Posted on 03/27/2015 3:11:53 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Moving back from the Theodosian Code, which stated the scriptures they believed to be heretical, back to the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., which decreed that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were to be in the fixed New Testament Canon of scripture, and back to earlier dates we find the following:
A.) The Clermont List - a codex which embraced the Canon as it existed in Egypt (i.e. Alexandria) c.300 A.D.
It lists the New Testament books which are the same as ours except that the Gospels are listed Matthew, Mark, Luke (the apostolic authors coming first); then the Letters of Paul, save that Philippians, I-II Thessalonians, and Hebrews; the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepard of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, and the Revelation of Peter are included.
B.) The Muratorian Fragment, which reflects the church of Rome in 180 A.D.:
It is incomplete, and lists our New Testament, with the following exceptions: Hebrews, James, I-II Peter, and III John are lacking; but the Revelation of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon are included; the Shepard of Hermas may be read but not at public worship.
Were each of those in the aforementioned inspired by God? did God inspire the compilation of each or neither of them?
How so, if A and B contains at least one book deemed by Catholics, Protestants, and Coptics as not being inspired by God (i.e. inspired scripture)? Which one carried the true inspiration from God for compilation?
Secondly, the three earliest Greek manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus) from the 4th and 5th centuries, contains at least one book that Catholics, Protestants, and Coptics do not believe to be inspired scripture. Which one was the one Codex of those three that carried true inspiration from God for compilation?
People today have the hindsight to say that God has preserved the Bible and preserves His own, but how could this modern perspective have helped them then? Who determined what was the fixed Canon from A.D. 95 (the death of the Apostle John) to 180 A.D.?
Did the men and councils at 180 A.D. and from 180 A.D. onward possess inspiration in placing the 27 NT and 39 OT books to be bound together?
If so, was this inspiration equal to inspired scripture?
If not, and inspired scripture is without error, then that would account for...
1.) The oldest Greek manuscripts (Codex A, S and B) each having at least one book that is not considered to be inspired scripture by Protestants, Catholics and Coptics and that would account for
2.) the Clermont List and the Muratorian fragment having books that Protestants, Catholics and Coptics do not consider to be inspired scripture.
God did not send down a note attached to 27 NT and 39 OT books saying, “Here are your inspired books to read.” men put them together, but can men become Absolute Beings when doing so if there is no inspiration in compilation. But if there is inspiration in compiling, then how do we account for 1.) and 2.)?
There have been men and councils throughout history who have acted as if they ascended to the level of Absolute Being when deciding which inspired books to place within their respectice Canons.
The Muratorian fragment (180 A.D.) and Clermont List (300 A.D.) each has books that Protestants, Catholics and Coptics do not consider to be inspired and the oldest Greek Manuscripts (Codex A, S and B (Vaticanus)) each has books that Protestants, Catholics and Coptics do not consider to be inspired scripture.
If none of theses compilations of scripture got it right and this has occurred throughout the second, third, fourth and fifth centuries then what stock can we place now if they weren’t divine enough to ascend to infinite perfection when deciding what books to place within the canon.
Yes, there is inspired scripture , but we can see from these Codices, the List and the Fragment, that there does not appear to be equal inspiration in organizing/compiling scriptures together.
Researchers at MIT and the Smithsonian who have used a plethora of methods, analysis and so on to fix the 4 Gospels in the first century show that 2nd Peter, 1 2 and 3 John and others were apparently not written in the first century but were in the Johannian school of thought and one in line with Peter’s thought in the second century - the same for Jude and some others, too.
Yes, I believe in inspired scripture, but I am still looking for men and councils who had inspiration equal to that level of inspired scripture.
I have found none. There are none.
No man or men or council can become Absolute Beings and with Absolute Certainty compile books together - and we can see this with the oldest available Codices (Codex A, S and B) and the Clermont List and Muratorian fragment.
And no note has ever been sent down by God attached to a compilation saying, “Here is your inspired List and Codex.”
We have relied on men and they failed us.
The men who wrote inspired scripture didn’t fail, but those attempting to decide what books to bind together failed us even as early as 180 A.D and in 300 A.D and with the earliest available Greek manuscripts left today - Codex A, S and B (Vaticanus).
If only those in the Apostolic Age had formally as books were being written and decided which OT and NT books were and weren’t meant to be bound together...
Could you please explain then the errors found in the Clermont List c.300 A.D. (Acts of Paul, Revelation of Peter) and the even earlier Muratorian Fragment 180 A.D. (Revelation of Peter)?
The earliest available Codices and these two all contain books that neither Catholics, Protestants and Coptics believe to be inspired scripture.
God did not send down a note saying “Bind these books together, but not these books” and we can see the result.
No man has been able to reach the level of Absolute Being when compiling books to be bound together and we can see the result.
Yes, I believe in inspired scripture but no man or council has inspiration of compilation.
That would seem to make sense (although to me there is a difference between being an inspired author of Scripture, and of having authority through a separate and lesser charism to recognize inspired Scripture already written). If you follow your logic through, however, you have to arrive at the conclusion that NOBODY has the authority to define what books are inspired and which aren't. Everyone, in theory, could make their own canon. If I don't like what's in your canon or you don't like what's in mine, we can legitimately and without sin ignore each other when we cite "Scripture" on any issue. In short, if there is no person or persons that at some point could have the authority to define the canon, then God did not--could not-- give to man a definitive body of inspired writing.
Copies and translations were not made from quotes or sermons but from earlier copies going back to the originals.
And you would be hard-pressed to find enough quotes from the first 75 years of the second century to accomplish what you say perhaps could be accomplished.
In the end, God did not send down a note saying “Bind these books together but not these books” and we can see the result of this with Codex A, S and B (Vaticanus) and with the Clermont List and even earlier Muratorian fragment as all contain at least one book that neither Catholics, Protestants or Coptics believe to be inspired by God.
Simple. Throughout history there have been people who tried to make a buck by writing their own versions of the Bible.
Many of these so-called “ACTS of Whoever” and Gospels of Whatzis name” are exactly this.
Think of the modern book of mormon, Uranta, Ohasphe, Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the 29th chapter of ACTs as examples.
There have been men and councils throughout history who have acted as if they ascended to the level of Absolute Being when deciding which inspired books to place within their respectice Canons
not sure what the above means, but the Christian Faith is a revealed Faith, no one can come to the truth unless the Holy Spirit leads them to that truth and to the one who is truth itself, the Lord Jesus Christ.
how does the Holy Spirit work to lead men to truth?
thru and by the Apostles and men who had hands laid on them by the Apostles, namely the bishops of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
individual Christians may have had “canons” at various points in time, but once the Church spoke in the 4th century, individual judgement was over.
Jesus Himself gave this authority as recorded in Matthew 28, and using it to settle doctrinal disputes does not equate to them “acting as if they ascended to the level of Absolute Being”.
Did the men and councils at 180 A.D. and from 180 A.D. onward possess inspiration in placing the 27 NT and 39 OT books to be bound together
no Bible contained only 66 books until the 16th century when 7 books of the OT contained in the Greek Septuigant were thrown out.
There were a number of competing canons in the first century AD, ranging from the Sadducees' canon (which was just the 5 books of the Torah) to the Septuagint canon (46 books). There was vigorous debate between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel over the Chronicles and the Song of Songs, and so forth. A twenty-four book canon is mentioned in the Midrash Koheleth.
It's a reasonable inference from evidence that Jesus and His Apostles accepted the full Septuagint canon (46 books), since 85% of the OT verses quoted in the NT are quoted directly from the Septuagint.
Consider the anti-Messianic faction of the Jews led by Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai in the first century AD. After the Temple was destroyed they were facing an existential threat, being increasingly challenged by the growing Messianic (Christian) movement. Whether at a hypothetical Jewish Council of Yavneh/Jamnia or elsewhere, Yohanan ben Zakkai and his Halachic School eventually came up with their own OT canon (an anti-Messianic canon) sometime between 90 AD and 100 AD.
This scaled-down canon included 39 books and excluded 34 books. All of excluded books were written in Greek: the 7 Deutercanonicals plus the 27 books we now know as the New Testament. (Whether John 1, 2, 3 and Revelation had been written yet I do not know, but I am including them in the count because they were all excluded by the circa 90 AD rabbinical reaction against Christianity.)
They excluded these books because they supported so directly to the beliefs and practices of the rival Christian community.
The limitation of the TaNaKh to the 39 Hebrew manuscripts, while accepted by the anti-Messianic Jews (Ben Zakkai) was not accepted by the pro-Messianic Jews (Christians) nor by the Gentile converts to the Christian faith.
The Masoretic Text, a very late development, was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries AD. --- it's the authoritative Hebrew text of the Tanakh for Rabbinic Judaism today, as well as for most of the Protestants.
The bottom line is really what St. Jerome (translator of the Vulgate) said about his final, 46-book OT Canon: "What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches?"(Against Rufinius 11:33, A.D. 401). "The judgment of the churches." That means he was going beyond his own individual opinion, going beyond the halachic opinion of rabbis who didn't believe in Christ, and going instead with the consensus of the churches who had received the Scriptures from the Apostles, and from the successors of the Apostles, for their liturgical proclamation.
In other words, Jerome could go forward with
He could choose his own self, the Pharisaical-rabbinical tradition, or the Christian tradition. He went with the Christian tradition.
That was the ultimate source of the canon --- the churches' actual liturgical practice (Lex oreandi, lex credendi") which was handed down to them from the Apostles, presumably under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Christ said (John 16:13) "When the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth." Christ, through the Holy Spirit, through the processes of history, established and protected the canon via the practice of the churches, ratified by Church councils.
St. Jerome (ca 401 AD) finally decided to abide by the Christian Councils. The Reformation-era Bible publishers (16th-17th century) decided to abide by the Rabbinical Councils. I would argue that Jerome made the better choice.
And yes, the Church would necessarily have infallible authority over this.
I rest my case.
Sorry for all the typos. I’m sleepy.
I’m no expert in Christianese. I don’t need a doctorate in theology to have a retationship with Christ...some of the rudest Christians I’ve ever met do though. Think its the forest for the trees type of thing with them....
Only God is an Absolute Being and can make Absolute Decisions for others. Since man is not Absolute Being he cannot make Absolute Decision for others, not can ant man or council prove that they have made an Absolutely Correct rendering of what goes in and what goes out.
IOW, no council or decree from any man is binding or can be proven to be Absolutely worthy of being the Absolute Truth.
Yes, I personally believe the 27 NT and 39 OT scriptures are inspired, but it is not up to me or anyone else or a council or Jerome to hold up a set of scriptures and say “Here are your inspired scriptures to go by, saints and heretics alike!”
The Protestant Bible has 66 books. It once had 73. The Roman Catholic Bible has 73, but the Ethiopic Bible has 81 and the Greek Orthodox Bible apparently has a few more books they accept as being genuine than Roman Catholics do.
In the end, there are many Bibles, but as the scriptures say, there is “One Lord [Jesus Christ], one faith [in Jesuys Christ as savior] ... one God and Father of all.”
As long as one puts their faith and trust in Jesus it really doesn’t matter what Bible above you believe in, or if one decides to go back and add a book, say the Revelation of Peter, which was universally accepted in the churches at one time.
If they accepted this book back then and made it to heaven, then does it really matter if you go with the Protestant bible, the Roman Catholic, the Greek orthodox or the Ethiopic Bible or add something else that is innocuous (like the Revelation of Peter) as long as you fix you faith, trust and hope in Jesus? No, it doesn’t.
If each of these has a different Bible then who am I to say to someone if they also go with one of these or go along with one of theses along with the Revelation of Peter, shown above to be universally accepted in ancient times.
BTW, I don’t personally believe that the Revelation of Peter is inspired.
I rest my case as well...
As to Matthew 28, that scripture is obviously interpreted in some other way with the Greek orthodox or the Ethiopic Church which has more books in their Bibles than say the Roman Catholic Canon.
Yes, the Holy Spirit leads men to truth, but no man can say they are the Holy Spirit, and thus someone or a council saying the Holy Spirit said such and such to them doesn’t prove the Holy Spirit is speaking through them.
This kind of authority ended with the Original Apostles who actually wrote scripture. The authority derived having written inspired scripture is the only authority strong enough to actually decide which canon is correct.
They didn’t declare by 100 Ad (death of the last Apostle, John) which canon is correct, and thus we all have to decide for ourselves what is the true canon as none of us is God, none of us then is an Absolute Being, and none of us (be it an individual person or a council) can decide with Absolute Precision what is Absolute Truth for others.
Fine then, arise to the level of Absoluteness and send down a note telling us what scriptures are authoritative then.
God gave authority to the Original Apostles but they did not leave us a note telling us by AD 100(The death of John) what was to go in the canon and what was to be left out.” And a person telling another person telling another person stretching back supposedly to the Apostles apparently didn’t work out too well, as the Clermont List, The Muratorian fragment, the three most ancient Codices we have left to us today are all different from each other.
In the end, there are indeed many Bibles (Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Ethiopic and Protestant) but as long as one puts their faith in Jesus, it really doesn’t matter which of the aforementioned Bibles one adheres to.
As the scriptures say “One Lord [Jesus Christ], one faith [in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord] ... one God and Father of all.”
Many Bibles, but one Lord and one faith... Put your faith in Jesus and you’ll make it.
So are people today trying to make a buck by saying their Bible (be it the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Ethiopic, or KJV) is the true Bible?
Sure millions of Christians wouldn’t do this, right?
Go back and read #28. It is referring to those who write fake books to make money, not those who print and reprint the real translations of the Greek, Latin, and Coptic texts.
Think of the books of Elizabeth Clare Prophet and her ascended masters nonsense.
As for BIBLES, THIS is what the KJV Translatora to the Readers has to say about many translations...
http://avbtab.org/av/avPre.htm
§ 13 [An answer to the imputations of our adversaries.]
• 1 Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession,....... containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.
• 2 As the King’s Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.
********
• 10 The like we are to think of translations.
• 11 The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it?
• 12 Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Hierome and the most learned men to confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the Word of God.
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.