Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kilgore Trout · 05-04-2004, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brave Sir Robin

Quote:

They knew that if they didn't get their story straight, christianity would become too fractured with everybody believing what they want.

In that case...

OOPS.

Yes, I think the Coucil of Nicea was trying to avoid the 33,000 christian denominations that there are today.

Legion · 05-04-2004, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

Yes, I think the Coucil of Nicea was trying to avoid the 33,000 christian denominations that there are today.

Gotta stamp out those heresies.

mrmoderate · 05-04-2004, 11:04 PM

Quote:

The earliest known New Testament document
A small papyrus fragment is the oldest known copy of any part of the New Testament.

The fragment, found in Egypt in 1920, is just 9 cm x 6 cm, and is written on both sides. It has been identified as part of John's Gospel - John chapter 18 verses 31-33 on the front, and verses 37-38 on the back. The whole page would have been about 21 cm high by 20 cm wide, and the entire Gospel would have taken about 130 pages.

Experts have dated this fragment to between AD 125 and AD 150. Scholars believe that John's Gospel was written late in the first century, perhaps around 90 AD. So this fragment may come from a copy as little as 35 years or so after the Gospel was first written. In the 19th century, skeptical German scholars argued that John's Gospel was written late in the second century.

Earlier versions of New Testament books and letters are something that archeaology could very well produce in the future.

GermanHeretic · 05-05-2004, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sashang

It would be true to say that the Protestant version of Christianity (started by Martin Luther right?) is only about 500 years old?

Yes, but many protestants will disagree. They claim, that protestantism is the original christian way, hence the word reformation, i.e. a remake of the first church.
In that sense one might argue that protestantism is actually older than the catholic church which started 325 AD at the council of Nicea roughly 292 years later.

spin · 05-05-2004, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legion

The Dead Sea Scrolls do not exclusively include the Hebrew Bible. There are many other works that are part of that as well, including numerous commentaries, apocryphal writings, pseudepigraphal writings, some wisdom literature, and other writings related to the life of the community (rules and regulations, that sort of thing). Far more than just the Hebrew Bible.

And btw, if I remember correctly, the writings from the Hebrew scriptures were LXX (Septuagint) translations.

I'm not sure I understand your btw here, but the Hebrew scriptures were written, yes, in Hebrew and had been around for long enough that by the time of the DSS there were different text traditions of them:

one that would lead to the Massoretic text of a thousand years later (and very close it was as well),
one that would lead to the Samaritan text of the torah (pentateuch), and
one that would lead to the LXX (or at least contained the Hebrew that was used in the LXX).

There were even examples of other text flavours. By the time of Masada, there was only one text tradition used in Jusea.

spin

CX · 05-05-2004, 09:18 AM

Just to alleviate some confusion, the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. had very little to do with the establishment of a Xian canon. It was primarily concerned with the Arian controversy and determining the nature and substance of Jesus. The end result was the Nicene Creed recited in many churches today. The development and establishment of the canon occurred over a much longer period. Even today there is disagreement over which texts should be considered canonical.

CX · 05-05-2004, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanHeretic

Yes, but many protestants will disagree. They claim, that protestantism is the original christian way, hence the word reformation, i.e. a remake of the first church.
In that sense one might argue that protestantism is actually older than the catholic church which started 325 AD at the council of Nicea roughly 292 years later.

The "Catholic" (i.e. "universal") church started long before 325. The proto-orthodox starting in the mid 2nd century, especially Polycarp and his protege Irenaeus, called themselves catholic as a way to promote their ideal of all Xians viewing themselves as part of one "universal" church. The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century tried to tie itself back to the first century followers of Jesus as they imagined them to be, but that, like the catholic notion of a unified early church, is mostly fiction.

Legion · 05-05-2004, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I'm not sure I understand your btw here, but the Hebrew scriptures were written, yes, in Hebrew and had been around for long enough that by the time of the DSS there were different text traditions of them:

one that would lead to the Massoretic text of a thousand years later (and very close it was as well),
one that would lead to the Samaritan text of the torah (pentateuch), and
one that would lead to the LXX (or at least contained the Hebrew that was used in the LXX).

There were even examples of other text flavours. By the time of Masada, there was only one text tradition used in Jusea.

spin

I meant that, if I remember correctly, the Hebrew (Jewish) Scriptures within the Dead Sea Scrolls were LXX translations.

spin · 05-05-2004, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legion

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I'm not sure I understand your btw here, but the Hebrew scriptures were written, yes, in Hebrew and had been around for long enough that by the time of the DSS there were different text traditions of them:

1. one that would lead to the Massoretic text of a thousand years later (and very close it was as well),
2. one that would lead to the Samaritan text of the torah (pentateuch), and
3. one that would lead to the LXX (or at least contained the Hebrew that was used in the LXX).

There were even examples of other text flavours. By the time of Masada, there was only one text tradition used in Ju[d]ea.

I meant that, if I remember correctly, the Hebrew (Jewish) Scriptures within the Dead Sea Scrolls were LXX translations.

Hopefully, my comments you cite have cleared up the matter. Although there are a few tiny scraps of Greek translations from Qumran, it is certain that the Hebrew texts and all those Hebrew texts from Qumran had no Greek antecedents, ie they were originally written in Hebrew. And the Qumran biblical texts were 99.5% Hebrew texts and over 80% of the Massoretic text type.

spin

Legion · 05-05-2004, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Hopefully, my comments you cite have cleared up the matter. Although there are a few tiny scraps of Greek translations from Qumran, it is certain that the Hebrew texts and all those Hebrew texts from Qumran had no Greek antecedents, ie they were originally written in Hebrew. And the Qumran biblical texts were 99.5% Hebrew texts and over 80% of the Massoretic text type.

spin

Okay, my mistake then. Apparently I remembered incorrectly.

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

05-05-2004, 09:18 AM	#16
CX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Portlandish Posts: 2,829	Just to alleviate some confusion, the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. had very little to do with the establishment of a Xian canon. It was primarily concerned with the Arian controversy and determining the nature and substance of Jesus. The end result was the Nicene Creed recited in many churches today. The development and establishment of the canon occurred over a much longer period. Even today there is disagreement over which texts should be considered canonical.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.