***If a book exists, does that make it all true, some true, or untrue? For example we have fragments of some 60 Gospels; and references only to 20 more. That does not prove their worth
Mark, Mr. Rogers’s own link shows it wasn’t 80% but 54%. Hardly something “complete.” besides, that figure inbckludes the 4th century, post Nicene sources, which is wrong to lump together with the 3rd century pre-Nicene sources. When one factors out the 4th century mnuscirpts, the percentage of “complete” Bible books is even less than 54%! But, we knew all that already!***
Mr Rogers just gave us 98%. Very sporting of him
***The various canons reflected individual bishop’s beliefs. Origen, for example, had many gnostic books in his repertoire, beside the pretty much same NT books as _Irenaeus of Lyons. But their theology was like night and day.
While Origen did come up with many orthodox teachings and is even credited to be the first to call Mary the Theotokos, his nearly complete collection of NT books didn’t stop him from advancing the gnostic ideas of universal salvation or the pre existence of the souls. Those gnostic books in his canon were not there by accident or a collector’s items, as Mr. Rogers seems to suggest. They reflected what Origen believed.
Likewise, Eusebius, the first Church historian and a bishop of Cesarea, advance (together with Orgien) a three-tier approach to scripture which was rejected by +Athansius of Alexandria and the rest of the Church.***
That is because there is confusion on the Protestant side about opinion versus the consensus patrem. Individuals may hold beliefs (which are then bruited about at odd times during various debates) which are then ruled upon by the Church. Anti Catholic debaters often use this tactic. The Augustinian appeal is often used when quoting his non Catholic periods.
***How do we know Mark 16 of a church in Asia Minor, and a church in Iberia said the same thing in ever verse? We don’t! But we do know that same-name books existed with different verses in them.
Biblical criticism isn’t really criticism at all. In most cases, it is an attempt by religious researches to create a rosy picture of a harmonized scripture so as to increase confidence in it through scientific method.
In reality, these biblical “scientists” invent methods to obfuscate the real picture by drawing up misleading charts and lists, and leaving out crucial information, not to talk about exaggerating percentage, etc.
In short: highly unreliable and always wearing blinders.***
The Bible study practiced by those without Magisterial understanding come up with increasingly novel theologies based upon exactly the minor disagreements exhibited going from Scripture to Scripture. It took the Church to harmonize the Bible; else we wind up with such as the JWs, using quite a lot of Scriptural reference, taken out of the Church context, of course.
Excellent observation! Theologoumena (hypothesis) was always allowed , but was not taken for dogma. Dogmatic pronouncements had to meet the consensus patrum standard, i.e. the consent of the Church as a whole.
It took the Church to harmonize the Bible
Yes, and it took the Church 292 years after Christ to codify what it did not believe and to reject it as heresy. And it took another 71 years for the Church (in the West) to agree on which books of various codices used by different churches were inspired and which profane. We are talking 363 years in all, and even then the East listed the Book of Revelation as questionable (along with Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas) into the 9th century!
All evidence shows that the Church had a myriad of beliefs up until the First Nicene Council and even beyond. And evidence also shows that either not all Gospels of Matthew were identical, and doctrinally acceptable, or that much of the New Testament had to be brought into doctrinal compliance of the post-Nicene period.
The fact that all surviving copies are "dcotrinaslly agreeable" doesn't mean such agreement miraculously existed across the spectrum. Indirect evidence shows that not all book of the NT met doctrinal standard and that for unknown reasons such books no longer exist.