[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

I didn't assume anything, and I didn't say that there was no canon at all until late 4th century, I said that when Marcion made his list there was no canon. Marcion started the whole idea of a canon in the first place, and by doing so started the ball rolling on other groups establishing their lists to combat Marcion.

No Marcion didn't start the idea of a canon. The word "canon" is just a transliteration of the greek word "kanon" which means "rule'. It conveys the idea of measure, a test, a straight edge, a critical standard. When the Apostles and church Fathers started refering to certain writings as scriptures and useing them authoritively they had in fact set them in a canon. Just because Marcion was the earliest person to use the word "Kanon"(that we know of) doesn't mean that before him there was no concept of a canon.

Originally Posted by photon

But that's not to say nothing is known. This is just a convenient way of dismissing things that don't line up with a desired conclusion. Scholars work to determine what can and can't be known, what is lost, and what is actually recoverable.

Your the one who is trying to say that since the first known occurance of the word "canon" is Marcion that he is the origin of the idea. What I'm saying is that although history doesn't afford us an earlier record we should know by the way the books were treated and reverenced that they were recognized as inspired by God and therefore authoritive. People died upholding the doctrines of those letters. They cast people out of their churches who taught against the doctrines of those books. These books were the basis of their faith and practice. Yet you maintain that no person or congregation had formed an opinion on what particular writings would guide their lives.

Originally Posted by photon

There probably was no one date, the lists grow and develop over time, and we can see that; lots of lists by various church fathers as to which writings to consider authoritative have been found.


And a date of the 2nd century doesn't conflict with what I said earlier.

The canon was complete in about 90 A.D. when John wrote the Revelation of Jesus Christ. What we don't know is when enough copies of that book and the others were around in order for a church to have collected a copy of all 27 of them.

Originally Posted by photon

This is all an interesting sidebar though, not really relevant to the issue of the authorship of all the Pauline letters.

It was the first wrong thing you said in your last post so I'm addressing it first.

Originally Posted by photon

Some church gets a letter claiming to be from Paul and they add it to their list of things they read to their followers. Other churches commission copies and it spreads.

No. Because churches knew that counterfeits existed they wouldn't readily accept books from unknown sources. If the writing didn't conflict with doctrines extablished by trusted scriptures they might be read. But churches required convincing. The earlier books in the canon had the testimony of the Apostles to authorize them. After they were all gone the testimony of the church Fathers and the histories of the churches who first recieved these epistles had to do.

Originally Posted by photon

You are saying that the inclusion and exclusion of writings was supported by evidence and tracing of transmission? I'd like to see some of that evidence.

I would like to see that evidence as well. The problem is that those churches who recieved the epistles don't exist today and almost all the writings from the first century are lost to time and Roman book burnings. We have one letter from Polycarp. The man lived 86 years and was a pupil of the Apostle John. Do you think that in those 86 years he might have written more than one letter? Do you think in those 86 years which brought him into the middle of the second century that someone didn't ask him: " Hey Poly which of these letters did John consider scripture and which did he reject?".

Certainly Polycarp wasn't the only one to have dealings with the Apostles who survived into the second century. Also we know most of the Jewish converts could read and write. There certainly would have been an abundance of letters testifying to what was occuring. Some of the Apostle's other writings no doubt were also lost.

Originally Posted by photon

Evidence? And what does that have to do with the question of authorship? Just because a book was "elevated to scripture" doesn't mean it was authored by whom it was claimed.

The evidence would consist of the testimony of the churches that first received the letter and any written material from the first century that commented or quoted the letter. If it was known to be accepted by an Apostle that would have helped. Books that lied about their authorship would obviously been rejected.

Originally Posted by photon

What process did they use in the 1st century to "elevate to scripture" anyway? Who did this?

The how I've explained above. The who would include anyone or church who received a book and didn't know its source. These kinds of letters of inquiry would have no doubt begin in the first century when the scriptures began to be distributed.

Originally Posted by photon

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

This says to be prepared and to give an answer, I don't see anything that supports "the 27 epistles were recognized and elevated to scriptures shortly after they were written."

Sorry wrong quote. I meant IIPet 3:15,16

Originally Posted by photon

Which letters? And again just because they used them as their authority doesn't establish their authorship.

Look at Polycarp's letter as an example: http://www.supakoo.com/rick/Polycarp...2010-01-05.pdf

The 2 heretics we've been discussing were excommunicated because they left sound doctrine. The doctrine they left is found in scriptures. Also the authority to do such a thing is found in scriptures.

Originally Posted by photon

No doubt they were aware of counterfeits, I already established in my previous post that it was common and it's mentioned by a number of early Christian authors.

Being aware of a problem means it exists, so the possibility of forgeries making it into the canon is very real. Efforts to combat it doesn't mean it was combated perfectly, especially when the evidence indicates they weren't.

What could have happened and what did happen are two different things. There is also a thing called providence which tends to keep the ball rolling in the right direction.

Originally Posted by photon

I didn't even present those as evidence, I asked one small question as an aside and it's become this huge distraction. With respect to the authorship of Paul's letters, I don't care what Marcion or Origen have to say on the matter.

You brought up the canon and Marcion and Origen. I'm just responding to what you've said in order.

Originally Posted by photon

I went over the kinds of evidence, I don't know why you are so focused on Marcion and Origen when the authorship is doubted for other reasons. I'm not going to present all of it, you can read the scholarship on it as well as I can.

Again you and the link you provided brought up those two heretics as evidence. I was just responding.

Also, the fact that these epistles were received early as scriptures and with no significant opposition until the 1900s weighs in faviour of their authenticity. I don't discount the scholarship of the men who asked these same questions over the last 1800 years.

I will address your modern "evidence" in time. I simply was responding in order to your last post. I don't have time to address everything at once.

Originally Posted by photon

I think your view of the early church with respect to "established doctrine" and what was scripture is overly simplistic, and by necessity. Check out some of the resources that Textcritic has provided.

And I think you've been sold a load of goods. This discussion began with you stating that Paul didn't write the pastorial epistles. You don't know that. You've also never looked at your "evidence" with a critical eye or you would have found it wanting.