New Testament Canon

The New Testament Canon came into existence through the assembly of three main constituents over a period of time. During the time of Christ and the Apostles the only scripture that were considered authentic and used in the synagogues were the Old Testament scripture or the earliest Canon. Gradually, the New Testament Canon came into existence by way of a conglomeration books and letters whose authorship was attributed to the Disciples and the Apostles of Jesus Christ.

Der Artikel geht der Frage nach, warum aus der umfangreichen Produktion frühchristlicher Evangelien gerade vier dieser Schriften ins Neue Testament gelangt sind. Der Blick auf nicht-kanonische Jesusüberlieferungen zeigt, dass die Bezeichnung "Evangelien" in breiter Weise und nicht für eine spezifische literarische Gestalt (narrative Darstellungen des Wirkens und Geschicks Jesu) verwendet wurde. Auch das Modell literarischer Abhängigkeit ist zu unpräzise, um das Verhältnis kanonischer und nicht-kanonischer ("apokrypher") Evangelien zu beschreiben. Anhand von drei nicht-kanonischen Schriften (Thomas-, Maria-, Petrusevangelium) wird gezeigt, dass die Rezeption von Wirken und Geschick Jesu im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert ein weites inhaltliches und literarisches Spektrum aufweist. Die Entstehung der Vier-Evangelien-Sammlung, deren Anfänge sich bereits früh im 2. Jahrhundert feststellen lassen, ist vermutlich darauf zurückzuführen, dass sich das frühe Christentum bereits zu einem frühen Zeitpunkt darum bemühte, das Zeugnis dieser Schriften miteinander in Einklang zu bringen. Darauf weist auch der Manuskriptbefund (etwa der Gebrauch von nomina sacra in kanonisch werdenden Schriften) hin. Die nicht-kanonischen Evangelien erweisen sich gleichwohl als wichtige Zeugen für die Rezeption der Jesusüberlieferung, die nicht voreilig auf der Basis einer "kanonischen" Perspektive aus der Literatur-und Theologiegeschichte des frühen Christentums ausgeschlossen werden sollten.

The article deals with the formation of the New Testament Canon in light of recent research, e.g., the meaning of the Qumran scrolls for the canonization of the New Testament. It is argued that in the history of the New Testament there was never a strict separation between “canonical” and “apocryphal” writings.

The New Testament is a great treasure, it is the gospel of
life, given by God’s inspiration in the first century and ever
spreading since then. It is a joy to study and to teach it.
Jesus Christ the central hero of the New Testament is out-
standing. He is unique. According to the testimony of the prob-
ably eight apostles and prophets or chosen ones who wrote the
New Testament Jesus is the Christ, the Son of Man, the Savior
of Israel and the world, the high priest in heaven, the King of
kings, the Lord of lords, not only a prophet, but the Word of God
in person whose Spirit was in the prophets of the Old Testament,
the eternal Son of God who was the beloved of the Father even
before the foundation of the world, that is the second person of
the Holy Trinity.
The purpose of this book is to encourage people to study the books of the
New Testament, appreciate its contents and worship its hero.

The steady stream of provocative and popular text-critical works by Bart Ehrman has been stirring the apologetic's hornet's nest for a few years now. There has been no shortage of responses to his claims about proto-orthodox scribes tampering with the text of the NT. Wallace's Revisiting the Corruption of the NT is one of the latest apologetic works to attempt to set the record straight. The volume is successful in demonstrating that textual matters are more complex than is often portrayed and proffers viable, alternative explanations for textual variants in Ehrman's narrative of orthodox corruption. The collection of essays is nonetheless beset by a number of deficiencies, not least of which are its understandings of the text, scribal activity, and history. The book's naked apologetic intent is its greatest liability. Evidence appears to have been used selectively, and partial and misleading comparisons are made for the sake of apologetic gain.

This chapter examines the important—but complicated—role played by
gospel traditions in early Christian literature down to the beginning of the
third century. Section A offers a survey of the historical processes by which
gospel traditions were transmitted in the early church, and thereby delineates
the forms in which “the gospel” was known to early Christian writers. Section
B then explores some of the ways in which early Christian authors used the
gospel materials available to them, and offers a case study in the Apostolic Fathers.

In this essay I will argue that there were four criteria the early church employed to fix the NT canon: apostolicity, orthodoxy, catholicity and spirituality. To do so, I will (1) sum up the NT books’ recognition story, (2) show why certain locally and temporally recognised books were eventually rejected, and (3) expose the four criteria giving examples of their application.

From the Introduction:

The epistle of Jude has been a source of bewilderment, frustration, and even scorn for many commentators who have attempted to plumb its depths. While its purpose is to combat the false teachers of early Gnosticism and strongly defend the real future second coming of Jesus Christ in glory and judgment against false prophets and apostates, the method in which Jude attempts to support that objective appears to many as something questionable at best. Rather than citing our preferred canonical Scriptures available to the apostles and early church, namely the Hebrew Bible, Jude goes outside of the cannon to apocalyptic pseudopigraphal books such as The Assumption of Moses (hereafter just Moses) and The Book of Enoch (hereafter just Enoch), and even possibly fashions allusions to The Testament of Naphtali and The Testament of Asher as well. In this paper, I will explore the possible reason for Jude’s seeming abandonment of canonical authority, specifically in reference to the use of 1 Enoch in Jude 6 and 14-16, as well as the common reaction of the commentators concerning if Jude should remain in the canon or if 1 Enoch should be reconsidered and added.

This collection of essays addresses selected issues of canon and deuterocanon that frequently come up in interconfessional Bible translation projects. How should translators deal with the Greek and Hebrew texts of Esther and Sirach? Which deuterocanonical and noncanonical books should be included in Bible translations in, for example, the Christian East? What is the meaning of canon there, and what were ultimately the criteria in the formation of the New Testament canon? What do the Dead Sea Scrolls tell us about the notion of Scripture at Qumran? The contributors are translation consultants with the United Bible Societies.

Canone (κανών) possiede due significati sostanziali: 1. all'inizio dell'epoca cristiana, e fino al II sec., il termine indica la norma di fede e di vita per i credenti 2. in un momento successivo, verso il IV sec., definisce l'insieme di testi sacri e riconosciuti ufficialmente dalla Chiesa  Il canone biblico è costituito da quei libri che la comunità religiosa riconosce una volta per tutte come essenziali e perciò normativi per la fede nella Rivelazione divina Università di Salerno, Storia della Filosofia Medievale-A.A. 2021-2022-Corso di Laurea Triennale Monografico (B) ROBERTO SCHIAVOLIN: LA BIBBIA NEI PRIMI SECOLI. CRITERI DI CANONICITÀ Scheda 3 La coscienza canonica nell'ebraismo: sviluppo storico La consapevolezza dell'importanza del testo sacro si acuisce in determinati periodi, soprattutto in relazione all'osservanza della legge: 716-687 a.C. Riforma di Ezechia 640-609 a.C. Riforma di Giosia 586-538 a.C. Esilio babilonese (iniziato con Nabucodonosor, terminato con Ciro) V sec. a.C. Periodo post-esilico: riforma di Esdra e Neemia, epoca particolarmente feconda per la produzione letteraria, in cui si raccolgono e si adattano alla nuova situazione tradizioni antichissime II sec. a.C. Crisi maccabaica 70 d.C. Distruzione del Tempio II sec. d.C. Crisi montanista (attesa di una futura rivelazione dello Spirito Santo) e crisi marcionita (irriducibile contrapposizione tra Antico e Nuovo Testamento

The article asks how the Jesus tradition became part of the New Testament Canon. Taking its starting point by the “authority of the Lord” in first and second century Christian writings, it is argued that the Jesus tradition was preserved and transmitted as a “free and living tradition” until it was fixed in the New Testament canon in the 4th century.

This article examines collections of Paul's letters as part of the emerging New Testament canon. Already Paul himself claimed to interpret the gospel of Jesus Christ in a normative way. Paul's missionary activity and theology outlined in his letters were taken up and developed further in pseudepigraphic letters, in the Acts of the Apostles, and in other early Christian writings. Witness to knowledge of at least some of Paul's letters can be recognized from the late first century onwards. It was not before Marcion, however, that a collection of Paul's letters (both authentic and inauthentic, from a modern historical-critical view) with a distinct order and text form is attested. Collections of Pauline letters with different arrangement and extent are preserved in Papyrus 46 and in the Muratorian fragment. A connection of Jesus and Paul appears for the first time in the historical narrative of Luke-Acts. In addition, 1 Clement refers to "words of our Lord Jesus" and to letters of Paul. Towards the end of the second century, Irenaeus established a distinct relationship between the four Gospels on the one hand and the letters of Paul on the other. This was an  important step in the formation of the "New Testament" of which Paul's letters became an essential part.

This article summarizes the use of Reformed Presuppositional Apologetics to respond to Muslim objections. This is a subject that very little has been written about until now. I call the model PAM Presuppositional Approach with Muslims.  In my article I go over my journey of using different apologetic models with Muslims, and explain why I have come to the conclusion that this model is Biblical and most effective. I then give a small example of how to use it with one Muslim objection.

In this volume, T. C. Schmidt offers a new perspective on the formation of Christian scripture by examining the New Testament as a Greco-Roman ‘testament’, a legal document of great authority in the ancient world. His work considers previously unexamined parallels between Greco-Roman juristic standards and the authorization of Christianity’s holy texts. Recapitulating how Greco-Roman testaments were created and certified, he argues that the book of Revelation possessed many testamentary characteristics that were crucial for lending validity to the New Testament. Even so, Schmidt shows how Revelation fell out of favor amongst most Eastern Christian communities for over a thousand years until commentators rehabilitated its status and reintegrated it into the New Testament. Schmidt uncovers why so many Eastern Churches neglected Revelation during this period, and then draws from Greco-Roman legal practice to describe how Eastern commentators successfully argued for Revelation’s inclusion in the New Testament of their Churches.

Jongkind, Dirk. "On the Marcionite Prologues to the Letters of Paul." In Studies on the Text of the New Testament and Early Christianity: Studies in Honor of Michael W. Holmes on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, edited by Daniel M. Gurtner, Juan Hernández Jr. and Paul Foster, 389-407. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2015.

In a recent essay, Clare K. Rothschild has tried to reopen the question of the date of the Muratorian Fragment by proposing a novel view: according to her, this text may well be a late fake, for which she proposes several possible historical settings ranging from the 4th to the 8th or even 9th century. The present article engages critically with this theory, especially by reminding that, since Chromatius of Aquileia (✝ 407) knew and used the Muratorian Fragment, any date after the beginning of the 5th century cannot come under consideration in any hypothesis, and by pointing to an issue that C. K. Rothschild does not discuss: that of the original language of the Muratorian Fragment. Since the text was originally written in Greek, but is likely Western in origin, a 2nd-century dating remains the most plausible hypothesis.

Kenneth Laing challenges the concept of Irenaeus as the primary witness to the point at which the New Testament achieved scriptural status, and calls into question some of the most basic conclusions and assumptions of New Testament canon formation scholarship. Laing proposes a new interpretation of Irenaeus' understanding of the nature and basis of authority of the New Testament writings, based on his christocentric theology of revelation.

By exploring the texts themselves, the concept of authority, scriptural tradition and the question of inspiration, Laing argues that while the writings possess authority equal to the Jewish scriptures, it is their apostolic origin and the apostles' relationship to Christ – not inspiration – which forms the basis of the unique revelatory authority of the New Testament writings. Laing thus stresses that Irenaeus regards the New Testament writings as a written record of the apostolic tradition and the primary means of accessing its content, rather than as a purely scriptural text.

This book seeks to put an end to the debate concerning the date of production of the Muratorian Fragment by applying the second phase of the Inference to the Best Explanation method. The author presents extensive research on the debates, a clear methodology, and his own conclusions on the subject. This is a book mainly about New Testament canons and church authority, but also church history and historiography.

How the Bible became a Book?
What would the role of the written word be as Judaism and Christianity emerged in the first centuries?  As a way of concluding, Wm. Schniedewind would like to reflect on the relationship between oral tradition and written text in the formation of Judaism and Christianity. although the heart of his book has been its look at the relationship of writing and these texts to the formation of the Hebrew Bible, it seems worthwhile to suggest how this textualization played out in the formative period for Judaism and Christianity. (Epilogue)

Concise Prologue
Professor David Trobisch of the University of Heidelberg examines early Bible manuscripts, In "The First Edition of the New Testament, 2000." He offers a bold new thesis that during the second century A.D., a unified final redaction of a Bible that became the archetype for all later Bible versions was assembled by a group of Church 'editors'. This overturns centuries of belief that the New Testament was compiled gradually over a long period of time, in many locations, harmonized at a later date after Nicea, to be canonized in Athanasius' Paschal letter of 367. Constantine's Bible is at large a history of sifting the scripture and list NT canonical books.

Dr. Dungan who in intellectual telepathy with Coote's, "Power, politics, and the making of the Bible," adopted the concept, and found role players in Constantine, a Pagan Emperor, and Eusebius, the semi Arian Bishop of Caesarea, Palestine, stirred unbased doubts on the Canonization process. NT Canon has a documented ecclesiastical history, that could be searched but has to be proven without doubt. Even an influential theologian as John AT Robinson, could not have consensus on his re dating of NT books, let alone a fictionalized History of the New Testament canonization.
_______________________________________________________

A Vivid History of Canonical Traditions of Holy Scripture
Reviewed by Didaskalex, on October 12, 2002

The Canon of Scripture
The dean of evangelical biblical scholars did a great service when he decided to get this work out of his system (Preface), since he made a very successful attempt indeed to communicate the state of knowledge on this tricky and sensitive subject. This book stands my Criterion: If I only have one book on the subject, I would buy this book. This book is methodical, written basically for Seminarians, still tickles your curious bone, but don't get tricked by the smoothness of his elaboration, being a top exegesist and a reference on biblical criticism.

Preface & Chapter I
Read the condensed preface attentively, it highlights Prof. Bruce intended strategy to leave the more controversial issues on the OT canon to R. Beckwith and J. Barton. The short chapter defines terms that became the vocabulary of the subject, their meaning and roots. 'People of the Book' conveys his cultural standing, but he avoids elaborating on the concept of the two testaments but will not but mention Jeremiah 31:31, and later how Origen was the first to use and propagate this Alexandrine terminology (p. 192 : on First Principles 4.1.1)

TaNaKh: Wider Canon
Bruce, who said will shy from OT canon, masterfully instructs us in his own way, starting from the authority of OT for a Christian: Jesus appeal to TaNaKh, going from the threefold division to the closing of the Hebrew canon in Jabneh. Now, with a firm foot, he delves into the Alexandrine wider Canon starting with Septuagint origin, order of books, and adoption as Ancient Churches OT, and NT evidence, but does not state citations or allusions to the Apocrypha (K. & B. Aland: The text of the NT, Eerdmans,1979) that he mentions (p. 51)

OT Christian Canon: Prevalence of Alexandria
The Rylands chair for two decades enlighten us on how one Church transmitted the light for all others. He starts by stating the authority of the early Uncials, Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus that are all products of the Alexandrine Scriptorium, and are the most reliable (contrary of Ehrman's thesis). Along side other easterners, he elaborates on Origen, and Athanasius, the first to use the term Canon, in relation to scripture.
Very interesting is his review of 17th and 18th centuries accomodation of canon, and Biblical societies. The canon in the West: Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine, to the reformation: Luther, Erasmus, and Tyndale through Trentine Council to KJAV.

New Testament Canon
If I would propose any clarification to this enjoyable treatise, it would be to copy the names and order of the bible in Orthodox, Catholic, and protestant traditions from a good study Bible, say the Harper Collins NRSV, with Apocrypha. Although differences exist in OT books, NT books are the exact 27 books. Only that the order of books in a genuine Orthodox Bible follows the Order of St. Athanasius in his Pascal letter of 367, the Catholic Epistles precede the Pauline letters.

Hebrews and Apocalypse
The authority of Dionysius the Great, on the Apocalypse of John, followed by all the Orientals (p. 213) in spite of their Canonical diversity was never challenged by Athanasius letter, intended to compromise Rome with the eastern Church. He persuaded the Romans to accept the book of Hebrews, next only to John's Bible in the Alexandriae NT theological priority (canon within the canon) of the Didaskalia and Catechetical School, compromising for the Apocalypse, then considered a liturgical text in the East.

Great Chapters to probe
The Alexandrian Fathers
NT canon in the Age of printing
Criteria of Canonicity
A Canon within the Canon
Canon ,Criticism and interpretation

Further Readings 
* Barr, J. "Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism,
Westminster press, Philadelphia, 1983
* Beckwith, R, "The Old Testament Canon of NT Church,..."
Eerdmans, Gr. Rapids, 1985
* Metzger,B. "The Canon of the NT, its origin, development, and significance",Oxford U. Press, 1987
72 people found this helpful

"My first semester in the PhD program I had a seminar on the “Canon of the New Testament” with Bruce Metzger.  This was a class that focused on the questions surrounding how we ended up with the twenty-seven books in the New Testament.  Who decided that it would be these twenty-seven books, and no others?  What were the grounds for their decisions? . . . "--Bart Ehrman, UNC (Didymus' Tura manuscripts)


Canon of the Didaskaleon
Well-known to patristic scholars, Didymus the Blind is not a name likely to ring bells of recognition in the minds of those casual visitors of the world of the early Church. Yet, few have taken the time to probe the mysteries of Didymus' corpus, the neglect caused not from a lack of interest in this Catechetical exegete but from the traditional failure to transmit copies of his work to posterity. Casualties of anti-Origenist sentiment in sixth-century Byzantium, a lone set of papyri were secretly buried in a cave deep beneath an Egyptian monastery near south west Cairo. There the manuscripts remained until accidentally unearthed by the British in 1941. From the discovery of the Toura papyri to their near complete publication in 1985, most academic attention to Didymus was diverted from the analysis of his corpus that could enhance a fresh understanding of Egyptian Christianity in fourth-century Alexandria.

Early August 1941 the British military forces stationed near Cairo, during WWII, sent a group of Egyptian workers to clear three galleries in the stone-quarries of Tura, south of Cairo, in order to store munitions there. They discovered a pile of papyrus codices under loose debris in one of the quarry galleries. The codices were just buried under the rubble and dust in the tunnels. The workers kept them, without informing the Antiquities Service, who learned of the find few days later. The police and members of the Antiquities were too late to seize but a small portion. Later on, quires of these codices began to show up at the Cairo antiquities dealers. Whereas sold at high prices, much was repurchased by the Coptic Museum, Cairo. The remainder was retained in private hands; wild rumors speak of thousands of folios.

In his commentaries discovered in 1941, Didymus refers to four Apostolic Fathers with frequency. In addition to the 'Shepherd of Hermas', and 'I Clement, he highly valued, and considered their writings, in a quasi canonical status, not in the present New Testament, but of great spiritual value: Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache. Attending to the complex interactions of political competition and intellectual inquiry, this study makes a unique contribution to cultural history of late antiquity. A careful reading of the commentaries of Didymus preserved among the Torah papyri allows us to appreciate Didymus as a gifted scholar in his own right.

To arrive at more subtle and fair judgments concerning his contribution to Alexandrian biblical interpretation, based on a close reading of Didymus' commentaries on the Psalms, Job, and Genesis, Layton confirms that Didymus presided over a small circle of students of the Didaskalia, who were concerned to study and interpret the biblical writings, supportive of but independent from an institutional body of the Alexandrian church. It is suggested that the theological and hermeneutical practices of these exegetes can be understood in terms of "mimetic pedagogy" and "scholastic Origenism."
http://ntcanon.org/Didymus.shtml

Louis Doutreleau, a Jesuit priest closely associated with Source Chretiennes, Lyons, has edited volumes of the works of Didymus and Origen, and drew up a list of the physical codices and their contents. He also replied to queries concerning the Torah codex. Although he writes an official statement of the discovery, the codices became rapidly dispersed into many hands. Some ended up in the museum, due to the zeal of an agent who obtained some 1000+ folios. Similar to what happened later in the Coptic Gnostic library, some 850 folios still ended up in dealers hands. But Doutreleau believes that whole codices to vanish was improbable, in view of the official local and international efforts to locate them. But there are probably some 650 hidden folios which contain the remaining parts of Didymus the Blind works, as listed below:

Codex Contents  (cond. from Roger Pearse) *
I. Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides
Discourse on Easter (in two books)
A bundle of quires joined by a fastener, and seem to be the complete codex. The manuscript is dated to the end of the 6th century. The Dialogue with Heraclides was unknown from any source before this find. Patristic references exist to a discourse on Easter, hitherto unknown.

II. Origen, Commentary on Romans (Extracts from books 5 and 6)
Origen, Against Celsus (Extracts from book 1 and book 2)
Origen, Sermon on the witch of Endor
Each quire has been cut in half with some sort of mechanical cutter, leaving top and bottom bits. Date of the Ms. is the late 6th century. The extracts from Contra Celsum begin on quire 2, with a note they were 'transcribed and collated against an exemplar of the books of Origen himself.'

III. Didymus (?), Commentary on Ecclesiastes
Only some of the quires are in the coptic museum. Doutreleau has evidence of the existence of 15 quires. The pages are difficult to read. Quire 13 contains notes on Eccl. 6:12. As Ecclesiastes has 12 chapters, it may be inferred that the complete codex had around 25 quires.

IV. Didymus the Blind, Commentary on Genesis
The quires are numbered 1-16, and run up to Gen. 16:16. They are almost complete, except Quire 1, is only fragments. Acomplete text would be two codices of 30 quires. However, there are blank pages among the current quires, and the work of the copyist may have never been completed.

V. Didymus the Blind, Commentary on the Psalms
This volume is more or less a commentary on Ps. 21-50. Scattered among many owners, 14 quires are known. The Coptic museum has only quires 19, 20 and 21. Quire 1 comments on Paslm 20:1-6. Quire 3 covers Ps. 21:15-25. Quire 4 covers Ps.21:25-Ps.22:5. So other 4 books cover the whole Psalms.

VI. Didymus the Blind, Commentary on Zachariah
This codex seems to be complete. The whole work is inscribed.

VII. Didymus the Blind, Commentary on Job
The first 24 quires are in the Coptic museum. Complete, but the middle of the pages are damaged by insects. 8 pages from quire 26 are in a private collection, cover to Job 16:3.

VIII. Unknown, Commentary on the Psalms
1 quire: 125, 129, 131-3 and John 6:3-28.
The first page is blank, as is the second apart from a doxology at the top. Commentary by someone of the Alexandrian school. Laid out differently from the Didymus codices.

All writings texts are in Greek. For codices IV, V, VI, the quires are either rolled or folded in two, in antiquity, suggesting that the books were already just piles of quires when dumped in the corridor, as does the presence of some of the cord originally used in the binding inside some of the folded quires, again so placed in antiquity.

http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/ *
http://lib.byu.edu/collections/didymus-papyrus/
https://studylib.net/doc/9507831/dev_of_nt_canon-part2

Didymus; the Canon's  Judge
Although these commentaries are on Old Testament books, Didymus includes in his exposition hundreds of citations from the New Testament. These come from all the books of the New Testament with the exception of: Philemon, II John, and III John
On the other hand he considered these writings, not in the present New Testament, of value: I Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, Shepherd of Hermas


Didymus on the 'Pericope adulterae'
For a prodigeous catechist, like Didymus, it is normal to hear bout the vanishing of "Pericope de Adultera," the first verses of chapter 8 of John's Gospel. Another Gospel has two alternative endings,  with larger verses that are in dispute, few ancient manuscripts carry them but most omit  them.  The ending of the Gospel of Mark is one such case; John 8:1-11 is the other.  This time it is the memory of Didymus the blind that had recalled it, and his creative biblical scholrship, that drove Jerome to call him 'Didymus the Seer.'

"No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (12th century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it." -- Bruce Metzger, 1966,
commenting upon the Revised Version.

Catechetical conclusion
The pericope adulterae likely reflects an authentic incident in Christ’s ministry. However, preachers should limit their sermons only to the original biblical text. At the very least, they should exercise caution and skepticism when referencing this story for illustrative purposes. Because interpreters can demonstrate that the pericope adulterae was not originally part of John’s Gospel, preachers should refrain from using it as the sole basis for their homilies.

"I also think we need to maintain distinctions - the doctrine of creation is different from a scientific cosmology, and we should resist the temptation, which sometimes scientists give in to, to try to assimilate the concepts of theology to the concepts of science."-- John Polkinghorne

Geocentricity primer: Introduction to Biblical cosmology
by Gerardus D. Bouw PhD

(A review by Cosmas Topographicos)

"The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different Coordinate Systems."--Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics


Geocentricity
What is the scientific impact of the centricity of our planet earth that we should struggle with advanced physics to formulate a modern cosmology, ramifications of which has a theological significance of vital importance to scriptural revelation, and validity of Church interpretive tradition? Cardinal Bellarmine, urging Foscarini and Galileo persuasively to consent, wrote, "... if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture, which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated."

Explaining the Cosmos
Relative motion of observed heavenly objects should consist with their relative motion from any other different location. This is basic vector mathematics, applied coordinate system. If this coordinate transformation is done correctly, then concludes Mark Wyatt, "There are many possible ways for explaining the cosmos we observe, Geocentricity is one of the many. If one treats the motions in the heavens as relative motions (whether Galilleo's relativity, Einstein's General Relativity, or other types), one can create a model of the cosmos which is consistent with observations from many (if not any) reference points." This explains Sir Fred Hoyle statement, in Nicholas Corpenicus,
"The relation of the two pictures (Geocentricity and Heliocentricity) is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view. ...Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory 'wrong' in any meaningful physical sense."

Accommodating the Debate
As a young adult, reading that Joshua 'spoke to the Lord' saying, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, ... until the nation took vengeance on their enemies," I could hardly relate my basic scientific concepts to the Hebrew Folklore, in support of scripture; 'written in the book of Jashar?' Let alone the fable of the huge stones the Lord threw from heaven (Josh. 10:11), primitive violence that professor Niditch could not settle in her book on Hebrew War, study in the ethics of violence.

In his review, Esoteric Astrophysics and Dubious Hermeneutics, Chris Falter has just touched one side of the core of the problem, "Furthermore, the doctrine of inerrancy as it has been formulated everywhere (until Bouw) refers to the original manuscripts, not the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that have been preserved."
He may have overlooked Dr. Bouw's Preface opening quotation, "Accommodation, the theory which states that God goes along with the commonly accepted story (Folklore) even though He really doesn't approve it."

Biblical Geocentricity
Does the Bible unmistakably teach a geocentric universe or a fixed earth, which Cosmas Indicopleustes defended in his 549 work, Topographia Christiana?
The Bulletin of the Tychonian Society, June 1981 issue contained articles, arguing based on Scripture, against the fixed earth position, simply in order to demonstrate that geocentricity is not a matter of Christian orthodoxy.

http://www.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/Notes/section1/new2.html

Epilogue to Cosmas review
Judeo Christian Cosmology: The Hebrew Bible contains six different types of creation narrative, all integrated to the overriding cult of Yahweh. Thus God is the cause, not simply of things coming to be, but also of their being. The prevailing cosmography for millennia was one of a `three-decker' universe (heaven above, earth in the middle, and hell below), but its `correction' by modern cosmologies has not affected the more fundamental point of the earlier (or of any) religious cosmology which mapped the universe as an arena of opportunity. For that reason, a three-decker universe may well persist indefinitely in liturgy. In the seventh century, John Philoponus, Christian dean of the Alexandrine Academy established the doctrine of Creation ex Nihilo, rather than out of Chaos as was narrated in Genesis.

Jushua's Sun movement:  Instead of the sun’s motion through the sky being due to the rotation of the earth, here it states that the sun and moon daily move around the earth.  The sun is commanded not to move or rise; it is not the earth which receives the commandment to stop turning.  Over the last 400 years, this has been the source of much consternation among commentators and Bible critics—both higher and lower critics.  Their reactions fall into two main categories: those who wish to make the event to be a fiction and those who try to accommodate the account to modern science’s insistence that the earth rotates daily on its axis.  In either case, it is science that is held to be correct, and it is the scriptures scribe who is held to be in error and which must be conformed to modern belief.

Those who try to accommodate Joshua’s long day to science fall into two groups.  The first group includes those critics who try to blame the geocentric “flaw” in Joshua 10 on faulty transmission of the text or, at least, to faulty translation or a misunderstanding of what God meant to say.  The second group consists of those who try to make of the event an illusion or else a quite natural occurrence.  Generally, both groups will admit of a miracle, but not all will admit to a miracle in the sky; and all make the miracle something less than the Bible claims it to be. Oddly enough, only gentile commentators “know” enough Hebrew to notice that Joshua told the sun to be still: it seems to have escaped the Jewish commentators.  Jewish scholars, both those who believed in the miracle and those who did not, make no such distinction in their writings; even among heliocentrists. One of the earliest Jewish commentators extant is Philo, who is notorious for bad paraphrasing and interpolating his own ideas into the Jewish text and history. 

Increasingly, heliocentric apologists have tried to abstract the meaning of the sun’s arrest to such a degree that the actual intent of the passage is virtually unrecognizable.  Howard Rand suggested that perhaps the axis of rotation of the earth changed in such a way that for about one day the battle site became the rotational north pole.20  Although not original with Rand, the idea has gained popularity lately because of the influence of Velikovsky. In the tippie-top scenario, some event inside the earth or else the fly-by of some planetary body caused the earth’s rotational poles to move in such a way that, for one day, Joshua’s battle site was at the north pole.  One obvious problem is that the moon would still be seen to go around the sun during the battle.  But the text says that the moon, too, stood still.


Not so obviously, Professor James Hanson of the Cleveland State University in Cleveland, Ohio, has shown mathematically that Rand’s is not a possible explanation.  Furthermore, Hanson also has shown that the explanation of Joshua’s long day as proposed by Velikovsky is physically impossible unless Venus were still orbiting the earth today in an orbit even closer to the earth than is the moon.  In fact, none of the naturalistic proposals put forth to account for Joshua’s long day are physically possible. The simple choice remains: Joshua’s long day is either a miracle, or it is pure fiction.

Comment by; Christopher J. Falter
Actually, I did notice that Bouw mentioned the "accommodational" hermeneutic, but of course Bouw disapproves of that approach. The label "accommodation" is actually a pejorative when Bouw uses the term. There is nothing about Bouw's use of the term "accommodation" that casts doubt on my analysis, as far as I can tell. Your opinion may differ, but it would help all of us if you would explain why Bouw's use of the term renders my analysis invalid. Saying that he used the term contributes nothing to the discussion.

Naturally I did not delve into every detail of Bouw's meandering work when I wrote my review, as then readers of my review would give up after the first 25 of the 78 paragraphs that would have entailed. I hope my summary and analysis helps those who bother to read my review carefully. Evidently it does help most who bother to vote...and I suspect that the negative votes on my review come from those who reflexively vote against anything that threatens the most literal interpretation of the Holy Bible.

I would welcome a genuine discussion with those who disagree with my review.
http://www.geocentricity.com/geocentricity/primer.pdf

Prologue
The existence of an unknown source, which mysteriously disappeared without trace,  has many advocates firmly contend that the 'vanishing' of a document (or parts of) was not such a strange event!

The Pericope Adulterae
"No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (12th century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it." -- Bruce Metzger, commenting on the Revised Version. But he was factually incorrect on this point as well. At least one Greek speaking, the Coptic dean of the Catechetical school, Didymus the Blind (ca. 350 CE) is known to have cited the passage extensively in his commentary on Ecclesiastes, discovered in 1941, in Toura, .

The earliest witnesses to the text of the Gospel of John uniformly omit the pericope, including Tatian’s Diatessaron (second century), and the third-century papyri. Origen (D. 253) does not include the passage in his commentary on John, and Tertullian (died after 220) never cites the passage or alludes to the story. John Chrysostom (D. 407) covers much of the Gospel in his homilies on John, but not this passage. Cyril of Alexandria (D. 444) omits the text from his exegesis of John's Gospel, the greatest work in gospel interpretation ever.

Nonnus (Coptic for saint), Greek epic poet, a native of Panopolis (Akhmim) in the Egyptian Thebaid, probably lived at the end of the 4th or the beginning of the 5th century A.D. His principal work is the Dionysiaca, an epic in forty-eight books, the main subject of which is the expedition of Dionysus to India and his return. According to an epigram in the Palatine Anthology (ix. 198), Nonnus was also the author of a Battle of the Giants, and four lines of the Bassarica have been preserved by Stephanus of Byzantium.

We also have under his name a paraphrase of the Gospel of St John,  the Metabole , which is chiefly interesting as apparently indicating that Nonnus in his later years was a convert to Christianity. The style is not inferior to that of his epic, but, employed in embellishing the simple narrative of the evangelist, it produces an impression of extreme want of taste. But his influence on the vocabulary of his successors was likewise very considerable.
_____________________________________

A Benign expansion of the Canon?
Textual evidence is information stated in a given text used to support inferences, claims and assertions, tin support of an argument or position, is derived from other texts. It is provided in the form of quotation, paraphrase, or descriptions of theory. Its importance is in the detail, and in paying attention to the detail in words and intent. The New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. They can be cross checked for accuracy, and they are very consistent in general .

The Canonical Status of the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11)
Carl B. Bridges*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Didymus 'the Seer' of Alexandria
Didymus the Blind  (313-395 A.D.) was a remarkable Christian teacher. As his name implies, he was blind from the age of four and throughout his life. But his intense study and prayerful life enabled him to amass a vast amount of knowledge and retain a deep familiarity with the Holy Scriptures. He admitted to Anthony (St.) that the loss of his sight was a grief to him; Anthony replied that he wondered how a wise man could regret the loss of that which he had in common with ants and gnats, and not rather rejoice that he possessed a spiritual sight like that of the saints and Apostles. He was early placed at the head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria, by Pope Athanasius, who highly esteemed him.  Libanius (c. 314 – 392), the celebrated teacher of rhetoric exclaimed, "You cannot surely be ignorant of Dydimus, unless you are ignorant of the great city wherein he has been night and day pouring out his learning."

Dydimus on the "Pericope Adulterae"
Dydimus textual criticism of John Gospel, was unique as the omission of the Pericope de Adultera (John 8:1-11) in some 4th century bibles (Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) caused grave doubts in the minds of critics as to the authenticity of the paragraph. Further investigation revealed that the passage was not commented upon in the handful of surviving early Greek 'commentaries' on John's Gospel. It appeared to critics that no Greek commentator was familiar with the verses, "Nor is it (Jn 8:1-11) mentioned by Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Apollinaris, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Basil,  Cosmas, or Nonnus' Metabole. "But the silence of both Cyprian and Tertullian is weighty, since both wrote on subjects in which the account would have been peculiarly appropriate."-- S. Davidson. On the other hand, existence of the verses in the Latin was known from Jerome (382-405), in his Latin Vulgate.

Nonnus Metabole (Greek μεταβολή)
Nonnus of Panopolis most prominent work is the Dionysiaca, a 48-book epic, being the longest surviving poem from late antiquity. Its main subject is the life of Dionysus, his expedition to India, and his glorious return back home. Dionysiaca, composed in Homeric dialect with dactylic hexameters, certain rhythmic schemes, or meters. The poem of 20,400 lines may have been written in the early 5th century. His Metabole, a metrical paraphrase of John's gospel (tou kata Ioannes Euangeliou) which also survives, is our catch for this Pericope. Its timing is a debated point; textual analysis seems to suggest that it preceded the Dionysiaca. 

Scholars have shown that Nonnus was as learned in Christian theology, he seems to have consulted the Commentary on the Gospel of John that Cyril of Alexandria had recently penned. Nonnus "Paraphrase of John" (toû katà Ioánnen Euaggelíou) also survives (Metabole). "The omission of this section by Nonnus, in his popular metrical paraphrase of John's Gospel, is worthy of notice; for though he does pass by parts, yet no narrative portion of certain genuineness, and of such length as this, is unnoticed."--S. Tregelles, An account of the printed Greek text.

Its timing is a debated point: textual analysis seems to suggest that it preceded the Dionysiaca while some scholars feel it is unlikely that a converted Christian would have gone on to devote so much work to the Dionysiaca’s pagan themes. A team of Italian scholars is currently producing a full commentary of the poem, book by book, of which several parts have already been published.They have shown that Nonnus was as learned in Christian theology as in pagan mythology.
 
The pericope adulterae likely reflects an authentic incident in Jesus Christ’s ministry. However, as preachers limit their sermons only to the proven biblical text, they should exercise caution and skepticism , at the very least, when referencing this story for illustrative purposes. Because interpreters can demonstrate that the Pericope was not originally part of John’s Gospel, preachers may refrain from using it as the sole basis for their homilies.

Also, merely portraying Christ’s merciful character does not lend credence to abandoning faithfulness to what the Evangelist had originally penned. Other non-canonical writings from the early church depict Jesus in his typical Christ-like character, but that does not give license to  preach from these texts. As Köstenberger rightly comments, John 7:53-8:11 is not divinely inspired and, thus, not authoritative for use at the  pulpit, “In principle, the pericope is no different from other possibly authentic sayings of Jesus that may be found in NT apocryphal literature." 

*https://www.academia.edu/15227912/The_Canonical_Status_of_the_Pericope_Adulterae_John_7_53_8_11_ material-and-the-tradition-history-of-the-pericope-adulterae.pdf

Prologue; The didaskalia
“In such a city as Alexandria--with its museum, its libraries, its lectures, its schools of philosophy, its splendid synagogue, its avowed atheists, its deep-thinking Oriental mystics--the Gospel would have been powerless if it had been unable to produce teachers who were capable of meeting Pagan philosophers and Jewish Philoists on their own ground."-- Kingsley, Alexandria and Her Schools

In the years when the Didascalia had the greatest influence on the world, Alexandria, Egypt, was late Antiquity'  intellectual and philosophical capital, busy spreading Christian faith. Eusebius states in his Ecclesiastic History, that the Apostle Mark came to Egypt preaching the gospel somewhere between 41- 44 A.D. He established the early church in Alexandria, and apparently created a center for discipleship and education of early Christians, the beginnings of what was to become the famed Catechetical school. Later, the breadth and depth of paedeia exercised by the school was greatly developed under the leadership of Pantaenus, the first dean.The school, called the Didascalia, was the most important institution of religious learning then, in the old world. The Didascalia was open to all who were eager to learn. Catechumens, Christians who were not yet baptized, studied alongside the novel clergy and students of philosophy. Lectures were open to all attendants, while advancing Christian  teaching  separately.

Later, under the leadership of Didymus the blind, sightless students were able to attend lectures to learn. In addition to the Bible and Christian theology, instruction included such subjects as mathematics, medicine and music. Students came from many  nations to attend the school. Out of this school came some of the greatest theologians, thinkers and leaders of the early church, who influenced faith throughout church history. The school sought not to isolate academia from every day life, but rather to learn for the sake of knowing and glorifying God. Worship, prayer and fasting were practiced by teachers and students alike; and simplicity of food, drink and earthly possessions was encouraged. Celibacy was a recommended ideal observed by many. Philosophy was not just esoteric thought, but practiced wisdom of moral philosophy for Christian living. Conversion, meant forsaking the world seeking for philosophy.   ____________________________________________

A Historical introduction
Following the  Alexandrine's experience with Demetrius, who drove away their glory, exiling Origen, they never permitted it to rebound. According to their Church Canon, a bishop has to rightly discern the word of truth. Since then, the dean of the Catechetical school became a preference in electing the Bishop of their metropolis. Herachlas who assisted Origen, was elected Bishop, and Patriarch of the see of St. Mark. Dionysius who was his student, and assistant, followed as dean, before becoming Metropolitan.

Dionysius the Great 
Dionysius (St.) of Alexandria ( Bishop: 247 to 265), named "the Great" by Eusebius and Basil, was no doubt, the most eminent Christian bishop of the third century. He studied under Origen and assisted Heraclas in Alexandria, succeeding him as head of the Catechetical school in 231. Dionysius became the bishop of Alexandria in 248. His correspondence survives primarily through quotations from Eusebius. 
During the Decian persecution, he went into hiding. Later he would side with those who wanted to accept the lapsed, who had disowned their faith during the persecution, back into the church. He did not favor re-baptism for the lapsed. In the controversy between Novatian and Cornelius over the bishop of Rome, siding with Cornelius. Dionysius called St. Mary "Theotokos, mother of God," first used by Origen. 

The Millennial Reign
The Megalopolis of Alexandria became a very large diocese, and Heraclas is said to have instituted some new bishoprics, and the Arsinoe nome ( a province of ancient Egypt) still formed a part of it. A dispute arose ca. 255 AD, concerning a 'millennial view' taught by Nepos, Bishop of Arsenoe. Dionysius was a staunch opponent of Chiliasm, an eschatological millennial belief of Christ's physical reign on earth. In this connection he has a famous passage, quoted in Eusebius' book 'Ecclesiastical History'. He thoroughly expounds the Apocalyptic book of Revelation and concludes that it could not have been written by the author of the Gospel of John, "On the character of each, on the linguistic style, and on the general tone, as it is called, of Revelation, I base my opinion that the author was not the same." 

Earlier, Christ's thousand years reign, has been taught by Irenæus, Justin, Papias, Victorinus of Pettau, and others. Nepos founded his millennial doctrine of the Apocalypse in a book entitled "Refutation of the Allegorists". It was only after the death of Napos that Dionysius found himself obliged to write two books named "On the Promises" to counteract this error. He treats Nepos with respect, but rejects his doctrine, as indeed the Church has since done.  Here the error was very prevalent, and St. Dionysius went in person to Arsenoe, instructing the church, refuting  Nepos' arguments they drew from his book .

Dionysius succeeded through his oral and written efforts in checking this literal exegete stopped the revival of millennialism. He used some novel critical tools to contain the Jewish Apocalyptic Book of Revelation, which was very popular at the time in Rome. Nepos, taught the erroneous  Chiliastic dogma which maintained that between the Second Coming of the Lord and the end of the world Christ will reign upon the earth, governing, Himself, along with His elect for a thousand year that there would be a reign of Christ upon earth for a thousand years, of corporal delights. 

Redaction Criticism,  
The analysis of biblical texts, especially the Gospels, through an attempt to reconstruct the editorial use made by biblical authors of earlier material, typically stressing the theological and literary concerns of these authors.

Dionysius proved  by his redaction crtical method, a vast difference in style and diction from John's Gospel and Epistles. Dionysius main position was to claim it was not by John, the evangelist, stating, "I would not venture to reject the book, as many brethren hold it in high esteem," yet he ascribed it to another, John the Presbyter, a disciple of the Evangelist. Dionysius impact was felt in later, as the canonicity of the Apocalypse of John, caused much debate in the church, lingering in the East for several centuries.

"On the character of each, on the linguistic style, and on the general tone, as it is called, of Revelation, I base my opinion that the author was not the same." --Eusebius' History
Subsequently, many Church leaders began to retreat from millennialism in the wave caused by philosophical theology, as Neoplatonism, became influential. He was much edified by the docile spirit and love of truth  which he found. At length Korakion, who had introduced the book and the doctrine, declared himself convinced.

Dionysius Trinitarian Theology
"The whole history of salvation is identical with the history of the way and the means by which the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, reveals himself to men "and reconciles and unites with himself those who turn away from sin" 

Since the Patristic era, a standard formulation of the Trinity as one God in Three Persons was  restated at subsequent Councils right up to the Second Vatican Council. The Catechism of the Universal Church’s teaching on the Trinity states that; “The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the "hierarchy of the truths of faith".

Dionysius of Alexandria is a famous example of misreadings concerning the early theology of Triune God. He was a staunch refuter of Sabellius, but was charged with teaching tritheism. He was accused by Rome, and was asked to declare his views by a synod of bishops. Dionysius denied that he had separated the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, his reason for not using the term homoousios was that he did not find it in Scripture. Athanasius, champion of Orthodoxy, confirms that Dionysius held the right views about the Trinity. 

Dionysius the great,  fully vindicated by his writing,  thus concludes a letter to his Roman namesake stating; "Having received from the presbyters who went before us a form and rule, we conclude our present letter to you with those same words by which we, like them, make our 'Eucharistic' thanks-giving: To God the Father, by the Son our Lord Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit be glory and might for ever and ever. Amen." -- C. Feltoe, quoted by  G. Wainwright, Doxology, A Systematic Theology)

The issue of the original language of the Muratorian Fragment has never been conclusively resolved. Although there is general agreement in the scholarly literature that the Latin text which we know was in fact a translation from Greek, the idea that it was originally written in Latin has not ceased to find advocates. This article reopens the question of the date of the Latin text and shows that the evidence points to the second half of the fourth century, well over 100 years after the date in which the Fragment is likely to have been drafted (i.e. the last decades of the second century), if one takes into account the Fragment’s content and the state of the New Testament canon to which it refers. The chronological gap between the Fragment’s content and the date of its Latin text is a first clue to its being a translation. This study also reviews anew the linguistic evidence in favour of a Greek original and shows that some features of the Latin text decisively support this hypothesis.

CLICK AUDIO LINK BELOW (under "Files") TO HEAR THIS DISCUSSION. THERE IS NO PAPER COPY. "Christ through Four Gospel Portraits" is an exploration of the the distinct historical, literary, and theological contributions of each Evangelist to the question of the identity and mission of Jesus for its earliest Christian readership.