Hi Wil —
Was it not the Catholics that created the cannon that put the 66 books together?
No. Whatever led you to think that?
The early Church used the Hebrew Scriptures based on the Septuagint, defending them against Marcion and others who regarded the God of Jesus to be other than the God of the Jews.
Thus for the 'Old Testament' Christianity relied upon Judaism, without question, as far as I know. Later the Septuagint fell out of favour with the Jews, and a different canon exists for them.
As regards the NT, the Pauline epistles were probably the first text to receive wide circulation, and existed in a collection by the close of the first century.
A four-gospel canon was referred to by Irenaeus in the middle of the second, and by the early 200's, Origen may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation.
Likewise the Muratorian fragment (c200) shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament.
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, then Bishop of Alexandria, listed the books of what we today consider the New Testament canon, using the term "canonized" (
kanonizomena) with regard to them.
The African Synod of Hippo (393) approved the New Testament (as it stands today), together with the Septuagint, a decision endorsed by two Councils at Carthage (397 & 419).
Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome (382), accepting the
Decretum Gelasianum as authentic, issued an identical list, (if not authentic it still dates from the 6th century).
Damasus also asked Jerome to undertake a Latin translation, which he did, referencing Hebrew original texts, rather than the Greek Septuagint, thus founding the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible (c383), that set the canon in the West. The East still uses the Septuagint today.
Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon as it is today, and had done for over a hundred years. By the fifth there existed a harmony between East and West in matters of the Canon — 73 books, not 66 (counting the apocrypha).
The Catholic Church did not exist as an entity until much later, and not until the Council of Trent in 1546 can one refer to any Catholic dogmatic statement — which simply endorsed what the Church had held to be the case for over a millenium.
The Anglicans declared their list in 1563,
The Greek Orthodox in 1672.
+++
Correct me if I have that wrong. Were there not hundreds of books that were used prior to this amongst believers some of which currently compose what is called apocrypha?
I've never heard of 'hundreds of books' before ... where did you get that from?
As we can see, the Canon was roughly in place by 200, and the acid test was a reference by a predecessor — if a book suddenly turns up, especially a gospel or letter of an apostle, without any prior mention in the tradition, then it's regarded with suspicion.
The Letter to the Hebrews is an example — an enigma, utterly anonymous (Origen among others doubted its attribution to St Paul, and said as much), yet it's theology is unique and individual, and on a par with St John or St Paul, and totally in accord with tradition ... so it's in. Likewise the later Epsitles of John, and eventually, Revelations.
But the 'gnostic gospels' ... they come out of the blue, often late (4th century), no reference in tradition, and seek to turn tradition on its head ... invariably claim a 'secret transmission' (so many of them!) ... furthermore they invariably contradict each other ... in one Jesus was taken alive from the Cross, in another it was the man Jesus but not the 'Christ' (whatever that means), in another Judas takes Jesus' place ...
I am not aware that I am spreading any mistruths. I do not know of a total list of what was rejected. I am not blaming anyone for anything, again just stating what I am aware of.
That's what I'm asking ... what evidence are you aware of?
Thomas
