Has anyone heard of this?

[corvidae]

Has anyone heard of this before.
Someone claimed that there were in fact two canons of scripture at around 150 AD

Here is their proof

Eusebius says, (H. E. iv. 22,) that Hegesippus, (who lived and wrote about A. D. 188,) "made some quotations from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and from the Syriac Gospel. (This would be proof of the existence of a syriac version… the Peshito , or Peshitta)

Augustine says, in his (de Doctrina Christ. 1. ii. c. 11 “One can easily enumerate those who translated the holy Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek; but not so, the Latin translators. For, in those early times of Christianity, whoever got hold of a Greek MS., and thought he possessed some knowledge of both languages, at once undertook to translate it.” (This would be proof of the existence of Latin version… Itala Biblia)

Other than these two, it is a widely covered subject and many early Church historians have written about these two translations. Altough it is not clear as to when these versions were actually translated (exactly), it can be deduced that they were both in existence and widely used by the later part of the 2nd century.

If you want some references from historians I can get those together for you, I will have to go back through some books to get the references… I don’t mind, you will just have to give me a couple of days .
Quoted

Now, How do I refute this, or place it with the Catholic belief of the Canon. Any Ideas. This struck me completely out of the blue, So I need all the help I can get.
A lone Raven

 

[rwoehmke]

If a latin version of the whole canon existed why would any educated person retranslate it. Sounds like here and there parts may have been translated by individuals, but no official Latin version existed until the Vulgate. Besides if an individual was fluent enough in Greek and Latin to do a translation why would they bother as Greek not Latin was the common language of the world at the time. Also a canon and a translation are two very different things. Just doesn’t add up. The first canon approved by a Council of the Church was at Carthage in 393 AD I believe. It was pretty well set before then, but this was an official act of the Church.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Sounds like someone bought into Aramaic Primacy myth.
aramaicpeshitta.com/online_version.htm

Someone was here a while back trying to push that, here is the thread for you forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=91819&highlight=aramaic+primacy

aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Murdock/murdock_appendix.htm

1. Syriac New Testament
   Of the New Testament, attempts at translation must have been made very early, and among the ancient versions of New Testament Scripture the Syriac in all likelihood is the earliest. It was at Antioch, the capital of Syria, that the disciples of Christ were first called Christians, and it seemed natural that the first translation of the Christian Scriptures should have been made there. The tendency of recent research, however, goes to show that Edessa, the literary capital, was more likely the place.

If we could accept the somewhat obscure statement of Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, IV, xxii) that Hegesippus “made some quotations from the Gospel according to the Hebrews and from the Syriac Gospel,” we should have a reference to a Syriac New Testament as early as 160-80 AD, the time of that Hebrew Christian writer. One thing is certain, that the earliest New Testament of the Syriac church lacked not only the Antilegomena–2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation–but the whole of the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse. These were at a later date translated and received into the Syriac Canon of the New Testament, but the quotations of the early Syrian Fathers take no notice of these New Testament books.

From the 5th century, however, the Peshitta containing both Old Testament and New Testament has been used in its present form only as the national version of the Syriac Scriptures. The translation of the New Testament is careful, faithful and literal, and the simplicity, directness and transparency of the style are admired by all Syriac scholars and have earned for it the title of “Queen of the versions.”

1. Old Syriac Texts
   It is in the Gospels, however, that the analogy between the Latin Vulgate and the Syriac Vulgate can be established by evidence. If the Peshitta is the result of a revision as the Vulgate was, then we may expect to find Old Syriac texts answering to the Old Latin. Such texts have actually been found. Three such texts have been recovered, all showing divergences from the Peshitta, and believed by competent scholars to be anterior to it. These are, to take them in the order of their recovery in modern times, (1) the Curetonian Syriac, (2) the Syriac of Tatian’s Diatessaron, and (3) the Sinaitic Syriac.

bible-researcher.com/syriac-isbe.html

theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=5143&goto=nextnewest

google.com/search?q=%22some+quotations+from+the+Gospel+according+to+the+Hebrews%22+%22and+from+the+Syriac+Gospel%22&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&filter=0

 

[Mystophilus]

Has anyone heard of this before.
Someone claimed that there were in fact two canons of scripture at around 150 AD.

Here is their proof:

Eusebius says, (H. E. iv. 22,) that Hegesippus, (who lived and wrote about A. D. 188,) "made some quotations from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and from the Syriac Gospel. (This would be proof of the existence of a syriac version… the Peshito , or Peshitta)

Augustine says, in his (de Doctrina Christ. 1. ii. c. 11 “One can easily enumerate those who translated the holy Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek; but not so, the Latin translators. For, in those early times of Christianity, whoever got hold of a Greek MS., and thought he possessed some knowledge of both languages, at once undertook to translate it.” (This would be proof of the existence of Latin version… Itala Biblia)
Some redefinition is needed.

The versions in question are not canons: they are translations. A ‘canon’ is a rule: all of the decisions of Church councils are ‘canons’. A canon of Scripture, then, is a rule which lists which texts comprise the Scriptures. Different early Christians had different lists of the books which they thought out to be in such a collection, but they were not canon lists until someone in authority made them so.

I suggest that you read around that site, because it has plenty of good information on the formation of the New Testament canon, including the role of the Syriac Peshitta.

This site has a long list of even more of the different versions.

 

[Bishopite]

Has anyone heard of this before.
Someone claimed that there were in fact two canons of scripture at around 150 AD

Here is their proof

Eusebius says, (H. E. iv. 22,) that Hegesippus, (who lived and wrote about A. D. 188,) "made some quotations from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and from the Syriac Gospel. (This would be proof of the existence of a syriac version… the Peshito , or Peshitta)

Augustine says, in his (de Doctrina Christ. 1. ii. c. 11 “One can easily enumerate those who translated the holy Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek; but not so, the Latin translators. For, in those early times of Christianity, whoever got hold of a Greek MS., and thought he possessed some knowledge of both languages, at once undertook to translate it.” (This would be proof of the existence of Latin version… Itala Biblia)

Other than these two, it is a widely covered subject and many early Church historians have written about these two translations. Altough it is not clear as to when these versions were actually translated (exactly), it can be deduced that they were both in existence and widely used by the later part of the 2nd century.

If you want some references from historians I can get those together for you, I will have to go back through some books to get the references… I don’t mind, you will just have to give me a couple of days .
Quoted

Now, How do I refute this, or place it with the Catholic belief of the Canon. Any Ideas. This struck me completely out of the blue, So I need all the help I can get.
A lone Raven

Don’t be alarmed there were partial lists of the canon prior to the fourth century when the canon was authoritatively recognized by the Catholic Church as history attests. As was said already NO canon nor any authoritative list of the canon existed prior to 382 under Pope Damasus at the council of Rome, only partial lists. And partial lists have either a fallible book included or an infallible book excluded.

Also we know from the writings of Eusebius, St. Jerome, Epiphanius, and many others that the books considered for the canon in the first three centuries were put into three catagories.

1. Acknowleged i.e., the four gospels Matthew,Mark,Luke, John.
2. Disputed or controverted i.e., Hebrews, Revelation, James, Jude.
3. Rejected i.e. the Shephard of Hermies and the gnostic gospels.

.
Number two is the most interesting for it shows (proves actually) that the Catholic Church’s Magisterium is whom God allowed to authoritatively recognize which books were infallible and which weren’t among the disputed books. If ALL the Church agreed that certain books were part of the canon then that’s one thing. And if ALL of the Church agreed that certain books were not part of the canon then that’s another, however, that the Catholic Church recognized which of the disputed books were the infallible books speaks volumes as an authority over Christiandom, as it did then and does now.

Ask this person WHO authoritatively recognized those disputed books? They didn’t fall from the sky, they weren’t voted on by the people, God didn’t put some infallible mark on them for anyone to recognize, no, it was the Catholic Bishops/Magisterium who decided the canon. This is historical fact.

And even if some one person in the early Church, say a Church father cited all the correct books i.e. St. Athanasius as some Protestant apologists say, it wouldn’t matter anyway that they chose the right books, simply because they didn’t have the “authority” as a priest or bishop to pronounce what was to be the in the canon; only the Catholic bishops in union with the Pope could.

The first authoritative citation of the entire canon as we have today in the New Testament (and OT) was given at the council of Rome under Pope Damasus in 382 A.D. and is found here:

home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm

 

[corvidae]

I think the first thing I will ask is

Where and What is the Gospel according to the Hebrews?
I mean, I have heard of four Gospels, but never one attributed to the Hebrews. I have also heard of leters, but these were to the Hebrews, not from them. So if you are quoting about a gospel, or even a letter that you do not believe in, Why are we talking about this.

I doubt that will get a very kind response

A lone Raven

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

expect them to post this page in response,

Estimated Range of Dating: 80-150 C.E.

Gospel of John Later Texts Online Text for Gospel of the Hebrews
English Translation by M.R. James

English Translation by Philipp Vielhauer and George Ogg

English Translation from Burton H. Throckmorton and Willis Barnstone

Online Resources for Gospel of the Hebrews

Geoff Trowbridge’s Introduction
Glenn Davis: Gospel of the Hebrews
The Gospel According to the Hebrews by Joe Viel

Offline Resources for Gospel of the Hebrews

Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., translation by R. McL. Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha : Gospels and Related Writings (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1992), pp. 172-178.
Ron Cameron, ed., The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press 1982), pp. 83-86

Information on Gospel of the Hebrews

In The Other Gospels, Ron Cameron provides the following information: “The Gospel of the Hebrews may have been known to Papias (a church writer who died ca. 130 C.E., whose five-volume ‘Exegesis of the Sayings of the Lord’ is now lost, preserved only in a few quotations in the writings of Eusebius). Hegesippus (late in the second century) and Eusebius (early in the fourth century) attest to the existence of this gospel, but do not quote from it. Fragments are preserved in the writings of Clement of Alexandria (late in the second century), Origen (early in the third century), and Cyril (Bishop of Jerusalem, ca. 350 C.E.). Jerome (ca. 400 C.E.) also preserves several fragments, all of which he probably reproduced from the writings of Origen. The extent of this gospel is no longer known. According to the list of ‘canonical’ and ‘apocryphal’ books drawn up by Nicephorus (Patriarch of Constantinople, 806-818 C.E.), the Gospel of the Hebrews contained 2200 lines, only 300 fewer than Matthew!”

Unlike other Jewish-Christian gospels, the Gospel of the Hebrews shows no dependence upon the Gospel of Matthew. The story of the first resurrection appearance to James the Just suggests that the Jewish-Christian community that produced this document claimed James as their founder. It is reasonable to assume that the remainder of the gospel is synoptic in flavor. The Gospel of the Hebrews seems to be independent of the New Testament in the quoted portions; unfortunately, since the gospel is not extant, it is difficult to know whether unquoted portions of the Gospel of the Hebrews might show signs of dependence.

Cameron makes these observations on dating and provenance: “The earliest possible date of the composition of the Gospel of the Hebrews would be in the middle of the first century, when Jesus traditions were first being produced and collected as part of the wisdom tradition. The latest possible date would be in the middle of the second century, shortly before the first reference to this gospel by Hegesippus and the quotations of it by Clement and Origen. Based on the parallels in the morphology of the tradition, an earlier date of composition is more likely than a later one. Internal evidence and external attestation indicate that Egypt was its place of origin.”

earlychristianwritings.com/gospelhebrews.html

The only apocryphal work which was at all generally received, and relied upon, in addition to our four canonical Gospels, is the “Gospel according to the Hebrews”. It is a well-known fact that St. Jerome, speaking of this Gospel under the name of “The Gospel according to the Nazarenes”, regards it as the Hebrew original of our Greek canonical Gospel according to St. Matthew. But, as far as can be judged from its fragments which have come down to us, it has no right to originality as compared with our first canonical Gospel. At a very early date, too, it was treated as devoid of Apostolic authority, and St. Jerome himself, who states that he had its Aramaic text at his disposal, does not assign it a place side by side with our canonical Gospels: all the authority which he ascribes to it is derived from his persuasion that it was the original text of our First Gospel, and not a distinct Gospel over and above the four universally received from time immemorial in the Catholic Church.

newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm

 

[thistle]

I think the first thing I will ask is

Where and What is the Gospel according to the Hebrews?
I mean, I have heard of four Gospels, but never one attributed to the Hebrews. I have also heard of leters, but these were to the Hebrews, not from them. So if you are quoting about a gospel, or even a letter that you do not believe in, Why are we talking about this.

I doubt that will get a very kind response

A lone Raven

ntcanon.org/table.shtml

 

[corvidae]

Thank you very much for that table.

It is obvious to me that the man arguing this does not believe the Gospel according to the Hebrews is scriptural, but wishes to use it to say that Scripture (the Bible) was around before the Catholic approved canon.

Of course the individual books were, but this seems to hurt his argument rather than help it

A lone Raven

 

[Mystophilus]

… that the Catholic Church recognized which of the disputed books were the infallible books speaks volumes as an authority over Christiandom, as it did then and does now… And even if some one person in the early Church, say a Church father cited all the correct books i.e. St. Athanasius as some Protestant apologists say, it wouldn’t matter anyway that they chose the right books, simply because they didn’t have the “authority” as a priest or bishop to pronounce what was to be the in the canon; only the Catholic bishops in union with the Pope could.

The first authoritative citation of the entire canon as we have today in the New Testament (and OT) was given at the council of Rome under Pope Damasus in 382 A.D.

First and foremost, the reference in the Decretum Gelasianum to the 382 Council’s having produced the list is no longer trusted: it is deemed most likely that the list was actually produced in the early C6th, owing, in part, to the then-anachronistic presence of the quote from Augustine in the midst of the ‘Damasian’ section. Moreover, had the list truly been produced in the C4th, the necessity for a later declaration, i.e., the Decretum itself, is a demonstration of incomplete adherence to any earlier one. Whatever the case, the issue was not considered settled until the decree of the 4th session of the Council of Trent, in 1546.

In fact, it is much more likely that Damasus’ greatest contribution lay in his direction to Jerome to produce a Latin anthology of the Scriptures used in the churches. The Vulgate, once produced and distributed, represented an official collection. Eventually, the Council of Trent included within the canon those texts in the Vulgate whose inclusion was questioned by Jerome himself in his prologues to them. By the C16th, these texts had been validated by Tradition, and required ratification against the Protestant attacks.

Please note that all of this has only been in reference to the Western, i.e., Latin-speaking, churches. In the early Church, the Patriarch of Rome, like the other four patriarchs (Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch), was accorded great honour, but was not granted power over churches outside of his See. In fact, several of the Ecumenical Councils expressly forbade any such power.

It was only these councils, gatherings of bishops from the whole Church, which could exercise authority over the whole Church: when they agreed upon anything, that agreement was deemed to be the very voice of Christ to the Church, because it was the voice of the united (i.e., catholic) Church. They determined what was true, and what was heretical, hence their ability to denounce even patriarchs for heresy, and hence, also, the intensity of the Greek reaction against the filioque.

As none of those Councils ever established a canon of Scripture, no canon of Scripture was ever established for the whole Church. It is for this reason that the Orthodox Church have always read more Scriptures than the Roman Catholic Church or Protestant churches do. It might be worth noting that the Orthodox New Testament list does follow that of Athanasius, the Patriarch of Alexandria (as does the current Protestant one, if only because Luther’s wishes were denied).

Thus, even assuming that the Damasine List is correct, the Patriarch of Rome established a canon of Scripture only for the Latins, demonstrating his proper power in his See, but this has never held for the Greeks.

Wikipedia has a useful introduction to the topic.

 

[Bishopite]

[Mystophilus;1538688]First and foremost, the reference in the Decretum Gelasianum to the 382 Council’s having produced the list is no longer trusted: it is deemed most likely that the list was actually produced in the early C6th, owing, in part, to the then-anachronistic presence of the quote from Augustine in the midst of the ‘Damasian’ section. Moreover, had the list truly been produced in the C4th, the necessity for a later declaration, i.e., the Decretum itself, is a demonstration of incomplete adherence to any earlier one. Whatever the case, the issue was not considered settled until the decree of the 4th session of the Council of Trent, in 1546.

That the Dectretum Gelasianum is no longer trusted, no longer by whom? Eastern Orthodox? Protestants? And even if it were not the first time the complete canon was authoritatively recognized and cited (even though it was), it wouldn’t matter anyway since it was authoritatively recognized by Hippo and Carthage 393/397. I did not say it was dogmatically proclaimed in the 4th century. I’m aware that Trent in 1546 proclaimed that dogma.
The complete list of the canon was authoritatively recognized not dogmatized and it was in the 4th century, whether by the council of Rome, Carthage or Hippo doesn’t matter, the point being who recognized the canon which the Church used for another eleven hundred years before proclaiming it as dogma.

Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers in “This Rock” magazine says:

“Trent simply reaffirmed the historic canon of the Bible after it had been challenged by Protestants. The same books Trent affirmed had been affirmed by councils and popes prior to Trent. **The first council recorded as dealing with the canon was the Council of Rome, which convened in A.D. 382 under Pope Damascus. **Later councils, such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and the ecumenical council of Florence (1438) reaffirmed the canon issued by the Council of Rome.”
(This Rock,March, 2003)

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303qq.asp

Canons of the council of Rome 382:
home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm

Please note that all of this has only been in reference to the Western, i.e., Latin-speaking, churches. In the early Church, the Patriarch of Rome, like the other four patriarchs (Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch), was accorded great honour, but was not granted power over churches outside of his See. In fact, several of the Ecumenical Councils expressly forbade any such power.

Uh…this is false, Mt 16:18 grants the Holy See or Rome the power over all Christendom, West and East and this was known from the earliest of times. By the time Trent dogmatically affirmed the canon set down in 382 AD at the council of Rome, many of the Eastern Churches had splintered off the Catholic Church. Personally, I’d trust Jimmy Akin of www.catholic.com on the canon before I would Wikipedia which perhaps doesn’t support the Catholic position.

It was only these councils, gatherings of bishops from the whole Church, which could exercise authority over the whole Church: when they agreed upon anything, that agreement was deemed to be the very voice of Christ to the Church, because it was the voice of the united (i.e., catholic) Church.

Ecumenical councils do NOT have the charism of infallibly on their own without being in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome (Pope), so Ecumenical councils can say many things but they are NOT infallibly dogmatized without the See of Rome.

As none of those Councils ever established a canon of Scripture, no canon of Scripture was ever established for the whole Church

.

The canon was established for the whole Church in 382 AD, because the whole Church was “Catholic,” What they are saying is that no dogmatic canon of Scripture was established until Trent. Otherwise what about the many proceeding councils, starting at Rome 382? Then Hippo 393, Carthage 397? and after who “established for the whole Church” the canon, just because it wasn’t dogmatized until 1546 doesn’t mean it wasn’t “recognized” and “established” prior to that time.

The underlying issue here in this article and your point seems to be the authority of the Pope; He had and has the power over all Christiandom, both East and West. Perhaps I could recomend a great book to read. Upon this Rock by Stephen Ray

trinstore.com/ecom_2/item_view.cfm?inventoryid=834

 

[Mystophilus]

That the Decretum Gelasianum is no longer trusted, no longer by whom?

Sorry, I meant ‘among historians’: there is more than enough evidence to make a scholar wary of accepting the text’s claim to a C4th date.

it wouldn’t matter anyway since it was authoritatively recognized by Hippo and Carthage 393/397.

I realise this; that was merely a historical note regarding the Damasene List.

Uh…this is false, Mt 16:18 grants the Holy See or Rome the power over all Christendom, West and East and this was known from the earliest of times.

If you can find the word “Rome” in Matthew 16:18, then you must have a very interesting translation of the Bible . Nor is any succession mentioned there. More critically to the point, Rome was not granted power over all Christendom, as has been discussed in more detail in another thread: those lists of quotes that you see on Catholic apologists’ websites are references to Roman primacy, not Roman supremacy, and there is a vast gulf between the two.

By the time Trent dogmatically affirmed the canon set down in 382 AD at the council of Rome, many of the Eastern Churches had splintered off the Catholic Church.

Considering that it was actually the church of Rome who first deviated from what had been the agreed line, by accepting the filioque alteration to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, there is at least as good a case to be made for the Latin church having split off from the Greek. Ultimately, however, it was both sides who chose to reject reconciliation, and so it was a mutual divorce, not a unilateral abandonment.

Personally, I’d trust Jimmy Akin of www.catholic.com on the canon before I would Wikipedia which perhaps doesn’t support the Catholic position.

Do you realise that you have just said that you are choosing to believe someone because they hold a particular ideological bias rather than someone else who does not? Thus, you are subjugating your epistemology (system of knowing) to that ideology. Also, someone who follows such an ideology may omit or reinterpret important data which conflicts with the ideology, and so they may present you with a skewed view of the data. While this will certainly prevent you from encountering any data which will contradict your belief system, it will also render it impossible for you to gain any external validation of that system. If you are comfortable with such a thing, then that is fine, but, coming from an academic background, I am just rather surprised to see anyone actually express that.

As for Wikipedia, that was referenced as being useful as ‘an introduction’, certainly not as the last word. If you read through the other links, which contain translations of the historical texts, you will gain a much better appreciation of the situation at the time.

Ecumenical councils do NOT have the charism of infallibly on their own without being in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome (Pope), so Ecumenical councils can say many things but they are NOT infallibly dogmatized without the See of Rome.

Unfortunately, this is anachronistic: Papal Infallibility did not exist in early Church doctrine. Only the Ecumenical Councils had the power to determine anything for the Church as a whole, because they were the meetings of the Church as a whole. Anything which the Pope did when not in union with them did not affect any church outside of his See. You are reading a modern Catholic doctrine back into a world in which it did not exist.

The canon was established for the whole Church in 382 AD, because the whole Church was “Catholic,”

The whole Church was catholic; i.e., it was καθολικος; i.e., it was ‘universal’; i.e., it was unified. However, the establishment of the canon via the Damasene List, or the Hippo/Carthage list, was only for the western churches. The Greek churches continued, and continue today, to use the full Septuagint, which is why their canon is longer than yours. Further, whatever lists were made for the west in the C4th, the necessity for the C6th distribution of the Decretum Gelasianum clearly demonstrates that they had not found full acceptance yet.

The underlying issue here in this article and your point seems to be the authority of the Pope; He had and has the power over all Christiandom, both East and West. Perhaps I could recomend a great book to read. Upon this Rock by Stephen Ray

Thanks, but, with all respect, I would much rather read the actual historical documents than someone else’s summary of them. It helps to avoid the ideological bias of the summarist.

 

[Bishopite]

If you can find the word “Rome” in Matthew 16:18, then you must have a very interesting translation of the Bible

 

[Bishopite]

quote]

Thanks, but, with all respect, I would much rather read the actual historical documents than someone else’s summary of them. It helps to avoid the ideological bias of the summarist.

Great, you stick to scholasticism, I’ll stick to Jesus the Bible and His “Catholic” Church. What you can’t answer is who is the final arbiter to get the the real truth? Not having an Ecumenical council with all the Eastern Orthodox Bishops in a thousand years makes it pretty difficult to get to the truth of scripture.

Ignatius of Antioch

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because **you hold ***the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” *(*Letter to the Romans *1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).