Executors and testators

I'm going to discuss some statements a Catholic commenter left on one of John Bugay's posts: 

erick
Sola Scriptura, in the way you describe it, may not be a self-contradiction, but it definitely lacks merit. In the first place, the NT canon is not apostolic in the sense that it was formed by the apostles themselves. 

i) It's true that the NT canon in toto wasn't compiled by the apostles. So what?

ii) As Stanley Porter has pointed out, Paul probably had a hand in compiling his own corpus. Ancient writers usually kept copies of their own letters. 

There were co-workers to the apostles which much later began to inter-communicate the gospels and epistles of Paul, with the other epistles, Revelation, etc. 

If they were coworkers, then in what sense did they do this "much later"?

In other words, Paul did not know whether his epistle to Laodicea or his preliminary epistle to Corinth would be inserted into what would later be called a NT Canon, something which he could not have possibly envisioned. For all he knew, his first epistle to Corinth, his epistle to Laodicea, or any of his other epistles were just as authoratative for the churches in question.

How is that relevant to anything?

 In fact, the church of Corinth, Laodicea, and any other church Paul planted or some of the other jewish missionaries planted were unaware of the NT canon for some time. For them, the spoken word of the apostles in conjunction with the Law, Prophets, and Psalms was the rule of faith. 

Actually, whatever NT writings existed at the time, whatever NT writings were available at the time, figured in the rule of faith.

We could go on and on, but the NT canon, as it is set in the 27 book organization, is not of apostolic origin in the sense that the apostles knew about them and formed them together. They are however apostolic in nature, but in different senses. So right off the bat, you have a fundamental dogma of Protestantism which came later than the apostles, but which is somehow the only rule of faith. 

Why does Erick think that's a significant observation? When people die, they leave things behind. For instance, many people draw up a will to dictate the dispersion of the estate. In the nature of the case, the testator is not the executor. For administration of the estate presumes the death of the testator. Someone other than the decedent must assume the role of executor. Indeed, that's often specified in the will. That's the point of a will: it's a legally binding document that enables a living testator to make decisions about how his estate will be managed and distributed after his demise. How is the posthumous compilation of the NT canon essentially different? 

You take the 27 books of the Canon, but you won't accept the message of the Christians who formed the 27 book canon. I am not talking about the councils of Hippo or Rome, I am talking about the early Christians who, much after the apostolic era, were able to copy and inter-communicate all of Paul's epistles that were binding, and the other books in the NT, to all the districts and locations of all the churches.

What's the message of anonymous scribes? Likewise, Paul had letter couriers. They were responsible for the initial distribution of his letters. But that's not in competition with his unique apostolic authority. 

What I think you are failing to realize is that as generations pass, in particular from the apostolic era to the immediate post-apostolic era, the original witnesses who can assure the origins of all the books of the 27 in the NT canon are no longer there to be living and contemporary proof, something which is needed for all future bickering and division. Who is to stand in judgement over the present state of affairs?

That's true of historical testimony generally. But why must there be "living and contemporary proof" over and above past testimony? Take Pliny the Younger on the volcanic cataclysm that destroyed Herculaneum and Pompei. How does the fact that he's dead render his historical record of the event suspect? Conversely, how does a modern living contemporary vouch for a past event? He didn't see it. He didn't live through it. 

Without an authoritative tradition, with the external human face along with it, you are allowing each successive generation to be depending on a weak system of knowing the truth in the present. 

Roman Catholicism has no "authoritative tradition" on the canon. On the eve of Trent, the bishops were divided on the scope of the canon. There were two competing traditions: Augustine and Jerome. 

Your historical evidence is the same sort which is used and debated over with many other ancient topics. I would not leave my faith in one of these categories.

Except that as a Roman Catholic, he can't avoid sifting historical evidence. Take claims of Roman primacy. That's a historical claim that relies on historical evidence, or the lack thereof. Same thing with apostolic succession. 

In the first place, you seem to be indicating the God's sovereignty protected the canonical writings for his elect throughout the world. This always seem to ground some of the relief when things get a bit shaky in the historical journey. The problem is the following: How could God fool His beloved children for 2,000 years on which books go into the NT? 

By that logic, God was fooling the Roman Magisterium. Consider all those Roman bishops throughout the centuries leading up to Trent who agreed with Jerome on the scope of the OT canon. 

Keep in mind, too, that Trent canonized books of Scripture based on traditional ascriptions of authorship. But that's no longer a given in contemporary Catholic scholarship. 

Understand that the 27 book Canon, and the 22 book (post-temple Judaism) was not held in consensus throughout the district of local churches. I think you are well aware of that. Many of God's beloved were quoting from Baruch, but not from Maccabees, and from Wisdom, but not another.

And it what sense are the Tridentine Fathers living witnesses to the OT canon? By his own yardstick, Roman bishops aren't the original witnesses who can assure the origins of the OT books. So they have no inside knowledge of the process. No special expertise. They are in the same boat as the benighted Protestants. 

Not to mention that the LXX included the deutero-Canon, and of which Paul freely quoted.

Of course, that's anachronistic. It fails to distinguish between extant editions in Paul's time and later editions produced by the gentile church.