You know, I kind of think in some way my approach to discuss things with the CoC / only scripture types is maybe a mistake.
They present an arena for the discussion, a basic premise, that I think is historically incorrect and simply untrue. The arena is based on a couple of assumptions:
- A rational, intellectual approach to faith
- A reliance on scripture in such a way that by necessity subordinates scripture to tradition, or pits them against each other
- The combination of these things to develop a cognitive model of belief, behavior, and activity that becomes normative
Now, my experience is that not only is their basic premise incorrect, but it is ultimately unstable under the weight of its own claims. It doesn't self-support based on scripture, and it is a simple thought exercise to understand that at the onset of Christianity this could not be the approach of the faithful (i.e., because the New Testament scriptures weren't written yet). So on that basis I try to engage. But maybe it's bad, because it seems to tacitly accept their premises rather than challenging them.
The truth is, as I see it, actually the following:
- An experiential, transcendent approach to the faith
- A reliance on the Holy Spirit in a real, ongoing way to guard the faith through maintaining what was taught (which by necessity includes both scripture and tradition in a mutually supporting way)
- Which combines to a liturgical model of belief, behavior, and activity that is normative
The latter explains the way the canonical lists were framed much better than the former. The early canonical lists weren't put together with the explanation of "the information in these books can be constructed into a coherent framework of belief, and we are excluding books that do not fit into this framework." They weren't even overtly said "well, these have to be written by an Apostle" or whatever anachronistic criteria people use these days to justify it.
Instead we see in the very earliest lists statements like that of the Muratorian fragment (the oldest known listing of the NT books in ~170) which says in the negative form
Quote:
We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after [their] time.
Eusebius also says (~AD 325)
Quote:
But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The Shepherd is ascribed, it should be observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is considered quite indispensable, especially to those who need instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence, as we know, it has been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some of the most ancient writers used it.
Cyril of Jerusalem writes (~AD 350)
Quote:
Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes....But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank. And whatever books are not read in Churches, these read not even by thyself, as thou hast heard me say.
The Council of Laodicea (AD 363) declared:
Quote:
Let no private psalms nor any uncanonical books be read in church, but only the canonical ones of the New and Old Testament.
St Athanasius the Great wrote (~360s)
Quote:
There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read.
St Jerome writes around 390:
Quote:
This must be said to our people, that the epistle which is entitled "To the Hebrews" is accepted as the apostle Paul's not only by the churches of the east but by all church writers in the Greek language of earlier times, although many judge it to be by Barnabas or by Clement. It is of no great moment who the author is, since it is the work of a churchman and receives recognition day by day in the public reading of the churches. If the custom of the Latins does not receive it among the canonical scriptures, neither, by the same liberty, do the churches of the Greeks accept John's Apocalypse. Yet we accept them both, not following the custom of the present time but the precedent of early writers, who generally make free use of testimonies from both works.
The council of Carthage in 397 states:
Quote:
Besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture....for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.
Rufinus of Aquileia around 400 writes:
Quote:
...it seems proper in this place to specify by a distinct enumeration, from the records of the fathers, the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which, in accordance with the tradition of our ancestors, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, and handed down to the churches of Christ...
...These are the books which the fathers have included in the canon; on which they would have us establish the declarations of our faith.
With the New Testament there is the book which is called the Shepherd of Hermas, and that which is called The Two Ways and the Judgment of Peter. They were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they named "apocrypha," which they would not have read in the churches.
These are what the fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God they should draw for drinking.
So the entirety of the transfer of scripture is in a liturgical frame of reference. Scripture was used liturgically, read publicly, just as St Paul talks about in the NT. Public ministry and public teaching, public use, so that anyone who comes can know what the Church teaches. As scriptures says "Ask your father, and he will tell you, your elders, and they will inform you." And again, we come to the Church because "this knowledge is not in all" (1 Corinthians 8:7).