|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Superiority of the 'Protestant Canon'? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 787 days) Posts: 153 Joined:
|
My newest writing on the subject is here:
Textual criticism - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science Essentially we have the Dead Sea Scrolls showing the Old Testament was in its current form before the time of Christ, around 250-50 B.C. The Great Isaiah Scroll in particular was even carbon dated as old as 335 B.C. Concerning the New Testament, we have more than 24,000 manuscripts with 99.5% internal consistency showing the New Testament we have today is accurate with regard to the original autographs. No other ancient historical document has nearly this level of evidence. The closest is the Iliad with 643 manuscripts. Many documents like Caesar's Gallic Wars are considered accurately preserved with just 5-10 manuscripts dating 1,000 years or more after the originals. However, we have manuscripts for the New Testament dating less than a century after the original documents (autographs) like the John Rylands Papyrus (P52), P104, P90, P64+67, and P98. We have complete or nearly complete copies of the New Testament dating as early as 200-400 A.D. like the Sahidic Coptic Version, Sinaitic Curiac Version, and Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Thus, we can look at these early documents to see whether later translations (like the King James Version) were reliable translations of the original Greek/Hebrew text seen in such early manuscripts.
OFF TOPIC AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 787 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
Sorry but until you present one of the original autographs you have nothing to support that claim. In addition, even if true, it is irrelevant to the topic. Why is the Protestant Canon superior to the Ethiopian Short Canon or the Ethiopian Long Canon or the Roman Catholic Canon? Name one other ancient historical document where the test for historicity is an original autograph. By that standard we'd have to throw out much of what we consider recorded history since often all we have are copies of an original document, not the original itself. Furthermore, it's possible some of the particularly old manuscripts like the John Rylands papyrus may even be the original autographs, as some date them to the 1st century A.D. As for why the Protestant canon is superior, the manuscript evidence shows which books were found well preserved. 1 Enoch and Jubilees are the only non-canonical Old Testament books found in substantial numbers among the Dead Sea Scrolls: Dead Sea Scrolls - Wikipedia The Catholic documents don't start showing up until the 4th century A.D. with the Achmimic Coptic (I have trouble telling if the Sahidic Coptic from the 3rd century could include them also but at most it appears the 3rd century if so). Table of NT Greek Manuscripts However, there is strong evidence the Protestant Canon's New Testament documents were all in place a full 1-2 centuries earlier, before the Catholic Church yet existed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 787 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
You don't understand how historians evaluate historicity, frankly. They don't have original autographs so they judge whether a document is reliable with regards to said autographs using 3 tests, Internal Evidence, External Evidence, and Bibliographical Evidence. Josh McDowell in "More Than a Carpenter" addressed these tests for historicity (Ch. 4 I believe - need to find my copy), and by them the New Testament is more reliable than any other ancient document in antiquity.
OFF TOPIC AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 787 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
But this has nothing to do with what should or shouldn't be included in the canon, does it? The Dead Sea Scrolls also contain: (1) The Book of Enoch in the original Aramaic. This is regarded as orthodox by Ethiopian Jews, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Church, but not by Protestants. One interesting thing about Enoch is that it is quoted in the book of Jude, which Protestants do count as canonical. Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.It would seem on the face of it that a Biblical literalist would have to believe that the book of Enoch really was written by Noah's great-grandfather, and was a genuine prophetic work rather than pseudephigraphic. (2) Fragments of three copies of the Wisdom of Sirach in Hebrew. This is is the Catholic Canon, the Eastern Orthodox canon, and the Septuagint, but not the Protestant Canon. (3) The book of Tobit in Aramaic and Hebrew. This is in the Catholic and Orthodox canons and the Setuagint, but not the Protestant canon. (4) The Epistle of Jeremiah in Greek. This is in the Orthodox canon, the Catholic Canon, and the Septuagint. (Of course, when one says 'the" Protestant canon, there's a certain amount of ambiguity there. Luther for example, put the Epistle of Jeremiah in his translation of the Bible into German. Now, if Luther wasn't a Protestant, who was?) So, anyway, the point is that it doesn't matter what is or isn't in the Dead Sea Scrolls --- or if it does matter, then the Protestant canon is definitely wrong. So what does justify the Protestant canon? Good point about 1 Enoch. I was aware of its possible mention in Jude (although some dispute whether it's definite) and that's why I said earlier:
quote: 1 Enoch and Jubilees are the two books found in substantial numbers and thus could merit consideration. I actually wondered about 1 Enoch myself recently. As for who the real Protestants were, Protestantism actually goes back about 1700 years. It's a common misconception that it began during the Reformation. There's a chart called the "Trail of Blood" by J.M. Carroll for example which purports to show a lineage of groups tracing the real Christian Church back, separate from Catholicism. I've written a lengthy post here addressing it, and my disagreements with Catholicism: -->Update Your Browser | Facebook I'll quote the info about groups I think were Protestants before Luther and persecuted by Catholicism: quote: OFF TOPIC AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 787 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
I basically was just pointing out in the post that I agreed 1 Enoch and Jubilees are the two books that are well-sourced by the Dead Sea Scrolls separate from the Old Testament. I did get side-tracked with the mention of Protestants though. The beginning of the post was on-topic though.
And actually, the latter part does somewhat relate to the topic since it relates to what Protestants are. By showing that Protestants have been around long before the Reformation, the information is useful in showing that Catholicism was not necessarily the preserver of the Canon through the centuries resulting in the Bible we see now. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 787 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
I think the information I provided is useful because canonicity deals with who is preserving the canon. Too often people assume Catholics were the only religious group around that first milennia A.D. and thus the canon was constructed and preserved entirely by them. The information I provided shows groups that did provide canons and non-Latin Bibles (e.g. the Waldenses) long before the Reformation. Thus, the Protestant Canon and Protestants were around long before the Reformation. And therefore, my post was perfectly on-topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 787 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
quote: Well, thing with Luther is he supported persecuting Protestants like the Anabaptists in the same way the Catholic Church did. Calvinists and Lutherans were actually right there with Catholicism in warfaring persecution and martyring of Protestants like the Anabaptists. So I've never really liked Luther as a Protestant example myself.
quote: Well, I figure if the Bible is God's Word, and God did want it preserved, then the strongest examples of that preservation should show what that Word is. The Dead Sea Scrolls against much probability have come down to us from over 2,000 years ago, providing an accurate record with which to cross-check the Old Testament. So it stands to reason what they best preserve might well be God's Word, and if that includes 1 Enoch and Jubilees, well, that's more reason for me to give those two books serious consideration in canonicity. The Dead Sea Scrolls otherwise preserve perfectly all the books of the Old Testament - the scrolls best preserved are the books of the Old Testament - along with those 2 books.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 787 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
As recently as 2010, the Lutheran World Formation issued a formal statement apologizing for previous violent persecution of Anabaptists.
Lutherans Seek Forgiveness for Persecution of Anabaptists | Church & Ministries News Lutherans often executed Anabaptists by beheading or drowning. Persecution of the peaceful Anabaptists in the 16th century actually exceeded the persecution of the early Christian Church by Rome. Most people just don't know about them. http://www.anabaptists.org/writings/excerpts/meneu-1.html
OFF TOPIC AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jzyehoshua Member (Idle past 787 days) Posts: 153 Joined: |
Sure, Protestants have been mean to one another for centuries. I'm afraid they're still Protestants, though. Rats.
All the books under consideration for membership of the canon have been preserved. The idea of counting manuscripts seems an odd one. One would have to draw the line somewhere: "The Epistle of X just scrapes into the canon with 5 early copies still extant, whereas the Prophetic Book of Y barely misses being the Word of God with only 4." True. Still, the top 16 mentioned appear to include the typical OT canon, plus 1 Enoch and Jubilees: Dead Sea Scrolls - Wikipedia Psalms 39Deuteronomy 33 1 Enoch 25 Genesis 24 Isaiah 22 Jubilees 21 Exodus 18 Leviticus 17 Numbers 11 Minor Prophets 10 Daniel 8 Jeremiah 6 Ezekiel 6 Job 6 1 & 2 Samuel 4 It's tough to tell what books rank next and how many manuscripts they have. It would also depend on the condition of those manuscripts. Still, just as a general rule, you'd think the preservation in general, both age and quality, would give some indication of which ones should be considered canon. So just right there, that looks to me like the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate a clear canon for the Old Testament at least with 1 Enoch and Jubilees as two other considerations.
OFF TOPIC AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024