Soul Invictus

You have a database? Do you use Access? That's impressive. Can you PM me? I'd be interested in seeing what you had if you didn't mind...

Soul Invictus

I didn't mean to kill this thread. Chris, I hope you saw my last post.

Ruhan

I believe Mountainman was kind enough to refer to Eusebius' canon.

Regards,

Ruhan

Roger Pearse

I'm afraid that I do not read or see that poster's comments. But Eusebius did not "publish... his own canon".

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ruhan

I am a bit disappointed in your response as you seem so certain about this yet you obviously must have skipped this part when you studied Eusebius' contribution to the canonization of scripture.

Here it is from Eusebius' own mouth:

From Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History,
in. xxv. I-7.

At this point it seems appropriate to summarize the writings of the New Testament which have already been mentioned. In the first place must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles. (2) 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, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. (3) These, then, [are to be placed] among the recognized books. Of the disputed books, which are nevertheless familiar to the majority, there are extant the Epistle of James, as it is called; and that of Jude; and the second Epistle of Peter; and those that are called the Second and Third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. (4) Among the spurious books must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the Shepherd, as it is called, and the Apocalypse of Peter; and, in addition to these, the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the Teachings of the Apostles, as it is called. And, in addition, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem right. (This last, as I said, is rejected by some, but others count it among the recognized books.) (5) And among these some have counted also the Gospel of the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews who have accepted Christ take a special pleasure. (6) Now all these would be among the disputed books; but nevertheless we have felt compelled to make this catalogue of them, distinguishing between those writings which, according to the tradition of the Church, are true and genuine and recognized, from the others which differ from them in that they are not canonical [lit., en-testamented], but disputed, yet nevertheless are known to most churchmen. [And this we have done] in order that we might be able to know both these same writings and also those which the heretics put forward under the name of the apostles; including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or even of some others besides these, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles. To none of these has any who belonged to the succession of ecclesiastical writers ever thought it right to refer in his writings. (7) Moreover, the character of the style also is far removed from apostolic usage, and the thought and purport of their contents are completely out of harmony with true orthodoxy and clearly show themselves that they are the forgeries of heretics. For this reason they ought not even to be reckoned among the spurious books, but are to be cast aside as altogether absurd and impious.

Roger Pearse

I'm afraid I am unclear which part of this text justifies the comments made.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ruhan

It's Eusebius' canon. His canon was used for the 50 decorated copies commissioned by Constantine.

Regards,

Ruhan

Yuri Kuchinsky

It's possible that the Byzantine Greek text owes its subsequent pre-eminence to the Council of Nicea.

As to the canonisation process of NT books, it seems to have been substantially completed ca. 200 CE.

Yuri.

Ruhan

Yuri,

You obviously have to allow for the continued exclusion of Revelations throughout this period leading even into the 5th century. In addition Hermas and Barnabas were both included in the early canons leading up to the Trullan Synod so I can't see how we can see this canon being established as early as 200 CE.

Regards,

Ruhan

Julian

Both Aleph and B which date from just after that period are not Byzantine texts, though. The Byzantine text shows a gradual growth and probably became popular because it is smoother and is kinder to Jesus.
Well, color me confused. The first official declaration as to the contents of the bible was in 363 at the Council of Laodicea. Now, I realize that there had been many other attempts in the past but they were not overly successful. Even the official decree from 363 left out Revelation. Are you referring to the Muratorian Canon here? More info here: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html

Julian