Oldest known Bible to go online

BBC World News ^ | 7 August 2005 | anon

[Captain Rhino]

The sentence is inaccurate, since, as you note, he did not convert until he was on his deathbed. But "deathbed conversions" were not that unusual in this period because of the belief that a last-minute profession of faith wiped away a preceding life of sin and one died with a clean soul (which made getting into Heaven a shoo-in). , There were also cases of suicide immediately following priestly confession during this early period for the same reason until the Church ruled suicide a mortal sin to stop the practice.

I suspect he was a hypocritical manipulator of the masses, but perhaps he simply didn't want to be dictated to by Church authorities during his worldly reign.

A review of his actions between the time he had his "vision" of the Cross (just before a critical battle) and his death would, I believe, show his favoritism was genuine. Under his reign, Christianity went from an openly persecuted religion to an officially tolerated religion (with prisoners released and church and individual property restored) to the official religion of the Roman Empire (all other religions banned). Making it the official state religion would have been hugely unpopular among the non-Christian population. The decision instantly made the Church an extremely important institution in Roman life. (Remember, this was in the days before movies and television. ;o) ) But it also made the Church directly dependent on and answerable to the state. Far from being dictated to by the Church, I suspect the Church may have not always welcomed his smothering embrace. As a parishioner, the Emperor was, as in all other aspects of Roman life, "first among equals." (Although by this late date, all references to the Roman Republic were simply illusary anyway.)

However this entanglement of church and state is something that is: 1) absolutely not unique to Christianity and 2) persists in the West until the Enlightenment of the 16th - 18th century period. So, even if he started it, he certainly was not responsible for its continuation.

[RaceBannon]

The King James, when first printed, contained the Apocrapha, also, but was later dropped because the Jews Themselves never considered the books to be genuinely the Bible, but history.

They were taken out of the King James in the 1700's for that reason, they are onl history accounts, not inspired books by the Holy Spirit.

[Desdemona]

I am interested in parts that have been left out - it mentions a part that is now apocrypha (doesn't that mean stories that aren't now considered bona fide?).

The Old Testament books that were in dispute, in the Cathlic lexicon the Deuterocanonicals (sp?), are the ones that did not originate in the Palestinian tradition of Judaism. They came from the Helenistic and North African traditions. St. Jerome - who stood alone at the councils of Hippo and Carthage on this - argued that the Palestinian Jews don't have them in their cannon, so the Church shouldn't either. Well, the Palestinian Jews didn't close their cannon until 100 AD. Why should the Christian world adhere to that? Jerome was living in Palestine at the time and that really factored into his thinking. He was very much persuaded by them. In contrast, St. Augustine, who had a much more level head and presided at both councils, pretty much led the group that used the full group of books (which was basically everybody else). As there was enough of a body of writings by the early church doctors (as we now know them) that demonstrated that the books were used, St. Jerome's arguments were pretty well deconstructed and he dropped his objections. It didn't hurt that St. Augustine had the pope on his side.

The Deurocanonicals in the New Testament are the ones that are almost never mentioned - Hebrews, Revelation, James, 2 Peter and 2&3 John. They were in dispute as well, but that never seems to come up.

Be careful with reading Catholic Bibles. Some of the translations are not quite kosher, if you will. I prefer the Douay-Rheims, which was translated a number of centuries ago. There are some beautiful things in Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) and Baruch. I actually like Wisdom as well.

[N. Theknow]

It's all Greek to me.

[AppyPappy]

How do you explain the removal of the Book of Thomas and the Book of Mary?

[wagglebee]

This must be the Bible that explains that Church traditions mean nothing and that everyone should just read and interpret the Bible for themselves. It also explains that the Pope is evil and that we should detest Mary. There is also a preface to the apocrypha that explains that they didn't really intend to include it and to just pretend it isn't there.

Yeah, I'm being sarcastic, I just couldn't resist.

[libstripper]

Gibbon notes Constantine's late conversion as being particularly convenient because he had one or two of his sons executed not long before he converted. The baptism washed away those sins and rendered him a new man, able to enter heaven without those sins inconveniently dragging him back to the other place.

[dljordan]

"They were taken out of the King James in the 1700's for that reason, they are onl history accounts, not inspired books by the Holy Spirit."

How do you tell if a book is inspired by the "Holy Spirit"?

[Cheverus]

I am also of the understanding that some Eastern Christian Bibles also contain a 3rd and 4th Maccabees. I don't know this for sure.

[Cheverus]

I actually have a Douay-Rheims (yes I am Catholic) myself, purchased from the Fraternity of St. Peter. Beautiful book with Morroccan Leather cover....every Bible, regardless of version, should be an piece of art.

[MississippiMan]

But in the long run it doesn't matter...the Holy Spirit comes through loud and clear.

EXACTLY. It's why the magical feel is there in scripture no matter the translation or version. It's far far more than text. It is the written manifestation of almighty God. In the beginning was the WORD.

MM

[A.A. Cunningham]

the Jews Themselves never considered the books to be genuinely the Bible

Your knowledge of history is deficient. Some Jews, largely those who rejected Christ. The Palestinian(Hebrew) Canon wasn't established at Jamnia until ~100 AD but the Christian Church was already using the Alexandrian translation of the Hebrew Bible, which dates from ~250-125 BC. The discovery of copies, written in Hebrew, of some of the Deuterocanonicals at Qumran renders moot many of the arguments for rejecting the Septuagint. Over 300 quotes in the New Testament are from the Septuagint, not the Palestinian Canon.

[iowamark]

Edward Gibbon "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" was strongly anti-Christian so we need to consider that bias in his comments.

He would fit right in in academia today!

[FatherofFive]

It's why the magical feel is there in scripture no matter the translation or version

The Mormons get the same "feeling in the belly" reading the Book of Mormon.

How do you know whats's inspired?

Where did the table of contents of the Bible come from?

[Dark Skies]

The Mormons get the same "feeling in the belly" reading the Book of Mormon.

How do you know whats's inspired?

You make a very interesting distinction. Off the top of my head, I would say that it isn't the belly that senses the Holy Spirit. It is the spirit of the sensing person.

I have strong gut reactions (that's a guy's way of defining intuition, I think), but it isn't my gut that hears the Holy Spirit. It is my conscience, my soul, my heart...my spirit.

I don't pretend to know the answer, but discernment is called for. I think a spiritual person has to sift and resift and resift all info until the HS emerges.

Just my humble opinion.

[G Larry]

>which includes books now regarded as apocrypha<

...by protestants, because Martin Luther found them inconvenient.

[Dark Skies]

.by protestants, because Martin Luther found them inconvenient.

I'm protestant and I have read them all and read the Book of Enoch at least once a month.

[RaceBannon]

It came from Faithful Jews, like PAul and Jude and James

[11th_VA]

...by protestants, because Martin Luther found them inconvenient

He even moved the book of James to the back of the Bible, and made some commentary about it's application in the preface ...

[FatherofFive]

It came from Faithful Jews, like PAul and Jude and James

Any details on how and when this happened? Any hisrorical evidence?