Da Vinci Code: Constantine and Christianity

[Macarthur]

But my issue isn't what should or shouldn't be allowed in the canon but how can you trust the formation of that canon in the first place givn:
a) Armenian, Syrian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Gnostic and who know's what other bibles, have or had different NTs. Why is the Catholic Bible special?
b) Gnositicism and presumably other "false beliefs" are rejected for being too wierd and not painting Jesus in a nice enough way. Were Gnostics or other "heretical" beliefs invited to the coucil?
c) Who knows what motives the Nicean Bishops had for choosing certain gospels over others?

Well stated. This was what I was trying to get across, but you phrased it better.

[jpholding]

Maybe I'm not on the same page, but I can't for the life of me see why you would think this is meaningless. I do believe the truth is partisan. Therefore, is it really truth.

My, but the art of open self-contradiction manifests itself in the oddest places.

I don't have access to some things I would use to give you some examples.

For some reason that didn't stop you from commenting earlier, now, did it?

I just don't have much faith that these hundreds on men went through hundreds of works of literature and was able to come up with the perfect document. I fully admit I haven't studied this subject as much as you have.

Okey doke. I'll put it this way then:

1) Based on my study, there were not even "hundreds" to go through. The vast majority of candidates were so uproariously late in composition, and/or so obviously menifesting trends that would never have adhered in first century Palestine, that they required no study to speak of by these 300 or so men and others later on. A quick toss in the trash is about all that was needed.

2) Even if a purely human enterprise, the burden remains upon those who doubt the outcome to explain why they, further away in time and knowledge, are qualified to judge the outcome. So if it is not your "intention to debate" then I wonder of the relevance of your initial throwaway line that promoted my response.

3) Beyond all of this, the canon was well decided long before any council took up the issue; as NT scholar Robert Grant puts it in a quote I like to wear out:

(The canon was) not the product of official assemblies or even of the studies of a few theologians. It reflects and expresses the ideal self-understanding of a whole religious movement which, in spite of temporal, geographical, and even ideological differences, could finally be united in accepting these 27 diverse documents as expressing the meaning of God's revelation in Jesus Christ and to his church.

If you ever do dig up specifics, feel free to return comment. For now it is enough to say that your (ahem) vision of the canon is not reflected in credentialed scholarship on the subject by the likes of Metzger, Grant, and others.

[TheOneAndOnly]

JP Holding:

1) Based on my study, there were not even "hundreds" to go through. The vast majority of candidates were so uproariously late in composition, and/or so obviously menifesting trends that would never have adhered in first century Palestine, that they required no study to speak of by these 300 or so men and others later on. A quick toss in the trash is about all that was needed.

Trends like eating Yahweh's son? Or worshipping a man-god? Were these common practices among the Jews?
And it clearly wasn't just a quick toss in the trash that was needed since the Nicean Canon is not unique. What authority does the Nicean Council have over other Bibles?

2) Even if a purely human enterprise, the burden remains upon those who doubt the outcome to explain why they, further away in time and knowledge, are qualified to judge the outcome. So if it is not your "intention to debate" then I wonder of the relevance of your initial throwaway line that promoted my response.

What qualifies the Nicean Bishops, further away in time from Jesus than Gnostic (and other) gospels, to judge these works?

3) Beyond all of this, the canon was well decided long before any council took up the issue; as NT scholar Robert Grant puts it in a quote I like to wear out:
(The canon was) not the product of official assemblies or even of the studies of a few theologians. It reflects and expresses the ideal self-understanding of a whole religious movement which, in spite of temporal, geographical, and even ideological differences, could finally be united in accepting these 27 diverse documents as expressing the meaning of God's revelation in Jesus Christ and to his church.

I'm sure there was a movement long before Nicea agreeing with more or less all of the Nicean Council. A movement that later went on to monopolize Christianity.
This movement's bible was not unique, though: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html

XVIII. The Eastern Canons
For centuries the Diatessaron of Tatian, along with Acts and the Pauline Epistles (except Philemon), comprised the only accepted books in the Syrian churches, 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 they could find of the Diatessaron and replaced them with the four canonical Gospels (M 215). 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: Philemon was accepted, along with James, 1 Peter and 1 John, but the remaining books are still expelled (2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Revelation, and Jude). After the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., the Eastern Syrian church, in turn divided between the Nestorian and the Syrian Orthodox Churches, broke away, and retained this canon of only 22 books (the Peshitta) until the present day. However, to confuse matters, a monument erected by a Nestorian in China in 781 A.D. states that there were 27 holy books (the number in the standard Western Bible of today), although they are not named and there is debate over what books are meant. Meanwhile, the Western Monophysite Syrian church, at the urging of Bishop Philoxenus in 508 A.D., abandoned the Peshitta altogether and adopted a new Syriac translation of the Catholic Bible, yet the Harcleans still insisted on including 1 and 2 Clement in their Bible, the last surviving copy of which dates to 1170 A.D. (M 218-22).

Then there is the Armenian Church, significant not only in being a breed apart, but also in being the first "national church" in Christian history--the royal family, and thus at their behest the rest of the nation, converted to Christianity a few years before Constantine. The Armenian Bible is essentially the same as ours, with one addition: a third letter to the Corinthians, actually taken directly from the Acts of Paul (M 176, 182, 219, 223; cf. IX), became canonized in the Armenian Church and remains a part of the Armenian Bible to this day. Revelation, however, was not accepted into the Armenian Bible until c. 1200 A.D. when Archbishop Nerses arranged an Armenian Synod at Constantinople to introduce the text. Still, there were unsuccessful attempts even as late as 1290 A.D. to include in the Armenian canon several apocryphal books: Advice of the Mother of God to the Apostles, the Books of Criapos, and the ever-popular Epistle of Barnabas (M 224).

Then there are the African canons. The Coptic Bible (adopted by the Egyptian Church) includes the two Epistles of Clement, and the Ethiopic Bible includes books nowhere else found: the Sinodos (a collection of prayers and instructions supposedly written by Clement of Rome), the Octateuch (a book supposedly written by Peter to Clement of Rome), the Book of the Covenant (in two parts, the first details rules of church order, the second relates instructions from Jesus to the disciples given between the resurrection and the ascension), and the Didascalia (with more rules of church order, similar to the Apostolic Constitutions).

So just because one movement clubbed together to sponsor some manuscripts and reject others, forming there own bible, why should we accept their views?
Why should we reject other variations?
Why should Jesus' be considered a god?
Why should catholics eat him?
Is there any possibility of Pagan influences on Nicea?

[Macarthur]

My, but the art of open self-contradiction manifests itself in the oddest places.

Hum, maybe I didn't explain that. What I'm saying is that if the truth is partisan, then the whole comming together of the council could be called into question (i.e. finding absolute truth). And I don't see how you could see that as meaningless.

For some reason that didn't stop you from commenting earlier, now, did it?.

Some of us have a real job...

[jpholding]

Trends like eating Yahweh's son?

And where is that, please?

Or worshipping a man-god? Were these common practices among the Jews?

A man-god was one aspect of messianic expectations of the period, so obviously it would not have been a problem in and of itself for Jews.

And it clearly wasn't just a quick toss in the trash that was needed since the Nicean Canon is not unique. What authority does the Nicean Council have over other Bibles?

What authority to "other Bibles" have that we should give a buffalo crap?

What qualifies the Nicean Bishops, further away in time from Jesus than Gnostic (and other) gospels, to judge these works?

200+ years of continuity between themselves and their forebears. Did you have a specific document you wanted to defend or is this just the Mouth Off of the Month?

I'm sure there was a movement long before Nicea agreeing with more or less all of the Nicean Council. A movement that later went on to monopolize Christianity.

The truth does tend to earn a monopoly, yes. You can spare me Carrier's diatribe; it contains nothing to support any thesis of error in selection by the Niceans. Bits and pieces from later parties proves little if anything. If you want to defend 3 Corinthians specifically as a work that ought indeed be canonized, do so.

So just because one movement clubbed together to sponsor some manuscripts and reject others, forming there own bible, why should we accept their views?

Um, because they are proved right by the data?

Why should we reject other variations?

Because they don't cohere with the data?

Why should Jesus' be considered a god?

What is it Jesus possesses in this sentence?

Why should catholics eat him?

Because they're hungry?

Is there any possibility of Pagan influences on Nicea?

Not one lick of possibility.

Hum, maybe I didn't explain that. What I'm saying is that if the truth is partisan, then the whole comming together of the council could be called into question (i.e. finding absolute truth). And I don't see how you could see that as meaningless.

That makes not one whit of sense and remains self-contradictory.

Some of us have a real job...

Which nevertheless does not seem to prohibit the posting of sound bites....

[TheOneAndOnly]

Me: Trends like eating Yahweh's son?

JP Holding: And where is that, please?

If the Catholic Church (and presumably Orthodox) is to be believed, at the Eucharist men are supposed to eat Jesus. Not symbolically, not metaphorically, Jesus actually turns into bread and wine and is devoured. I have a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia in a previous post to show this.
Was this practice common in first century Jews? Did the Jews, many of whom were to scared to even write Yahweh's name down, consider it appropriate to eat him?

Me:
Or worshipping a man-god? Were these common practices among the Jews?


JP Holding: A man-god was one aspect of messianic expectations of the period, so obviously it would not have been a problem in and of itself for Jews.

Really? I'm genuinely interested. I thought the Jews were waiting for a warrior, a king or a hero of some sort. Did they actually expect a human/divine hybrid? And did they consider that God would reveal himself as a trinity?

Me: And it clearly wasn't just a quick toss in the trash that was needed since the Nicean Canon is not unique. What authority does the Nicean Council have over other Bibles?

JP Holding: What authority to "other Bibles" have that we should give a buffalo crap?

I have no idea. I've never read any gnostic or heretical bibles. That's not the point. I asked what makes the decisions formed by this council somehow more authoritative than a "heretical" council, say? Why is their bible so special?

Me: What qualifies the Nicean Bishops, further away in time from Jesus than Gnostic (and other) gospels, to judge these works?

JP Holding: 200+ years of continuity between themselves and their forebears. Did you have a specific document you wanted to defend or is this just the Mouth Off of the Month?

What continuity is there? How do you know the continuity wasn't "reverse-engineered", ie made up after the council to give it authority? Such things aren't unheard of.

Me: I'm sure there was a movement long before Nicea agreeing with more or less all of the Nicean Council. A movement that later went on to monopolize Christianity.

JP Holding: The truth does tend to earn a monopoly, yes. You can spare me Carrier's diatribe; it contains nothing to support any thesis of error in selection by the Niceans. Bits and pieces from later parties proves little if anything. If you want to defend 3 Corinthians specifically as a work that ought indeed be canonized, do so.

Truth earns a monopoly? I guess that's why Islam has the monopoly of the Arab world, because its the "truth".
I'm not arguing that bits and bobs should be put in the bible or removed. I'm questionning the formation of the bible in the first place. The article simply showed that the bible is and never was unique.
Interestingly, should the apocrypha be put back in the bible? Hmm...

Me: So just because one movement clubbed together to sponsor some manuscripts and reject others, forming there own bible, why should we accept their views?

JP Holding: Um, because they are proved right by the data?

Well like I said earlier in the thread, I don't know much about this, so could you tell me what data you're talking about please?
And is it really likely that this group of people chose the exact same collection of books to canonize that Jesus would have approved of?

Me: Why should catholics eat him?

JP Holding: Because they're hungry?

I'm being serious. Catholics believe that at the Eucharist Bread and wine is transformed into Jesus' flesh and blood. The Catholic Encyclopedia states so.
Do you agree that Jesus should be eaten literally, not symbolically, metaphorically etc. Most protestants don't, so they have at least one problem with these early councils. I was just wondering if they got something like this wrong, what else could they have wrong?

Me: Is there any possibility of Pagan influences on Nicea?

JP Holding: Not one lick of possibility.

You seem awfully sure of that. Why could no Pagan ideas infiltrate early Christianity? A trinity doesn't seem very monotheistic to me, not compared to Judaism, anyway. Neither does god having a son who's man and god combined. Neither does ritually eating the son.

[jpholding]

Huzzah,

If the Catholic Church (and presumably Orthodox) is to be believed, at the Eucharist men are supposed to eat Jesus.

That's very interesting of course but not being Catholic or Orthodox, it's not my concern to defend.

Really? I'm genuinely interested. I thought the Jews were waiting for a warrior, a king or a hero of some sort. Did they actually expect a human/divine hybrid?

May I sum up from Glenn Miller's item at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/messiah.html:

Even the Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner (who attempts to minimize 'traditional' notions of the messiah) readily ADMITS that the messianic expectations of pre-Mishnahhic Jewry WERE those of an exalted super-human figure! Neusner believes that the compilers of the Mishnah were attempting to resolve the same issues, but in a different way. In describing this attempt, Neusner gives a telling description of what the 'older' traditions were (in "Mishnah and Messiah", JTM:275): "We focus upon how the system laid out in the Mishnah takes up and disposes of those critical issues of teleology worked out through messianic eschatology in other, earlier versions of Judaism (emphasis mine). These earlier systems resorted to the myth of the Messiah as savior and redeemer of Israel, a supernatural figure engaged in political-historical tasks as king of the Jews, even a God-man (emphasis mine) facing the crucial historical questions of Israel's life and resolving them: the Christ as king of the world, of the ages, of death itself."

And did they consider that God would reveal himself as a trinity?

They already had a binity in the intertestamental period. I don't imagine adding one more hypostasis would have been in and of itself problematic.

I have no idea. I've never read any gnostic or heretical bibles.

You're not missing much. But if you're going to question the council's wherewithal, I'd suggest you have some idea what they were dealing with, otherwise you may put yourself in the position of insisting that they had no "authority" to reject mere doggerel.

What continuity is there? How do you know the continuity wasn't "reverse-engineered", ie made up after the council to give it authority? Such things aren't unheard of.

Such things are indeed not unimagined, but to get beyond mere paranoia requires evidence. If you wish to imply that someone invented the works of Irenaeus, et al after the fact, please feel free. Conspiracy is easy to suggest as long as one is not bothered about the mechanics...

Truth earns a monopoly? I guess that's why Islam has the monopoly of the Arab world, because its the "truth".

No, that is the reverse. Truth earns a monopoly; but a monopoly does not always describe truth. IOW I am again pointing to the needed burden to satisfy.

The article simply showed that the bible is and never was unique.

I know of no one other than Josh McDowell who says so, and I alread have his works in my trash can.

Interestingly, should the apocrypha be put back in the bible? Hmm...

Ironically, if you knew me well enough, you'd not think I would be troubled by such a suggestion. I'm well comfortable with the idea of certain "apocryphal" books being within the contextual reference of the Bible, perhaps as a secondary canon of informing context.

Well like I said earlier in the thread, I don't know much about this, so could you tell me what data you're talking about please?

Where do we need to start?

Let's start with this: What exactly do you suppose a canon is for?

And is it really likely that this group of people chose the exact same collection of books to canonize that Jesus would have approved of?

Odds are fairly good for that, yes, presuming the data about each book to be correct. But we'd need to discuss specific books to say more.

I'm being serious. Catholics believe that at the Eucharist Bread and wine is transformed into Jesus' flesh and blood. The Catholic Encyclopedia states so.

Well, JP Holding doesn't. I'll have to pass further comment as I've not looked into the subject. I'm not even sure when the idea came into being, for that matter.

You seem awfully sure of that. Why could no Pagan ideas infiltrate early Christianity?

I'm sure because I've been down this road many many times with Acharya S, Burton Mack, Tom Harpur, etc. Wrote a whole series on it. It was fun.

A trinity doesn't seem very monotheistic to me, not compared to Judaism, anyway.

Then it appears I know of two things you don't:

1) Judaism was monolatrous, not monotheistic.
2) Judaism believed in the idea of hypostases, which is really all that is needed to achieve a trinity (or a binity, or quadrinity...).

[barryrob]

Barryrob:


Thanks for the info. Do you have any links? I think the bit about Jesus/Mary being based on Isis/Horus isn't gonna go down too well.
So you alos believe that early Catholic teaching absorbed Pagan influences to appeal to the masses? Are you Christian at all?

1 Yes.

2 Yes, I'm a Jehovah's Christian Witness.

Barryrob

[barryrob]

Barryrob:


Thanks for the info. Do you have any links? I think the bit about Jesus/Mary being based on Isis/Horus isn't gonna go down too well.

Next time Jehovah's Christian Witnesses knock your door ask them for some more infomation on this topic, as I am one, and we have plenty of infomation like this to hand.
Barryrob

[Macarthur]

JP, I want to get a philosophical baseline here from which you start. ARe you a 100% innerrancy of the Bible person? Do you believe the Bible is 100% God breathed/inspired? If yes, why? If not, what parts of the Bible do you have an issue with?

Thanks.

[jpholding]

JP, I want to get a philosophical baseline here from which you start. ARe you a 100% innerrancy of the Bible person? Do you believe the Bible is 100% God breathed/inspired? If yes, why? If not, what parts of the Bible do you have an issue with?

I'm a "100% it really doesn't matter" person.

Objectively I have found no sufficient evidence that the original mss. of the Bible were not inerrant. But it would neither pick my pocket nor break my leg to find otherwise, since all that means is that the Bible becomes like any other document, making truth claims that must be examined one at a time. And since I do that already, what difference does it make to ask whether it is inerrant en bloc?

You may find of some relevance my comments at http://www.tektonics.org/whatinspire.html

Quite frankly, even without inerrancy I'd probably not write much differently than I would now. I'd probably write 95% of my articles just the same if I were an atheist.