Gospels are eyewitness accounts

[RDKirk]

Like the wife of Pontius Pilate, the Roman soldier, possibly Cornelius as well as the Centurion and all the others who stood at the foot of the cross and proclaimed Jesus's Christ?

I think Cornelius may have well been in the room.

We see in Acts that Cornelius was a centurion who was well-known and respected as a supporter of a synagogue in Cesarea. We see that he lived in his own house and had a family there locally.

In the Roman army, an active-duty centurion was required to live with his troops in the barracks. Active duty centurions did not get their own houses in town. They also were not allowed to marry.

Those perquisites came when the centurion retired. Moreover, Rome gave retired centurions land in the locations of their station. Rome did not allow retired centurions to live in Rome itself, because troops were immediately loyal to their centurions. The centurions were the link between the army itself and the political levels. A politician who aspired to rebellion would gather centurions around himself, and the centurions would ensure the troops.

So Rome kept retired centurions out of Rome and gave them property out on the periphery of the empire.

But there's more. The retired centurion was not without official responsibilities. The retired centurion also served as the ceremonial honor guard to the local prefect or governor. When the prefect or governor held court, the retired centurions stood behind him holding the ceremonial fasces axes.

Moreover, Peter himself asserted that Cornelius already had full knowledge of what had happened with Jesus. What Cornelius didn't know (at least not for certain) was that Jesus had risen.

So I think Cornelius was a retired centurion and as such would have been part of Pilate's ceremonial guard, thus in the room when Pilate was questioning Jesus.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I think Cornelius may have well been in the room.

We see in Acts that Cornelius was a centurion who was well-known and respected as a supporter of a synagogue in Cesarea. We see that he lived in his own house and had a family there locally.

In the Roman army, an active-duty centurion was required to live with his troops in the barracks. Active duty centurions did not get their own houses in town. They also were not allowed to marry.

Those perquisites came when the centurion retired. Moreover, Rome gave retired centurions land in the locations of their station. Rome did not allow retired centurions to live in Rome itself, because troops were immediately loyal to their centurions. The centurions were the link between the army itself and the political levels. A politician who aspired to rebellion would gather centurions around himself, and the centurions would ensure the troops.

So Rome kept retired centurions out of Rome and gave them property out on the periphery of the empire.

But there's more. The retired centurion was not without official responsibilities. The retired centurion also served as the ceremonial honor guard to the local prefect or governor. When the prefect or governor held court, the retired centurions stood behind him holding the ceremonial fasces axes.

Moreover, Peter himself asserted that Cornelius already had full knowledge of what had happened with Jesus. What Cornelius didn't know (at least not for certain) was that Jesus had risen.

So I think Cornelius was a retired centurion and as such would have been part of Pilate's ceremonial guard, thus in the room when Pilate was questioning Jesus.

The Bible asserts that Cornelius was of the Italian Cohort. This was one of two special cohorts (unaffiliated to specific Legions) that Pilate commanded - Cohors I and II Italica - that were probably stationed at Caesarea Maritima. Centurions only became eligible to serve as Lictors bearing the Fasces on retirement, not while being Centurions actively, during which time they bore the Vinestaff as symbol of office.

Cornelius could easily have been present with Pilate during the Passion, but there is no cause to think he was retired. His house and family could merely be his unlawful wife and children, it does not mean he himself resided there. Besides, senior centurions were very high ranking officers and could on occasion be granted perks - especially in this case, where we are dealing with a unit consisting of one cohort, so there were very few centurions within it. He was therefore one of the highest ranking Roman officers in all Judaea at the time, which was held by about five cohorts in toto.

 

[RDKirk]

The Bible asserts that Cornelius was of the Italian Cohort. This was one of two special cohorts (unaffiliated to specific Legions) that Pilate commanded - Cohors I and II Italica - that were probably stationed at Caesarea Maritima. Centurions only became eligible to serve as Lictors bearing the Fasces on retirement, not while being Centurions actively, during which time they bore the Vinestaff as symbol of office.

Cornelius could easily have been present with Pilate during the Passion, but there is no cause to think he was retired. His house and family could merely be his unlawful wife and children, it does not mean he himself resided there. Besides, senior centurions were very high ranking officers and could on occasion be granted perks - especially in this case, where we are dealing with a unit consisting of one cohort, so there were very few centurions within it. He was therefore one of the highest ranking Roman officers in all Judaea at the time, which was held by about five cohorts in toto.

You're presuming two combined exceptions to argue that he was active duty rather than the more likely common occurrence that he was retired.

Why are you arguing that he was active duty? What does that do for you?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You're presuming two combined exceptions to argue that he was active duty rather than the more likely common occurrence that he was retired.

Why are you arguing that he was active duty? What does that do for you?

I am presuming nothing. The text calls him a Centurion, not a former centurion or somesuch. It is the plain reading, especially as he also dispatches a soldier. To assume him retired is adding to the text. I don't think it matters either way though, as the point was Peter communing with a senior Gentile of the occupying authorities.

Having a household outside the Legion camp wasn't uncommon. Every single fort at Hadrian's wall developed some sort of town nearby, and often Legion fortresses became major cities and Colonia. This need not be an 'official wife', but it seems Legionaries maintained unofficial wives and children in such settlements. A Centurion has more than enough pay to do so, and in light of his seniority, may even be granted official acceptance thereof - the latter being speculative in this case, but does not really alter any understanding of the passage if valid or not.

 

[RDKirk]

I am presuming nothing. The text calls him a Centurion, not a former centurion or somesuch. It is the plain reading, especially as he also dispatches a soldier. To assume him retired is adding to the text. I don't think it matters either way though, as the point was Peter communing with a senior Gentile of the occupying authorities.

Having a household outside the Legion camp wasn't uncommon. Every single fort at Hadrian's wall developed some sort of town nearby, and often Legion fortresses became major cities and Colonia. This need not be an 'official wife', but it seems Legionaries maintained unofficial wives and children in such settlements. A Centurion has more than enough pay to do so, and in light of his seniority, may even be granted official acceptance thereof - the latter being speculative in this case, but does not really alter any understanding of the passage if valid or not.

A retired centurion still holds the rank of centurion and would be called a centurion as long as he lived (indeed, that status remains to this day). As I pointed out, he even still had official duties as a centurion--but not actively leading troops.

One major difference it made was that an active duty centurion in Judea still had the daily role of oppressing Jews. Harassing them, arresting them, torturing them, executing them, and making sure they knew every moment that the knee of Rome was upon their necks. Having a native concubine was one thing; fraternizing was something different.

A retired Centurion could "go native" to a greater extent and had the freedom to be benevolent and friendly with the local leadership.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

A retired centurion still holds the rank of centurion and would be called a centurion as long as he lived (indeed, that status remains to this day). As I pointed out, he even still had official duties as a centurion--but not actively leading troops.

One major difference it made was that an active duty centurion in Judea still had the daily role of oppressing Jews. Harassing them, arresting them, torturing them, executing them, and making sure they knew every moment that the knee of Rome was upon their necks. Having a native concubine was one thing; fraternizing was something different.

A retired Centurion could "go native" to a greater extent and had the freedom to be benevolent and friendly with the local leadership.

That is wrong. A retired Centurion is no longer of the body of the Legions, but becomes a citizen, a Quirites. That is how Caesar famously quelled a mutiny, by adressing the men as Quirites. Titles did not remain if you no longer hold the office, as Romans coupled titles to Imperium and Auctoritas - to the duties and responsibilities thereof. In like manner, a Consul or Praetor ceases to be one when his year is finished, though may be appointed as a Proconsul or Propraetor to possess delegated Imperium. We also see old Pompeiian Centurions return to the fray in the civil wars, but as private citizens they aren't still centurions. We see both Cicero and Caesar going to some trouble to procure local magistracies for former centurions, so they did become local men of note on retirement. True, the provincials may still think of them as such, though.

Caesarea Maritima was anyway a Hellenistic city, in fact raised in status to a Colonia by Vespasian. So living in Caesarea is hardly going native by any stretch.

 

[Erik Nelson]

That is wrong. A retired Centurion is no longer of the body of the Legions, but becomes a citizen, a Quirites. That is how Caesar famously quelled a mutiny, by adressing the men as Quirites. Titles did not remain if you no longer hold the office, as Romans coupled titles to Imperium and Auctoritas - to the duties and responsibilities thereof. In like manner, a Consul or Praetor ceases to be one when his year is finished, though may be appointed as a Proconsul or Propraetor to possess delegated Imperium. We also see old Pompeiian Centurions return to the fray in the civil wars, but as private citizens they aren't still centurions. We see both Cicero and Caesar going to some trouble to procure local magistracies for former centurions, so they did become local men of note on retirement. True, the provincials may still think of them as such, though.

Caesarea Maritima was anyway a Hellenistic city, in fact raised in status to a Colonia by Vespasian. So living in Caesarea is hardly going native by any stretch.

A retired centurion still holds the rank of centurion and would be called a centurion as long as he lived (indeed, that status remains to this day). As I pointed out, he even still had official duties as a centurion--but not actively leading troops.

One major difference it made was that an active duty centurion in Judea still had the daily role of oppressing Jews. Harassing them, arresting them, torturing them, executing them, and making sure they knew every moment that the knee of Rome was upon their necks. Having a native concubine was one thing; fraternizing was something different.

A retired Centurion could "go native" to a greater extent and had the freedom to be benevolent and friendly with the local leadership.

You both appear to be very knowledgeable about first century Judea.

VERY tangentially related. I want to ask you both about Aretas king of Nabataea

is it possible that he, desiring revenge against Judean King Agrippa, who dishonored his daughter in marrying Herodias mother of Salome. Who precipitated the beheading of John the Baptist?

Is it possible that Aretas took the side of the PARTHIANS in the conflict of 34 to 35?

According to the NIV study Bible notes Aretas possibly Took Damascus in 34 because there are no Roman coins in Damascus from 34 to 62.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You both appear to be very knowledgeable about first century Judea.

VERY tangentially related. I want to ask you both about Aretas king of Nabataea

is it possible that he, desiring revenge against Judean King Agrippa, who dishonored his daughter in marrying Herodias mother of Salome. Who precipitated the beheading of John the Baptist?

Is it possible that Aretas took the side of the PARTHIANS in the conflict of 34 to 35?

According to the NIV study Bible notes Aretas possibly Took Damascus in 34 because there are no Roman coins in Damascus from 34 to 62.

Let us be clear. Rome would not have tolerated Damuscus in the hands of the Parthians or a pro-Parthian regime. Damuscus too easily threatens Palmyra and could act as a springboard into Syria toward Antioch (as it did during the Crusades).

Aretas III was involved in Pompey's Eastern campaign, in that he tried to depose Aristobolus from the Hasmonaean throne in favour of the former incumbent Hyrcanus. During this time, Pompey attempted to march on Petra, but withdrew - ironically because of the Parthian supported Aristobolus that he had forced Aretas III to withdraw from. His deputy Scaurus was later made governor of Syria and besieged Petra in 62 BC, ending with a cash payment and Nabataea becoming a client-kingdom of Rome.

The Dekapolis claimed their freedoms from Pompey's Eastern Settlement, and Pliny unequivocally lists Damascus as one of them. As such, Damascus was a free city in relation to Rome during this time. While two client kings squabbling would not bring the might of Rome down onto them, attacking the Dekapolis would have. While Damascus certainly was ruled by Nabataea prior to Pompey, there is no reason to think they ever ruled it afterwards that I find convincing. Some argue Paul's stating he fled from an Ethnarch there somewhere denotes this, but this does not imply rule.

As to Nabataea as a supporter of Parthia, no chance. Roman Egypt was next door, and much of their prosperity was wholely built on the incense route up the Via Nova - thus they were inextricably linked to the Roman system. Even the argument of Herod Agrippa I's fortifications, or that Herod the Great built his fortress system against Nabataea, does not imply Parthian support. The ease with which Nabataeans acted in Roman lands, and their later annexation, makes this implausible. While there is no evidence of Aretas IV receiving his kingship directly from Rome, they were close allies - Obadas supported the Roman expedition to Yemen in 25 AD, for instance.

Anyway, Herod Antipas' defeat in 36 AD was coupled to his killing of John the Baptist by Josephus. This may be regarding Aretas IV's daughter, but Roman involvement never materialised. Tiberius sent the Governor of Syria to bring Nabataea to heel, but with Tiberius' death the whole story was papered-over. If Aretas had made any noticeable gains, this would not have occured. Strategically therefore, the war probably had not changed the status quo between Rome and Parthia. Certainly no major territorial change, such as Nabataea taking Damascus again, could have ended on such a mild note; nor would there then be any record of the Roman reconquest that must have followed if that is the case. Most likely Caligula or Claudius merely ignored the whole unfortunate affair.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Let us be clear. Rome would not have tolerated Damuscus in the hands of the Parthians or a pro-Parthian regime. Damuscus too easily threatens Palmyra and could act as a springboard into Syria toward Antioch (as it did during the Crusades).

Aretas III was involved in Pompey's Eastern campaign, in that he tried to depose Aristobolus from the Hasmonaean throne in favour of the former incumbent Hyrcanus. During this time, Pompey attempted to march on Petra, but withdrew - ironically because of the Parthian supported Aristobolus that he had forced Aretas III to withdraw from. His deputy Scaurus was later made governor of Syria and besieged Petra in 62 BC, ending with a cash payment and Nabataea becoming a client-kingdom of Rome.

The Dekapolis claimed their freedoms from Pompey's Eastern Settlement, and Pliny unequivocally lists Damascus as one of them. As such, Damascus was a free city in relation to Rome during this time. While two client kings squabbling would not bring the might of Rome down onto them, attacking the Dekapolis would have. While Damascus certainly was ruled by Nabataea prior to Pompey, there is no reason to think they ever ruled it afterwards that I find convincing. Some argue Paul's stating he fled from an Ethnarch there somewhere denotes this, but this does not imply rule.

As to Nabataea as a supporter of Parthia, no chance. Roman Egypt was next door, and much of their prosperity was wholely built on the incense route up the Via Nova - thus they were inextricably linked to the Roman system. Even the argument of Herod Agrippa I's fortifications, or that Herod the Great built his fortress system against Nabataea, does not imply Parthian support. The ease with which Nabataeans acted in Roman lands, and their later annexation, makes this implausible. While there is no evidence of Aretas IV receiving his kingship directly from Rome, they were close allies - Obadas supported the Roman expedition to Yemen in 25 AD, for instance.

Anyway, Herod Antipas' defeat in 36 AD was coupled to his killing of John the Baptist by Josephus. This may be regarding Aretas IV's daughter, but Roman involvement never materialised. Tiberius sent the Governor of Syria to bring Nabataea to heel, but with Tiberius' death the whole story was papered-over. If Aretas had made any noticeable gains, this would not have occured. Strategically therefore, the war probably had not changed the status quo between Rome and Parthia. Certainly no major territorial change, such as Nabataea taking Damascus again, could have ended on such a mild note; nor would there then be any record of the Roman reconquest that must have followed if that is the case. Most likely Caligula or Claudius merely ignored the whole unfortunate affair.

The NIV study Bible commentary on 2 Corinthians 11:32. And or Acts 9.

Says that Caligula may have granted Damascus to Aretas Because it had been originally in his Kingdom.

So the NIV study Bible notes say that Caligula gave Damascus to. Aretas or allowed him to keep it and that no Roman coins dating from between 34 to 62 have been found from the city.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Let us be clear. Rome would not have tolerated Damuscus in the hands of the Parthians or a pro-Parthian regime. Damuscus too easily threatens Palmyra and could act as a springboard into Syria toward Antioch (as it did during the Crusades).

Aretas III was involved in Pompey's Eastern campaign, in that he tried to depose Aristobolus from the Hasmonaean throne in favour of the former incumbent Hyrcanus. During this time, Pompey attempted to march on Petra, but withdrew - ironically because of the Parthian supported Aristobolus that he had forced Aretas III to withdraw from. His deputy Scaurus was later made governor of Syria and besieged Petra in 62 BC, ending with a cash payment and Nabataea becoming a client-kingdom of Rome.

The Dekapolis claimed their freedoms from Pompey's Eastern Settlement, and Pliny unequivocally lists Damascus as one of them. As such, Damascus was a free city in relation to Rome during this time. While two client kings squabbling would not bring the might of Rome down onto them, attacking the Dekapolis would have. While Damascus certainly was ruled by Nabataea prior to Pompey, there is no reason to think they ever ruled it afterwards that I find convincing. Some argue Paul's stating he fled from an Ethnarch there somewhere denotes this, but this does not imply rule.

As to Nabataea as a supporter of Parthia, no chance. Roman Egypt was next door, and much of their prosperity was wholely built on the incense route up the Via Nova - thus they were inextricably linked to the Roman system. Even the argument of Herod Agrippa I's fortifications, or that Herod the Great built his fortress system against Nabataea, does not imply Parthian support. The ease with which Nabataeans acted in Roman lands, and their later annexation, makes this implausible. While there is no evidence of Aretas IV receiving his kingship directly from Rome, they were close allies - Obadas supported the Roman expedition to Yemen in 25 AD, for instance.

Anyway, Herod Antipas' defeat in 36 AD was coupled to his killing of John the Baptist by Josephus. This may be regarding Aretas IV's daughter, but Roman involvement never materialised. Tiberius sent the Governor of Syria to bring Nabataea to heel, but with Tiberius' death the whole story was papered-over. If Aretas had made any noticeable gains, this would not have occured. Strategically therefore, the war probably had not changed the status quo between Rome and Parthia. Certainly no major territorial change, such as Nabataea taking Damascus again, could have ended on such a mild note; nor would there then be any record of the Roman reconquest that must have followed if that is the case. Most likely Caligula or Claudius merely ignored the whole unfortunate affair.

Also, tangentially, is it possible that Prefect Pontius Pilate revoked Jewish Authority over capital punishment?

According to the book, THE MESSIAH'S PORTRAIT IN THE TANACH by Michael Heiser, the Jewish Talmid records This loss of authority at about the time Prefect, Pontius Pilate took over

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The NIV study Bible commentary on 2 Corinthians 11:32. And or Acts 9.

Says that Caligula may have granted Damascus to Aretas Because it had been originally in his Kingdom.

So the NIV study Bible notes say that Caligula gave Damascus to. Aretas or allowed him to keep it and that no Roman coins dating from between 34 to 62 have been found from the city.

No record of such a grant, nor is it likely. Damascus was in the Dekapolis, not a direct Roman provincial possession, and holds a strategic point. Caligula anyway is unlikely to have granted anything away, especially as he has little military experience and the recent Roman expedition to Nabataea petered out. It would simply be inexpedient. I think Pliny would have mentioned recent Nabataean rule when describing the Dekapolis as well.

As to the coin claim, I have never run across it, so I will have to get back to you whether I think it true or meaningful. It might just be historic accident.

Also, tangentially, is it possible that Prefect Pontius Pilate revoked Jewish Authority over capital punishment?

According to the book, THE MESSIAH'S PORTRAIT IN THE TANACH by Michael Heiser, the Jewish Talmid records This loss of authority at about the time Prefect, Pontius Pilate took over
View attachment 253660

Pontius Pilate need revoke nothing. Many areas did not have the right to capital punishment without Roman consent - it is clear from grants made by Augustus to Cyrenaica for instance. Further, Josephus implies that the Sanhedrin required Roman consent to act as a court. In all likelihood, during important festivals the Romans curtailed executions by Jewish authorities to help keep order. In minor things like stoning Stephen, I doubt the Romans would care, but putting to death a popular figure - claimed a king no less - is certainly quite different.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The settled view of the church and the one which accompanied the choosing of the canon was that the authority of these documents rests on the fact that they were direct apostolic testimony to Jesus. So this is quite a serious accusation.

Are the gospels eyewitness testimonies to the life of Jesus?

I know I've looked into this before...though I don't recall the answers at the moment of writing this....but I think the highlighted section is rather important to the question you're asking.

At what point was it the claim of the church that "these passages are truth" and "these passages are not"? I'm literally asking for the year in which this was decided....

When was the first New Testament put together and when was the version that most people have today put together?

 

[mindlight]

I know I've looked into this before...though I don't recall the answers at the moment of writing this....but I think the highlighted section is rather important to the question you're asking.

At what point was it the claim of the church that "these passages are truth" and "these passages are not"? I'm literally asking for the year in which this was decided....

When was the first New Testament put together and when was the version that most people have today put together?

Irenaeus who died in 202AD listed 21 books of the NT which he regarded as the authoritative authentic article. I think in practice how many books got accepted how fast into individual churches would have varied by church, the availability of scribes, the strength of the connection with the global church and also perhaps the economic resources to purchase copies. I guess 1 and 2 Corinthians were the standard texts in Corinth for example but they may have had no familiarity with Peters letters or Pauls writings to other churches till much later. Also given that the copying process required scribes in an illiterate age and took a long time there were probably not many copies until later.

It could well have taken 3 centuries until the obviously authoritative books already in common usage across different churches could be finalised into a canon by the councils for the simple reason they were not exactly downloadable from the cloud and it took months or years for letters to be copied from one place to another.

Apparently codices were around since Julius Caesars time e.g. BC. So it is also possible that someone compiled a complete codex in the lifetime of the apostles securing the last 2 books from John before he died. Then you would be talking 90-100 AD.

BUt if this was the only bible in a big church for 100 years it would have worn out and been replaced by another one. So we will never know unless of course someone finds a pristine copy of one that someone buried without using in 90AD. BUt that's impossible cause that would have missed the whole point of owning such a bible.

 

[Erik Nelson]

I know I've looked into this before...though I don't recall the answers at the moment of writing this....but I think the highlighted section is rather important to the question you're asking.

At what point was it the claim of the church that "these passages are truth" and "these passages are not"? I'm literally asking for the year in which this was decided....

When was the first New Testament put together and when was the version that most people have today put together?

The books which were eventually accepted into cannon were always accepted by the Proto Orthodox churches. The books were rejected had always been rejected from the first century. If there were any marginally excepted documents, they became the Apocrypha.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Irenaeus who died in 202AD listed 21 books of the NT which he regarded as the authoritative authentic article. I think in practice how many books got accepted how fast into individual churches would have varied by church, the availability of scribes, the strength of the connection with the global church and also perhaps the economic resources to purchase copies. I guess 1 and 2 Corinthians were the standard texts in Corinth for example but they may have had no familiarity with Peters letters or Pauls writings to other churches till much later. Also given that the copying process required scribes in an illiterate age and took a long time there were probably not many copies until later.

It could well have taken 3 centuries until the obviously authoritative books already in common usage across different churches could be finalised into a canon by the councils for the simple reason they were not exactly downloadable from the cloud and it took months or years for letters to be copied from one place to another.

Apparently codices were around since Julius Caesars time e.g. BC. So it is also possible that someone compiled a complete codex in the lifetime of the apostles securing the last 2 books from John before he died. Then you would be talking 90-100 AD.

BUt if this was the only bible in a big church for 100 years it would have worn out and been replaced by another one. So we will never know unless of course someone finds a pristine copy of one that someone buried without using in 90AD. BUt that's impossible cause that would have missed the whole point of owning such a bible.

Then what we have is a large collection of writings....whether purely fictional or not....which were popular amongst various christian groups.

Eventually, the Catholics (which were arguably the largest and most influential of these groups) started to weed out the ones they considered false from the ones they considered true. That's the basic story, right? Perhaps simplified a bit....but not very controversial.

So what was the method they used for determining true from false? It doesn't matter if you believe this happened in the late second century or third....it's not as if they went around verifying these writings by finding witnesses. Realistically, that wouldn't have happened if you believe the New Testament was compiled in the first century.

 

[mindlight]

Then what we have is a large collection of writings....whether purely fictional or not....which were popular amongst various christian groups.

Eventually, the Catholics (which were arguably the largest and most influential of these groups) started to weed out the ones they considered false from the ones they considered true. That's the basic story, right? Perhaps simplified a bit....but not very controversial.

So what was the method they used for determining true from false? It doesn't matter if you believe this happened in the late second century or third....it's not as if they went around verifying these writings by finding witnesses. Realistically, that wouldn't have happened if you believe the New Testament was compiled in the first century.

Either a letter was written by Paul or not. At hundred years distance or even 200 it is possible that they still had the originals to check against in the churches to which they were sent. That these have since been lost, destroyed or worn away by time and use does not effect the validity of the original church choice.

Also the usage carried across different locations from copies made that appeared in different churches in diffrent locales. So a global church could check one time line in one place against another eliminating recently fabricated editions for example.

Also the liturgy and memorised texts handed down a hard core of content against which claims of authenticity could be checked.

Church fathers commentated on or quoted from texts affirming their authority and indicating which texts the church regarded as authentic and which not.

We who believe have the Holy Spirit who testifies to those texts he inspired and which not.

The decisions of non catholic churches also accept the main 27 NT books indicating that the recognition of their authenticity was not determined by denominational hierarchy or particular cultures.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Either a letter was written by Paul or not. At hundred years distance or even 200 it is possible that they still had the originals to check against in the churches to which they were sent. That these have since been lost, destroyed or worn away by time and use does not effect the validity of the original church choice.

Well...let's say that happened...any mention of it? Did they ever have Paul verify he sent the letters? Are there a bunch of letters that got left out?

It's fun to imagine there's a highly meticulous process behind how the various sections of the bible are chosen...but that would be extraordinarily unlikely.

Also the usage carried across different locations from copies made that appeared in different churches in diffrent locales. So a global church could check one time line in one place against another eliminating recently fabricated editions for example.

Sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.

Also the liturgy and memorised texts handed down a hard core of content against which claims of authenticity could be checked.

Again, not sure what you mean by this. Early churches were both small and poor...the idea of them checking the authenticity of anything is pretty silly.

Church fathers commentated on or quoted from texts affirming their authority and indicating which texts the church regarded as authentic and which not.

Did they quote from or reference texts? Absolutely. Did they believe in them? Almost certainly. Did they determine their validity? That seems really unlikely.

We who believe have the Holy Spirit who testifies to those texts he inspired and which not.

Which is probably the method used back then....

I'm sorry, but that's why scholars don't consider the gospels to be "eyewitness accounts". The Holy Spirit has no reliable confirmation process.

 

[mindlight]

Well...let's say that happened...any mention of it? Did they ever have Paul verify he sent the letters? Are there a bunch of letters that got left out?

MOst of Pauls letters are pretty uncontroversial in terms of authorship even amongst liberal academics who do not have the Holy Spirit.

It's fun to imagine there's a highly meticulous process behind how the various sections of the bible are chosen...but that would be extraordinarily unlikely.

There was an acceptance quite early on which books had authority and which less so. This was demonstrated by usage and there is the Muratorian fragment from 170 which is a pretty early endorsement of a NT list

Muratorian fragment - Wikipedia

Sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.

Again, not sure what you mean by this. Early churches were both small and poor...the idea of them checking the authenticity of anything is pretty silly.

Basically if church x and church y were both using the same text from an early date , despite being in completely different church hierarchies and locations that was an endorsement of the texts authority. So most of Pauls letters and the 4 gospels were in widespread use , early on. If these books are being quoted in burial artifacts, church liturgies, hymnology, church fathers etc then that is a further endorsement of them.

Did they quote from or reference texts? Absolutely. Did they believe in them? Almost certainly. Did they determine their validity? That seems really unlikely.

Usage was a test of validity even if it was not regarded as such at the time. The bible canon was something that emerged from a mass of locales and cultures and yet which by the time of Athanasius in 367 there was a pretty strong and broad consensus. Reaching further back it seems that most of the bible books were pretty uncontroversial pretty early on. James and Revelation being late comers for that endorsement.

Which is probably the method used back then....

I'm sorry, but that's why scholars don't consider the gospels to be "eyewitness accounts". The Holy Spirit has no reliable confirmation process.

The selection of the canon did not require the endorsement of unbelieving liberal scholars when it was formed and does not need that now. It is the community of believers that know which texts are of God and which not, because they share the Spirit that inspired them and because these texts were written by those closest to Jesus and endorsed with his authority. The final selection process was made with reference to a church much closer to the events, probably in possession of original texts and in consensus about which books worked and which ones did not.

 

[Steve Petersen]

So which Christian sect has the inspired canon that God wanted the world to have?

 

[mindlight]

So which Christian sect has the inspired canon that God wanted the world to have?

Why don't you start with the fact that we all share the 66 books of the Protestant bible, where Masoretic and Septuagint confirm the OT choices and then ask why some Christians choose also to accept extra books.