What impact should the knowledge assembly of the new testament in the mid second centuary?

Question

by the early church and the subsequent canonization of these gosspils have on our understanding of thier devine authority?

Answer 1

NONE...it would affect my spelling...

Answer 2

Since the last books of the New Testament (the Gospel of John and the Revelation) were not composed until 95 to 100AD, it would have been impossible to have compiled a complete New Testament any earlier. So of course the compiling of a COMPLETE New Testament could not hav happened until the 2nd century (100 AD and beyond).

A second factor in compiling a complete New Testamen was the "scroll". A single scroll that contained the entire New Testament would not be practical to use. It was not until the invention of the "codex" (the forerunner of the modern day "book") that a single volumne of that length could be made.

However, prior to that, the other individual books of the New Testament are know to have existed, and there were collections of parts of them, such as the 13 letters of Paul, or the synopsis gospels. Before the end of the first century, both were being quoted by the Church fathers as scripture.

Justin Martyr, in the early first century, refered to them as the "memoirs of the apostles", and asserted them as scripture. Irenaeus, in 160 AD, wrote about there being only four gospels of Christ, directly referencing the four Christians use today. By the early 200s AD, Origen was teaching from the same set of 27 books that the Christian church uses today. There was still some dispute from other leaders about Hebrews (because his author is unknow), 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John (which were considered genuine, but seen as short personal letters to individuals and not necessarily scripture) and the book of Revelation.

It was not until the 4th century, an the Edict of Tolerance which removed the death penalty for being a Christian, that church leaders were able to hold an "official" council to settle the doctrines and scriptures of the church.

The delegates looked at several issues when deciding what books to include. First, what books were already in common usage as scripture. When they surveyed the "Bibles" in the churches of that time, they found that they all contained the four gospels (and no others), the writings of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, James and Jude. Some, but not all, included 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Revelation. They also found a couple that included the 1 and 2 letters of Clements (both in the area where he had lived) and another that included the Sheperd of Hermes (again, in the church where Hermes had pastored). Both books were, however, rejected because they were no commonly used, nor the works of 1st generation apostles.

Their second requirement was that the work by written by one of the 1st generation apostles, or under the direct supervisor of an apostle in the case of Luke and Acts. This elimanated some works such as the Epistle of Barnabas, as he was not a 1st generation apostle.

Finally, to "date" a book, they looked to the writings of the early church fathers to see if the book was ever mentioned, quoted, or praised (or rejected) by them. Several books were quickly dismissed because of clearing warns by earlier church fathers that they were fakes.

There still exist today about 40 New Testaments, in fragments, which predate the Nicean Councils, yet appear to contain the same 27 books of our modern New Testament. (There certain were more for the delegates to examine back then.)

Based on the requirements used (commonly accepted, written by apostles, supported by early church fathers), it is difficult to imagine a better set. Those would meet the needs of any modern scholar trying to validate an ancient work. Plus they had the adventage to being closer to the originals, and so would have had better knowledge of what was and wasn't historically accurate.

I have no issues with how the New Testament was compiled, nor the length it took to be "approved".

Answer 3

Could you clarify your question, please?