Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 03-26-2010, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennyc

But how can humans decide what is and what isn't the "Word of God?"

That's the real question isn't it?

It would seem reasonably obvious to answer that question with the observation that some certain specific historical group of people perceived themselves to be alot closer to the "Word of God?" than other people.

This does not mean to imply the books are "inspired by a god" in any literal sense. For example Roman Emperors were considered "God" not only while they were living but whan they were dead. Robert Price outlines a spectrum of authorship case scenarios here.

At one end of the spectrum we have the scenario that bible is a genuine special cosmic delivery from the "God-of-the-Observable-Cosmos-within-the-Hubble-Limit". At the other end of the spectrum was have a pious and yet common forgery ...

Quote:

The Gospels are completely fabricated stories that were intentionally crafted to deceive people, and there is no historical person at their core. The Gospels were really written anywhere from the 2nd century to the 4th century and much of early Christian history has been fabricated. The writers of the Gospels knew that there was no Jesus and the whole crafting of the religion was part of a political tool by Roman Emperors or others of a similar kind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by KittyKatBlack

A few years ago I heard it mentioned on the History Channel (which I've heard isn't the most accurate of resources) that there were books removed from the Bible because they were considered unimportant or contradicted the views of the Church.

It isn't true.

Truth is a very relative thang.

Quote:

The canon more or less evolved into shape,

Especially when it was to be widely published 50 times over.
Editorship was a concern at that specific epoch.
Editorship does after all involve certain discretionary powers.

Quote:

and there was no one point at which people ever felt they had the authority to make decisions.

Leaving aside the reality of the Imperial decision making process.

Kapyong · 03-26-2010, 01:03 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

http://www.ntcanon.org/Eusebius.shtml

So, here is the list from Eusebius which you failed to quote:

"... the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the Epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former Epistle of John, and likewise the Epistle of Peter must be recognized. After these must be put, if it really seems right, the Apocalypse of John, ....."

Paul's epistles not named.
Only 1 John epistle.
Only 1 Peter epistle.
No James.
No Jude.

Not like Athanasius' list.
Not like Vaticanus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Very very similar - only a handful of books different out of 20 odd.

Quite a few differences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Many conjecture that the oldest Greek codices are copies of - or one of - the original 50 Constantine Bibles that Constantine instructed Eusebius to order from the trained professional scribes in the scriptorium.

Which do NOT match Eusebius' list
NOR Athanasius' list either.

K.

mountainman · 03-26-2010, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

http://www.ntcanon.org/Eusebius.shtml

So, here is the list from Eusebius which you failed to quote:

"... the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the Epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former Epistle of John, and likewise the Epistle of Peter must be recognized. After these must be put, if it really seems right, the Apocalypse of John, ....."

Paul's epistles not named.
Only 1 John epistle.
Only 1 Peter epistle.
No James.
No Jude.

If you have a closer look, at the end of that page, you would have read the following:

Quote:

The Epistles of the Apostles
(from Ecclesiastical History 3.3.5-7)

... Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place. In regard to the so-called Acts of Paul, I have not found them among the undisputed writings.

But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The Shepherd is ascribed, it should be observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is considered quite indispensable, especially to those who need instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence, as we know, it has been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some of the most ancient writers used it. This will serve to show the divine writings that are undisputed as well as those that are not universally acknowledged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Many conjecture that the oldest Greek codices are copies of - or one of - the original 50 Constantine Bibles that Constantine instructed Eusebius to order from the trained professional scribes in the scriptorium.

Not like Athanasius' list.
Not like Vaticanus.

Quite a few differences.

Which do NOT match Eusebius' list
NOR Athanasius' list either.

The list of books included by the Editor-In-Chief Eusebius may be listed as follows ... (See Toto's reference above)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CARRIER

Eusebius reports that the Emperor Constantine commissioned Eusebius personally to produce fifty excellent copies of the sacred scriptures which would be the basis, no doubt, of the official imperial Bible (Life of Constantine 4.36.37), yet we are never told what books Eusebius chose to include, or on what authority or criteria. Two nearly-complete Bibles survive from the 4th century which some believe may be copies of this imperial standard text: the Codex Sinaiticus, which has

the four Gospels,
Acts,
fourteen Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews),
seven Catholic Epistles,
the Revelation of John,
the Epistle of Barnabas,
and the book of Hermas,

and the Vaticanus Codex, which appears to contain the same material in the same order, although both texts are incomplete (Sinaiticus breaks off in the middle of Hermas, Vaticanus in the middle of Hebrews). We may wonder what books, if any, were appended after Hermas.

Now compare this list to the modern canon which follows Athanasius and that horrible Damasius mini-warlord...

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Develop...estament_canon
This list, given below, was purportedly endorsed by Pope Damasus I:

...... in the New Testament:

4 books of Gospels,
1 book of Acts of the Apostles,
13 letters of the Apostle Paul,
1 of him to the Hebrews,
2 of Peter,
3 of John,
1 of James,
1 of Jude,
and the Apocalypse of John.

The so-called Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis, is traditionally attributed to Gelasius, bishop of Rome 492-496 CE. However, upon the whole it is probably of South Gallic origin (6th century), but several parts can be traced back to Pope Damasus and reflect Roman tradition. The 2nd part is a canon catalogue, and the 5th part is a catalogue of the 'apocrypha' and other writings which are to be rejected. The canon catalogue gives all 27 books of the Catholic New Testament.

When the canon physically enacted by EUsebius' Constantine Bible is compared to the canon above, prepared after Athanasius list, what are the differences? Not much at all.

Perhaps a couple of "letters" claimed to be authored by the "Dear Apostles" got switched,
and the literature work entitled the "Shepherd of Hermas" got the axe, but everything else
remained precisely the same as Eusebius' list of "authorised books".

KittyKatBlack · 03-26-2010, 04:39 PM

Thanks, everyone.

Minimalist · 03-26-2010, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennyc

But how can humans decide what is and what isn't the "Word of God?"

That's the real question isn't it?

None of them are the word of 'god.' That simplifies the process.

Doug Shaver · 03-27-2010, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

They believe God has let them know, one way or another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennyc

Uh, right, so then why the differences of opinion?

Easy. When any two of them disagree, each says the other wasn't paying proper attention to God.

kennyc · 03-27-2010, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

They believe God has let them know, one way or another.

Easy. When any two of them disagree, each says the other wasn't paying proper attention to God.

Thought so. :devil1:

mountainman · 03-29-2010, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

They believe God has let them know, one way or another.

Easy. When any two of them disagree, each says the other wasn't paying proper attention to God.

Of course there was always the litigous recourse and appeal to the Graeco-Roman law codes and law courts. The better question may therefor be to ask when the law codes of the empire commenced to reflect people asking such questions. When did the empire see widespread publications about the ranking of its various "gods"? See also the role of the emperor as Pontifex Maximus during the first 4 centuries. As far as I am aware it was the role of the Pontifex Maximus to ultimately determine such as issue. For example which emperor went for Sol Invictus in a big way c.270 CE, and which of the other emperors had their "favorites"? It was originally a collegiate. Originally the law codes were oversighted by a sacred college of the "pontifices" (Graeco-Roman priests to Sol [Invictus], Apollo, Asclepius, Diana, etc, etc). The "Pontifex" of the entire assembly was thus a prestigous traditional position that the emperor performed. Right up until the epoch of Diocletian and the "Leadership of the Four People".

Then see Extracts from the Codex Theodosianus ---- (313 to 453 CE)

PapaverDeum · 03-29-2010, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KittyKatBlack

A few years ago I heard it mentioned on the History Channel (which I've heard isn't the most accurate of resources) that there were books removed from the Bible because they were considered unimportant or contradicted the views of the Church. I've searched on Google but can't find any independent resources on the subject, only Evangelical Christian websites and something that included UFOs. Could anyone direct me to any websites that confirm or debunk this? Thanks.

Hi KittyKat,

Not having seen the show I cannot be sure what to what they might be referring.

The only case I know of, where it might be valid to say "books were removed from the Bible" is that of the KJV or the King James Bible.

The original 1611 King James Bible included the Apocrypha books in their own section.(See the Etext Centre from the University of Virginia website at http://etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html ).

The Apocrypha section was dropped from later editions. I am not sure why this was done, but that section is not included in any modern version of the KJV that I've seen. I found the following evangelical website here that offers an explanation, but be aware that said website is biased towards some wierd evangelical agenda ? (??? - or someone's or some group's agenda )

There might be other examples of this. I do know that there are other biblical canons out there (i.e. the Ethiopian Canon which includes the book of Enoch, see the Wiki Books of the Bible web page for more info).

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

03-26-2010, 04:39 PM	#24
KittyKatBlack Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Georgia Posts: 192	Thanks, everyone.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.