subtract, i know he had some isssues reconciling books like james but everything i ever heard said he did believe they should be there, he just didn't know what to do with it

My professor emailed me back. The book "The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon" by Lee MacDonald is supposedly a good way to go. My professor peer reviews such books and documents for a living. So he would actually know.

As for James, the church (Catholic) has had issues with 7 books. the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of John, Jude, and Apocalypse.

Here's a good source for that http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

That is when the "Council of Rome" was held? You're going to have to be less vague than that. I know that that date was the date of canonization. But what was the list of canonized books? Every early source I've read pretty much has the Protestant NT in it. So when is the date that the other books were added?

Sorry if that sounded vague. You asked me when that council was in, referring to the council of Rome. I just said 382, assuming you knew which one we were discussing. But yeah, that's the one.

Here are the books that were defined at this council and from then on all these books were considered the canon by the councils.

Originally Posted by Council of Rome

Pope Damasus and the Council of Rome (AD 382)


Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.

The order of the Old Testament books begins here:


Genesis, one book
Exodus, one book
Leviticus, one book
Numbers, one book
Deuteronomy, one book
Joshua Nave, one book
Judges, one book
Ruth, one book
Kings, four books [= 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings]
Paralipomenon, two books [= 1 & 2 Chronicles]
Psalms, one book


Solomon, three books:


Proverbs, one book
Ecclesiastes, one book
Canticle of Canticles, one book


Likewise:


WISDOM [of Solomon], one book
ECCLESIASTICUS [= SIRACH], one book


Likewise the order of the Prophets:


Isaiah, one book
Jeremiah, one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations
Ezekiel, one book
Daniel, one book
Hosea, one book
Micah, one book
Joel, one book
Obadiah, one book
Jonah, one book
Nahum, one book
Habakkuk, one book
Zephaniah, one book
Haggai, one book
Zechariah, one book
Malachi, one book


LIkewise the order of the histories:


Job, one book
TOBIAS, one book [=TOBIT]
Esdras, two books [= Ezra & Nehemiah]
ESTHER(WHOLE BOOK), one book
JUDITH, one book
MACCABEES, TWO BOOKS


Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church supports.

Of the gospels:


according to Matthew, one book
according to Mark, one book
according to Luke, one book
according to John, one book.


The Epistles of Paul, in number fourteen:


to the Romans, one
to the Corinthians, two
to the Ephesians, one
to the Thessalonians, two
to the Galatians, one
to the Philippians, one
to the Colossians, one
to Timothy, two
to Titus, one
to Philemon, one
to the Hebrews, one


Likewise:


the Apocalypse of John, one book.
and the Acts of the Apostles, one book.


Likewise the canonical epistles, in number seven:


of Peter the Apostle, two epistles
of James the Apostle, one epistle
of John the Apostle, one epistle
of another John, the presbyter, two epistles
of Jude the Zealot, the Apostle, one epistle.


The canon of the New Testament ends here.

Capitals I added. Every canon since has affirmed this canon.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Sorry if that sounded vague. You asked me when that council was in, referring to the council of Rome. I just said 382, assuming you knew which one we were discussing. But yeah, that's the one.

Here are the books that were defined at this council and from then on all these books were considered the canon by the councils.


Capitals I added. Every canon since has affirmed this canon.

You mean that the books in capitals are books that you added? hmm... ok... Why did you just add books to the list?

Anyways, could you please post a source? The Catholic Dictionary doesn't even list any Council of Rome.

[Lightknight]

Alright, I've done some deeper study. It is difficult because I have loaned my church history books to a person considering catholocism. I would otherwise know exactly where to look to for the answers.

Anyways, the traditional canon was gathered from Athanasius. The site doesn't say, but if memory serves me right, this list was made in an easter sunday sermon sort of thing. He lists 27 books in the NT which are the 27 books found in the Protestant Bibles. The list was in 367. The canon was authoritatively closed in 397 at the close of the third council of Carthage. Catholics do admit that we (Protestants) do accept the traditional canon (the Catholic source then goes onto say "albeit reluctantly", which is a laugh. Luther was the only one with the issue with Revelation and James. That's why we still have those books).

Apostolic fathers (90-160)
The Gospels had been accepted by 130 thanks to Polycarp and Justin Martyr. During the age of the Apostolic fathers (90-160) the Catholic Epistles weren't even on the scene. Little was known of Acts and it was rarely quoted at this point. The Pauline Corpus was generally accepted by 130 but it had rarely been quoted as scripture. Hebrews wasn't considered canonical. Philippians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon were either rejected or not quoted (unsure which) by Justin Martyr and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon were either rejected or not quoted by polycarp. James was not considered canonical or even quoted. 1 and 2 Peter were not considered scripture yet, though 1 peter had begun to be cited. All three Johns were not considered canonical. Same goes for Jude and Revelation.

Irenaeus to Origen (160-250)
The term "New Testament" was coined (Tertullian). Acts was accepted. 2 Timothy was rejected by Clement of Alexandria. Philemon was rejected or not quoted by several key figures at the time. Hebrews and James was contested by origen. 1st Peter was accepted. 2 peter was still disputed. 1st John, Jude and revelation were also accepted. Not 2nd or 3rd John though. Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, The Didache, and The Apocalypse of Peter were first mentioned in this era.

Muratorian Canon (c.190)
The muratorian Canon does include The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon. However, this was c. 190 and therefore completely uncanonized in the Church as of yet (the canons were widely still localized at this point). That canon also excluded Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter.

Origen to Nicaea (250-325)
From Origen to the council of Nicaea (250-325) the Catholic Epistles were being disputed along with Revelation. James, Jude, and 2nd/3rd John were as well. As I said, they were not mentioned as canon before the closing of the Canon (the Catholic Epistles that is, not Revelation).

Council of Nicaea to the Council of Carthage (325-397)
To make a long story short, all of the previously unaccepted books of the Protestant Bible were accepted during this time (not the Catholic epistles though).

After the Canon was officially closed (397+)
As for books like the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistle of Hermas, they were not mentioned in any sort of accepted canon until the Codex Sinaiticus in the late 4th century (almost a century after the canon was specifically closed). Then 1 Clement and 2 Clement were found in the Codex Alexandrinus in the early 5th century.


I've looked at multiple sources. Some have different dates. That kinda scares me a bit as to reliability of such things. I want my texts back. But I see how you confused me. You should have said the Roman Synod. Not the council of Rome. However, the Roman Synod still does not canonize those books.

lol, I hope this helped, it was a heck of a lot of study.

[goldenchild]

Everything I've seen says council of Rome


http://www.jvlnet.com/~jrblack/cc.canondamasus.html

This is a good source, it gives a whole bunch of council stuff.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

You mean that the books in capitals are books that you added? hmm... ok... Why did you just add books to the list?

Anyways, could you please post a source? The Catholic Dictionary doesn't even list any Council of Rome.

No I didn't add th books! Sheesh. I added the CAPITALS to highlight the books.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Anyways, the traditional canon was gathered from Athanasius. The site doesn't say, but if memory serves me right, this list was made in an easter sunday sermon sort of thing. He lists 27 books in the NT which are the 27 books found in the Protestant Bibles. The list was in 367. The canon was authoritatively closed in 397 at the close of the third council of Carthage..

Do you have some online source for this? About Athanasius?