New Testament Canon - Incomplete/missing Books? Corrupted?

[ALarson]

No, they only claimed to be writing about historical events and providing guidance and correction to churches and individuals. Their designation as scripture came later. The point is that the early Christians thought the books important enough to preserve. 

This is an interesting thread (and is a subject that I admit I know very little about).

 

Who do you believe wrote the gospels?  I know there is debate over this and I have read some (very little) on it.  Does the church have a position on this?

[Spammer]

Read Luke 1:1-4. Who knows who and how many gospels or accounts at least have been lost to time. There is no record of anyone ever seeing the originals of the Synoptic Gospels and John, it's anybody guess as to what else is or was out there

Yep, it's all guesswork unless we ground our research on what's available. All we have is what we have. Anything we say about the content of what was lost is just speculation.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Spammer

[Spammer]

This is an interesting thread (and is a subject that I admit I know very little about).

 

Who do you believe wrote the gospels?  I know there is debate over this and I have read some (very little) on it.  Does the church have a position on this?

 

All we have is the preserved texts of the gospels and the authors don't identify themselves.  I go with what my own tradition (Eastern Orthodox) says about authorship.  Why not?  There's no proof one way or the other.  Others prefer to rely on textual analysis and the historical-critical method to determine authorship.  That's fine.  Again, there's no proof one way or the other.  Others rely on modern revelation.  Ok.  That works for those who accept the existence of modern prophets.  Go with what works best for you.

[thesometimesaint]

All we have is the preserved texts of the gospels and the authors don't identify themselves.  I go with what my own tradition (Eastern Orthodox) says about authorship.  Why not?  There's no proof one way or the other.  Others prefer to rely on textual analysis and the historical-critical method to determine authorship.  That's fine.  Again, there's no proof one way or the other.  Others rely on modern revelation.  Ok.  That works for those who accept the existence of modern prophets.  Go with what works best for you.

 

While that is very ecumenical, and on its face sounds nice. When the Bible itself refers to a long list of books no Christian sect currently has. I think we have gone far speculation, and just admit that there still plenty we don't know.

[Duncan]

Yep, it's all guesswork unless we ground our research on what's available. All we have is what we have. Anything we say about the content of what was lost is just speculation.

 

 

that's just it, it's speculation there more or less and nothing concrete until something is found. But the verse is Luke alludes to more that we just don't have yet

[Spammer]

While that is very ecumenical, and on its face sounds nice. When the Bible itself refers to a long list of books no Christian sect currently has. I think we have gone far speculation, and just admit that there still plenty we don't know.

 

Well, sure, but we have to base our faith on something. We won't get very far if we wait around until the lost books are found before we make a faith commitment.  Makes sense to ground it on what we concretely have.  Although we'll disagree on what concrete pieces of evidence actually count as valid evidence, I'm sure you'll agree with the principle.

[Spammer]

that's just it, it's speculation there more or less and nothing concrete until something is found. But the verse is Luke alludes to more that we just don't have yet

 

Depends on what Luke meant by the Greek word translated as "many".  Different people will interpret that differently.  Until/if another gospel is found, it's all pointless speculation.  All we have is what we have and our respective traditions that help us make sense of what we have.  My own tradition just happens to be the one that met in council to put the Bible together in the first place.  The church's liturgical framework preceded and determined the nature of that action by several centuries and it's within that framework that we interpret the Bible. Those not of my tradition naturally follow some other principle.  But I think we can all agree, based on the evidence, that the canonicity of the NT books was generally accepted early on (by mid- to late-2nd century, for sure; the lists provided by Irenaeus and Tertullian come to mind), if not formally ratified in council until much later.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Spammer

[Damien the Leper]

Freedom, Bart Ehrman would eat you alive with your lack of education on this subject. Your ignorance of church history is astounding.

[mnn727]

Actually, we know quite a bit about what books the early Christians had access to by the end of the 1st-early 2nd century.  Have you read the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna?  They were early bishops and disciples of the apostles Peter (Clement) and John (Ignatius and Polycarp).  Their letters are the oldest Christian writings outside of the New Testament written by men known to have been bishops - Clement wrote around 90ad; Ignatius wrote around 107ad; Polycarp around 120ad.  Together, these bishops quoted or referenced all but a couple of the NT books, including all of the Gospels, all of Paul's Letters and Peter's Letters, Hebrews and two of John's letters. This is very early evidence that most of the New Testament as we have it today was already considered canonical and being used by the church, particularly by the older churches of Syria and Asia Minor.  Ignatius and Polycarp were friends and together they quoted from 22 of the 27 books.  Clement of Rome quoted Titus and James a generation earlier, so if we include those to the books Ignatius and Polycarp quoted, that accounts for all but three of the NT books universally recognized as canonical.  None of these bishops quoted any of the ancient non-canonical books thought to be from the NT period.  To me, that's telling.  We thus have clear reference to the canonicity of most of the NT very early on, more than two centuries before the ancient church was legalized and could safely meet in council to make it official.

The Bible itself quotes many books not contained within it. Also there was much arguing about which books to include as cannon, the winners now quote the Early Church Fathers, however what about all the NON-Early Church Fathers writings.

Winners write history.

[Damien the Leper]

Mormonism has extremely little to do with the Christian church of 30 CE to 100 CE.

The text of the NT has been discussed at length numerously on this board. The gospels were written anonymously. Paul only wrote 7 of his letters. 2 Peter, Jude, the letters of John are pseudepigraphal. Revelation is an anonymous disaster. Hebrews is authentic and enigmatic.

Are there texts undiscovered? Yes. Are they pertinent? No one knows and it is meaningless to speculate.

Non-canonical writings have know place in Mormonism. This can be demonstrated by McKay V. Jones' attempt to defend Mormonism by citing a gnostic text. If interested, check out Urban Theologian (formerly Backpack Radio).

This typical nonsense concerning scripture to validate a "modern revelation" necessity is tiresome and fruitless.

[Spammer]

The Bible itself quotes many books not contained within it. Also there was much arguing about which books to include as cannon, the winners now quote the Early Church Fathers, however what about all the NON-Early Church Fathers writings.

Winners write history.

 

The men who argued about which books and decided which to include in the canon and the Early Church Fathers belonged to the same church.  Yes, that church won.  The losers were the Gnostics, Valentinians, Sabellians, Arians, Marcionites, Ebionites, Docetists, and other heretical groups.   

[Damien the Leper]

The Bible itself quotes many books not contained within it. Also there was much arguing about which books to include as cannon, the winners now quote the Early Church Fathers, however what about all the NON-Early Church Fathers writings.

Winners write history.

But the NT was compiled long before the gnostic tractates were in circulation. See the Muratorian Canon. Most of the NT was canonized prior to 110 CE.

[Damien the Leper]

The men who argued about which books and decided which to include in the canon and the Early Church Fathers belonged to the same church.  Yes, that church won.  The losers were the Gnostics, Valentinians, Sabellians, Arians, Marcionites, Ebionites, Docetists, and other heretical groups.

Aww man! You threw me under the bus!!

[Spammer]

Aww man! You threw me under the bus!!

 

Lol,  Maybe we should rename you Neo-Valentinus to differentiate you.  Put you in a cassock and teach you kung fu, like in the Matrix.   

[carbon dioxide]

Freedom, Bart Ehrman would eat you alive with your lack of education on this subject. Your ignorance of church history is astounding.

 

But the NT was compiled long before the gnostic tractates were in circulation. See the Muratorian Canon. Most of the NT was canonized prior to 110 CE.

Who canonized it? 

[carbon dioxide]

The men who argued about which books and decided which to include in the canon and the Early Church Fathers belonged to the same church.  Yes, that church won.  The losers were the Gnostics, Valentinians, Sabellians, Arians, Marcionites, Ebionites, Docetists, and other heretical groups.   

What really is a heretical group?  Jesus and his followers were "heretics" to the pharisees.  Sometimes being a "heretic" might be a good thing.  Anyway For 300 years there was no official canon.  Christians were free to accept or reject books without much problem.   Different canons were used.  Christians freely accepted books not found in the canon that most people use today and rejected books also found in that same canon.  I think God is far more concerned about people living on every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God and the people accepting the truth no matter where its found than worrying about this or that book.  The purpose of books is to give us information.  The more information the better.

[Spammer]

What really is a heretical group?  Jesus and his followers were "heretics" to the pharisees.  Sometimes being a "heretic" might be a good thing.  Anyway For 300 years there was no official canon.  Christians were free to accept or reject books without much problem.   Different canons were used.  Christians freely accepted books not found in the canon that most people use today and rejected books also found in that same canon.  I think God is far more concerned about people living on every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God and the people accepting the truth no matter where its found than worrying about this or that book.  The purpose of books is to give us information.  The more information the better.

 

The groups I mentioned as heretical were those so deemed by the church that compiled the Bible, which includes the Early Church Fathers who compiled the first lists of canonical books (between which there was less variation than you seem to realize) and those who met in council in the 4th century to make it official.  That same church exists today, though sadly the Western (Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) halves are not currently in communion.  Those who belong to that ancient tradition deem the groups I mentioned to have heretical beliefs.  Those who belong to these other groups and reject the binding nature of the ancient church's conciliar decisions naturally don't view themselves as heretical and unsurprisingly consider that other books, such as the Gnostic letters and so-called gospels, ought to be canonical.  Which is not to say that the Catholic-Orthodox tradition uses only the canonical books.  Far from it.  The canon refers only to those books deemed suitable for use in the liturgy (for prayers or for reading out loud). Different churches in the first couple of centuries had slightly different lists of liturgically-suitable books, but the variation was sorted out and things were standardized once the bishops could safely meet in council without being arrested and executed (the same idea behind the LDS Church's Correlation Committee and its attendant processes was in operation during the councils that met to determine the official canon). Speaking as someone who belongs to that tradition, the heretical gnostic texts are off limits for anything other than academic study, but the other non-canonical books 1st and 2nd Century books that were produced by people within the Catholic-Orthodox tradition (e.g., the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas; the letters of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement) are fair game and considered useful for spiritual reading.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Spammer

[cinepro]

It should be remembered that it's possible for latter-day prophets to ask God about non-canonical texts and be told whether they're legit or not:

 

D&C 91

 

It should be possible for President Monson and other prophets to similarly be told, from God himself, whether or not a purported book of scripture is authentic.  It's really too bad he doesn't; it would be fascinating to have additional New Testament texts certified and incorporated into the scriptures.

[Damien the Leper]

Who canonized it?

The early Christian church.

[carbon dioxide]

The early Christian church.

The New Testament Church did not canonize it. 

[Damien the Leper]

What really is a heretical group?  Jesus and his followers were "heretics" to the pharisees.  Sometimes being a "heretic" might be a good thing.  Anyway For 300 years there was no official canon.  Christians were free to accept or reject books without much problem.   Different canons were used.  Christians freely accepted books not found in the canon that most people use today and rejected books also found in that same canon.  I think God is far more concerned about people living on every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God and the people accepting the truth no matter where its found than worrying about this or that book.  The purpose of books is to give us information.  The more information the better.

Wrong. Check out the Muratorian Canon. Mormons need to get off this silly Nicaea thing. Perhaps an extensive lesson on the 7 Ecumenical Councils is in order.

[carbon dioxide]

Wrong. Check out the Muratorian Canon. Mormons need to get off this silly Nicaea thing. Perhaps an extensive lesson on the 7 Ecumenical Councils is in order.

I did not say anything about Nicea.  What I do know is a bunch of canons were proposed for the first 3 or so centuries.  The canon really was not even settled on for the most part until after Nicea.

Edited April 15, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Damien the Leper]

The New Testament Church did not canonize it.

You really need to do your homework. I didn't say the church that existed when the apostles were alive canonized books. Though that church, the one established by Jesus, still exists and is succeeded by the Eastern Orthodox Church and, to a degree, the Roman Church.

[Damien the Leper]

I did not say anything about Nicea.  What I do know is a bunch of canons were proposed for the first 3 or so centuries.  The canon really was not even settled on for the most part until after Nicea.

The point still stands. A canon, not just random letters, was in circulation by the mid second century. St. Athanasius and St. Irenaeus make this clear.

If Mormons have such a hard time with the full canon, why not just drop the Bible and rely on revelation. This naive trust issue is tiresome and redundant.

[saemo]

The authors never claimed that the letters they were writing scriptures. 

2 Peter 3

 

15 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;

16 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.