Interesting discussion! How much of this would be based strictly upon textual criticism itself, and also the need for some to have it included due to it being part of their KJVO position?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The 'Johannine Comma', does it belong in the Bible?
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
Origen
Active Member
Textual criticism is not possible without manuscripts, without citations, without evidence for or against a reading.
Informal canon, as the 66 Books were accepted and seen as being inspired by God by early second century!
The problem though seems to be that all sides take into this preconceived notions, as some hold to KJVO position, others MT, still others CT, hard to be objective at times!
Walpole
Well-Known Member
Sorry but you can't get away with simply talking out of your hat and making it up. You need to provide those pesky things we call facts. Therefore, prove your assertion. Please provide a canon from the second century matching the Protestant 66-book one.
Post your evidence here --->
There is no church council around at that time, but the truth is that the Church already had accepted as inspired and was circulating copies of the 66 books!
Origen
Active Member
Agreed!
I think best route would be to take the position that while one of the Greek texts are closest to what the originals taught to us, all of them, regardless TR/MT/CT etc would be essentially the original to us in the original languages, and that valid translation can be made off any of them.
I am much more concerned with the philosophy of translation then what source texts were used, as hold to formal myself!
Walpole
Well-Known Member
Prove it! Provide ANYONE using a 66-book canon in the second century. If you insist the Church already had circulating copies of the 66-book canon, provide an example. Otherwise, how would you know that which you are asserting?
Walpole
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the link but it does not contain any 66-book canon from the second century. Was this just a rabbit hole you hope to send me down or do you intend to you provide actual support for your assertion?
I would hate to think you are just making things up...
Read the link, as its all there!
Walpole
Well-Known Member
I just read it (again) and there's nothing there about a 66-book canon in the second century. The closest it got was regarding the New Testament canon, which it states was not complete by the second century. Furthermore, it actually destroys your position...
"The concept we have today of a completed Bible was formulated early in the history of the church. By the end of the second century all but seven books (Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James, and Revelation) were recognized as apostolic, and by the end of the fourth century all twenty-seven books in our present canon were recognized by all the churches of the West. After the Damasine Council of Rome in A.D. 332 and the third Council of Carthage in A.D. 397 the question of the Canon was closed in the West. By the year 500 the whole Greek-speaking church had also accepted all the books in our present New Testament." - Your source
Incidentally this source of your is erroneous, as the Council of Rome occurred in 382 A.D., not 332 A.D. Here's how it destroys your potion: The Canon affirmed at the Council of Rome contained 73 books, not 66 books! It is the same canon repeatedly affirmed at Carthage, Innocent, Galasius, Florence, declared dogmatically at Trent, and affirmed yet again at Vatican I.
It is becoming apparent my suspicion is true: You are simply talking out of your hat and making it up as you go.
---> There has NEVER been a 66-book canon in all of Christian history until the Protestants invented it.
oops, sorry. Not for you.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
- Stating facts not in evidence: I have no evidence that "Christians" [who exactly?] believed that the "Deuterocanoical books were inspired".
- Access and Literacy: Most Christians had no access to most books for most of that 1500 years and probably had no informed opinion on the subject one way or another.
- The Spanish Inquisition: (que Monty Python) The political reality that one of the few, literate scholars with access to scripture that might question whether some passage in a Deuterocanonical book directly contradicted the teaching of Jesus in a Gospel or one of the Apostolic Letters would have then been called before his Bishop and ordered to recant his error or burn as a heretic might have dampened Biblical Scholarship during those 1500 years.
Until the Protestant REFORMATION ... like the old joke says:
- Q. "How many Bibles have the 66 books of the Protestant Reformation in them?"
- A. "All of them!"
Which of my 66 Books do you think are NOT the inspired word of God?
atpollard
Well-Known Member
I believe that there was a 'de-facto' canon in the late First/Early Second Century of all four Gospels collected together into one "scroll" and all of the Pauline Letters (plus Hebrews) collected into a second scroll ... almost universally circulated and read [as we now read "The Holy Bible" in our Church Services] among the early Churches.
So anything that agrees with that "first canon" might be worth considering and anything that contradicts that "first canon" is rightly held in suspicion.
You said it very well, as the early Christians would have received the 27 OT canon books as divine revelation, and also would have been accepting what we know now as the canon of the NT!
Walpole
Well-Known Member
Since the other poster referenced the second century, here is a Christian from the second century who lived from 185 A.D. to roughly 254 A.D....
But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, 'The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,' [Sirach 21:18] and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.’ [1 Pt 3:15] " Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12, in ANF, IV:615
[A]s is written in the book of Tobit: 'It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but honourable to reveal the works of God,' [Tobit 12:7]--in a way consistent with truth and God's glory, and so as to be to the advantage of the multitude." Origen, Against Celsus, 5:19, in ANF,IV:551.
But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ' ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.' [2 Maccabees 7:28]" Origen, Fundamental Principles, 2:2,in ANF, IV:270
And that which is written about wisdom, you may apply also to faith, and to the virtues specifically, so as to make a precept of this kind, "If any one be perfect in wisdom among the sons of men, and the power that comes from Thee be wanting, he will be reckoned as nothing " or "If any one be perfect in self-control, so far as is possible for the sons of men, and the control that is from Thee be wanting, he will be reckoned as nothing; (Wisdom 9:6) Origen, Commentary on Matthew, 4, in ANF, IX:427.
And as a general principle observe the expression "behind"; because it is a good thing when any one goes behind the Lord God and is behind the Christ; but it is the opposite when any one casts the words of God behind him, or when he transgresses the commandment which says "Do not walk behind thy lusts." (Sirach 18:30) And Elijah also in the third Book of Kings, says to the people "How long halt ye on both your knees? If God is the Lord, go behind Him, but if Baal is the Lord, go behind him." (1 Kings 18:21) Origen, Commentary on Matthew 23 Origen, 22, in ANF, IX:463 AD 254
Let me know if you want more.
That is not true. The Canon was affirmed multiple times throughout Christian history prior to 1500. For example, in Rome (382 A.D.), Carthage (397 A.D.), Pope Innocent (405 A.D.), Decree of Gelasius (550 A.D.), Council of Florence (1441 A.D.)
The canon affirmed throughout Christian history contained 73 books, never 66 books.
3. The Spanish Inquisition: (que Monty Python) The political reality that one of the few, literate scholars with access to scripture that might question whether some passage in a Deuterocanonical book directly contradicted the teaching of Jesus in a Gospel or one of the Apostolic Letters would have then been called before his Bishop and ordered to recant his error or burn as a heretic might have dampened Biblical Scholarship during those 1500 years.
Until the Protestant REFORMATION ... like the old joke says:
- Q. "How many Bibles have the 66 books of the Protestant Reformation in them?"
- A. "All of them!"
Which of my 66 Books do you think are NOT the inspired word of God?
The Deuterocanoncials contradicts the teachings of Jesus? Are you aware Jesus quotes from them? Furthermore, modern rabbinical Judaism is descended from the practices of the Pharisees, who fixed the Hebrew canon after the development of Christianity and in reaction to Christianity. Greek-speaking Jews used the Septuagint, but so many converted to Christianity that Greek-speaking Judaism ceased to exist not long after the time of the apostles. The canon of the Orthodox and Catholic Old Testament is a Jewish canon; it is the canon of Jews who accepted Christ. In contrast, Protestants have chosen the Old Testament canon of Jews who rejected Christ.
The Christians accepted as canon the very books inspired by God to the Jews in the OT!
Walpole
Well-Known Member
The Christians accepted the Septuagint, which contained the Deuterocanonical books!
Christian History 101.