DId constentine the roman emperer order the first full new testement bible

[kenisyes]

The OT canon was decided by the Jews in about 195AD. They disincluded any book not written in Hebrew. Several such books were accepted by the Catholics and not the Protestants, and today called the OT Apocrypha.

The traditional list of non-canonical books may be googled or gotten from a library under the titles OT Pseudepigrapha and NT apocrypha. I say traditional, because new ones are being discovered all the time. There is a lost gospel to the Hindus, recovered under the name "The Life of St. Issa" in the 1870's, the Dead Sea Scrolls, some would add the Nag Hammadi Library.

Once you get into non-canonical books, this issue of inspiration gets very gray indeed. We have a couple threads going that would make a very fine line between some of these books, and the early church fathers. If you move the line further, to include even Origen, then some would move it farther, to make the Popes infallible. In a related idea, if you allow the Nag Hammadi library, one could keep moving the line through neoplatonism and into alchemy and astrology. There are denominations that move the line this far (fortunately not in CC).

 

[quickfire]

thanks for the info, "but there seams to be some confusion so hope this explains it.


these are the periods we should be looking at when the order for the first new testament to be commissioned was given.

Saint Constantine,[4] was Roman Emperor from 306 to 337

Pope Sylvester I served as pope from 31 January 314 to 31 December 335,


before Constantine the Christian churches was a number of communities loosely bound together.

there was no consistent story of Jesus,? IE books and scriptures and traditions would of circulated in any number of books, because Christianity.

was an immensely diverse faith spread through out the eastern Mediterranean and into the west.

so Constantine ordered all the book and all scriptures etc from all over the western and eastern be brought together.

some where discarded ? .

So Constantine bishops at that time brought them all together and formed the first ever commissioned new testament (50 copies where made)

i think its a safe bet that Pope Sylvester I was in charge.
they where then given to the church foundations.

for info on pope Sylvester see here Pope Sylvester I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


for info on Constantine the great pagan emperor who converted to Christian see here Constantine the Great - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i am still trying to find out what books was in this first commissioned new testament.

 

[quickfire]

thanks for the info, "but there seams to be some confusion so hope this explains it.


these are the periods we should be looking at when the order for the first new testament to be commissioned was given.

Saint Constantine,[4] was Roman Emperor from 306 to 337

Pope Sylvester I served as pope from 31 January 314 to 31 December 335,


before Constantine the Christian churches was a number of communities loosely bound together.

there was no consistent story of Jesus,? IE books and scriptures and traditions would of circulated in any number of books, because Christianity.

was an immensely diverse faith spread through out the eastern Mediterranean and into the west.

so Constantine ordered all the book and all scriptures etc from all over the western and eastern be brought together.

some where discarded ? .

So Constantine bishops at that time brought them all together and formed the first ever commissioned new testament (50 copies where made)

i think its a safe bet that Pope Sylvester I was in charge.
they where then given to the church foundations.

for info on pope Sylvester see here Pope Sylvester I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


for info on Constantine the great pagan emperor who converted to Christian see here Constantine the Great - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i am still trying to find out what books was in this first commissioned new testament.

i think its a safe bet that pope Pope Sylvester I made the decision what was in what was out because Constantine also handed his crown to Pope Sylvester I giving him complete power ie secular power not just spirtual power.

 

[Rock022]

The OT canon was decided by the Jews in about 195AD. They disincluded any book not written in Hebrew. Several such books were accepted by the Catholics and not the Protestants, and today called the OT Apocrypha.

The traditional list of non-canonical books may be googled or gotten from a library under the titles OT Pseudepigrapha and NT apocrypha. I say traditional, because new ones are being discovered all the time. There is a lost gospel to the Hindus, recovered under the name "The Life of St. Issa" in the 1870's, the Dead Sea Scrolls, some would add the Nag Hammadi Library.

Once you get into non-canonical books, this issue of inspiration gets very gray indeed. We have a couple threads going that would make a very fine line between some of these books, and the early church fathers. If you move the line further, to include even Origen, then some would move it farther, to make the Popes infallible. In a related idea, if you allow the Nag Hammadi library, one could keep moving the line through neoplatonism and into alchemy and astrology. There are denominations that move the line this far (fortunately not in CC).

It is good to understand that before 195AD no such list existed, and all scriptures where considered sacred. Which books did Jesus and the apostles considered sacred?

 

[kenisyes]

It is good to understand that before 195AD no such list existed, and all scriptures where considered sacred. Which books did Jesus and the apostles considered sacred?

Jesus quoted in two places from the Pharisaical teachings about inspiration. "Not a jot nor tittle shall pass away" is true of Torah, the first five to seven books of the OT (depending who you talk to). That means, every letter, every space, every punctuation, every indentation, every extra stroke on a letter for appearance, contains a message from God's own hand, given to Moses on Sinai. "Scripture cannot lose its force" is true of the Writings, which is our entire OT, except the Torah and the prophets. The Jews consider it the direct word of God in the thoughts and statements, but not necessarily in the expressions used. The prophets is the direct word of God in the thoughts and symbols, and their universal application. This is how the apostles apply them in the NT. Because there was no list, other books are sometimes mentioned or quoted by apostles or writers of other books, like the Book of Jasher, or the Book of Enoch.

The NT is the collection written by the 12, Paul, and the interpreters of Peter and Paul, Mark and Luke. Peter states that Paul's writings are Scripture. Each apostle seems to acknowledge the writings of the others, so there is a general agreement, more or less. There are several writings claiming apostolic authorship that are questionable as to who wrote them, or as to doctrine.

The vagueness resulted in a continuum of inspiration, where some Scriptures were more or less inspired. It's very hard to explain to readers now, because the reformation went "sola scriptura", but the Holy Spirit and the sense of the congregation were as much a part of reading Scripture then as commentaries and computer searches are now. Scripture unfolded in life and in the congregation.

Another way to look at it is, if God has told you to write Scripture (like He did the apostles, you are going to look at it as still unfolding in your life.

 

[Rock022]

I think I was too vague on the last post. I was referring to the OT being canonized 195AD.

The arguments have been that all scriptures were considered inspired so by canonizing some scriptures to be the OT years after Jesus time, brings forth the question, which books did Jesus and the disciples read? By not having a canonized list at the time Jesus walked the earth we have to take in to consideration that all scriptures were used, not just the ones canonized by the Jews in 195AD.

This has been the argument and will always be the argument of which scriptures were used by Jesus.

We have become a society which does not believe unless there is proof, my self included.

 

[kenisyes]

Here is a curious thing. Most of the time that the NT quotes the OT, they quotes are from the Septuagint, or Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. There are some seriously significant differences. For example the genealogy of nations (Gen 10:24) omits the name Cainan which is in Luke 3:36. Cainan is in the NT, the Greek OT, but not in the Hebrew. One can solve the problem of why the Hebrew OT and NT, don't match, by pointing out that the Jews commonly omitted nonessential names in genealogies, and "son" in Hebrew in this usage, also includes grandson, great-grandson, etc. But when one wishes to say the that the Septuagint is an accurate translation, one must ask where did a name, that was not in the original, come from in the translation. The Jews are clear that the Hebrew OT Book of Genesis is inspired to the last jot and tittle, so they cannot have believed this, and believed the Septuagint was accurate at the same time. Yet the NT proves that the apostles thought the Septuagint was accurate enough to quote in the inspired Scripture that they wrote.

Another obvious observation is that the Septuagint includes the books later abandoned by the rabbis, because they were not written in Hebrew.

 

[kenisyes]

I think I was too vague on the last post. I was referring to the OT being canonized 195AD.

The arguments have been that all scriptures were considered inspired so by canonizing some scriptures to be the OT years after Jesus time, brings forth the question, which books did Jesus and the disciples read? By not having a canonized list at the time Jesus walked the earth we have to take in to consideration that all scriptures were used, not just the ones canonized by the Jews in 195AD.

This has been the argument and will always be the argument of which scriptures were used by Jesus.

We have become a society which does not believe unless there is proof, my self included.

I think where you are going with this is something with which I agree. Just because the canonized Scriptures are inspired by God, in no way means that there are no other books inspired by God. A variation on this question, is how did we decide which NT books are inspired, anyway? Apostolic authorship won't do it, because the Didache, apocryphon of James, Protoevangelion, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, etc., all claim that as well. None of these are inspired in their totality, but how does one tell?

 

[quickfire]

I think where you are going with this is something with which I agree. Just because the canonized Scriptures are inspired by God, in no way means that there are no other books inspired by God. A variation on this question, is how did we decide which NT books are inspired, anyway? Apostolic authorship won't do it, because the Didache, apocryphon of James, Protoevangelion, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, etc., all claim that as well. None of these are inspired in their totality, but how does one tell?

Found some more useful info from studies of proffessers

1,400 BC: The first written Word of God: The Ten Commandments delivered to Moses.

500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up The 39 Books of the Old Testament.

200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books AND 14 Apocrypha Books.

1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up The 27 Books of the New Testament. 315 AD: Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identifies the 27 books of the New Testament which are today recognized as the canon of scripture.

382 AD: Jerome's Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test)..

 

[quickfire]

Follow up from my last post from 382 ad.
But this is more for how we have our english bible in england today

500 AD: Scriptures have been Translated into Over 500 Languages.

600 AD: LATIN was the Only Language Allowed for Scripture.

995 AD: Anglo-Saxon (Early Roots of English Language) Translations of The New Testament Produced.

1384 AD: Wycliffe is the First Person to Produce a (Hand-Written) manuscript Copy of the Complete Bible; All 80 Books.

1455 AD: Gutenberg Invents the Printing Press; Books May Now be mass-Produced Instead of Individually Hand-Written. The First Book Ever Printed is Gutenberg's Bible in Latin.

1516 AD: Erasmus Produces a Greek/Latin Parallel New Testament..

1522 AD: Martin Luther's German New Testament.

1526 AD: William Tyndale's New Testament; The First New Testament printed in the English Language.

1535 AD: Myles Coverdale's Bible; The First Complete Bible printed in the English Language (80 Books: O.T. & N.T. & Apocrypha).

1537 AD: Tyndale-Matthews Bible; The Second Complete Bible printed in English. Done by John "Thomas Matthew" Rogers (80 Books).

1539 AD: The "Great Bible" Printed; The First English Language Bible Authorized for Public Use (80 Books).

1560 AD: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to add Numbered Verses to Each Chapter (80 Books).

1568 AD: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a Revision (80 Books).

1609 AD: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheims New Testament (of 1582) Making the First Complete English Catholic Bible; Translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).

1611 AD: The King James Bible Printed; Originally with All 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.

1782 AD: Robert Aitken's Bible; The First English Language Bible (KJV) Printed in America.

1791 AD: Isaac Collins and Isaiah Thomas Respectively Produce the First Family Bible and First Illustrated Bible Printed in America. Both were King James Versions, with All 80 Books.

1808 AD: Jane Aitken's Bible (Daughter of Robert Aitken); The First Bible to be Printed by a Woman.

1833 AD: Noah Webster's Bible; After Producing his Famous Dictionary, Webster Printed his Own Revision of the King James Bible.

1841 AD: English Hexapla New Testament; an Early Textual Comparison showing the Greek and 6 Famous English Translations in Parallel Columns.

1846 AD: The Illuminated Bible; The Most Lavishly Illustrated Bible printed in America. A King James Version, with All 80 Books.

1863 AD: Robert Young's "Literal" Translation; often criticized for being so literal that it sometimes obscures the contextual English meaning.

1885 AD: The "English Revised Version" Bible; The First Major English Revision of the KJV.

1901 AD: The "American Standard Version"; The First Major American Revision of the KJV.

1952 AD: The "Revised Standard Version" (RSV); said to be a Revision of the 1901 American Standard Version, though more highly criticized.

1971 AD: The "New American Standard Bible" (NASB) is Published as a "Modern and Accurate Word for Word English Translation" of the Bible.

1973 AD: The "New International Version" (NIV) is Published as a "Modern and Accurate Phrase for Phrase English Translation" of the Bible.

1982 AD: The "New King James Version" (NKJV) is Published as a "Modern English Version Maintaining the Original Style of the King James."

1990 AD: The "New Revised Standard Version" (NRSV); further revision of 1952 RSV, (itself a revision of 1901 ASV), criticized for "gender inclusiveness".

2002 AD: The English Standard Version (ESV) is Published as a translation to bridge the gap between the accuracy of the NASB and the readability of the NIV.

 

[quickfire]

So it looks like Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria.

Was the first person to identify the 27 books of the nt.

 

[kenisyes]

That's quite a collection, Quickfire. I think we need to add some computer Bible dates, like the first upload of the KJV text, the first freeware Bible search program, etc. These are just as big a step forward as the printing press.

 

[nathan3]

God was the one in control of those events that brought the Bible to what it is today. Constentine was just along for the ride. I'm not convinced he has much to do with anything. Because Christianity and these books were working themselves out before, there was mention of Constentine. He is given more mention because hes used to try to discredit the Bible by higher critics who make a living on trying to tare down The Bible.If you were to look at the rest of the history that is ignored , then you'll find i think Constentine had little to do with anything.

 

[quickfire]

That's quite a collection, Quickfire. I think we need to add some computer Bible dates, like the first upload of the KJV text, the first freeware Bible search program, etc. These are just as big a step forward as the printing press.

not so much å collection but more about all the translations over the years. Which you may find of some intrest to your own american revised versiion. Ånd the nt in its current translations.
If you look at the last insertion which is the esv. English revised version.
Befor it was published professers revised every single recorded translation. From 1500 bc.
Can you just imaging the amount of time and effort that would of took.

Im doing some studied on the bishop of alexandria dø will have some more info soon

 

[Rock022]

not so much å collection but more about all the translations over the years. Which you may find of some intrest to your own american revised versiion. Ånd the nt in its current translations.
If you look at the last insertion which is the esv. English revised version.
Befor it was published professers revised every single recorded translation. From 1500 bc.
Can you just imaging the amount of time and effort that would of took.

Im doing some studied on the bishop of alexandria dø will have some more info soon

This is how it all begins Quickfire. I too had a similar beginning in to my faith. I asked my self, if the bible is the center of the faith where did it come from and what does it say. Every time I found truth it lead me closer to the church. May your journey be full of light, and give you many blessings.

 

[quickfire]

God was the one in control of those events that brought the Bible to what it is today. Constentine was just along for the ride. I'm not convinced he has much to do with anything. Because Christianity and these books were working themselves out before, there was mention of Constentine. He is given more mention because hes used to try to discredit the Bible by higher critics who make a living on trying to tare down The Bible.If you were to look at the rest of the history that is ignored , then you'll find i think Constentine had little to do with anything.

.

I understand that which is Why i am looking into it.
But the fact is we do have so called uninspired books missing.

Its taking me ages to write this because my phone is stuck on predictive text sø i can not explain it very Well at the moment .

 

[Rock022]

Was the septuagint approved then? Or were this extra books locked up in the vatican?

 

[kenisyes]

The Catholic church has always thought that all the books in the Septuagint (the apocrypha) are inspired. So they never locked those away. Origen studied the matter of Greek translations very carefully. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Hexapla <<click. I don't think that any Greek or Hebrew were ever officially approved as translations at this time; rather the books themselves were approved and translations were left to scholars. The books that were locked up were the other early Christian writings we listed earlier. By the Reformation era, we see certain translations denied approval by certain denominations, because of "doctrinal bias". There is still a scholarly argument going on over the proper text of the Greek NY to use. Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior? <<click.

 

[Rock022]

So were do many protestants get this idea that the books from the septuagint are made up books by the Roman Catholic church?

 

[Photoss]

There was a lot of different scripture manuscripts floating around, each with variations (written in Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and Old Latin), which led to Pope Damasus's commissioning of a universal standard text for the West (the Latin Vulgate) in 382.

EDIT: Whoops, haha, didn't even notice there was a Page 2. Pretend my post is the last one on page 1...