DrZoidberg

Well... The Old Testament creation was an extremely messy business. I think it's safe to say that all religion creation is a bottom up process that drew from a multitude of traditions and sources. Political leaders have been savvy in harnessing trends in religious belief... but I think trying to show that religions were created by any one group of people is a doomed project. I think it's like comedians. The successful comedians are the ones who say what people already are thinking. But if the people don't already believe it, and just haven't been able to put words on it, the comedian will flop. I think religion works the same way.

According to Karen Armstrong in the History of God, and Bart Ehrman in Lost Christianities, the Jews had quite a few Torah's floating around 0 AD. They didn't manage to agree on just one until sometime around 70 AD, and the revolt and fall of Masada, when the Jews managed to agree on much at all. Up until then Judaism didn't really have any orthodoxy... or rather... they were all orthodoxies. Ehrman's theory is that proto-Christianity was the second runner up as a choice for Jewish religious faith. It only evolved into modern Christianity after losing the battle for the Jewish hearts.

bacht

It's an interesting subject (and off-topic to this thread)

Josephus and the OT apocrypha like Maccabees claim that prior to the sale of the high priesthood away from Onias there was a stable Judaism in Judah. Soon after we get the Hasidim who split from the establishment, possibly starting the Qumran community.

Earlier there's the Samaritan Pentateuch, possibly pre-exilic, fairly close to the Tanakh version. The other thing I wonder about is the lack of polemic against idolatry after the exile: in the classical prophets it's everywhere, but Ezra/Nehemiah don't mention it, which is odd considering they were supposedly reviving the "old time religion" of Moses in a country recently depopulated of Jews. Malachi ignores the subject, focusing on the Jerusalem priesthood.

aa5874

There must have been orthodoxy in Judaism before 70 AD. Temple worship, sacrifices, feast days and circumcision and were all common long before 70 AD.

eccles

Well I have just downloaded a documentary by Dr. Zahi Hawass called the "Ten Greatest Discoveries in Egypt". The worker's villages have been found next to the Giza Pyramids and in the Valley of the Kings. All over these sites are pieces of stones about the size of one's hand with writing in Hieratic containing everyday details of work done and to be done. At Giza tombs have been found that were built by the workers for themselves. Some tombs are more elaborate than others and carvings in them show the names of the owners who were overseers.

Now how much stuff like this belonging to the Hebrews has been found? Why has the Ark of the Covenant and the Tablets with the Ten Commanments not been found. Have original Manuscripts of the Septuagint ever been found?Why have the original Manuscripts of the New Testament not been found - even parts of them.

Rev. Robert Tobin (Minister, First Church of Atheism)

Kapyong

Gday,

Yes.


Not a lot.
Most of the OT is obviously myth.

Same reason neither the Aegis nor the Golden Fleece have been found.


Not that I know of.


Because MSS tend to be lost or destroyed.


Not sure what your point is there, eccles :-)


Meanwhile -
have you checked up on the Council of Nicea yet?
Surely you've realised your error by now?


K.

eccles

Yes, and I know that there is much truth in what I have found, so may we, in a friendly way agree to disagree?

em hotep

Rev. Robert Tobin (Minister, First Church of Atheism)

Kapyong

Gday again,

Such as Constantine being British?
Hmmm?


But eccles, this isn't one of those things - it's not like "Does God exist?" or "is tea or coffee better?"
This is a fairly well-established historical issue.

Your claim is equivalent to :
"Jesus was only voted to be a God at Nicea" (false.)
"Mithras was born of a virgin on Dec. 25th" (false.)
It's a claim endlessly repeated, but not correct.


Now you've been posting for some years eccles, you should know that the claimant is expected to support the claim when challenged - at least if you want to look at all credible.

So, I did read your posts and your cites, and checked up elsewhere, and here is what I found :

* Your Catholic Encyclopedia article does NOT support your claim.

* Bushby's Nexus article does NOT support your claim.

* The canons of the Council does NOT support your claim.

* The Wiki article on Nicea does NOT support your claim.

* ntcanon.org does NOT support your claim

* Richard Carrier's "The Formation of the NT Canon" essay does NOT support your claim.

Furthermore, you cited the Constantine's contribution - but :
his 50 bibles were sponsored AFTER Nicea,
and they are DIFFERENT to our modern canon.


NOT ONE of the sources cited here agrees with you.

So I ask again - what is the evidence for your claim ?

Why do you believe the Council of Nicea chose the books of the NT?


K.

eccles

K,

I am not prepared to continue this "discussion" with you any more. How come two Aussies are arguing over a slliy book of fiction.. This is not the bible belt. Even Queensland where I live (not by choice) has lost most of that claim now that Joh is no long here. My father shanghied me up here 25 years ago so he could vote for Joh. I never did.

Have you read any of Michael Shermer's books? You might get a different outlook in belief in "God". Then you will realise what a waste of time religion is.

Over and Out.

"May your 'God' go with you"

Rev. Robert Tobin (Minister, First Church of Atheism)

mountainman

CARRIER's "Eusebius is either a liar or inept" supports the OP's claim.

The Constantine bibles did not differ in the majority of books
from the ones which are now still held to be modern "canon".
Do you need a hand to count them?

Here is a diagram of the process showing closure of the canon
in the fourth century:



(1a) - An epoch of 1st Century Apostolic Authorship.
(1b) - An epoch of 2nd Century Unknown Authorship.
(2) - An epoch of faithful preservation through to Nicaea.
(3) - An epoch of decisions and closure on the canon of the New Teatament
(4) - An epoch of faithful preservation of the canon to the present day.

It seems reasonably clear to any onlooker that Constantine and his editor
selected a canon and ran with it in the form of the 50 Constantine codices
but that after Constantine's death (perhaps poisoned by his brother on
account of his brutal execution of his son Crispus) other parties in power
within the Universal Church decided to remove a few books from the
Constantine codex and add a few more to it, according to how they
saw things in the mid to late fourth century.

Kapyong

Gday,

We are not arguing over the bible.
We are arguing a point of history.

You made a false claim, a well-known urban legend that is endlessly repeated by the poorly informed. 10 minutes research will show you are wrong, and your own sources do not support you.

Now you have shown you refuse to support your claims, and refuse to admit you are wrong.

So,
you have credibility here anymore at all.


You have no idea what my views of "God" are.
We have never discussed it.
I do not support religion.
I do not preach belief in "God"

I just like to check my facts -
and this particular error is one of the classic furphies of the internet - it shows you believe crackpot websites but never check actual sources.


K.