Quote:
Originally Posted by Preacherman  I wouldn't say it was a case by case basis up until that point...The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. |
Sure. That was one "case." Many different synods decided on a canon, at times when they felt it was necessary, for reasons of recent interest. Synods in Carthage, Hippo, Laodicea, etc. did not carry any compelling weight outside of their own districts. No general or ecumenical council addressed the matter, until Trent.
Besides, you're forgetting that there are actually a number of Biblical canons in Christianity, some of which were established rather early and have not changed since then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preacherman These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[20] |
And the canon continued to be discussed after his time, e.g. the synod of Trullo in 692. Augustine may have considered the matter "closed," but obviously the dignitaries at Trullo didn't! And again, the canons of (say) the Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, and Syriac churches were never affected by anything Augustine said (or that Trullo decided, for that matter).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preacherman Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[21] or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation.[22] Likewise, Damasus's commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[23] In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church." says wikipedia... |
Again, Damasus' and Innocent's ideas about canon did not necessarily carry any weight outside their realms of influence or after their time (again, as shown in the fact that synods like Trullo took up the matter). As for And Jerome did not agree with Damasus completely, either; he did not, for example, translate Revelation himself, he merely stitched together pieces of existing Latin translations and plopped it in.
As it turns out, we do NOT, in fact, have any "canon" from Damasus issued from his own pen. The only contemporary information we have on it, is from the pen of Jerome and from others who remarked on their differences. What most people call the "Damasine Canon" is actually a part of a more recent document,
Decretum Gelasianum, is attributed to Pope Gelasius I (in the last years of the 5th century), but the document itself actually dates after him, sometime in the first half of the 6th century. It dates too long after Damasus to be of any value in telling us what Damasus actually thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preacherman I'd disagree with some dates in the Early Christian Writings page, for example, the dating of Luke and Acts, a number of scholars argue for an earlier dating than 80 based on the fact that Acts doesn't mention the death of Paul in early-mid 60's |
I didn't come up with those dates so I'm not exactly in a position to defend them, except to say that it looks like they were culled from a "consensus" of many scholars. That a couple of scholars here or there disagree, is therefore to be expected, and is not inherently significant by itself.
I disagree with some of the dating myself; Didache, for instance, contains some content which appears to be late 2nd century, making the "50-120" date range unlikely. (Although the point may be that the Didache was
originally composed then; the listed range is not intended to reflect redactions or interpolations.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preacherman There is also a remarkably late dating for the gospel of John (120!?) when we have a fragment dated at 125-150 CE found in Egypt... |
Not being able to read the mind of the page author, my guess is that late date is intended to reflect the later addition of portions of John, such as its last chapter, as well as story of the woman taken in adultery. (But other parts of John are dated long after this, as well ... the Johannine Comma, for instance, is unknown until the 4th century.)
I would suggest not taking the dates listed on the ECW page too seriously. They do serve, however, as a useful, general guideline, and from what I have seen, do reflect a "consensus" of scholarship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preacherman Translations shouldn't be an issue for anyone...its like if I said the original manuscripts could be, but for some reason people think that we keep building on translations like a big game of telephone. Translators don't. Too much to say and I already said to much already...bye for now |
The problem of reading these books in translation is a serious matter. It is FAR too easy for translators — whether intentionally or not — alter the originally-intended meaning of texts. Anachronistic revisionism is another problem, although it's possible even if one is reading in the original language; but it's
especially notable in translation since the translator inevitably introduces his/her own anachronistic misconceptions during the process.