The New Testament Canon and The Book of Revelation

A Final Consensus?
Many people imagine that the canon, in the end, was decided by a vote at one of the major church councils, such as the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE But the question of the canon was not even on the agenda at Nicaea, or at any of the other major church councils.
Nor was the canon decided by a highly placed authority, for example a Pope or an Emperor (certainly not Constantine, who, so far as we know, who apparently never gave the matter a single thought). In fact, the canon never was “officially” decided at all – at least until long after it was a fait accompli. Apart from some minor church synods early on, no decisions were officially rendered until the counter-Reformation Council of Trent.
The creation of a new canon of Scripture played a major role in the history of the Christian tradition. For one thing, it circumscribed the options available to believers for what to believe and how to practice the faith. Certain theological views, behaviors, and rituals were ruled out of course – or at least made extremely difficult to promote — given the perspectives firmly embedded in a set of authoritative texts. It became very hard indeed to argue that there was more than one God, that Jesus was not human or not divine, that sexual license was permitted, or that women could become bishops. Since even divinely inspired texts have to be interpreted, of course, they can be understood in a wide variety of ways, and readers can always promote views that seem to run counter to what the words of a text actually say. But on the whole, views endorsed by second- and third-century Gnostics, Marcionites, Ebionites, and others came to be thought heretical based on the authoritative texts of Scripture. To that extent, the creation of the canon was a magnificent success for orthodox church leaders.

But even canon books express different perspectives on major issues. Somewhat ironically, by putting all the books into the same canon, this diversity was not celebrated but tamed. All the books were read as if they were parts of one book – and therefore internally consistent.

The historical reality is that not even orthodox Christianity was ever a monolith. From earliest times it came in various forms, different authors promoting a variety of theological, practical, and ethical views within an acceptable range of options. But “acceptable” options were not always consistent with one another. There are four Gospels, each presenting a different understanding of Jesus’ words and deeds. The thirteen letters assigned to Paul contain inconsistencies and incoherencies (especially between the ones he actually wrote and those produced in his name later by others). The alleged writings of James, Peter, John, and Jude also present distinctive messages, sometimes at odds with the others.

https://ehrmanblog.org/when-did-we-get-the-final-canon-of-the-new-testament/

The process of canonization was relatively long and remarkably flexible and detached; various books in use were recognized as inspired, but the Church Fathers noted, without embarrassment or criticism, how some held certain books to be canonical and others did not. Emerging Christianity assumed that through the Spirit the selection of canonical books was “certain” enough for the needs of the church. Inspiration, it is to be stressed, was neither a divisive nor a decisive criterion. Only when the canon had become self-evident was it argued that inspiration and canonicity coincided, and this coincidence became the presupposition of Protestant orthodoxy (e.g., the authority of the Bible through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit).
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/newtestament.html
The need for consolidation and delimitation
Viewed both phenomenologically and practically, the canon had to be consolidated and delimited. Seen historically, however, there were a number of reasons that forced the issue of limiting the canon. Oral tradition had begun to deteriorate in post-apostolic times, partly because many or most of the eyewitnesses to the earliest events of Jesus’ life and death and the beginning of the church had died. Also, the oral tradition may simply have suffered in transmission. Papias (died c. 130), a bishop of Hieropolis, in Asia Minor, was said by Irenaeus (died c. 200), a bishop of Lugdunum (now Lyon, France) to have been an eyewitness of the Apostle John. Papias had said, “For I did not suppose that the things from the books would aid me so much as the things from the living and continuing voice.” Eusebius (c. 260–c. 340), a church historian, reported these comments in his Ecclesiastical History and pointed out inconsistencies in Papias’ recollections, doubted his understanding, and called him “a man of exceedingly small intelligence.” Large sections of oral tradition, however, which were probably translated in part from Aramaic before being written down in Greek

Видео The New Testament Canon and The Book of Revelation канала Wrestling with God