Freethought & Rationalism Archive

disgracian · 03-14-2004, 07:57 PM

i recall reading a topic a few months ago that touched on the subject of which books made it into the bible and which were left out. i went about 20 pages back into the biblical criticism & history section but found nothing.

i was specifically looking for info on which people made these decisions, when they were made and on what criteria the books were included/excluded.

judge · 03-14-2004, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by disgracian
i recall reading a topic a few months ago that touched on the subject of which books made it into the bible and which were left out. i went about 20 pages back into the biblical criticism & history section but found nothing.

i was specifically looking for info on which people made these decisions, when they were made and on what criteria the books were included/excluded.

Bear in mind to that there is more than one bible.
1.There is the protestant one,
2. the catholic one,
3. the peshitta, used by the Church of the East which only accepts some books to be used liturgically,
4.the ethiopic bible.

capnkirk · 03-14-2004, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by disgracian
i recall reading a topic a few months ago that touched on the subject of which books made it into the bible and which were left out. i went about 20 pages back into the biblical criticism & history section but found nothing.

i was specifically looking for info on which people made these decisions, when they were made and on what criteria the books were included/excluded.

I am aware of one such thread. It was named Lost Christianities by Bart Ehrman and it was last posted to on 18 Feb 04. The thread title refers to the title and author of a recent book that covers the canonization process from the time of Paul's epistles through the end of the 4th Cent CE.

Celsus · 03-14-2004, 10:05 PM

P.R. Davies' comments on the OT are here. Richard Carrier's summary on the NT are here. RC also cites Gerald Larue which is dated, but still worth reading.

Joel

judge · 03-14-2004, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Celsus
here.

Joel

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...non.html#XVIII

This link contains some information that is not correct. I am happy to discuss with anyone interested in some more accurate information being posted on infidels (as I quite like this place)

Quote:

For centuries the Diatessaron of Tatian, along with Acts and the Pauline Epistles (except Philemon), comprised the only accepted books in the Syrian churches,

wrong

Quote:

meaning that Tatian's stricter views, resulting in the rejection in 1 Timothy, did not win out._ Moreover, after the pronouncements of the 4th century on the proper content of the Bible, Tatian was declared a heretic and in the early 4th century Bishop Theodoretus of Cyrrhus and Bishop Rabbula of Edessa (both in Syria) rooted out all copies of the Diatessaron and replaced them with the four canonical Gospels (M 215).

really?! what evidence is there of this?

Quote:

_ Thanks to them, no early copies of the Diatessaron survive--although a very early fragment suggests it would have been crucial evidence for the true state of the early Gospels (see IX).

By the fifth century the Syrian Bible, called the Peshitta, became formalized somehow into its present form

[b]
There is actually no record of any formalisation though.
Both hostile sides of the Syrain Church must have already been using it before Rabullas time as Bruce Metzger points out. To suggest it happened near the 5th century (as the above may do) requires we accept the previous arguments (for which there is no evidence)
Although I am open to evidence to the contrary.

Toto · 03-14-2004, 11:05 PM

judge - Richard Carrier is the author of that article, and takes a certain professional pride in maintianing the accuracy of his work. If you know that there is an error, you can email him. You could also list here your reasons for being so sure that it is wrong.

Celsus · 03-14-2004, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by judge
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...non.html#XVIII

This link contains some information that is not correct. I am happy to discuss with anyone interested in some more accurate information being posted on infidels (as I quite like this place)

I wouldn't doubt it--I don't really care much for NT topics since they've reached impasse. Have you submitted it as feedback to let Carrier know? Maybe a moderator can copy your post over?

Joel

X-post with Toto

judge · 03-14-2004, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
judge - Richard Carrier is the author of that article, and takes a certain professional pride in maintianing the accuracy of his work. If you know that there is an error, you can email him. You could also list here your reasons for being so sure that it is wrong.

OK I'll piece together why I believe it be inaccurate and try to give him a fair chance to respond.

03-14-2004, 07:57 PM	#1
disgracian Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: happyland Posts: 583	deciding what makes it into the bible i recall reading a topic a few months ago that touched on the subject of which books made it into the bible and which were left out. i went about 20 pages back into the biblical criticism & history section but found nothing. i was specifically looking for info on which people made these decisions, when they were made and on what criteria the books were included/excluded.

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

03-14-2004, 10:05 PM	#4
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	P.R. Davies' comments on the OT are here. Richard Carrier's summary on the NT are here. RC also cites Gerald Larue which is dated, but still worth reading. Joel

03-14-2004, 11:05 PM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	judge - Richard Carrier is the author of that article, and takes a certain professional pride in maintianing the accuracy of his work. If you know that there is an error, you can email him. You could also list here your reasons for being so sure that it is wrong.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.