Posted on 11/01/2011 6:08:48 PM PDT by rzman21
You are also correct that the OT canon was already decided by the 3rd century BC in the form of the Septuagint
Rather, the Church was what decided canon -- you can correctly say that the "major" books like the Gospels, most Epistles etc were already decided and that is true, but there were other canons -- as I pointed out, the canon was not "well known" in its entirety before "any Council said anything" -- note "in its entirety" -- there were canons created like Marcions which just included 10 Pauline Epistles, the Gospel of Luke (rather an edited version called the Gospel of Marcion) in 140 AD -- but you and I wouldn't accept that canon today
Though the Pauline Epistles were circulating freely, not all were considered scripture by all. The Gospels on the other hand were pretty unanimously accepted.
The next "canon" was Origen's which had all the books which we have now except for James, 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John and it had the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture.
In fact in the first few centuries there were disputes about the letter to the Hebrews as well
only in council was canon closed -- the councils were inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so.
“olofob, Mr Rogers — do we really want to argue about that topic on this thread? I’m sure we all disagree with philosophy on that website, lets not give it a fillup. “
I posted to show the topic of this thread was ridiculous. Luther had his faults, as all men do. His translation certainly had errors, because every translation has errors - they are made by men. I’m sure the translators of the New American Bible would agree their translation isn’t perfect, but it certainly is much better than no translation at all.
The exception to that statement would be intentional errors, where an attempt is made to change the meaning to deceive people about the content. Those who do that will be judged by God.
Luther translated the New Testament very fast, and very well, all things considered.
“With eleven months on his hands and nothing to do, Luther studied and wrote prodigiously. He completed a translation of the New Testament from the original Greek in a mere four months between November of 1521 and March of 1522. After his release, he extensively revised it with the help of the learned Philip Melancthon, his friend and co-worker throughout the time of the Reformation.
The New Testament was released September 21, 1522, and a second edition was produced the same December...
...Martin Luther was not a great scholar of Hebrew and Greek. As said, he relied for help there from Melancthon.
He was, however, a master of his native language, and he proved himself devoted to the task of producing a powerful translation...”
http://www.christian-history.org/martin-luther-bible.html
If someone believes common people ought to be able to read God’s Word, then they ought to thank God for what Luther did. If they believe most men should not know God’s Word, then they would naturally hate what Luther did.
The 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367 CE)
... Continuing, I must without hesitation mention the scriptures of the New Testament; they are the following: the four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, after them the Acts of the Apostles and the seven so-called catholic epistles of the apostles -- namely, one of James, two of Peter, then three of John and after these one of Jude. In addition there are fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul written in the following order: the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians and then after these the one to the Galatians, following it the one to the Ephesians, thereafter the one to the Philippians and the one to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians and the epistle to the Hebrews and then immediately two to Timothy , one to Titus and lastly the one to Philemon. Yet further the Revelation of John
These are the springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself with the words contained in them. In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them...
But for the sake of greater accuracy I add, being constrained to write, that there are also other books besides these, which have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and which to be instructed in the doctrine of piety: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Teaching [Didache] of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. And although, beloved, the former are in the canon and the latter serve as reading matter, yet mention is nowhere made of the apocrypha; rather they are a fabrication of the heretics, who write them down when it pleases them and generously assign to them an early date of composition in order that they may be able to draw upon them as supposedly ancient writings and have in them occasion to deceive the guileless.
The canon was well established prior to the council that catholics suppose established the canon. Athanasius' list was known well before 367.
A good link for NT canon development is
http://www.ntcanon.org/
I agree
But your post contains one error imho - "He was, however, a master of his native language," -- imho Luther codified the modern German language as we know it, so he was more than a master of his native language
Actually to be precise it was Marcion in 146 AD — only we reject his canon which tossed out the OT completely
rzman21 wrote:
“Luther’s doctoral education was the equivalent of a modern junior high student.”
Your ignorance both of the 16th and the 21st century is stunning. That you would publicly display such ignorance is breathtaking.
I didn’t think Marcion included all the books. I believe he left out John’s writings, Peter and even a couple of Paul’s.
The question raised was who killed William Tyndale. And the answer is NOT King Henry VIII.
Tyndale was executed for heresy, after being found guilty by the Catholic Church:
http://www.tyndale.org/Reformation/1/wilkinson.html
Henry VIII had a problem with Tyndale’s and Luther’s theology, but the King “enjoyed” Tyndale’s ‘The Obedience of a Christian Man’ for obvious reasons.
If Tyndale lived after the Act of Six Articles passed (Henry VIII still held onto certain Roman Catholic dogmas), he probably would have suffered the same fate as Anne Askew and other high profile radical Protestant reformers for denying transubstantiation along with the ritual of the Mass.
Matthew 28:1 should clear up your theological errors on this matter. Please let me know if you have additional questions. May God bless you.
This was the earliest "canon"
I apologize for that. Luther’s intelligence is one thing we can both agree on — we may disagree on a whole lot else, not the least being Luther’s interpretation, but there is no doubt that he was a diligent scholar.
Perhaps it is you who are confused. In the beginning was the Word, but the Bible is not God and God is not the Bible. It is an inspired and inerrant book. It is not to be worshiped ads so many Protestants imply.
To your point, there were inspired works before Jesus commissioned Peter the first pope. These included the Deuterocanonicals which are quoted frequently in the New Testament, but were rejected by Protestantism. These also include the Old Testament of which there were at least four different Jewish Canons before Peter; the Sadducee Canon, the Pharisee Canon, the Essene Canon, and the Septuagint which was the canon used by the Jews outside of Palestine at a time when there were more Jews outside of Palestine than in it.
There were certainly many more inspired writings contemporaneous to the the New Testament that did not meet the standard of Canon because they were not deemed to be completely inerrant.
Seriously, I always thought when two people come to a mutual agreement to “agree to disagree and leave it at that”/i>, the discussion was done.
Cronos, you have nothing to apologize for in this matter. Certainly not as far as I am concerned. I look forward to further conversations with you.
The problem to which you refer, however, is another matter. It is either a case of true ignorance or lack of self-control. In either case it would be pointless to continue conversation.
Tyndale wasn’t in England. He wasn’t under Henry VIII.
But I’m sure Bloody Mary would have executed him ASAP, had he lived and been in England during her reign.
“These included the Deuterocanonicals which are quoted frequently in the New Testament, but were rejected by Protestantism.”
Really? Where does it say, “It is written...” followed by a quote from the Apocrypha?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.