mountainman

Here's some more relevant stuff:

http://kjv.benabraham.com/html/section_-_v.html




Pete Brown

Roger Pearse

Have a read of what I wrote about this, as it should explain why I (like most people) treat the 'burden of proof' business as an excuse.

I agree. But conversely the same applies to those who say that it did not. It isn't enough to say that we may deny whatever we like and then expect others to show that we are wrong, surely?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ruhan

I hear what you are saying but the problem with this logic is that I would have to be able to prove every negative statement that I claim to believe. In essence you would have to prove that the council of Nicea did not have a hand in the canonization process. This is impossible as it's always impossible to prove a negative. There are simply too many variables.

Having said that, we could accept a certain position as being the probable solution. We have no evidence for the existence of a deity and nothing of a spiritual nature has ever been reproduced under controlled circumstances. Thus the most probable scenario is that spirits or deities do not exist. That is not evidence for the non-existence of god but it's a logical conclusion based on the evidence before us.

This is why all historians work with this principle and why we cannot logically accept the notion that the council of Nicea was involved unless some new evidence is produced.


No, but we can say that there simply is no evidence to prove any involvement and thus we have to accept that there was none, unless new evidence comes to light.

Regards,

Ruhan

mountainman

"But now" (In days of Constantine) " a complete
Bible for the first time could be bound together
containing both the Old Testament and the New Testament."
--- "Introduction to N.T. Criticism",
p. 80. Dr. A.T. Robertson

Statements from Dr. Robertson and others suggest:

(1) That the Old Testament part of the Constantine
Bibles was the Hexapla of Origen, and

(2) That it was bound with a Greek New Testament
in the same Bible.


"Whether or not the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were
actually two of the fifty Bibles furnished by Eusebius
for Constantine, at least they belonged to the same
family as the Hexapla, the Eusebio-Origin type."

Quotations from seven authorities that these
two MSS could very well be part of the fifty Bibles
furnished by Eusebius for Constantine.

(1) Dr. Robertson singles out these two manuscripts
as possibly two of the fifty Constantine Bibles.
He says:

"Constantine himself ordered fifty Greek Bibles from
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, for the churches in
Constantinople. It is quite possible that Aleph and
B are two of these fifty."
---- "Introduction to Textual Criticism," p, 80.


(2) Dr. Gregory, a recent scholar in the field of
manuscripts, also thinks of them in connection with
the fifty. We quote from him:

"This Manuscript (Vaticanus) is supposed, as we have
seen, to have come from the same place as the Sinaitic
Manuscript. I have said that these two show connections
with each other, and and that they would suit very well
as a pair of the fifty manuscripts written at Caeserea
for Constantine the Great.",
--- "The Canon and Text of New Testament," p. 345.

(3) Two outstanding scholars, Burgon and Miller, thus
expressed their belief that in the Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus MSS we have two of the Bibles prepared by
Eusebius for the Emperor:

"Constantine applied to Eusebius for fifty handsome copies,
among which it is not improbable that the manuscripts B and
Aleph were to be actually found. But even if that is not so,
the Emperor would not have selected Eusebius for the order,
if that Bishop had not been in the habit of providing copies:
and Eusebius in fact carried on the work which he had
commenced under is friend Pamphilus, and in which the latter
must have followed the path pursued by Origen. Again Jerome
is known to have resorted to this quarter."
---- "Traditional Text", p. 163.


(4) Dr. Cook in his "Revised Version of the first Three Gospels"
says:

"And if not absolutely proved, I hold it to be established
as in the highest degree probable, that Eusebius was the
superintendent; and that we have in these two manuscripts
(Vatican and and Sinaitic) the only extant memorials of his
recension."
--- page 183

(5) Dr. Schaff also says, of the copies of the Constantine
Bible provided by Eusebius, the following:

"Molz, in a note regards these as lectionaries, but they are
usually thought to have been regular copies of the Scriptures
in Greek-Septuagint and N.T. and the Codex Sinaiticus has been
thought to be one of them... The fact that the Sinaiticus
exhibits two or three hands suggests that it was prepared
with rapidity, and the having various scribes was a way to
speed."

"The parchment copies were usually arranged in quarternions
i.e. four leaves made up together , as the ternions consisted
of three leaves. The Quarternions each contained sixteen pages
the ternions twelve. So probably, although the three-columned
form of the Sinaiticus and the four of the Vaticanus suggest
a possible other meaning."
--- Footnote on "Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers" Vol. I, 549.


(6) I quote again from Burgon and Miller:

"But in connecting B and Aleph with the library at Caesarea
we are not left only to conjecture or inference. In a well
known colophon affixed to the end of the book of Esther in
Aleph by the third corrector, it is stated that from the
beginning of the book of Kings to the end of Esther the
MS was compared with a copy 'corrected by the hand of the
holy martyr Pamphilus,' which itself was written and
corrected after the Hexapla of Origen. And a similar
colophon may be found attached to the book of Ezra. It is
added that the Codex Sinaiticus... and the Codex Pamphili
manifested great agreement with one another. The probability
that Aleph was thus at least in part copied from a manuscript
executed by Pamphilus and Eusebius; and that Origen's
recension of the Old Testament, although he published no
edition of the text of the New, possessed a great reputation.
On the books of the Chronicles, St. Jerome mentions manuscripts
executed by Origen with great care, which were published by
Pamphilus and Eusebius. And in Codex H of St. Paul it is stated
that that MS was 'compared with a MS in the library of Caesarea
which was written by the hand of the holy Pamphilus.' These
notices added to the frequent reference by St. Jerome and others
to the critical MSS, by which we are to understand those which
were distinguished by the approval of 0rigen or were in
consonance with the spirit of Origen, show evidently the position
in criticism which the Library at Caesarea and its illustrious
founder had won in those days. And it is quite in keeping with
that position that Aleph should have been sent forth from that
'school of criticism'."
---- "The Traditional Text", pp. 164, 165.


In this quotation from Burgon and Miller, you will note that he
marshals in line seven separate proofs that B and Aleph were
Eusebio-Origen manuscripts. First, from the well-known colophon
at the end of Esther, claiming that the portion of the Old
Testament from Kings to Esther was corrected by the hand of
the "holy martyr, Pamphilus." Secondly, that a similar colophon
was attached to Ezra. Thirdly, this colophon adds that the Codex
Sinaiticus and the Codex Pamphili manifested great agreement with
one another. Fourthly the Codex Marchalianus is often mentioned
which was due to Pamphilus Eusebius. Fifthly, St. Jerome on the
books of Chronicels mentions that manuscripts executed by Origen
with great care and published by Pamphilus and Eusebius. Sixthly,
the Codex H of St. Paul states that it was compared with the
manuscripts in the Library of Caesarea, "which was written by
the hand of the Holy Pamphilus". Seventhly, Jerome and others
give references to critical manuscripts which are understood to
be those distinguished by the approval or in consonance with
the spirit of Origen.

(7) Dr. Tischendorf takes the same postiton. (Dr. Robinson,
--- "Where Did We Get Our Bible", p. 116)

(8) Abbe Martin, celebrated Catholic textual critic, claims
that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (as well as 3 other ancient
MSS, A,C,D) were 'fabricated' from the Origen, and other Greek
fathers.
--- (See Schaff, "Companion to the Greek Testament" p. XIV).

SOURCE:
http://kjv.benabraham.com/html/section_-_v.html





Pete Brown

Julian

A(02) and א could not both be part of the 50 bibles since A contains the Eusebian canons and א does not (in the original hand, that is.)

Julian

Michael R. Jordan

Great to see that my thread has sparked debate I am following quite well.

On a side note, the individuals that I am discussing this with have implied Richard Carrier is not a good source within the issue because he is an atheist. Apparently, a naturalist cannot comment on this issue without being suspected of bias. :huh: I am aware that this is a fallacious comment but I wanted to share the comical reasoning of my oppotents.

Ruhan

Hi Michael,

Fundies can often produce such rebuttals.

I fail to see how this has anything to do with a person's religious views as it really has no effect on the authenticity of scripture, but I am sure you know this.

Are they saying that the canonization of scripture at the council of Nicea provides the canon with some sort of integrity?

Regards,

Ruhan

S.C.Carlson

Julian, on the topic of the Eusebian canons and the 50 Bibles for Constantinue, you may be interested in this article: T.C. Skeat, "The Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus and Constantine," JTS 50 (1999): 583-625.

It is also reprinted in J. K. Elliott, ed., The collected biblical writings of T.C. Skeat (Novum Testamentum. Supplements 113; Leiden: Brill 2004): 122 - 134.

Julian

I don't have access to JSTOR other than the snippet I got from my SBL membership. How would one go about accessing JSTOR in our area, or in general, for that matter? Their website quite hazy on the subject.

Julian

Michael R. Jordan

Despite what may be reasonable to assume, the individuals I am discussing this with are fellow atheists. I almost fell out of my chair when they attempted to discredit Carrier with a claim of bias due to his own atheistic views but do not apply the same bias to themselves. Needless to say, I did promulgate their error and they chose to ignore their rather blatantly idiotic claim.

As for your question, I do not believe that they hold the CoN made the canon of any sort of "integrity" but that they believe the CoN produced or canonize the series of books we now call the NT.