My bad, Randy. I quoted from your post, where you had quoted Mauialan, and that caused the hiccup.
No problem, Dave. Here’s a great novel I highly recommend…to everyone fascinated by “super geniuses”.
The book has been on my ‘to read’ list for a number of years now.
I don’t think it’s a matter of arrogance, but of common sense that the letter qualifies to be read in the churches.
Also those who made the decisions as to which writings would be included in the New Testament, made them in the fourth century when the church in the day was moving significantly form its pristine existence to an organized one, that gradually evolved into the “Catholic” church. There was also a lot of disagreement among the people who made those decisions.
Here is some very useful information on the development of the “canon of scripture”:
Thank you for referring me to the website containing valuable research into the canon. It is a fascinating topic and if nothing else has motivated me to reread 2nd Peter and 2nd and 3rd John in effort to discover why so many disputed their inclusion.
An excellent book by Bruce Metzger, “The Canon of the New Testament: It’s Origin, Development, and Significance” is worth a read. Fairly conservative, a bit technical but overall very approachable.
It was a eye-opener for me to learn how many various documents, local letters, ‘gospels’, epistles, temporary authorities etc. there actually were out there to be assessed, weighed, fought over. Interesting. In the long run the book left me with a cautious confidence in the ‘canonization’ process.
Yes, the early church wanted only writings written by the apostles to be read in the churches. To this day, 2nd Peter is believed not to have been written by the apostle Peter, and that the apostle John was not the author of 2nd and 3rd. John. This is my belief also.