Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: JCBreckenridge
"Then provide evidence for an earlier version."

Oh, so if there's no evidence that means it impossible? All you can say is the Vulagate is the first you know of. Certainly all the current canon was established as early as the 39th festal letter which preceded the vulgate - whether anybody at that time bothered to sew them between two pieces of parchment at that time is completely immaterial.

149 posted on 07/14/2013 4:40:18 PM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies ]


To: circlecity

“Oh, so if there’s no evidence that means it impossible?”

It means that there’s zero evidence for your position.

Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are evidence in favor of my position and contrary to yours because they do not contain the NT canon as is used today. Nor do they agree with each other, despite both predating the Vulgate.

This is evidence that, as of the early 4th century, there did not exist a common canon. Additional evidence for this fact can be found in the writings of the Church fathers prior to the publication of the Vulgate.

So - where’s the evidence for your position? There is none.

Your position is false and contrary to the historical evidence that we possess.

“whether anybody at that time bothered to sew them between two pieces of parchment at that time is completely immaterial.”

Marcion certainly didn’t think so.


157 posted on 07/14/2013 4:44:31 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson