Steefen said
I disagree with you.
You disagree with me.
We agree to disagree.
I cannot persuade you and you cannot persuade me.
You can’t persuade me of what? I don’t think I’ve actually expressed any disagreement with you on this thread, at least not on anything substantive, not in small part because you have avoided making any substantive claim.
All you did was post a link to a video, and when I asked what it was about, you dismissed me as unable to keep up given my attitude; because, don’t you know, serious people spend their days watching every video any random person on the internet posts without context.
What’s really rich is that after that derisive comment, when Robert did try to answer my question, you get your panties all in a twist and claimed his answer was a personal insult to you,
An administrator insulting members is poor and insulting particularly when one prefaces a thread with the importance a video has for a member.
Of course, contrary to your assertion, you didn’t preface the thread with any note about the importance the video has for you or any other member. The original post was just the video with no commentary; the thread title was the only preface you gave and that was utterly uninformative, and when asked point blank what the significance of the video was, you refused to answer and derided me.
What I did point out was that a press’s claim that a book it is marketing constitutes the most important breakthrough since the Rosetta Stone is hardly adequate to establish as fact that the book is the most important breakthrough since the Rosetta Stone. Is that the claim you suggest we agree to disagree over?
Robert said
The YouTube video comments upon this section (starting at 14:35 in the video):
So we all know that the Council of Nicea was where the Bible was canonized, edited, huge parts of it were taken out and other parts were written in, which is pretty obvious to see. You know, there were supposedly twelve disciples, but there’s only four accounts of them in the Bible: the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Well, where’s the other eight? They were all there, but they were conveniently edited out for all kinds of political reasons.
That doesn’t even rise to the level of idiocy.* Even on the most naive, traditional account (one that accepts the traditional attribution of the gospels),two of the evangelists aren’t ranked among the twelve, and it is utterly gratuitous to assert that all twelve wrote gospels. Forget about the Dan-Brown nonsense about Nicea deciding the canon, let alone editing the biblical texts, at the command of Constantine.
I’m also curious about the book’s claim (in the cited place) that the council of Nicea decided whether angels have wings.
*Please note, though this decidedly negative assessment of the video’s factual claim is a natural insult to those who endorse this particular claim advanced in the video, this is not a statement about Steefen–unless he endorses the view here discussed (which I do not believe he has yet done).
I am giving a comment in passing.
I remember Bart posting about the DaVinci Code.
Anyway, when I ask google How were the books of the New Testament chosen,
one result is:
Steefen said
I am giving a comment in passing.I remember Bart posting about the DaVinci Code.
Anyway, when I ask google How were the books of the New Testament chosen,
one result is:
When were the books of the New Testament selected?** you do not have permission to see this link **The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first.= = =This is after Council of Nicaea 325. Emp. Constantine died 337.
Quoting Bart DE
The *first* author ever to list *our* 27 books and claim that *these* (and no others) were “the” books of the New Testament was the bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, in the year 367 (45 years *after* the council of Nicea!) in a letter that he wrote to the churches under his control to whom he was giving his annual episcopal advice. And even that did not decide the issue: different orthodox churches continued to think that some books should be in, for example, that didn’t make it in (e.g. 1 and 2 Clement; the Shepherd of Hermas; the Letter of Barnabas).
There never was a church council that decided the issue – until the (anti-Reformation, Roman Catholic) Council of Trent in the 16th century!
Steefen
Bart, you wrote (10/9/2013):
The *first* author ever to list *our* 27 books and claim that *these* (and no others) were “the” books of the New Testament was the bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, in the year 367 (45 years *after* the council of Nicea!) in a letter that he wrote to the churches under his control to whom he was giving his annual episcopal advice. And even that did not decide the issue: different orthodox churches continued to think that some books should be in, for example, that didn’t make it in (e.g. 1 and 2 Clement; the Shepherd of Hermas; the Letter of Barnabas).
There never was a church council that decided the issue – until the (anti-Reformation, Roman Catholic) Council of Trent in the 16th century!
Google result
The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first.
Question: 393 and 397 are not important about dating the NT?
Thank you.
Though a list was clearly necessary to fulfill Constantine’s commission in 331 of fifty copies of the Bible for the Church at Constantinople, no concrete evidence exists to indicate that it was considered to be a formal canon. In the absence of a canonical list, the resolution of questions would normally have been directed through the see of Constantinople, in consultation with Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (who was given the commission), and perhaps other bishops who were available locally.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Steefen said
SteefenBart, you wrote (10/9/2013):
The *first* author ever to list *our* 27 books and claim that *these* (and no others) were “the” books of the New Testament was the bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, in the year 367 (45 years *after* the council of Nicea!) in a letter that he wrote to the churches under his control to whom he was giving his annual episcopal advice. And even that did not decide the issue: different orthodox churches continued to think that some books should be in, for example, that didn’t make it in (e.g. 1 and 2 Clement; the Shepherd of Hermas; the Letter of Barnabas).
There never was a church council that decided the issue – until the (anti-Reformation, Roman Catholic) Council of Trent in the 16th century!
Google result
The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first.
Question: 393 and 397 are not important about dating the NT?
Thank you.
Bart D.E.
Those were not full church councils, like any of the seven ecumenical councils (Nicea, Chalcedon, etc), but local synods, whose rulings represented local views with no binding force on any other regions/churches (and by and large were not known). So they are dates worth knowing, but they were in no way definitive. (One good piece of evidence: church leaders continued to argue on which books should be in and out afterword.
I don’t know the evidence that Damasus gave the list. Do you have a reference offhand?
Bart D.E.
Those were not full church councils, like any of the seven ecumenical councils (Nicea, Chalcedon, etc), but local synods, whose rulings represented local views with no binding force on any other regions/churches (and by and large were not known). So they are dates worth knowing, but they were in no way definitive. (One good piece of evidence: church leaders continued to argue on which books should be in and out afterword.
I don’t know the evidence that Damasus gave the list. Do you have a reference offhand?
Steefen
I do not have a reference. I was just reading the google result/Wikipedia entry for “Development of the New Testament Canon.”
“Though a list was clearly necessary to fulfill Constantine’s commission in 331 of fifty copies of the Bible for the Church at Constantinople, no concrete evidence exists to indicate that it was considered to be a formal canon.”
QUESTION: Have any of the 50 copies of the Bible commissioned by Constantine survive?
So, the DaVinci Code was technically wrong, but decisions had to be made what was going to fill Constantine’s commission…
= = =
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would formally become the New Testament canon, and he used the word “canonized” (κανονιζομενα) in regard to them. The first council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon of Trent) was the Council of Rome, held by Pope Damasus I (382).
This list, given below, was purportedly endorsed by Pope Damasus I:
[A list of books of the Old Testament …], and 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.
Pope Damasus I is often considered to be the father of the Catholic canon, since what is thought as his list corresponds to the current Catholic canon.
Citation [6]
Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). “Canon of the New Testament” . Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
= = =
In my first question, I should have mentioned the year 382 first for the Council of Rome which was not one of the first seven Ecumenical Councils.
= = = = = =
As you have already referred to the 16th century, the Wikipedia entry states: “The Canon of Trent is the list of books officially considered canonical at the Roman Catholic Council of Trent. A decree, the De Canonicis Scripturis, from the Council’s fourth session (of 8 April 1546), issued an anathema on dissenters of the books affirmed in Trent.”
/ / / /
The above reply was edited down to the 200 word limit for Recent Posts replies.
Robert said
Steefen said
I do not have a reference. I was just reading the google result/Wikipedia entry for “Development of the New Testament Canon.”
“Though a list was clearly necessary to fulfill Constantine’s commission in 331 of fifty copies of the Bible for the Church at Constantinople, no concrete evidence exists to indicate that it was considered to be a formal canon.”
QUESTION: Have any of the 50 copies of the Bible commissioned by Constantine survive?
It has sometimes been thought that Codex Vaticanus or perhaps Codex Sinaiticus might have been among the bibles commissioned by Constantine, but this is disputed.
Note that Codex Sinaiticus also included the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
Codex Vaticanus isn’t preserved after Hebrews 9,14 so it doesn’t contain the letters to Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation. Thus we cannot really say if it included additional books like the Shepherd of Hermas or the Epistle of Barnabas.
Codex Alexandrinus, which is about a century later, also includes some of the letters of Clement. Thus there obviously was not yet universal agreement as to what books were to be included in the New Testament.
So, the DaVinci Code was technically wrong, but decisions had to be made what was going to fill Constantine’s commission…
Council of Nicaea – 325 CE
Constantine’s Commission for 50 Bibles – 331 CE (6 years later)
Bart D.E.
Right: Constantine’s order of 50 Bibles definitely does not imply a fixed canon at all; he himself never discusses the canon, nor did the Council of Nicea.
Constantine’s order was to Eusebius of Caesarea, who does himself discuss in detail the question of the canon in his Ecclesiastical History,
explicitly stating that
there are some books accepted by some groups
that are to be excluded in his opinion,
others that are debated (including some that eventually made it in), etc.
So no, there’s no set canon at the time.
And again, I don’t know what the evidence is that Damasus had a fixed canon in mind. I’ll have to look into it further.
The Gelasian Decree is almost certainly 6th century, so I’m not sure how much it would be.
Steefen
Thank you.
[Let me see exactly–Google, what is the Gelasian Decree?]
The Gelasian Decree (Latin: Decretum Gelasianum) is a Latin text traditionally thought to be a Decretal [letters] of the prolific Pope Gelasius I, bishop of Rome from 492–496.
The work reached its final form in a five-chapter text written by an anonymous scholar between 519 and 553, the second chapter of which is a list of books of Scripture presented as having been made part of the biblical canon by a Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I, the bishop of Rome from 366–383. This list, known as the Damasine List, [Burkitt > Journal of Theological Studies 14, (1913) pp. 469-471] represents the same canon as shown in the Council of Carthage Canon 24 in 419. The fifth segment of the work includes a list of distrusted and rejected works not encouraged for church use.
No, it is not wild historical revisionism. Is it historically accurate? According to my exchange with Bart, above, no, it is not. Would the members at the Council of Nicaea not know Constantine would eventually need some bibles (collection of books) commissioned for publication? Yes.
What would be a close second to canon?
Answer: An emperor’s commission of bibles–*curated* collection of books.
To Bart DE
Would the members at the Council of Nicaea not know Constantine would eventually (in less than 10 yrs) need some bibles (collection of books) commissioned for publication?
Yes.
What would be a close second to canon?
Answer: *Curated* collection of books (Bible) commissioned by the emperor of Rome.
QUESTION: Has any one of the 50 copies of the Bible commissioned by Constantine survived?
cc: Daniel Wallace at the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts [Plano, TX]
Dr. Wallace, I’m commenting at Bart Ehrman’s blog and wondered if you also knew the answer to this question.
Has any one of the 50 copies of the Bible commissioned by Constantine survived?
I don’t see why The Vatican Library wouldn’t have one.
Did you digitize a copy?
Thank you,
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy [also in Plano, TX]
Robert said
Look again at the quote from the video you posted. You seem to be ignoring the most ridiculous parts.So we all know that the Council of Nicea was where the Bible was canonized, edited, huge parts of it were taken out and other parts were written in, which is pretty obvious to see. You know, there were supposedly twelve disciples, but there’s only four accounts of them in the Bible: the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Well, where’s the other eight? They were all there, but they were conveniently edited out for all kinds of political reasons.
That is your beef, not mine.
I already told you I do not consider it historically accurate.
Now, if you want to say, I know that at the time God-Man: The Word Made Flesh by George W. Carey & Inez Eudora Perry
was written, they should have known that was not true, those authors were intentionally writing and publishing a falsehood, great but, that is how I would word it, not wild revision.
Steefen said
Robert said
Look again at the quote from the video you posted. You seem to be ignoring the most ridiculous parts.
So we all know that the Council of Nicea was where the Bible was canonized, edited, huge parts of it were taken out and other parts were written in, which is pretty obvious to see. You know, there were supposedly twelve disciples, but there’s only four accounts of them in the Bible: the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Well, where’s the other eight? They were all there, but they were conveniently edited out for all kinds of political reasons.
That is your beef, not mine.
I already told you I do not consider it historically accurate.
Now, if you want to say, I know that at the time God-Man: The Word Made Flesh by George W. Carey & Inez Eudora Perry
was written, they should have known that was not true, those authors were intentionally writing and publishing a falsehood, great but, that is how I would word it, not wild revision.
Robert’s phrasing, “wild historical revisionism,” is actually more charitable than what you suggest, as it doesn’t ascribe motive or intention to the falsehood, but confines itself to an objective assessment of the claims made.
And yes, in 1920 they should have known better. It was wild revisionist history, unconstrained by facts or evidence, then as it is now.
Steefen said
Bart D.E.Right: Constantine’s order of 50 Bibles definitely does not imply a fixed canon at all; he himself never discusses the canon, nor did the Council of Nicea.
Constantine’s order was to Eusebius of Caesarea, who does himself discuss in detail the question of the canon in his Ecclesiastical History,
explicitly stating that
there are some books accepted by some groups
that are to be excluded in his opinion,
others that are debated (including some that eventually made it in), etc.
So no, there’s no set canon at the time.
And again, I don’t know what the evidence is that Damasus had a fixed canon in mind. I’ll have to look into it further.
The Gelasian Decree is almost certainly 6th century, so I’m not sure how much it would be.
Steefen
Thank you.
[Let me see exactly–Google, what is the Gelasian Decree?]
The Gelasian Decree (Latin: Decretum Gelasianum) is a Latin text traditionally thought to be a Decretal [letters] of the prolific Pope Gelasius I, bishop of Rome from 492–496.
The work reached its final form in a five-chapter text written by an anonymous scholar between 519 and 553, the second chapter of which is a list of books of Scripture presented as having been made part of the biblical canon by a Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I, the bishop of Rome from 366–383. This list, known as the Damasine List, [Burkitt > Journal of Theological Studies 14, (1913) pp. 469-471] represents the same canon as shown in the Council of Carthage Canon 24 in 419. The fifth segment of the work includes a list of distrusted and rejected works not encouraged for church use.
Bart D.E.
No need to ask Dan. He hasn’t digitized one because one doesn’t exist. Some scholars have argued that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are two of the 50, but I don’t know anyone who thinks that still.
And the Vatican library doesn’t have 99% of the books from Christian antiquity!
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert