mountainman

Assuming we have authors in antiquity writing about the good news
why do you suppose the publication of the package now known as
the bible, consistent of the Hebrew Bible plus the New Testament,
was not enacted by someone before Constantine c.331 CE?

Dont you think 300 years is a little after-the-fact?

And even if you postulate gospels written as late as 131 CE,
that is still two centuries until someone formally publishes the
package texts of the new christian religion.

How is the delay to be explained?

mountainman

The following prenicene authors appear to have written
about christianity, and published their writings, but did
not consider it worthwhile to sponsor a publication of
the gospels in context with the Hebrew Bible.

Anyone like to take a guess why the job waited for
Constantine to do it c.331 CE?


Category (1): Christian "Bishops" (or Higher):

Jesus [0-33],
Barnabas [0-61],
Jude[0-60],
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter & Judas, etc[0-70],
Clement of Rome [18-98],
Ignatius of Antioch [40-117],
Polycarp [110-155],
Polycrates of Ephesus[130-196],
Pinytus of Crete[130-180],
Alexander (of Cappadocia,Jerusalem)[150-250],
Claudius Apollinaris [160-180],
Theophilus of Antioch [180-185],
Serapion of Antioch [200-210],
Cornelius (of Rome)[200-253],
Cyprian of Carthage [200-258],
Dionysius (of Alexandria) the Great[200-264],
Dionysius of Rome [210-268],
Gregory Thaumaturgus [212-275],
Anatolius of Laodicea in Syria[222-290],
Victorinus (bishop) of Petau[240-303],
Peter of Alexandria [250-311],
Phileas (Bishop) of Thmuis[250-307]


Category (2): Christian "apologist" (or greater) :

Papias [110-140]
Valentinus [120-160]
Apology of Aristides [120-130]
Apology of Quadratus of Athens [120-130]
Basilides [120-140]
Epiphanes On Righteousness [130-160]
Aristo of Pella [130-150]
Marcion [130-140]
Ophite Diagrams [130-160]
Minucius Felix [140-170]
Isidore [140-160]
Fronto [140-170]
Ptolemy [140-160]
Excerpts of Theodotus [150-180]
Heracleon [150-180]
Justin Martyr [150-160]
Martyrdom of Polycarp [150-160]
Octavius of Minucius Felix [160-250]
Julius Cassianus [160-180]
Apelles [160-180]
Hegesippus [165-175]
Dionysius of Corinth [165-175]
Lucian of Samosata [165-175]
Melito of Sardis [165-175]
Letter of Peter to Philip [170-220]
Irenaeus of Lyons [175-185]
Athenagoras of Athens [175-180]
Rhodon [175-185]
Theophilus of Caesarea [175-185]
Bardesanes [180-220]
Hippolytus of Rome [180-230]
Clement of Alexandria [182-202]
Maximus of Jerusalem [185-195]
Victor I [189-199]
Pantaenus [190-210]
Anonymous Anti-Montanist [193-0]
Tertullian [197-220]
Apollonius [200-210]
Caius [200-220]



Category (3): Christian "writer" (or greater) :

Quadratus [70-140]
Aristides the Philosopher [70-134]
Aquila of Sinope (of Pontus) [90-150]
Marcion of Sinope [110-160]
Apollinaris Claudius [120-180]
Diognetus [130-200]
Mathetes [130-200]
Tatian [135-185]
Saint Apollonius [136-186]
Agrippa Castor [140-0]
Julius Africanus [170-250]
Origen [185-254]
Novatian [201-258]
Hermias [210-280]
Malchion (of Antioch) [220-290]
Arnobius [245-305]
Methodius [250-311]
Pamphilus [250-309]

Johnny Skeptic

Regarding the New Testament, I believe that the correct answer is because New Testament writers did not have a clue that their writings would be chosen hundreds of years later to become the New Testament Canon, which is quite odd since if God inspired the writing of the New Testament, he probably would have told the writers that they were writing Scripture. There was certainly nothing to be gained from not telling them. In addition, Jesus never said that there would be a New Testament, nor did Paul or anyone else, at least as far as we know.

Of course, God doesn't really care about the New Testament Canon since hundreds of millions of people died without hearing the Gospel message because he refused to tell them about it. No rational being would tell his followers to spread his word and refuse to spread it himself. What would be the sense in that?

BALDUCCI

The original question is full of unfounded assumptions. The collection took place when there was a political imperative to make the collection, and at the conclusion of the political wrangling about which books would support the current power structure (which were called authentic) and which would not (which became apochryphal or heretical). It wasnt a theological process, although, just as today, theologians prostituted themselves to justify the political selection.

In addition, what remains extant or still to be discovered, is only a small remnant of what was written or the oral traditions that were circulated at the time. So (a) there wasnt a plan until the advantage of having a collection arose (and that was to do with the control of the colonies of the Roman Empire); and (b) not only were there probably far more authentic written documents that were lost or destroyed, but those that were finally included were heavily redacted, edited, changed etc to make them politically acceptable.

mountainman

Surely, each of these disparate writers would have possessed
and in some cases even themselves transmitted a reasonably
common Hebrew Bible (greek) text. Why did they not associate
their own new texts independently to the Hebrew texts by bound
publication before Constantine?

Did they not publish their own writings? We are lead to believe
that they were supposed to have done this. They may have
had disparate views, but why did lack of harmony prevent
the all important earliest publication date of good news?

Greek publications abounded in the Second Sophistic. Why didn't the
new greek good news get published as a package centuries before
Constantine did the job, even if it was a parochial binding?

Clouseau

Christianity was illegal until Constantine.

Clouseau

On the contrary, they knew very well exactly what they were writing, as can be seen from reading them (unless some smart guy is going to say that later insertion accounts for this). Peter described Paul's writing as Scripture, and Paul instructed that his letters be read to the churches, which was permitted only for Scripture.

mountainman

Since when did an "illegality issue" prevent underground
publications from being made by dissenters at any time?

This certainly could not be expected to explain the delay
in the complete publication of good news until Bullneck.

Clouseau

[QUOTE=mountainman;4519113]There can't have been anything official, can there. There were plenty of copies made, if that's what you mean. It's just that nobody was supposed to own up to owning one.

mountainman

Hey, we are told that there were "official churches" which were
serviced by "official popes", "official bishops", "official presbyters"
and "other church officials" for a long and continuous apostlic
succession all over the place in MiddleEarth. They were in fact,
we are lead to believe, associated with a large number of published
authors. (See the list above).

Why didn't these dudes do a full publication?
Why did it wait a long time for Constantine?