format_quote Originally Posted by
MustafaMc
How was the inspiration by the Holy Spirit of various writings determined such that the 27 books were canonized? Except for Revelations the books of the NT seem to be of human origin.
Sorry, I really don't know. All I know is that even before Athanasius made his list, that 100 years before him that others were using the same basic list. If you take a look at the various lists that are known:
In the first century there wasn't really any sense of a need to set aside certain books as canonical and others as non-canonical. The scriptures were the books inherited through the Church's roots in Judaism. Most specifically, they were the Greek verision of the Hebrew Tanakah known as the Septuagint. To that, we can see that other writings became accepted for use in the church as well 2 Peter 3:14-16 gives a rare glimpse of this:
So, my dear friends, since this is what you have to look forward to, do your very best to be found living at your best, in purity and peace. Interpret our Master's patient restraint for what it is: salvation. Our good brother Paul, who was given much wisdom in these matters, refers to this in all his letters, and has written you essentially the same thing. Some things Paul writes are difficult to understand. Irresponsible people who don't know what they are talking about twist them every which way. They do it to the rest of the Scriptures, too, destroying themselves as they do it. (The Message)
So, at least in some churches, Paul's writings were already accepted on par with the rest of scripture. One of the earliest church Fathers, Clement of Rome, regularly used the Letter to the Hebrews, and pretty much every other book that has made it into our canon.
The New Testament used in the church at Rome in 200 AD (known as the Muratroian Canon) included:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, James, 1 & 2 John, Jude, the Revelation of John, and 2 books that would NOT be included in the canon used today the Revelation of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon. They also used the Shepherd of Hermas, in private but not in public worship.
The New Testament used by Origen in 250 AD included:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Revelation of John. Origen also used, but did not consider canonical Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Letter of Barnabas (NOT the
Gospel of Barnabas that some Muslims like to quote), the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (also known as the Didache), and the Gospel of the Hebrews.
The New Testament used by church historian Eusebius in 300 AD included:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, the Revelation of John. Eusebius also used but did not consider canonical James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Jude. And Eusebius specifically said that the following should NOT be part of the canon, even though they were worth reading for other purposes: the Shepherd of Hermas, the Letter of Barnabas, the Gospel of the Hebrews (this is different than the
Letter to the Hebrews which is in the Bible today and which Eusebius did not comment on at all), the Revelation of Peter, the Acts of Peter, and the Didache.
But it wasn't Nicea as some like to suggest, nor Hippo, that set the canon, it was the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. Interestingly, in the eastern part of the church the Syrian church continued to use Tatian's
Diatessaron -- a harmony of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- instead of the four separate Gospels. Later the Syrian church also rejected Revelation and demoted the general letters of Peter and John. All were restored, but not till the mid-sixth century.
As to exactly how the Holy Spirit orchestrated all of this, I don't think any one can say. I can't explain how it is that the Holy Spirit speaks to me today when he does. But I know that sometimes he has done this as well. So, if I can't explain my own personal experience of it, I don't think that I am going to be able to explain to you or anyone else how he did that in the lives a a whole lot of different people nearly 1600-1800 years ago. But I do trust that he was speaking to them just like he still leads me today, and that in doing so he worked with them till the church got it right, or at least got what it needed to get, maybe that is a better way of saying it than that they got it right, because that would be like saying nothing else was of God and I don't believe that books like the Shepherd of Hermas or the Letter of Barnabas are of the devil; they may in fact be inspired as well. I just don't think that they are meant to be part of that which is set aside as the standard for faith and practice. As to why some of what is in there (2 & 3 John come to my mind) is included, I don't really have an answer for that either. But that is just a witness to my lacking, not any problem with scripture.