If the Bible was first discovered in the Qumran caves near the Dead Sea...

[2ndpillar]

I did note that the later 'Church Fathers' made the final selection, but the early 'Church Fathers' were the ones that compiled, edited and redacted the original books and letters.

Your problem is that after the "day of distress", the "awesome day of the LORD", the "nations"/Gentiles, will confess "our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood". (Jeremiah 16:19). Those who can read, can get ahead of the game.

 

[Augustus]

With respect to Constantine being "omnipotent", well he convened and chaired the "Council of Nicaea", and he appointed bishops, and for naysayers like Arius, he exiled them, at least until he changed his mind, and exiled Athanasius, until he changed his mind, and exiled Arius, etc. etc. etc.

There is a huge difference between an edict being issued, and that edict being carried out to the letter across a vast empire without modern media, communication, transport and law enforcement apparatus.

How many people in the Empire do you think even knew about the edict, let alone actively went out of their way to enforce it?

Far from wiping out Arianism, his son Constantius (later Emperor Constantius II) was arguably an Arian (or at least a semi-Arian), as was Valens.

Arianism still existed for a long time after that in the Empire.

Which would put them in easy reach of Constantine to burn anything with a hint of Arius, during his Arius fumes. If they had been distributed to such places as the extents of the Roman boundary, they would have been harder to burn, and if the recipients thought highly of them, they would have been copied or written about. Cenobitic monasticism started about the time of the printing of the 50 bibles, and one of their core chores were to copy books.

"The monks of the monastery fulfilled the obediences assigned them for the common good of the monastery. Among the various obediences was copying books."
Christian monasticism - Wikipedia

Why would he burn the bibles he himself commissioned?

We also do have many copies of the Bible in various forms. People in ancient times didn't necessarily consider these 50 bibles to be as important as you did to be copied exactly and filed under "one of the 50 Bibles of Constantine: Copy".

People often make the assumption that texts that no longer exist must have been destroyed for nefarious reasons, despite the fact that very few texts survive from the 4th C as most parchments don't last 1600 years for one 'natural' reason or another.

 

[metis]

Not False, because the all make different claims as to what the Apostolic succession is. It remains a different claim 'after the fact' by each church.

I do believe they all know what "apostolic succession" is and implies. Here's what you wrote: "The apostolic succession is a claim of the Roman Church after the fact, and not accepted by the rest of Christianity outside the Roman Church". Obviously, that's not true.

I do consider it a process, but it remains the later "Church Fathers" that made the decision as to what the canon would be not Constantine.

As the link I provided indicated, it was not Constantine who chose the canon but the bishops he convened that did.

 

[shunyadragon]

Your problem is that after the "day of distress", the "awesome day of the LORD", the "nations"/Gentiles, will confess "our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood". (Jeremiah 16:19). Those who can read, can get ahead of the game.

This is an interpretation of an OT text. I am simply referring to the historical evidence we have concerning the origins of the Biblical text.

 

[shunyadragon]

I do believe they all know what "apostolic succession" is and implies. Here's what you wrote: "The apostolic succession is a claim of the Roman Church after the fact, and not accepted by the rest of Christianity outside the Roman Church". Obviously, that's not true.

What the apostolic succession implies is too vague to be meaningful.

The apostolic succession based on the succession of the Papal authority claimed by the Roman Church is not what is believed and accepted by the other churches.

As the link I provided indicated, it was not Constantine who chose the canon but the bishops he convened that did.

I do not believe that the Bishops or the 'Church Fathers' determined this at the Councils. The canon of the books and letters evolved over time before the councils. The primary purpose of the councils was to resolve controvercies within the church, such as the Arian controversy concerning the trinity, and the Nicene Creed.

 

[metis]

What the apostolic succession implies is too vague to be meaningful.

The "mark" of the apostolic Church was whether your bishops were appointed going back to the apostles, and that process we see quite clearly taking place in Acts and some of the epistles as they cite appointees and then letters sent to congregations telling them to believe in what these appointees teach. To say it's "too vague to be meaningful" is quite off the mark because it is through apostolic succession that helped to try and hold the Church together as "one body", as Paul kept insisting the Church must be.

The apostolic succession based on the succession of the Papal authority claimed by the Roman Church is not what is believed and accepted by the other churches.

"Apostolic succession" deals with bishops, not popes. This issue of the papacy is another issue altogether.

I do not believe that the Bishops or the 'Church Fathers' determined this at the Councils. The canon of the books and letters evolved over time before the councils.

Constantine had Eusebius arrange these meetings of bishops from various congregations to meet and try and decide what the canon should be, and these meetings appear to be quite contentious as even after half a century they still could not reach agreement on some of the books. In 383, the first compilation known as the "Vulgate", was published after the council in 382 had concluded. Then a few decades later, Augustine convened three councils (actually one "synod" and two "councils") that finally fixed the canon widely used in the west, so there had to be some adjustments to the "Vulgate" to reflect that.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And exactly how could you possibly determine that and somehow know you're correct? And frankly there really isn't anything as far as teachings are concerned in the Apocrypha that isn't found in the 66, with only the exception of praying for the dead, which we do know was done not only in the early Church but also within at least some circles in Judaism.

At our Catholic church we do all of the above plus some. We have the daily readings as mass, the strong encouragement to read scripture on our own, and I'm currently involved in a 25 week study of Matthew's gospel at the church. Last year I was involved in two other studies at the church.

Your Catholic church is unusual. Locally, I attended a Catholic church's men's study, that began with an apology, "This is the first time we've hit Bible study in ten years as a church". Regardless, I understand the de-emphasis on Bible study in Rome is a) historical--killing and persecuting people for putting the Bible in the vernacular and b) modern--the Bible study couldn't be good if the doctrine is heretical and different than every other one of thousands of sects that emphasize Bible study (it's illogical and requires that ALL OTHER CHRISTIAN GROUPS are demonically deceived if Rome is the only right one for doctrine).

How can I determine the apocrypha is off?

1) Aren't accepted by the Jewish people

2) Aren't accepted by more than 99% of groups that began new church movements, via Bible study and study of non-canon books

3) Do not say, as the Bible says over 6,000 times in the OT alone, "This is the Word of God", indeed, they say things like "Here's wisdom my grandfather told me"

4) Contain teachings that contradict the Bible

5) Contain impious or "dirty" passages that are more sexual or violent in nature than the Bible

6) Were reluctantly placed in some movements to keep the peace, while adding footnotes like "of unknown origin/veracity"

7) Contain self-contradictory teachings, like Person A disagrees with Person B in the same apocrypha

8) Shows lack of character: Daniel tricking people instead of being an honest witness, the child Jesus puts a fellow child to death, etc.

9) Do not withstand any type of codes/gematria analysis

But all that is overcome because Rome's tradition trumps all...

 

[shunyadragon]

The "mark" of the apostolic Church was whether your bishops were appointed going back to the apostles, and that process we see quite clearly taking place in Acts and some of the epistles as they cite appointees and then letters sent to congregations telling them to believe in what these appointees teach. To say it's "too vague to be meaningful" is quite off the mark because it is through apostolic succession that helped to try and hold the Church together as "one body", as Paul kept insisting the Church must be.

Okay, but it remains a claim of the individual churches which do not share the same view of which Bishops share the apostolic succession. The Roman Church does not accept the claim of the Bishops of most other churches.

"Apostolic succession" deals with bishops, not popes. This issue of the papacy is another issue altogether.

Disagree the the Pope is head of the Roman Church as the Bishop of Rome and the Roman Church claims the apostolic successor of Peter, and this is not recognized by the other churches.

As @BilliardsBall's post reflects the problem I described concerning the claims of the Roman Church concerning the apostolic succession.

Constantine had Eusebius arrange these meetings of bishops from various congregations to meet and try and decide what the canon should be, and these meetings appear to be quite contentious as even after half a century they still could not reach agreement on some of the books. In 383, the first compilation known as the "Vulgate", was published after the council in 382 had concluded. Then a few decades later, Augustine convened three councils (actually one "synod" and two "councils") that finally fixed the canon widely used in the west, so there had to be some adjustments to the "Vulgate" to reflect that.

Already responded to this as well as other posters.

 

[metis]

Your Catholic church is unusual. Locally, I attended a Catholic church's men's study, that began with an apology,

How could you possibly know that my Catholic church is "unusual" in this regard?

The rest of you post is "interesting", but I'll just leave it at that.

 

[metis]

Okay, but it remains a claim of the individual churches which do not share the same view of which Bishops share the apostolic succession. The Roman Church does not accept the claim of the Bishops of most other chruches.

You're just inventing your own "alternative facts" as the above is absolutely wrong, as these divisions are considered to be political divisions that besieged the Church, not theological ones. Thus the issue of the papacy is not important in regards to the issue of "apostolic succession", which should have been clear in the link I provided you on that.

To put it another way, I'm just wasting my time with your continued ignoring of my links and also your deflections into other matters that are not intrinsic to what specifically is being discussed.

 

[shunyadragon]

You're just inventing your own "alternative facts" as the above is absolutely wrong, as these divisions are considered to be political divisions that besieged the Church, not theological ones. Thus the issue of the papacy is not important in regards to the issue of "apostolic succession", which should have been clear in the link I provided you on that.

To put it another way, I'm just wasting my time with your continued ignoring of my links and also your deflections into other matters that are not intrinsic to what specifically is being discussed.

I consider you ignoring the facts of the nature and history of the churches based on your overwhelming bias toward the Roman Church you consider 'under siege'

As @BilliardsBall's post reflects the problem I described concerning the claims of the Roman Church concerning the apostolic succession.

Not much room for discussion here from your narrow perspective.

 

[Woberts]

7) Contain self-contradictory teachings, like Person A disagrees with Person B in the same apocrypha

By this metric, the entire Bible is off.

 

[shunyadragon]

By this metric, the entire Bible is off.

Actually, in the contemporary context it is. At the time it was compiled it was relevant, but not now,

 

[2ndpillar]

But all that is overcome because Rome's tradition trumps all...

Rome's sword, trumped all. It is the winners who write the history books. It is the traditions of the nations/Gentiles fathers which are the "falsehood" (Jeremiah 16:19)

New American Standard Bible Jeremiah 16:19
O LORD, my strength and my stronghold, And my refuge in the day of distress, To You the nations will come From the ends of the earth and say, "Our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood, Futility and things of no profit."

 

[Twilight Hue]

The Dead Sea Scrolls are older than prior extant scrolls. They verified that despite what Rome did to suppress general knowledge of the scriptures, that the scriptures are the Word of the living God.

The thing is, medieval Catholics never discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls.

It would suggest the Catholics had something else just as relevant for which they based the Bible on during the Middle Ages. They had to have had something to go by. Right?

What exactly did they have themselves to reproduce the complete Bible, since the Dead Sea Scrolls among other discoveries were basically unknown back in the Middle Ages?

 

[shunyadragon]

The thing is, medieval Catholics never discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls.

It would suggest the Catholics had something else just as relevant for which they based the Bible on during the Middle Ages. They had to have had something to go by. Right?

What exactly did they have themselves to reproduce the complete Bible, since the Dead Sea Scrolls among other discoveries were basically unknown back in the Middle Ages?

You simply need to study the known Hebrew texts of the Bible to known at minimum that the Septuagint was known at least between the 2nd to the 4th century AD long before the Middle Ages.. The Dead Sea scrolls are simply part of that early heritage.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You simply need to study the known Hebrew texts of the Bible to known at minimum that the Septuagint was known at least between the 2nd to the 4th century AD long before the Middle Ages.. The Dead Sea scrolls are simply part of that early heritage.

Now that's interesting. Peeling back through historicy, it seems the Bible was a work in flux when the Septuagint is compared with the Dead Sea Scrolls since the discovery of the latter.

https://blog.oup.com/2013/07/septuagint-christianity-bible-dead-sea-scrolls/

"The Scrolls proved that some books of the Hebrew Bible were still being edited, supplemented, reduced, etc., well into the Common Era. But if you were reading the Septuagint before the 1940s, you knew that it was produced in the Hellenistic period, and so you still might have concluded—even without the help of actual Hebrew manuscripts—that the Bible was in flux at this time based on the way these books appear in Greek in such alternative forms". -Timothy Michael Law -

 

[shunyadragon]

Now that's interesting. Peeling back through historicy, it seems the Bible was a work in flux when the Septuagint is compared with the Dead Sea Scrolls since the discovery of the latter.

https://blog.oup.com/2013/07/septuagint-christianity-bible-dead-sea-scrolls/

"The Scrolls proved that some books of the Hebrew Bible were still being edited, supplemented, reduced, etc., well into the Common Era. But if you were reading the Septuagint before the 1940s, you knew that it was produced in the Hellenistic period, and so you still might have concluded—even without the help of actual Hebrew manuscripts—that the Bible was in flux at this time based on the way these books appear in Greek in such alternative forms". -Timothy Michael Law -

So what?!?!?!

My point was made in spades, and you are not doing your homework until after the fact.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So what?!?!?!

My point was made in spades, and you are not doing your homework until after the fact.

The whole point of my op is to examine and question the foundational roots by which the modern day Bible is established and how it its complete or 'completed' stage as it stands presently.

Reverse engineering the Bible has certainly shed light as well as opened up more questions the further back in time you go and coincide earlier and later works.

I never really thought to compare the Septuagint with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it's been a real eye-opener by which it's been edited, supplemented, and reduced as new discoveries surface along its timeline.

Basically if our knowledge of the Bible has only been through recent discovery , how did earlier interpretations come about and how were they aquired?

 

[shunyadragon]

The whole point of my op is to examine and question the foundational roots by which the modern day Bible is established and how it its complete or 'completed' stage as it stands presently.

Reverse engineering the Bible has certainly shed light as well as opened up more questions the further back in time you go and coincide earlier and later works.

I never really thought to compare the Septuagint with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it's been a real eye-opener by which it's been edited, supplemented, and reduced as new discoveries surface along its timeline.

Basically if our knowledge of the Bible has only been through recent discovery , how did earlier interpretations come about and how were they acquired?

The problem is you approached the problem in an awkward way, Yes, the scripture evolved with the evolution of the cultures, religious beliefs and scripture centering on Judaism and Christianity as they became religions with a relatively fixed scripture.The scripture evolve up until ~400 BCE? to 200 AD for Judaism, and ~200 to 400 AD for Christianity.

New perspectives on the Bible as evolved scripture began in the 18th and 19th Century. Our recent discoveries including the vast Sumerian, Babylonian, Canaanite and Ugarit cuneiform tablets have traced the roots of the Pentateuch back to the Sumerian culture.