Posted on 04/19/2009 2:38:15 PM PDT by restornu
[p.95] The following essay argues that the final fixing of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian biblical canon did not emerge until the middle to the late fourth century, even though the long process that led to the canonization of the Hebrew scriptures began in the sixth or fifth century BCE and of the New Testament scriptures in the second century CE. Pivotal in the arguments for an early dating of the Hebrew Scriptures is the lack of unequivocal evidence for the fixation of the Old Testament canon in the time before Christ but also the emergence of canonical lists of scriptures only in the fourth century CE. It is also argued that the Muratorian Fragment originated in the middle of late fourth century CE. The paper concludes with a discussion of viability of the traditional criteria of canonicity and whether these criteria should be reapplied to the biblical literature in light of more recent conclusions about authorship, date, theological emphasis, and widespread appeal in antiquity.
Key Words: Canon of Scripture, Muratorian Fragment, early Patristics
I. Introduction
For the last generation or so there has been a growing interest in the formation of the Christian Bible and the viability of the current biblical canon. With little or no change in the biblical canon for some 400 years, why is there today such vigorous inquiry into its formation and even recommendations for changes in its contents? Kurt Aland, for example, has raised the question of reducing the books in the Bible to take out what he considers to be an embarrassment to the majority of the Church in order to promote Christian unity.1 Similarly, Ernst Käsemann has also asked whether there should be a “canon within
[p.96]
the canon”―in essence, a reduction of the biblical text―in order to alleviate the concern over the diversity withn the Bible.2 The goal of each of these scholars is laudable, namely, to produce harmony in the Christian community; it is, nevertheless, shortsighted. The reduction of any part of the biblical canon would cause more division in the Church and not
1 Kurt Aland, The Problem of the New Testament Canon (London: Mowbray, 1962) 28-33.
2 Ernst Käsemann, “The Canon of the New Testament Church and the Unity of the Church,” Essays on New
Testament Themes (London: SCM, 1968) 95-107. J. D. G. Dunn also discusses the notion of a canon within
the canon, albeit in a different sense (The Living Word [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987] 141-42, 161-74).
After describing four levels of canonical activity or four ways to view the canon, he asks what is the most important level of authority for exegesis and faith. He answers that it is the level of “final composition”
(p. 172). Lee Martin McDonald, “The Integrity of the Biblical Canon in Light of Its Historical Development,”
Bulletin for Biblical Research 6 (1996): 95-132.
less. More recently, and for completely different reasons, the Jesus Seminar has also promoted the idea of both reducing the current biblical canon (eliminating especially the Apocalypse) and expanding it to include the Gospel of Thomas and the “Unknown Gospel” of the Egerton Papyri.3 One can well imagine the dispensational and Adventist churches’ response to the projected rejection of the book of Revelation by the Jesus Seminar in their “Scholars’ Canon’! I am in full agreement with Professor Metzger who says that although the Bible canon may in principle be changed, in all practicality that cannot be done.4 The Bible is a historical fact. Any changes in the present Christian Bible would undoubtedly adversely affect many segments of the Christian community and cause more divisions in the Church and not less. Although the biblical canon has received considerable attention over the last 100 years,5 the current interest in its formation seems to be out of proportion to the focus it received before the end of the nineteenth century. Much of the recent inquiry has concentrated on and even challenged well-known and widely held views. Some of the most disputed conclusions from earlier studies include the following:
[p.97]
(1) that the Hebrew Scriptures reached their canonical acceptance among the Jews in a three-stage development beginning ca. 400 BCE for the Pentateuch, 200 BCE for the Prophets, and 90-100 CE for the Writings; (2) that the early Christians received from Jesus a closed OT canon; (3) that most of the NT canon was settled by the end of the second century CE; and (4) that evidence of this is provided by a late second century canonical list called the Muratorian Fragment. Other questions are also emerging that call for a reasoned response:
1. Why were discussions about the scope of the OT biblical canon still going on in the Church well into the fourth through the sixth centuries―and even later―if the matter was largely settled before the time of Christ? And further, why did it take the Church three to four hundred years to establish its twenty-seven book NT canon?
2. What precisely is a biblical canon, and how sure are we that this notion flourished in the time before, during, or immediately after the ministry of Jesus? What is the nature of the evidence for that position and how compelling is it?
3. Do biblical canons exist whenever an ancient writer cites a source from an even more ancient text? In other words, does a cited text automatically become an ancient writer’s biblical canon?6 Recently, one rabbinic scholar has questioned whether the issue of a closed biblical canon was ever discussed among the Jewish sages of later antiquity.7
4. What sources more accurately reflect the earliest strands of Christian faith? There are scholars today who are considering other ancient sources that they believe relate more faithfully the earliest
[p.98]
traditions of Jesus than those we find in the canonical Gospels. It is not uncommon these days to hear discussions about the enlargement of the traditional data base for knowing about the historical Jesus, for example―and we repeat, to include in that data base the Gospel of Thomas and the “Unknown Gospel” discovered in the Egerton Papyri as well as other noncanonical writings such as portions of the Gospel of Peter. Even worse, some include a “Secret Gospel of Mark” supposedly found at the Mar Saba monastery in the Judean wilderness by Morton Smith.8
5. What of the agrapha? Some scholars have suggested that the agrapha (the sayings of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels), or portions of these sayings at least, ought to be added to that data base of reliable information about the historical Jesus in order to understand more clearly who Jesus was. This is not a new proposal, of course, and it
Lee Martin McDonald, “The Integrity of the Biblical Canon in Light of Its Historical Development,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 6 (1996): 95-132. continues to surface here and there.9 The legitimacy of the question stems from the fact that the agrapha served as a scriptural (or authoritative) resource for the Christians that cited them, and if we can with some assurance determine which of the two hundred plus agrapha are genuine,10 then should they not be added to the data base of information that informs us about Jesus?11 6. Finally, several scholars have raised the question about the appropriate canonical text for the Church today. Brevard Childs has asked which text of Scripture should be the focus of authority for the Church. Is it the text in its original and earliest form that is the Focus
[p.99]
of authority and exegesis for the Church, or is it rather the later canonical form of the text? The latter text admittedly has received many additions, some of which were intentional and others accidental. For instance, is the original form of Philippians that was made up of two parts (1:1-3:1 and 3:2-4:23)12 the canonical or authoritative text of the Church, or is it instead the one that currently exists in our NT, which combines these two originally separate writings of Paul? Does it matter how the Church preserved these texts so long as they are preserved in the biblical canon? Similarly, does it make a difference in one’s reading if the two parts are separated for study and preaching? Is the Gospel of John best read as it was written, namely, as a single gospel, or as the Fourth Gospel? Is the final form of Isaiah the authoritative base for preaching and teaching, or do we look for an earlier First, Second, or even Third Isaiah? Should we receive into our biblical canon―thereby conferring authority on them―such texts as Mark 16:9-20, John 21, and Acts 8:37, as well as other texts with questionable textual critical support, even though most scholars today agree that these texts were later additions to the original texts? Further, should we accept as a part of our Scriptures only the earliest texts that are available to us today that most closely reflect the original hand of the author?
Lee Martin McDonald, “The Integrity of the Biblical Canon in Light of Its Historical Development,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 6 (1996): 95-132.
We might get a clue for our choices in this matter from the fact that the early Church grounded its theology in the witness from the apostolic community.13
[p.100]
All of these questions and others as well have given rise to the recent interest in the formation of the biblical canon, and other questions have been prompted by these. Before any new advances can be made in our understanding of the formation of the Bible, however, much more research is needed than what has emerged so far. This is especially true in the notion of canon in antiquity and how that notion influenced both Judaism and Christianity in establishing their biblical canons. We are probably on the threshold of new advances in canonical studies that will change our perceptions of the canonical process, though not necessarily the contents of the biblical canon. As a result, we are likely to see more attempts at redefining the biblical canon. I do not think, however, that the current shape of the Christian Bible will be much affected in the Church at large through such attempts. Instead, we will probably continue to find more clever ways to marginalize those parts of the biblical canon that no longer appear to be relevant to us or that offend us rather than making attempts at changing the canon.14 James Sanders argues that the Jews were able to adapt their authoritative Scriptures to new and changing circumstances, and the very adaptability of those Scriptures allowed them to continue as authoritative texts within the Jewish community.15 Canons are by nature adaptable to the changing life of the believing community, and that is undoubtedly the reason why our current Bible continues to function as sacred Scripture in our churches. The documents within the biblical canon continue to be relevant to the Church’s needs. Canons also change, however, most typically by expansion though historically also by reduction. Hermas and Barnabas, for example, eventually dropped away from sacred Christian collections, even though they remained in some collections well into the fourth and fifth centuries. As the Jewish community developed, there was a time when it recognized more than the Law of Moses as their sacred Scriptures. They also included the Prophets. From the beginning, the early Christians accepted the words of and about Jesus as their final norm (see, for example, 1 Cor 7:10, compare 7:12, 25 and 11:23).
[p.101]
As the Church grew it became obvious early on that written Gospels and eventually the letters of Paul were also advantageous in the ongoing life the community. When some writings ceased being canon to the religious needs of the Christian community, they also ceased being canon to that community, and that is seen in the neglect of those texts or even the disappearance of complete books (for example, Hermas, 1 Clement, Eldad and Modat). This is also true in the New Testament. Paul, for example, “decanonizes”16 much of the OT’s emphasis on the Law, especially its focus on clean and unclean foods or ritualistic cleansings, because such things were no longer deemed relevant to their faith (Gal 3:1- 5:15). Dunn makes the point that the OT can never function as canon for Christians in the same way that it does for the Jews. For the Christian, he argues, the NT always functions to some extent as the canon within the biblical canon.17 The bottom line in all of these questions, of course, has to do with the viability and integrity of our current Bible. Can the Bible have a theological integrity in light of the historical inquiries that have recently come to the attention of biblical scholars? These and other questions will be our focus in the remainder of this paper. We will begin with the problem of definition and then examine some of the critical issues related to the formation of the Christian Bible. Finally, I will focus on a few of the issues that I believe will occupy some of the attention that will be given to the question of the biblical canon in future discussions.
II. The Problem of Definition: Canon 1 and Canon 2
A large part of the difficulty in canonical studies, as we have noted above, has to do with definitions. What is a biblical canon? In a perceptive discussion of this question, Gerald Sheppard has shown two ways of understanding the notion of canon in the ancient world. The first of these is what he calls “canon 1;” which is essentially when something functions in an authoritative manner in a community, that is, as rules, regulations, or guides. Canon 1 is present wherever there is a respect for some authority within a community, although it is a flexible or fluid authority that is not yet fixed. The other understanding of canon (what he calls “canon 2”) comes when these canon 1 authorities become more fixed in a given community. A canon 2 authority is one that becomes so well-established in a community of faith that very little doubt exists about the authority of the text thereafter. It is more fixed than canon 1 authorities. Canon Scholars
[p.102]
will often attribute to ancient writers a canon 2 notion when in fact they are only dealing with a canon 1 authority, that is, one that is fluid and open to change even though it is functioning as an authority. I will be using these distinctions (fluid vs. fixed) in what follows and will argue that what is called “canonical” (canon 2) by some scholars is often much less fixed (canon 1). For example, the Prophets (Nebiim) and most of the Writings (Ketubim) were recognized as canon 1 authorities long before they were finally acknowledged as a fixed part of the Hebrew Scriptures (the OT). There are many canon 1 texts in antiquity. Undoubtedly, for some in Israel and for some of the early Christians also, this included the acceptance of apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings as sacred authorities. In the case of the OT, only the Law and the Prophets appear to fall under the category of canon 2 before the time of Christ. In the case of the NT writings, only a few were generally accepted in a canon 2 fashion before the end of the second century CE (the Gospels and most of the letters of Paul). The Former Prophets were a recognized authority in the time of Ezra, and the people of Israel were judged because they failed to listen to the prophets who witnessed to or proclaimed the message of the Law (Ezra 9:10ff.).18 In the time of Ezra, however, only the Mosaic codes were given a canon 2 recognition, and the prophets themselves were not yet brought into that arena of fixed authority. There is no such recognition given to the writings of the classical prophets at this time, even though they were mentioned occasionally. All references to the prophets in these works have to do with the prophets’ public proclamation in their ministry, that is, in their work on the temple, but there is nothing said about their literary productions (see Ezra 5:1-2 where Haggai and Zechariah are mentioned; see also Ezra 9:11; Neh 6:7, 14; 9:26, 30, 32). It is also not clear whether the prophets in these contexts are equal to the writing prophets of either the Former or Latter Prophets. If the Prophets as a written collection had been recognized as sacred Scripture (canon 2) in the days of Ezra, this would have been a perfect time and place to introduce these writings to the people, but only the Books (or laws?) of Moses were acknowledged as canon 2 by Ezra and the people at that time. In the Qumran community, it was not uncommon to have additions and alterations made to the text of Scripture and even deletions as in the case of the scroll of Isaiah. Does this suggest that for them many of these writings had not yet become canon 2, that is, inviolable? The evidence is not clear enough to make that point, but it is suggestive.
[p.103]
What we have been suggesting is something like an “unclosed canon” existing alongside a rather fixed collection of Scriptures (the writings of Moses) for a period of time and growing in size during that time. Everett Ferguson argues for the same idea without using the terms canon 1 and 2 and prefers to speak of a growing and yet still open collection of sacred Scriptures in the Church in the second and third centuries CE.19 This appears to be a fair assessment of the matter. When the LXX was produced (ca. 250-225 BCE), it is interesting that only the Law was translated into Greek, and only later were the Prophets, which were circulating in a collection ca. 200-180 BCE, and the Writings, which were circulating in a more loose
form ca. 130 BCE or later, also translated and added to the LXX. It is difficult to know the precise contents of the LXX in the first century BCE or CE since no copies exist, but that the LXX expanded to include the Prophets and Writings is certain. The NT writers use the LXX in more than eighty percent of their references to the OT, and these came from each of the three categories of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Law, Prophets, and Writings). But is that all that was included in the LXX? The answer is that we currently do not know, since the notion of a growing and separate Alexandrian canon of OT Scriptures that was popular some years back has been largely rejected as a result of the work of Albert Sundberg.20 The authority and reverence given to the LXX in antiquity is obvious from the sensational description of its translation in the legendary Letter of Aristeas (ca. 190 BCE-35 CE).21 For the author of that letter, the Law of Moses was unquestionably accepted as canon 2. If the Prophets and Writings had already obtained that status when the LXX was produced, it is puzzling that they were not also included in the translation or mentioned in the Letter.
III. The OT Canon
In regard to the evidence for the formation of the Hebrew Scriptures/OT, we note that there is a tendency among canon scholars today to interpret pre-Christian Jewish texts anachronistically, from the perspective of the second century rabbinic sages or later and also from
[p.104]
the vantage point of the church fathers from the fourth and fifth centuries.22 The same could be said about citing one text from the second century or later and claiming that its views were everywhere present in both the first and second centuries. For instance, there is a tendency to cite the late second century baraita B.T. Baba Bathra 14b as evidence breadth. In the lower margin of a scroll of the Law the space of a hand-breadth is left, and in the upper margin two thirds of a hand-breadth, but in scrolls of the Prophets and the Fifths three finger-breadths in the lower margin and two finger-breadths in the upper” (Sepher Torah 2.3-4; Sop. 2.4). See Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 438; but see also pp. 111-14. Beckwith also shows how the Hagiographa is referred to as the “Fifths” (μyCmzj) in t. Kelim B. M. 5.8 which reads, “The Book of Ezra, if it comes out (of the Temple), makes the hands unclean; and not the Book of Ezra alone [Torah], but the Prophets and the Fifths. But another book makes the hands unclean if it is brought in there.” If “Fifths” is used as a reference to the Psalms and if the term “psalms,” because it stood in the first place in the Hagiographa, is also used for the third part of the Hebrew Bible, as Beckwith claims, then the reference to the Psalms in Luke 24:44 may stand for the whole collection of Writings, but the evidence simply is not there to make the jump backward to the first century and argue that this is what Jesus had in mind in this text.
The article’s use of CD and BCE is enough for me to know the foundation of the writer. No thank you. (and I am hugely interested in the Canon of Scripture and Bible history in general).
I don’t understand the purpose of the post and why it should be “ecumenical”.
A key document on the Inerrancy of Scripture... for all to read and understand...
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html
The beginning statement for the document, regarding the Scriptures...
—
Background
The “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.
The ICBI disbanded in 1988 after producing three major statements: one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in 1986. The following text, containing the “Preface” by the ICBI draft committee, plus the “Short Statement,” “Articles of Affirmation and Denial,” and an accompanying “Exposition,” was published in toto by Carl F. H. Henry in God, Revelation And Authority, vol. 4 (Waco, Tx.: Word Books, 1979), on pp. 211-219. The nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial, with a brief introduction, also appear in A General Introduction to the Bible, by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix (Chicago: Moody Press, rev. 1986), at pp. 181-185. An official commentary on these articles was written by R. C. Sproul in Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary (Oakland, Calif.: ICBI, 1980), and Norman Geisler edited the major addresses from the 1978 conference, in Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980).
Clarification of some of the language used in this Statement may be found in the 1982 Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
—
It’s very good reading and forms an excellent basis for the Bible being the Word of God...
Agreed. And since it is an ecuminical thread, that's probably about all that can be said.
You said — The article’s use of CD and BCE is enough for me to know the foundation of the writer. No thank you. (and I am hugely interested in the Canon of Scripture and Bible history in general).
—
Post #5 gives you the basis for the Bible being the Word of God, inerrant and infallible and totally accurate, without any error — in all that it says and teaches...
It’s good for all who wish to know how they can trust the Bible as God’s word, to read and understand.
Which version is inerrant and infallable?
You’ll find that in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy... They address that and say what it applies to.
I’ll go with their statement.
This Religion Forum thread is labeled “ecumenical” - no antagonism is allowed.
Ecumenical ping.
One should take the time to read the whole document. It is a heavy read that deals in detailed technical matters and not so much with the layman in mind. The focus of the paper are the writings left out and the whys. The same site offers more readable material such as this article by FF Bruce
http://biblicalstudiesorguk.blogspot.com/2008/03/ff-bruce-on-canon-of-scripture.html
If one reads Bruce’s book (The Canon of Scripture), one will see the amazing agreement in the books and early on. The exceptions are few and that is what the author of this article appears to be addressing.
Wrong link GF, it actually goes to this site
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/index.html
These are not restorationists.
So despite the silly “Common Era” stuff which tends to always be tied to some unbiblical biblical study by a theological liberal when I see it used in such context, are you saying this is worth a read?
Adam-ondi-Ahman; America always; Antonello; Arrowhead; asparagus; BlueMoose; ComeUpHigher; ...
Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.
The Integrity of the Biblical Canon in Light of Its Historical Development (Ecumenical)
At least there is a PROCESS to determine just what constitutes SCRIPTURE - unlike some other types of religious orders.
The GREK and the HEBREW ones.
It is worth a read as long as you have a foundation of the chronology of the different 'lists' mentioned, etc. Best foundation reading is FF Bruce's "Canon of Scripture". Otherwise it can make your eyes roll into your head with some of the discussions. The article does question some of what modern Christians view as a set piece bible - due to poor teaching. By and large the article scratches at the exceptions and ignores the norm. It is a highbrow work.
I noticed that when I went to the document, what is posted here is a few SELECT parts of a much larger document (32 pages in PDF format) designed to lead the reader to a certain conclusion that the full paper does not make.
I suspect that this thread is a response to one of my posts to Resty late last night:
We have New testament manuscripts dating to about 170 A.D., and OT manuscripts dating from before that (Dead Sea scrolls date from 2nd Century B.C.). All of these manuscripts show an AMAZING continuity. The worth of the Dead Sea scrolls is that they are evidence that the Bible WAS NOT corrupted.
The world did have access to the Bible from Early on. The Codex Sinaiticus, the earliest complete Bible manuscript, dates from about 350 A.D.
As far as bibles available to all in ENGLISH, is the Wycliffe Bible from the 1390’s.
A really good book to read on the subject is Robert L. Thomas’ book “How to Choose a Bible Version”.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2230528/posts?q=1&;page=151#187
BTW, 350 CE (the date of the Codex Codex Sinaiticus) is “middle of fourth century.
The BCE/CE convetion does not really bother me. It came into vogue as part of the liberal “higher criticism” movement, but is in such wide use that many authors don’t think about it. Maybe they should.
Sometimes the BCE/CE convention is used depending upon your audience. I use BCE/CE often in my historical research but I NEVER use it in devotional writings. A friend of mine (also a historian and a Christian) uses both as well. We even will use them both in conversation depending on if we are “talking shop” or discussing faith.
And it is true that the use of BCE/CE or BC/AD does influence a readers perception of the author.
FF Bruce’s “Canon of Scripture” is a good work.
Wow. What a drastic and amazing change! You are still marking the years since the founding of the Republic, you are just no longer making reference to what event you are marking as “year one” or “year zero” (as the case may be).
So the reason that the BCE/CE stuff bothers me is that it still counts the years from the birth of Jesus the Christ, but refuses to admit what event marked the beginning of the count. It is fundamentally dishonest.
Moreover, many people have not gone with CE meaning “Common Era” and have instead referred to CE as the “Christian Era”, which is accurate, but detracts COMPLETELY from the reason people went with CE in the first place.
I’m into that old time religion..
BJS...
I use BC and AD ...
I agree, that is painfully apparent.
All of these manuscripts show an AMAZING continuity. The worth of the Dead Sea scrolls is that they are evidence that the Bible WAS NOT corrupted.
Taking it one step further, we have the disputed 'books' available to us as well - they were not lost.
It would definitely help. It would at least familiarize you with the arguements the article seems to take for granted.
So the reason that the BCE/CE stuff bothers me is that it still counts the years from the birth of Jesus the Christ, but refuses to admit what event marked the beginning of the count. It is fundamentally dishonest.
- - - - - - - - - -
The reason it became a convention was because the “higher critics” believed that Jesus’ birth was most likely around 4 BC and that it was “dishonest” (no I am not kidding) to use “year of our Lord” (AD) when it was 4 years off.
I use BC and AD ...
- - — - - - -
I do as well, when I am talking about faith related issues/work. I do not dismiss an author based on if they uses CE or AD, but there are many “scholars” (and I use that term lightly here) who will dismiss your entire work if you use AD in historical work.
Stupid, I know but it happens. It was a subject that came up often in grad school.
Taking it one step further, we have the disputed ‘books’ available to us as well - they were not lost.
- - - - - - - - -
Very true. And even a cursory glance at those books will make it very apparent why most of them were left out of the cannon. Many of those are gnostic texts, gnostic influenced texts, or worded in such a way as to be easily used to support gnostic doctrine.
I took a course on “Lost Christianities” that dealt specifically with books left out of the cannon (mostly the Nag Hammadi texts).
That class did quite a bit to reinforce my belief that the determiners of cannon were inspired by the Holy Ghost as to what to include and what to leave out
ut the incremental changing of long held and accepted terms simply to sound more “correct” and “smart” has always stuck in my craw.
- - - - - - - —
And it is RAMPANT in academia as well as the media.
Can you prove that all of the New Testament was written in Greek? Is there an original manuscript in existence for any single Book of the New Testament?
Beats me.
As a scientist I find a four year margin of error over a two thousand year period to not be significant.
But the criticism of BC/AD that I had always heard was the reason it was attempted to be done away with, was that it was too specifically Christian. Making people calling CE the “Christian era” instead of the “Common era” something of ironic justice.
Is there origional manuscript in evidence for any of the bom? How 'bout boa?
The little Nag Hammadi reading I've done (mostly G of Thomas) shows some very weird beliefs and twisting of the words. GoT mostly mystical 'sayings'. Shepard and some of the other post-apostalic writers are on firmer ground, but were clearly not written under apostalic authority. Many ANF liked them - much like we would like a good Christian related book/teaching, but they just didn't reach the level of truely inspired.
Is there origional manuscript in evidence for any of the bom? How ‘bout boa?
- - - - — -
In a way there is for the BoA. They have the papyrus Joseph SAmith used to “translate” it, papyrus which very clearly proves that the BoA is a fraud.
Charles Larson wrote a great book called: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri.
Amazon has the book or it can be read online here:
http://www.irr.org/mit/bhoh-pt1.html
No.
But at least there of COPIES of it in GREEK.
Unlike certain OTHER Books not mentioned.
It's been 3 days now, and the clarion call has been ignored.
It's been 3 days now, and the clarion call has been ignored.
But not to worry!
We ANTI’s still love you!
Four years is not a long time. Even in History (except maybe modern), we discuss events within a “time window”, the farther back in time, the greater the window (in general).
And an anti-Christian bias was probably part of it, but not for everyone involved.
When I was in grad school, I had one professor who automatically gave “F”s to any student using BC/AD in a paper.
I had another professor who said “You may use either, but be aware that others may prejudge your work on which you use and assume bias.
I tell my students “Go ahead, use either, or use them both interchangeably.” I explain that there is some bias against each and they should be able to defend their choice, because they need to be able to do that with everything and so many have no critical thinking skills.
But I would never dream of punishing them for using one over the other.
For me it is not a matter of salvation if I use one or the other, it just isn’t that important.
People ask “why the four years?”
And he says “they told me it was 52 million years in the past when I was hired four years ago.”
LoL. Something like that. And then you get conflicting dates and changes in chronologies. Egyptian chronology changes on an almost monthly basis (I am not kidding).
Even simple questions such as “When was the fall of the Roman Empire?” can get you several different dates and ranges of dates.
So, to argue over the POSSIBILITY of 4 years is stupid, IMO. Some people get so caught up in irrelevant details they lose the big picture.
Which book are you now claiming was supposed to be written in greek?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.