Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ficino · 03-17-2013, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

A New New Testament: A Bible for the 21st Century Combining Traditional and Newly Discovered Texts (or via: amazon.co.uk)

He makes ahistorical claims about the canon process, omitting that Origen and the Muratorian Fragment suggest the current canon existed as early as the year 200. He privileges flimsy, moddish scholarship over centuries of church history.

The above is from one of the reviews Toto quoted in the OP. If it's true that Origen and the Muratorian Fragment suggest that the current NT canon existed as early as 200 CE, where does that leave the hypothesis that the epistles of Paul date to after 190?

ficino · 03-17-2013, 12:33 PM

Ah, scratch the above question. Origen's beliefs about the canon are known from Eusebius, and some people think the Muratorian Fragment is 4th century, so the evidence from around 200 cited in the review that Toto linked may well turn out to be only fourth century. And who knows the reliability of Eusebius on this point.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-17-2013, 12:33 PM	#12
ficino Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New York Posts: 252	Ah, scratch the above question. Origen's beliefs about the canon are known from Eusebius, and some people think the Muratorian Fragment is 4th century, so the evidence from around 200 cited in the review that Toto linked may well turn out to be only fourth century. And who knows the reliability of Eusebius on this point.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.