Does anyone know the history of the book referred to today as the Holy Bible?

[one2question]

Likely candidates are Barnabus Apollos Priscilla Aquila. Paul calls Timothy his son everywhere else other than Hebrews. I believe all four are of Jewish stock, hellenized. Definitely Barnabus and Apollos are Jews thats for sure. If I were to venture a guess I would say Apollos.

Just wondering if it matters because whoever it is are nothing, whether Paul, Apollos, Barnabas or any other brother of ours.

 

[one2question]

Read the book by F.F. Bruce "Canon of Scripture" for all the details.

Athanasius is someone who documented something early of which whose writings survived. His was not the first list but his matched the same 27 NT books we consider canon today. And his statements that the churches had already accepted them from the beginning is important.

That is the only point in using his list. There is no point being made about his credentials or his doctrines.

We know from this list that these were considered canon and his statements about how they were considered canon by the church he means that the church as it grew from the 1st century, and as these 27 books were written, were accepted by Christians and shared among them and respected as sacred scripture.

Before there was any Roman Catholic Church that replaced bishops with their own by power and authority of the state, (which was after 367)

during the entire 2nd century these books were already considered scripture.

There are writings by some who disputed certain books, 2 Peter, Jude, a few others, but they were not the voice of the rest of the churches who had already accepted them.

The history shows that the same 27 books Athanasius mentioned were already accepted before he mentioned them. That's all his list supports. He was not declaring them canon by his authority he was saying that the churches in general, whereever they were through out the world had already respected these books as canon and no others. The churches that existed as local fellowships since the 1st century.

Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion until 380 so the Roman Catholic Church system that eventually replaced all the bishops with their own took a little more time to develop. When Athanasius mentions that the churches considered these books as sacred Canon and no others in 367 AD he was talking about an historical precedence from the 1st century to date, not an official church dogma or creed that was established by their leadership or some kind of Pope somewhere. All that came later.

The earliest churches accepted the same 27 books as sacred canon as they came out and were distributed among the churches. Some early writers whos writing survived argued about some of them but even when they did they mention how they had been widely accepted, and thus saying, provide additional support that the churches in general accepted them from the beginning.

Marcion also produced a list around 140-200 AD but he was a heretic that cut out books that did not agree with his teachings and so his list of books by Paul is what he believed was the only canon and was his own opinion and no one ever agreed with him on leaving out the books he did.

I think it was said that Marcion compiled the first bible that had 11 scrolls in his canon, Paul's writings and a modified version of Luke. Did God get him to form a compilation of writings (scrolls) to circulate among the church meeting in various places at that time or was it just his idea?

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Is there any implications to the authority of the bible if Hebrews was written not by Paul (Apostle) but a non Apostle?

The book doesn't list a name.

 

[cv5]

Is there any implications to the authority of the bible if Hebrews was written not by Paul (Apostle) but a non Apostle?

Absolutely not. Luke was neither an Apostle nor a Jew. And his writings are canonical beyond all refutation.

If memory serves me correctly, Luke and Nebuchadnezzar are the only non-Jews to have canonized biblical writings BTW.

 

[Amanuensis]

I think it was said that Marcion compiled the first bible that had 11 scrolls in his canon, Paul's writings and a modified version of Luke. Did God get him to form a compilation of writings (scrolls) to circulate among the church meeting in various places at that time or was it just his idea?

I am no expert on this but here is some of the main points about Marcion and his list of what he believed was canon.

Marcion is the first person known to us who published a fixed collection of what we should call New Testament books. (Bruce, F.F. 1988)

But he did not call them New Testament.

He rejected the Old Testament as not having any relevance for the Christians and he taught that the God of the OT was not the same Father that Jesus referred to.

He taught that Jesus was not born of a woman but just came down from heaven.

He went to Rome and tried to get the leaders to accept his teachings and was rejected by everyone so he started his own church. About 138 AD I think it was. Close to that time.

To the converts in this church he presented a collection of 10 letters of Paul and the Gospel of Luke.

However these were modified to take out all the things that he did not like. He removed the first two chapters of Luke and taught that Jesus descended from heaven. He did not like the association of the OT with John the Baptist being connected to Jesus so he took that out. Many of the things that Paul taught he took out.

His bible was a cut up mess when he was done with it. It was made up of Antitheses, Gospel, Apostle.

The Antithesis was a preface about the OT God being different than the Father that Jesus spoke about and other false teachings, then the Gospel was a redacted copy of Luke with the first two chapters removed because he taught that Jesus was not born of virgin but came down from heaven like he went up. And he took out John the Baptist because it made a connection with the OT that he was against.

There were other redactions. Basically anything he did not like or would contradict his false teaching was cut out. He did the same with the ten letters of Paul and he did not include 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. I don't know if it is because he did not know about them or for some other reason.

He cut up the 10 letters of Paul removing things that did not line up with his false teaching and he claimed that they were added by corrupt Judaizers.

As far as we know from reading what others said about him (Tertullian, Valentinus) this bible of his was given to his own church which he started when the churches at Rome rejected his teachings and gave him back the money he donated from his shipping business.

I don't think his teachings or his bible got beyond his own cult that he started which lasted a few generations and died out.

The rest of the churches were reading the original copies of Paul and Luke without all the redactions of Marcions bible and of course the rest of the churches were reading and had accepted all the other Gospels and letters, and considered the OT relevant and scripture as well. Marcion did not have influence on anyone but his own cult church that he started. The rest had rejected him.

That is how I understand it. I could be missing something about his influence beyond his own church that he started, I am sure just like today there would be those fringe people who want to follow something different than the rest of the church just to be different but I don't think that Marcion's bible was ever center stage of anything but in his own church. Most of the churches were probably not aware of him or his redacted limited collection.