Bible Here a Little

Many believe our Bible was put together at the council of Carthage in 396 AD but there is internal and historical evidence the books of the New Testament were recognized much earlier. Catholics did struggle to make the Bible official in their body, but other groups recognized the books of the Bible quite early.

Some even claim it was made a book at Carthage, but Matthew refers to itself as a book from the beginning as does Revelation. These were individual books, but books nonetheless. Matthew 1:1-3 , Rev, 22:16-19 Some see the two book comments as the beginning and end of the New Testament, which is possible. I certainly see them as books individually.

Mat 1:1  The bookG976 of the generationG1078 of JesusG2424 Christ,G5547 the sonG5207 of David,G1138 the sonG5207 of Abraham.G11

Rev 22:18  ForG1063 I testifyG4828 unto every manG3956 that hearethG191 theG3588 wordsG3056 of theG3588 prophecyG4394 of thisG5127 book,G975 IfG1437 any manG5100 shall addG2007 untoG4314 these things,G5023 GodG2316 shall addG2007 untoG1909 himG846 theG3588 plaguesG4127 that are writtenG1125 inG1722 thisG5129 book:G975

Also, many have argued it was put into book form in 396, as a collection, but their collection came from previously held collections in various churches Tertullian, as an example, quoted from every book of the New Testament except two before 220 AD. The two not quoted from were not necessarily out of his view, they were simply not used in his writings. Thus the churches in North Africa had a good view of accepted scripture, though some deviated.

Polycarp also quoted from all the New Testament writings, showing his region of Asia had them. Plus, neither Tertullian nor Polycarp used Gnostic books.

The Muratorian Canon of 175 AD listed all but three, and two of those were quoted by Tertullian, so that we could say that only one book was not quoted by 220 in North Africa. Third John being the only one.

The Catholics had the greatest struggles, often leaving out books or adding Gnostic works to their list of authorized books. The Council of Carthage simply settled for themselves what the rest of Christianity already knew.

Origen around 250 showed that what was accepted in Egypt was not accepted in Palestine, so that most books were universally accepted but others partially so. When Origen moved from Alexandria to Palestine he found works such as the Shepherd of Hermas were not accepted, as well as  several other works like the Gospel of Peter. There were un-inspired Gospels floating around, even if sincere by writers, they weren't inspired of God. Even  when pretty close to accurate in many respects, they were not inspired.

When Origen gives his lists of authorized scripture we have to know if the writing was before or after his move to Palestine, because the move changed his mind, which also caused him to see the views of the school of Alexandria as less mature than other places.

Origen quoted a complete list of scripture before his death in 253/254 AD.

It is obvious why some books were rejected, the Muratorian Canon said the Shepherd of Hermas was written by a relative to a Bishop, thus not Apostolic. We can say of the Didache that it was outside the apostolic era, and later was listed as a work with later insertions concerning pouring water. The Revelation of Peter had distinct contradictions from other Gospels, such as Jesus rising the same day as his death.

The decisions to exclude some were not difficult.

Others listed the books even when not accepting them, thus we know they surely existed and were viewed as scripture by many churches. In those churches they were surely accepted. Thus when Athanasus gave his list after the council of Nicea, the evidence for differing lists had been circulated and was easily discoverable.

Keep in mind, scripture is scripture even before it is collected and made into a Canon. Paul's writing was recognized as scripture well before the Council of Carthage. So that writings do not become God's handy work because a council votes on them, but are God's inspiration the minute they are penned.

Noted Scholar FF Bruce used this view in his works,

The Canon of Scripture, then, is the list of writings delivered to us as the divinely inspired record of God’s self-revelation to men―that self-revelation of which Jesus Christ our Lord is the centre. The writings are not authoritative because they are included in the list; they are in the list because their authority has been recognized. For example, the oracles of the prophet Amos were stamped with divine authority as he uttered them in the name of Israel’s God. They were written down some time after they were spoken, and it was some time after that that they were included in the canon or list of prophetic writings. Divine authority comes first: canonicity follows authority and is dependent upon it. Similarly, the individual Epistles of Paul bore the stamp of divine authority because he wrote them as the apostle or plenipotentiary of the risen Christ: ‘the things which I write unto you’, he said, ‘are the commandments of the Lord’ (1 Cor. xiv. 37). But it was at a later time, and because of the authority which they already possessed, that these individual Epistles were included in the list of sacred writings.

It is up to man to accept what God has inspired. The Council of Carthage was just a statement of what they accepted and did not accept as a group. Just remember scripture is authorized by God immediately upon being written. Nor can we make it scripture by vote if it isn't inspired.

All scripture is inspired of God and useful...

It did not become useful when voted upon, but was useful the minute it was penned and sent to the recipient.

Timothy was aware of Matthew and Luke at a minimum during Paul's writing to him, as well as the rest of Paul's epistles.

They were scripture and useful before the council of Carthage. It wasn't the vote that made them useful.

Also, keep in mind the words of Isaiah 28 & 29, here a little, there a little, line upon line. The scriptures were written gradually as God decided. They did not become scripture when the last line was penned and voted on, but were scripture when written. The law was valid even before the prophets were written. The Gospels valid even before Paul wrote to any churches.

Isa 28:9  Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

Isa 28:10  For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Isa 28:11  For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

Isa 28:12  To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

Isa 28:13  But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

The Jews of Gospel times were accountable for not hearing the message that was connected with tongue speaking, thus accountable before the Council of Carthage, and before the New Testament was completely finished.

It seems God chose to do it this way to hold divisive Jews in a pestilent state. If God had given all at once he would have overcome their objections to Christ.

They were responsible for rejecting the lines partially delivered. They were speaking in tongues in Acts 2, and the people responsible for the prophecies quoted by Peter from the prophets in Acts 2. Peter's voice had the authority of Christ the moment it was spoken. His words continue to have authority as historical example and precedence through the scripture.

Thus, the partial lines of revelation were authoritative before the rest completed. Well before being voted upon. The Jews were held guilty based upon partial revelation. They had enough revelation to be held guilty, without God forcibly overcoming their bias with superior revelation.

Partial scripture is still scripture.