Duvduv

I don't feel like repeating myself incessantly. I already told you that the majority of those said to have written on the subject are dated in the 4th and 5th centuries which is when a authority existed supporting and sponsoring the development of this religion, and that this authority did not exist previously.

Duvduv

Even if it is argued that the canon emerged in the 4th century, there is no reason to think the texts were not interpolated and changed even afterwards. As holy and canonical as they were claimed to be, what prevented following literate individuals to make changes along the way? In any event the updated versions would survive and the older ones would fall away. Especially at the command of a strong central regime....

"HERE is your more pure New Testament which supercedes the previous version......"
"But, but, how......"
"Please don't ask questions of the Emperor and his holy bishops.....They have clarified the truth and their knowledge is supreme. Otherwise they wouldn't be at the top of the pyramid, would they?!"

MrMacSon

We know they were changed - whole texts were removed from Codex Sinaiticus and individual texts were altered, mostly with additions e.g.

• the longer ending of Mark 16 (vv 9-20 added to later versions of the bible);
• the story of Jesus challenging those 'who have not sinned to cast the first stone' was not in C. Sinaiticus, either;
• etc

Duvduv

Can you recommend where to read about the major discrepancies which I assume are not to be dismissed as scribal errors.?
That Oration to Constantine itself doesn't mention the passage about the rock of the church in Matthew, which must mean it was a late addition. Thus there are signs the canon identified with all the books was not entirely what exists now.

MrMacSon

sorry; had a link once, but can't find it now.

There's this http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/content.aspx

and this (which I haven't looked at) http://www.sinaiticus.com/

Duvduv

Thank you. I assume I am not alone in believing that the introductory passage in GJohn was a later accretion with Jesus' status as an incarnate Logos that never gets pursued. I wonder as well why the epistles never allude to the Logos especially if it is argued that supposedly the Apology of Justin mentioning the Logos, preceded the epistles.

aa5874

It has already been deduced that the Canonised gJohn was predated by the Canonised Synoptics. Jesus as the Logos is a later Christology.

The Logos Predated Jesus.

The Logos was NOT ackowledge as Jesus based on Athenagoras' "Plea for the Christians".

Plea for the Christians"
Now, based on "Refutation Against All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus it was around the end of 2nd to early 3rd century that the Heresy that the Son was the Logos was first preached ibn the Church.

Refutation Against All Heresies 2 Amazingly the claim that the Son was God was regarded as Heresy when it was introduced by Callistus around the early 3rd century.

Refutation Against All Heresies 7

Duvduv

Then what this means is that Justin accepted something claimed as heresy and so did the church and its apologists who accepted the introductory passage in GJohn. Hyppolytus doesn't say he rejects the introductory passage in GJohn. And of course the epistles say nothing about it one way or the other. Or it could be said that those who rejected the Logos were the actual heretics .
In fact there must be some confusion because according to Wiki Hyppolitus acceptef the idea of the Logos as Jesus and Justin's view. And there is no indication he rejected GJohn chapter 1,

sotto voce

Just a reminder that there has never been anyone in a position to tell anyone else what is divine writ, and what is not.

Except by criminal means, of course.

Sheshbazzar

In a sense, this something that is still going on today under the guise of 'better' or 'improved translations'.
Sectarian new ways of 'translating' and 'interpreting' old texts, excuse the exchanging old phrases as being 'outdated', for newer 'translations' and 'interpretations' that often also quite radically alter the sense of the verses that was presented in previous traditional sources.
Then there is also the practice of selectively 'editing' the content so as to conform to whatever ancient exemplar can be employed to support a particular sectarian doctrinal viewpoint.
Thus some texts will be deliberately and selectively expanded to include verses not found in previous traditional translations, and other texts will be diminished by the exclusion of verses no longer convenient, but that were long accepted portions of traditional versions.

There are now a huge variety of 'Versions' of the 'Bible' available that have been subtly transformed into sectarian interpretations of the texts, but are no longer at all trustworthy as being literal translations of the original texts that they profess to be translations of.

I have quite an inventory of Bible 'Versions', and it is quite entertaining and instructive to do a close comparison, and detect what one omits or adds, or by ruse of 'translation' manages to alter the sense of a verse in contrast to the others.

People that follow one particular 'Version', to the exclusion of the others, are often quite unaware of what it is that has been added to or subtracted from, or subtly 'edited' and in what fashion, within the text of their favored 'Version'.
No matter whether such proclaim themselves to be believers, atheists, or agnostics, they still end up being led about by these sectarians who have managed to slip the rope of their particular distorted 'Version' through the nose rings of the uneducated and uninformed.

I have studied Hebrew for over 40 years so that I would no longer be, and would not need be subject to the machinations that each of the sectarian factions employ in their 'translating' and 'interpreting' of these ancient texts.
Certainly it takes time and dedication to follow such a course, rather than having someone else (whom you will usually have no idea whom, or what their goals or character) to choose for you what each ancient word means, individually, and collectively.

In my view, based upon my experience, you are far better off learning, knowing and actually understanding and keeping even half a dozen verses of the Biblical Hebrew, than memorizing the entire content of any one of those popular 'Versions'.

If there be such a thing as 'divine writ', it has been made readily available to anyone with access to the Internet, with a willingness to actually learn and know the words of The Elohim of Israel, believer or non-believer.

I do not tell anyone what to believe or what to think, nor attempt to dictate how they might 'translate' or understand any word or verse.
But simply commend every person of personal integrity to turn to the first verse of ha Sefer 'Bereshith' ('Genesis') and begin to letter by letter, word by word, line upon line, precept upon precept, learn what once it is learned, and has been laid to heart, no man may ever again steal away.


.