05-06-2009, 09:07 PM
Shlama all--
If I may weigh in here a bit. As Lamsa himself pointed out some 70 years ago, there were something like ten COE councils, and the thing to realize is that Scriptural books by title, author or number were NEVER part of those discussions. It didn't come up simply because they had always had that aspect taken care of from apostolic times. It is only in the West that we find the need to deliberate via Imperial edict what was in, what was out and why. Even there, the books we call "The Western 5" had a a tough time getting in, especially Revelation. But the 22 book canon of the East has NEVER had any serious opposition for any major assembly of believers, unless you count a few protests against the "too Jewish sounding" James and Hebrews--and in both cases those critics admitted to their "near universal reception".
Bottom line is this: The reason the east and west agree on the 22 is because their attestation and ancient custodial pedigrees are so strong in the first place.
When you explain these things the typical rebuttal is the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" idea. But I would argue that a written record of the COE's processes in developing NT canon has survived. It's called---The New Testament!
Within the NT's pages we learn about different early assemblies in Antioch, in Babylon and in Rome, among other places. We learn about where the disciples went or ministered to, and we get the manuscript tags that give more info as to who brought what letter to what assembly.
From my research using these clues and the most ancient and reliable eastern and western sources, we can kind of roughly figure out several clusters of NT books and where they could have come from. Here are some examples:
1) John's Gospel, 3 Epistles, Ephesians and (possibly) Revelation.
Reasoning: Long standing tradition in and out of the NT has the apostle living in Ephesus just before relocating to Patmos. Paul's letter to the Ephesians could hardly have escaped the apostle's notice as they circulated there right at the same time. Paul visited "pillars" in Jerusalem and elsewhere--why not John? The legendary debate between Justin Martyr and Rabbi Tarfon is said to have happened in Ephesus, and the rabbi actually mentions Revelation in his responses to Justin.
2) Mark's Gospel, Romans, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Philemon.
Reasoning: Early tradition says that Mark died in Alexandria and Peter finished his Gospel, which was mostly derived from Peter's preaching anyway. This scenario, in great detail that I won't get into, also explains the varying lengths of the ends of Mark's Gospel. In any case, after travelling East, Final Mark would have been read at Rome very early, and some of Paul's "prison epistles" could have easily found their way to these assemblies, including by Onessimus' hand who lived there.
3) Matthew's Gospel, James, Hebrews, 1 and 2 Corinthians and (maybe) Galatians, 1 and 2 Peter.
Reasoning: Matthew's Gospel is the most Jewish, and quotes from Tanakh 128 times. Both James and Hebrews refer to Hebrew assemblies 'tribes scattered abroad". The locations match up with known synagogues where Paul could targum or have his work targummed from Aramaic into Greek. The areas of the exiles mentioned in these sources also have a high concordance geographically. James actually uses the work KNOOSHTA (synagogue) rather than "church". 1 Cor uses an Aramaic phrase to authenticate the mss (Maran atha) that surely most native Corinthians would not have understood. "Galatian" may in part also be a remez to the GALOOT, the Hebrew word for "exiles", although the spelling is not the same. 2 Peter also seems to imply that Paul's letters could have circulated substantially as we know them (whether ALL of them is a matter of debate but MANY of them is likely) a group along with 1/2 Peter, so that Peter's report to the assemblies assumes their knowledge of Paul's writings.
I could go on, but I think the point is made. It would take a very long time for even all 4 Gospels to be gathered together, and in the meantime various collections seemed suited for different assemblies in different locations.
But for the COE, Abdiabne was a kind of central meeting hub through which apostles and their associates passed through, and in that process, they dropped their mss off at the COE's door. When those original witnesses though all died off, the COE saw no need to accept future mss (even if it could be shown they were autographs) from second generation witnesses. Truth be told, if I were around back then, I would have acted in the same way. The best way to know I have the REAL Gospel of John is to talk to John who wrote it.
So by the middle of the 70's more than half these original witnesses were gone. That means guys like, Mattthew, Mark, Luke, James, Peter and Paul--about 17 NT books right there. Is it any wonder then that buy the end of the first century the COE's canon would have been just about a done deal, if not totally completed? That is why I put an approximate year of 80 CE as for when their canon probably closed, although the patriarchs of that day may well have had an open mind about the possibility of other books coming their way so long as say an apostle like John was still alive, and he died about the age of 100.
This may not seem ironclad to some, but I think it explains most of the evidence of what was left behind. I am writing for speed here though and give a lot more details in my books.
If I may weigh in here a bit. As Lamsa himself pointed out some 70 years ago, there were something like ten COE councils, and the thing to realize is that Scriptural books by title, author or number were NEVER part of those discussions. It didn't come up simply because they had always had that aspect taken care of from apostolic times. It is only in the West that we find the need to deliberate via Imperial edict what was in, what was out and why. Even there, the books we call "The Western 5" had a a tough time getting in, especially Revelation. But the 22 book canon of the East has NEVER had any serious opposition for any major assembly of believers, unless you count a few protests against the "too Jewish sounding" James and Hebrews--and in both cases those critics admitted to their "near universal reception".
Bottom line is this: The reason the east and west agree on the 22 is because their attestation and ancient custodial pedigrees are so strong in the first place.
When you explain these things the typical rebuttal is the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" idea. But I would argue that a written record of the COE's processes in developing NT canon has survived. It's called---The New Testament!
Within the NT's pages we learn about different early assemblies in Antioch, in Babylon and in Rome, among other places. We learn about where the disciples went or ministered to, and we get the manuscript tags that give more info as to who brought what letter to what assembly.
From my research using these clues and the most ancient and reliable eastern and western sources, we can kind of roughly figure out several clusters of NT books and where they could have come from. Here are some examples:
1) John's Gospel, 3 Epistles, Ephesians and (possibly) Revelation.
Reasoning: Long standing tradition in and out of the NT has the apostle living in Ephesus just before relocating to Patmos. Paul's letter to the Ephesians could hardly have escaped the apostle's notice as they circulated there right at the same time. Paul visited "pillars" in Jerusalem and elsewhere--why not John? The legendary debate between Justin Martyr and Rabbi Tarfon is said to have happened in Ephesus, and the rabbi actually mentions Revelation in his responses to Justin.
2) Mark's Gospel, Romans, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Philemon.
Reasoning: Early tradition says that Mark died in Alexandria and Peter finished his Gospel, which was mostly derived from Peter's preaching anyway. This scenario, in great detail that I won't get into, also explains the varying lengths of the ends of Mark's Gospel. In any case, after travelling East, Final Mark would have been read at Rome very early, and some of Paul's "prison epistles" could have easily found their way to these assemblies, including by Onessimus' hand who lived there.
3) Matthew's Gospel, James, Hebrews, 1 and 2 Corinthians and (maybe) Galatians, 1 and 2 Peter.
Reasoning: Matthew's Gospel is the most Jewish, and quotes from Tanakh 128 times. Both James and Hebrews refer to Hebrew assemblies 'tribes scattered abroad". The locations match up with known synagogues where Paul could targum or have his work targummed from Aramaic into Greek. The areas of the exiles mentioned in these sources also have a high concordance geographically. James actually uses the work KNOOSHTA (synagogue) rather than "church". 1 Cor uses an Aramaic phrase to authenticate the mss (Maran atha) that surely most native Corinthians would not have understood. "Galatian" may in part also be a remez to the GALOOT, the Hebrew word for "exiles", although the spelling is not the same. 2 Peter also seems to imply that Paul's letters could have circulated substantially as we know them (whether ALL of them is a matter of debate but MANY of them is likely) a group along with 1/2 Peter, so that Peter's report to the assemblies assumes their knowledge of Paul's writings.
I could go on, but I think the point is made. It would take a very long time for even all 4 Gospels to be gathered together, and in the meantime various collections seemed suited for different assemblies in different locations.
But for the COE, Abdiabne was a kind of central meeting hub through which apostles and their associates passed through, and in that process, they dropped their mss off at the COE's door. When those original witnesses though all died off, the COE saw no need to accept future mss (even if it could be shown they were autographs) from second generation witnesses. Truth be told, if I were around back then, I would have acted in the same way. The best way to know I have the REAL Gospel of John is to talk to John who wrote it.
So by the middle of the 70's more than half these original witnesses were gone. That means guys like, Mattthew, Mark, Luke, James, Peter and Paul--about 17 NT books right there. Is it any wonder then that buy the end of the first century the COE's canon would have been just about a done deal, if not totally completed? That is why I put an approximate year of 80 CE as for when their canon probably closed, although the patriarchs of that day may well have had an open mind about the possibility of other books coming their way so long as say an apostle like John was still alive, and he died about the age of 100.
This may not seem ironclad to some, but I think it explains most of the evidence of what was left behind. I am writing for speed here though and give a lot more details in my books.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Andrew Gabriel Roth