Raksti

Konons, aptuveni 450-389 BC

Konons, aptuveni 450-389 BC



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Konons, aptuveni 450-389 BC

Konons (apm. 450-389 BC) bija Atēnu komandieris, kurš pārdzīvoja sakāves, ar kurām beidzās Lielais Peloponesas karš, un turpināja spēlēt nozīmīgu lomu Atēnu jūras spēku atjaunošanā pēc kara.

413. gadā Sirakūzu postošās Atēnu aplenkuma laikā Kononam tika dota pavēle ​​flotei, kas tika izvietota pie Naupactus Korintas līcī, lai novērstu Korintas flotes iejaukšanos aplenkumā. Rezultātā iegūtā jūras kauja bija nepārliecinoša, taču tas bija viss, kas atēniešiem bija vajadzīgs.

410. gadā viņš tika izvēlēts par stratēģijaun kādu gadu pavadīja Corcyra.

409. gadā viņš kalpoja līdzās Alkibiadam un Thrasibulusam stratēģija.

407. gadā Alkibiads beidzot atgriezās Atēnās. Viņš tika iecelts par Atēnu armijas virspavēlnieku, un savu pirmo kampaņu šajā amatā sāka ar uzbrukumu Androsam. Šī kampaņa ātri sabruka, un Alkibiads nolēma doties tālāk uz Kosu un Rodu. Konons tika atstāts Androsā, lai turpinātu aplenkumu. Alkibiāda atgriešanās labvēlībā izrādītos īslaicīga. Kamēr viņš bija prom no flotes, viņa padotais Antiohs ignorēja viņa pavēles un iesaistījās cīņā ar spartiešiem, ciešot smagu sakāvi (Notiumas kauja, 407. g. P.m.ē.). Kad šīs ziņas sasniedza Alkibiādu, viņš nolēma neriskēt atgriezties Atēnās un tā vietā devās trimdā.

406. gada pavasarī atēnieši nolēma aizstāt Alkibiadu ar desmit ģenerāļu grupu, kuras vecākais loceklis bija Konons. Viņa rīcībā bija 100 kuģi, bet viņš varēja atrast apkalpes tikai 70 cilvēkiem, un morāle bija slikta. Viņam pretī stājās nepieredzējis Spartas jūras spēku komandieris Callicratidas, kura rīcībā bija 140 kuģi.

Konons drīz bija spiests patverties Mitilīnā pēc neveiksmīga mēģinājuma aizstāvēt Lesbos, kur viņu bloķēja Callicratidas (pēc nepārliecinošās jūras sadursmes ārpus Mitilīnas). Viņu izglāba Atēnu jūras uzvara Arginūzā, bet šo uzvaru sabojāja lēmums izpildīt lielāko daļu uzvarošo admirāļu, jo viņi nebija pietiekami pielikuši pūles, lai glābtu kaujā nogrimušo Atēnu kuģu apkalpes locekļus.

Pēc šiem izmēģinājumiem Kononam tika dota kopīga flotes vadība. Spartiešiem izdevās savākt floti, lai nomainītu Arginūzā zaudēto, un piedzīvoja graujošu sakāvi atēniešiem pie Aegospotami (405.g.pmē.). Konons nebija komandieris kaujas dienā, un viņam izdevās aizbēgt ar deviņiem kuģiem. Pārējā Atēnu flote tika iznīcināta. Šī bija pilsētas pēdējā flote, un pēc šīs sakāves Atēnas tika aplenktas un galu galā spiestas padoties, izbeidzot Lielo Peloponesas karu.

Konons patvērās pie karaļa Evagora Kiprā, lai gan nosūtīja Atēnu svēto kuģi Paralus atpakaļ uz pilsētu ar ziņām par sakāvi. Tolaik Evagoram bija labi sakari ar persiešiem, un Konons tādējādi bija labā situācijā, lai izmantotu karadarbības uzliesmojumu starp persiešiem un spartiešiem 400. gadā pirms mūsu ēras (Persijas un Spartas karš, 400. – 387. G. P.m.ē.).

397. gadā pirms mūsu ēras satrap Pharnabazus pārliecināja Artakserksu II izveidot jaunu floti. Kononam tika uzticēta atbildība par vismaz šīs flotes daļas pacelšanu, kā arī tās vadīšana (Farnabaza vadībā). Flotē bija elementi no Feniķijas, Mazāzijas grieķu pilsētām un pat neliela kontingenta no Atēnām.

Šai flotei uzbruka Spartas admirālis Farakss pie Kaunusa, bet Konons spēja cīnīties ar spartiešiem. Pēc tam viņš spēja pārliecināt Rodu pārtraukt savu aliansi ar Spartu, un rezultātā pārtvēra lielu graudu karavānu, kas devās uz Spartu no Ēģiptes. Tomēr naudas trūkums ierobežoja flotes darbību un pat izraisīja sacelšanos, un 395. gadā Konons vērsās tiesā un palīdzēja pārliecināt imperatoru piešķirt vairāk līdzekļu.

Atdzīvinātā Persijas un Grieķijas flote izcīnīja izšķirošu uzvaru pār spartiešiem Peisandra vadībā pie Knidusa (394.g.pmē.). Konona grieķu kuģi veidoja sabiedroto flotes frontes līniju, un sākumā spartieši tos smagi spieda. Kad ieradās papildspēki, sabiedrotie guva virsroku. Daži Peisandra sabiedrotie aizbēga bez cīņām, un Spartas admirālis nogalināja, cīnoties uz sava kuģa.

Šī sakāve faktiski izbeidza Spartas jūras spēku, kā arī vājināja viņu varu uz sauszemes. Kamēr Peisanders tika sakauts jūrā, Spartas un sabiedroto armija Agesilausa II vadībā no ziemeļiem devās uz Grieķijas vidu (Korintas karš). Agesilaus saprata, ka viņa sabiedrotie no Mazāzijas, iespējams, drīz viņu pametīs, un, lai saglabātu savu armiju nedaudz ilgāk, meloja par kaujas iznākumu. Tas viņam deva laiku, kas vajadzīgs, lai uzvarētu Koronas kaujā (394.g.pmē.), Taču šī bija nepārliecinoša uzvara, un viņa armija drīz vien izjuka.

Gluži kā Agesilaus bija gaidījis, Konons un Pharnabazus izmantoja savu uzvaru, lai izraidītu Spartas garnizonus no daudzām piekrastes un salu kopienām ap Egejas jūru. Kononam arī izdevās pārliecināt Pharnabazu paziņot, ka viņš neatstās garnizonus Grieķijas pilsētās, un šis solis palīdzēja vairāk mudināt mainīt pusi.

Gada ziemā viņi apmeklēja Hellespontu, pirms tam 393. gadā veica reidu Peloponesas piekrastē un ieņēma Citeras salu.

Pēc tam sabiedrotie pārcēlās uz Korinti, kur nodrošināja līdzekļus, kas ļāva korintiešiem atdzīvināt savu floti, pirms Konons triumfējot atgriezās Atēnās. Ar viņa atbalstu un jūrnieku palīdzību atēnieši sāka atjaunot Garās sienas un Pirejas nocietinājumus, atzīmējot Atēnu varas atdzimšanas sākumu tikai desmit gadus pēc Lielā Peloponesas kara pazemojošās beigām.

Konona kritiens bija ļoti pēkšņs. 392. gadā spartieši Antalcidas priekšgalā uzsāka sarunas ar persiešu amatpersonu Tiribūzu, kurš ir noraizējies par Konona panākumiem. Atēnieši nosūtīja Kononu, lai mēģinātu pretoties spartiešiem, bet viņi viņu nosodīja. Tiribūzs viņu arestēja par plāniem atjaunot atēniešu kontroli pār Mazāzijas grieķu pilsētām un ieslodzīja cietumā, norādot, ka viņš joprojām ir persiešu virsnieks un tādējādi ir viņa jurisdikcijā. Ir divi stāsti par viņa iespējamo likteni. Dažos avotos viņš tika nosūtīts uz Āziju un izpildīts nāvessods. Citos gadījumos viņš aizbēga uz Kipru, kur nomira, būdams vēl trimdā. Viņš atstāja ievērojamu naudas summu dēlam Timotejam (veiksmīgs admirālis pats par sevi), un viņam tika atdots kaps pie Cerameicus Atēnās. Konons bija galvenā persona Persijas atbalstītajā partijā Atēnās, un viņa atcelšana padarīja iespējamu konflikta atjaunošanos starp abām pusēm.


Kristīgais kanons

Kristīgā baznīca saņēma Bībeli no grieķu valodā runājošiem ebrejiem un atrada lielāko daļu savu agrīno pievēršanos helēnisma pasaulē. Tādējādi Aleksandrijas grieķu Bībele kļuva par kristiešu kopienas oficiālo Bībeli, un no tās ir iegūts milzīgs skaits citātu no Ebreju rakstiem Jaunajā Derībā. Lai kāda būtu Aleksandrijas kanona apokrifisko grāmatu izcelsme, tās kļuva par daļu no Kristīgajiem Rakstiem, taču, šķiet, nebija vienprātības par to precīzo kanonisko statusu. Jaunā Derība pati par sevi nesauc apokrifu grāmatas, bet laiku pa laikam var atrast pēdas par to zināšanām. Apustuliskie tēvi (1. gadsimta beigās - 2. gadsimta sākumā) liecina par šīs literatūras plašu pārzināšanu, bet Mazās Āzijas Sardisas bīskapa Melito (2. gs.) Vecās Derības grāmatu sarakstā nav iekļauti grieķu Bībeles raksti. un Origens (ap 185. – 254. g.) skaidri apraksta Vecās Derības kanonu, kurā ir tikai 22 grāmatas.

Kopš Origēnas laikiem baznīcas tēvi, kuri bija pazīstami ar ebreju valodu, vismaz teorētiski nošķīra apokrifiskās grāmatas no Vecās Derības grāmatām, lai gan tās tās izmantoja brīvi. Sīrijas austrumos līdz 7. gadsimtam baznīcā bija tikai ebreju kanona grāmatas, pievienojot Ecclesiasticus jeb Siras dēla Jēzus gudrību (bet bez hronikām, Ezras un Nehemijas). Tas ietvēra arī Zālamana gudrību, Baruhu, Jeremijas vēstuli un papildinājumus Daniēlam. 6. gadsimta Peshitas (sīriešu valodas versija) manuskriptā, kas pazīstams kā Codex Ambrosianus, ir arī III un IV Makabieši, II (dažreiz IV) Esdras un Džozefa Kari VII.

Āfrikas baznīcas agrīnās padomes, kas notika Hippo (393) un Kartāgas (397, 419), apstiprināja apokrifisko grāmatu izmantošanu kā Svētos Rakstus. Arī 4. gadsimtā Svētais Atanāzijs, kristīgās ortodoksijas galvenais teologs, nošķīra “kanoniskās grāmatas” no “tikai tām, kuras lasa tikai kristieši”, un no “apokrifiskajām grāmatām”, kuras vienādi noraidīja ebreji un kristieši. Sagatavojot standarta latīņu versiju, Bībeles zinātnieks Svētais Džeroms (ap 347–419/420) nodalīja “kanoniskās grāmatas” no “baznīcas grāmatām” (ti, apokrifiskajiem rakstiem), kuras viņš uzskatīja par labu garīgai attīstībai. bet ne autoritatīvi Raksti. Tomēr valdīja pretējs uzskats par svēto Augustīnu (354–430), vienu no lielākajiem Rietumu teologiem, un darbi palika latīņu Vulgatas versijā. The Decretum Gelasianum, latīņu dokuments ar neskaidru autorību, bet atzīts, ka tas atspoguļo Romas baznīcas uzskatus 6. gadsimta sākumā, ietver Bībeli Tobitu, Džūditu, Zālamana gudrību, Ecclesiasticus un I un II Makkabeju.

Viduslaikos Romas un Grieķijas baznīcās apokrifiskās grāmatas parasti tika uzskatītas par Svētajiem Rakstiem, lai gan laiku pa laikam radās teorētiskas šaubas. Tā 1333. gadā franču franciskāņu teologs Nikolajs no Lyras apsprieda atšķirības starp latīņu vulgātu un “ebreju patiesību”. Kristiešu un ebreju polemika, pieaugošā uzmanība ebreju studijām un, visbeidzot, reformācija saglabāja dzīvu kristīgā kanona jautājumu. Protestanti noliedza Vecās Derības kanonisko statusu visām grāmatām, kas nav ebreju Bībelē. Pirmā mūsdienu tautas Bībele, kas nošķīra strīdīgos rakstus, bija Jēkaba ​​van Līsvelda (Antverpene, 1526. gads) versija holandiešu valodā. Mārtiņa Lutera 1534. gada vācu izdevums darīja to pašu un pirmo reizi nosauca tos par “apokrifiem”, atzīmējot, ka, lai gan viņi nav vienlīdz cienīti ar Svētajiem Rakstiem, tie ir uzmācīgi.

Atbildot uz protestantu uzskatiem, Romas katoļu baznīca skaidri izteica savu nostāju Tridenta koncilā (1546), kad tā dogmatiski apstiprināja, ka visai latīņu vulgātei ir vienāds kanoniskais statuss. Šo doktrīnu apstiprināja 1870. gada Vatikāna koncils. Grieķijas baznīcā Jeruzalemes sinode (1672.) bija skaidri noteikusi vairākus kanoniskus darbus. Tomēr 19. gadsimtā krievu pareizticīgo teologi piekrita izslēgt šos darbus no Svētajiem Rakstiem.

Vecās Derības kanona vēsture angļu baznīcā parasti ir atspoguļojusi ierobežojošāku viedokli. Lai gan Wycliffite Bībelē (14. gadsimtā) bija iekļauti apokrifi, tās priekšvārdā bija skaidri norādīts, ka tā pieņem Džeroma spriedumu. Tulkojums, ko veica angļu bīskaps Mīls Koverdeils (Miles Coverdale) (1535), bija pirmā angļu versija, kurā šīs grāmatas tika nošķirtas, taču tas aizvietoja Baruhu aiz Jeremijas. Anglijas Baznīcas Trīsdesmit deviņu reliģisko rakstu VI pants (1562. gads) skaidri noliedza to nozīmi doktrīnas izveidē, lai gan atzina, ka tie ir jālasa pēc to didaktiskās vērtības. Pirmā Bībele angļu valodā, kas izslēdza apokrifus, bija 1599. gada Ženēvas Bībele. Karaļa Džeimsa 1611. gada versija to novietoja starp Veco un Jauno Derību. 1615. gadā arhibīskaps Džordžs abats aizliedza Bībeles izsniegšanu bez apokrifiem, bet karaļa Džeimsa versijas no 1630. gada izdevumi bieži vien to neizmantoja iesietajos eksemplāros. 1640. gada Ženēvas Bībeles izdevums, iespējams, bija pirmais, kas apzināti tika iespiests Anglijā bez apokrifiem, kam 1642. gadā sekoja karaļa Džeimsa versija. 1644. gadā garais parlaments faktiski aizliedza šo grāmatu publisku lasīšanu, un trīs gadus vēlāk Vestminsteras presbiteriešu atzīšanās atzina, ka tās nav kanona daļas. Britu un ārvalstu Bībeles biedrība 1827. gadā nolēma nekad nedrukāt un neizplatīt apokrifus saturošas kopijas. Lielākajā daļā angļu protestantu Bībeles 20. gadsimtā tika izlaistas strīdīgās grāmatas vai tās bija kā atsevišķs sējums, izņemot bibliotēku izdevumus, kuros tās tika iekļautas Vecajā un Jaunajā Derībā.


Konons, c.450-389 BC - Vēsture

Korijs Breidijs iziet fizisko terapiju Kolorādospringsas slimnīcā, pirms tiek izlaists 5. jūnijā pēc gandrīz nāves no koronavīrusa komplikācijām. Pieklājīgi Džejs Batons

Korija Breidija pozē fotogrāfijai ar supervaroni Build A Bear, ko viņš pirmdien savās mājās saņēma no Amber Withers. Kerija Kenterberija/Dienas ieraksts 6-17-21

Korija Breidija pirmdien savās mājās saņem skūpstu no mammas Nensijas Bredijas. Breidijs atgriezās mājās 5. jūnijā pēc mēneša pavadīšanas slimnīcā pēc tam, kad gandrīz nomira koronavīrusa izraisīto komplikāciju dēļ. Kerija Kenterberija/Dienas ieraksts 6-17-21

Korijs Breidijs un viņa mamma Nensija Bredija aplūko neskaitāmās kartītes, ko viņš saņēma pa pastu nesenās slimības laikā pirmdien savās mājās. Kerija Kenterberija/Dienas ieraksts 6-17-21

Korija Breidija, pa labi, pozē fotogrāfijā kopā ar Alisu Kerigri Flashback on Main event laikā 12. jūnijā Main Street. Carriger bija viens no vairākiem cilvēkiem, kuri pasākuma laikā apstājās, lai apskautu Breidiju. Kerija Kenterberija/Dienas ieraksts 6-12-21

Korijs Breidijs un viņa mamma Nensija Breidija pirmdien pozē fotogrāfijā savās mājās. Kerija Kenterberija/Dienas ieraksts 6-17-21

Korijs Breidijs 2019. gadā pozē fotogrāfijā uz Royal Gorge Route Railroad. Viņš vilcienā dažādos amatos ir strādājis aptuveni 11 gadus. Pieklājīgi Džejs Batons


Konons, c.450-389 BC - Vēsture

Kad 1676. gada septembrī dāņu astronoms Olafs Rūmers (Filozofiskie darījumi) 1677. gada septembrī paziņoja Parīzes akadēmijai, ka Jupitera iekšējā mēness Io aptumsuma laiku anomālo uzvedību var izskaidrot ar ierobežotu gaismas ātrumu, viņš bija pretrunā ar Dekarta un Kasīni pašreizējo gudrību. Pagāja vēl ceturtdaļgadsimts, līdz zinātniskais viedoklis pieņēma priekšstatu, ka gaismas ātrums nav bezgalīgs. Līdz tam vairākums uzskatīja, ka gaismas ātrums ir bezgalīgs.

Grieķu filozofi parasti sekoja Aristoteļa uzskatam, ka gaismas ātrums ir bezgalīgs. Tomēr bija izņēmumi, piemēram, Akragasas Empedoklis (ap 450. gadu pirms mūsu ēras), kas runāja par gaismu un četrvirzienu jeb atrašanos jebkurā brīdī starp zemi un tās aploksni, kuras kustība mums nebija novērojama, "(Aristoteļa darbi tulkoti Angļu val., WD Ross, Ed. III sēj. Oxford Press, 1931: De Anima, 418.b lpp. Un De Sensu, 446.a-447b. Lpp.). Ap 1000. gadu musulmaņu zinātnieki Avicenna un Alhazen abi ticēja ierobežotam gaismas ātrumam (Džordžs Sartons, Ievads zinātnes vēsturē, I sēj. Baltimora, 1927. lpp. 709.-12. Lpp.). Rodžers Bekons (1250. g. P.m.ē.) un Frensiss Bēkons (1600. gadā) pieņēma, ka gaismas ātrums ir ierobežots, lai gan ļoti ātrs. Pēdējais rakstīja: "Pat redzot, ka darbība notiek visātrāk, šķiet, ka tās izpildei ir nepieciešami noteikti laika momenti. lietas, kuras to kustības ātruma dēļ nevar redzēt-kā tad, kad no musketes tiek izmesta bumba "(Frensisa Bēkona filozofiskie darbi J. M. Robertsons, Londona, 1905. lpp., 363. lpp.). Tomēr 1600. gadā Keplers saglabāja vairākuma viedokli, ka gaismas ātrums ir acumirklīgs, jo kosmoss nevar pretoties tās kustībai (Johans Keplers Ad Vitellionem paralipomena astronomise pars optica traditur Frankfurt, 1804).

Tas bija Galilejs savā Discorsi. publicēts Leidenā 1638. gadā, kurš ierosināja, ka jautājums varētu tikt atrisināts patiesā zinātniskā veidā, veicot eksperimentu vairāku jūdžu attālumā, izmantojot laternas, teleskopus un slēģus. Florences akadēmija 1667. gadā ziņoja, ka šāds eksperiments tika veikts vienas jūdzes attālumā, "bez jebkādas novērojamas kavēšanās" (Dabas eksperimentu esejas, kas izgatavotas akadēmijā Academia del Cimento, tulkojis Ričards Valers, Londona, 1684. lpp., 157. lpp.). Tomēr pēc eksperimentu rezultātu paziņošanas Salviati pēc analoģijas ar strauju gaismas izplatīšanos no zibens apgalvoja, ka gaismas ātrums ir ātrs, bet ierobežots.

Dekarts (miris 1650. gadā) stingri turējās pie pārliecības par gaismas tūlītēju izplatīšanos un attiecīgi ietekmēja Rumera zinātnieku paaudzi, kas pieņēma viņa argumentus. Viņš norādīja, ka mēs nekad neredzam vienlaicīgu saules un mēness aptumsumu. Tomēr, ja gaismai būtu jāiet, teiksim, viena stunda, lai pārvietotos no zemes uz Mēnesi, saules, zemes un Mēness sistēmas līdzlinearitātes punkts, kas izraisa aptumsumu, tiktu zaudēts un acīmredzami tā (Christiaan Huygens, Traite de la Lumiere). Leiden 1690, 4.-6. Lpp., Prezentēts Parīzē Academie Royale des Sciences 1678. gadā). 1678. gadā Kristians Haigens nojauca Dekarta argumentu, norādot, izmantojot Rumera mērījumus, ka gaisma pagāja (apmēram) sekundēs, lai nokļūtu no Mēness uz Zemi, saglabājot gan ko-linearitāti, gan ierobežotu ātrumu.

Tomēr tikai Bredlija neatkarīgais apstiprinājums, kas publicēts 1729. gada 1. janvārī, izbeidza pretestību gaismas ātruma ierobežotajai vērtībai. Rūmera darbs, kas sašķēla zinātnieku aprindas, beidzot tika attaisnots. Pēc 53 gadu cīņas zinātne pieņēma novērošanas faktu, ka gaisma pārvietojas ar ierobežotu ātrumu. Vēl nesen šo ierobežoto ātrumu parasti uzskatīja par fiksētu un nemainīgu Visuma, kurā mēs dzīvojam, konstanti.

Zinātniski runājot, gaismas ātrums ir lielākais zināmais ātrums fiziskajā Visumā. Pašreizējā vērtība (pēc definīcijas) ir fiksēta kopš 1967. gada un ir 299 792,458 kilometri sekundē. Gandrīz visi to noapaļo līdz 3 X 10 (exp8) metriem sekundē jeb 186 000 jūdzes sekundē. Elektronikas tehniķi bieži izvēlas atcerēties aptuveno gaismas ātrumu kā vienu pēdu uz nanosekundi gaisā vai vakuumā-attālums, ko gaisma veic vienas miljardās sekundes laikā. Dielektriskajos materiālos gaismas ātrums (elektromagnētiskie viļņi) ir lēnāks nekā kosmosa vakuumā.


Vēlā klasika (c. 400–323 BC)

Tā kā izaugsme tagad ir koncentrēta nomaļos apgabalos, šajā laika posmā Grieķijas kontinentālajā daļā bija saprotams mazāk tempļu celtniecības nekā 5. gadsimtā, taču doriskie tempļi Tegeā un Nemejā Peloponēsā bija nozīmīgi, pirmais bija Korintas galvaspilsētu uzņemšanai. kolonnas, kas piestiprinātas pie tās iekšējām sienām. Savukārt Grieķijas austrumos sākās virkne jaunu tempļu celtniecību, kas bija līdzvērtīgas arhaiskā laikmeta celtniecībai, kas apzināti kopēja arhaiku savā plānā un detaļu izstrādē. Daži no tiem ir vienkārši aizstājēji, piemēram, tas, kas Efesā aizstāj agrāku ugunsgrēkā iznīcināto templi vai drīzāk Didīmā. Līdzīgi, Prienes pilsēta Jonijā, lai arī pēc 4. gadsimta vidus tika uzcelta uz jauna pamata, tika izkārtota kā ielu režģis pēc principa, ko izstrādājis 5. gadsimta arhitekts Hippodamus, kurš šo pašu shēmu bija piemērojis arī savam dzimtajā pilsētā Milētā un Atēnu ostā, Pirejā. Jaunais Atēnas templis Prienē ir labākais zināmais klasiskās jonu paraugs bez plāna vai detaļu ekscentriskuma. Austrumu grieķi jau sen bija strādājuši pie saviem kaimiņiem Persijas pilsētās Likijā un Karijā, piegādājot monumentālas vietējā raksta kapenes, kas dekorētas ar skulptūru grieķu stilā. Līcijas galvaspilsētā Ksantā līdz 5. gadsimta beigām tika uzbūvēta kapa, kas atgādina grieķu templi, kas pacelta augstu uz platformas, līdzīgas celtnes tika uzceltas arī 4. gadsimtā, un tas beidzās ar lielo kapu, kas tika uzcelts gadsimta vidū Halikarnassā. Karijas karalis Mauzols, karalis, kurš devis savu vārdu visiem šādiem monumentālajiem mauzolejiem. Smalkā arhitektūras detaļa un skulptūra, ko izpildījuši pirmā ranga grieķu mākslinieki, parāda vietējās gaumes pilnīgu hellenizāciju un ilustrē augsto kvalitāti, kādu grieķu māksla šajā laikā bija sasniegusi svešās zemēs.

4. gadsimtā arhitektūras formu daudzveidība bija daudz lielāka nekā jebkad agrāk. Teātri saņēma marmora sēdekļus un izsmalcinātas skatuves ēkas. Apļveida tempļi (tholoi) parādījās kontinentālās Grieķijas svētnīcās, kas bija doriskā stilā, bet ar jaunajām korintiešu kolonnām. Neliela mēroga tholos ar korintiešu kolonnām tika izmantots arī Lizikrāta horaģiskajam piemineklim Atēnās. Divstāvu stoa kļuva par būtisku elementu tirgus vai administratīvo teritoriju plānošanā. Arhitektiem bija grūti pielāgot stingros pasūtījumus arhitektūras formām un vajadzībām, kas bija sarežģītākas nekā grieķu tempļa pamatplānā.


Vai mums vajadzētu izmantot Septuagintu un pieņemt tās kanoniskās grāmatas?

Jautājums: Nesen dzirdēju, ka kāds strīdas par Septuagintas izmantošanu, pamatojoties uz to, ka agrīnā baznīca, apustuļi un pats Jēzus to izmantoja. Es atklāju, ka agrīnā baznīca patiesībā izmantoja LXX, taču viņi arī uzskatīja, ka deuterokanoniskās un#xa0 grāmatas, kas ir daļa no Septuagintas, ir arī Raksti.

Manas grāmatas un tās publicētās Christian-history.org saņem lieliskas atsauksmes. Konspekti ir manā vietnē Pamatu atjaunošana. Tie ir pieejami visur, kur tiek pārdotas grāmatas!

Šo vietni atbalsta arī Xero apavi, jo to apavi ir atvieglojuši arkas sāpes, kas man ir bijušas kopš leikēmijas. Es valkāju Mesa Trail modeli, tas ir vienīgais modelis, ko esmu izmēģinājis. Viņu kurpes pārdod sevi.

Mana atbilde

Viss Svēto Rakstu jautājums ir daudz sarežģītāks nekā tikai “mums vajadzētu izmantot Septuagintu”.

Kas ir Septuaginta?

Tas ir Vecās Derības tulkojums no ebreju valodas grieķu valodā, kas veikts Aleksandrijā laikā no 2. gadsimta pirms mūsu ēras līdz mūsu ēras 1. gadsimtam. Tradīcija vēsta, ka tulkošanas veikšanai Ēģiptes Ptolemajs iecēlis septiņdesmit ebreju vecākos.

Termiņš Septuaginta  nozīmē "septiņdesmit" un ir atsauce uz septiņdesmit vecākajiem. Tā paša iemesla dēļ to sauc arī par LXX.

Agrīnie kristieši uzskatīja, ka septiņdesmit vecākie ir ievietoti septiņdesmit dažādās telpās, tomēr viņi visi izgatavoja tieši tādu pašu visas Vecās Derības tulkojumu, vārdu pa vārdam (piemēram, Džastins moceklis, Hortatory Uzruna grieķiemꀓ). Tas, protams, ir smieklīgi, un tā nenotika.

Smieklīgi

Nav tā, ka es neticu, ka Dievs varētu darīt kaut ko līdzīgu, ja septiņdesmit cilvēki tulko Svētos Rakstus tieši tādos pašos vārdos citā valodā. Jautājums ir, kāpēc viņš to darītu?

Ir svarīgi vērot, ko Dievs dara šodien. Dievs nav mainījies. Viņš vēl šodien dara brīnumus. Tomēr Bībele nav tikusi tulkota vairāk kā pēdējo četrdesmit gadu laikā. Kristieši nekad nav tik smagi cīnījušies par vienu autoritatīvu tulkojumu no vārda. Tomēr neviens skaidri domājošs cilvēks netic, ka jebkurš angļu vai jebkurš cits tulkojums ir iedvesmots.

Ja mēs vērojam, ko Dievs dara, tad ir skaidrs, ka viņš nav ieinteresēts nevienam pierādīt precīzu Svēto Rakstu formulējumu.

Septuaginta, kas citēta Jaunajā Derībā

Fakts ir tāds, ka daudzi Jaunās Derības citāti sakrīt ar Septuagintu, bet ne visi. Esmu dzirdējis aprēķinus no 50% līdz divām trešdaļām. Ir ļoti grūti noteikt precīzu skaitli, jo tik daudz fragmentu ir citēti. Piemēram .

  • Mateja 4:10 skaidri citē 5. Mozus 6:13 Septuagintas versiju, izmantojot tikai šajā versijā atrodamo terminoloģiju un to precīzi lietojot.
  • 1. korintiešiem 15:58 Hosejas Septuaginta 13:14 ir daudz tuvāk Pāvila citātam nekā masoretiskais teksts, taču atšķirība joprojām ir ievērojama. Daži teiks, ka Pāvils citēja Septuagintu, citi nepiekritīs.
  • 1. korintiešiem 2: 8-9 Pāvils citē Jesajas 64: 4, un citāts ir skaidri no ebreju valodas. Septuaginta formulējums ir daudz atšķirīgs.

Pirmajā gadsimtā liela daļa baznīcas bija ebreji. Apustuļiem, kuri palika Romas impērijā - tie ir tie, kas uzrakstīja lielāko daļu Jaunās Derības - būtu bijis vajadzīgs LXX, taču viņi arī būtu iepazinušies ar ebreju teksta oriģinālu no viņu dienām Izraēlā.

Tādējādi Jaunā Derība ir citātu sajaukums, no kuriem daži atbilst Septuaginta, daži atbilst mūsu masoretiskajam tekstam, bet citi - nevienam.

No kurienes nāk šie "citi" citāti?

Iemesls tam var neatbilst arī tāpēc, ka mums nav agrīnu masorētiskā teksta eksemplāru, un tas, iespējams, gadsimtu gaitā ir kļuvis bojāts. Bija arī konkurējoši ebreju teksti pat 1. gadsimtā. Piemēram, Nāves jūras rullīšu Jesajas tīstoklis vairāk līdzinās masorētiskajiem tekstiem, taču tam ir daudz atšķirību.

Masoretisks teksts

Masoreti bija ebreju stipendiju skola no 7. līdz 11. gadsimtam pēc mūsu ēras, kas rūpīgi saglabāja ebreju rakstus. Agrākais mūsu rīcībā esošais rokraksts ir no 9. gadsimta.

Turklāt bez tādas Bībeles kā mūsējā - vienkārši pārlapojama un atzīmēta ar nodaļām un pantiem - agrīnajiem kristiešiem bija grūtības atrast pantus savos ruļļos. Vai vēl ļaunāk, viņiem vispār bija grūtības atrast kādas Svēto Rakstu grāmatas rituli!

Tādējādi daudzi fragmenti, iespējams, tiek citēti no atmiņas. Tādam zinātniekam kā Pāvils, kurš būtu redzējis Svēto Rakstu versijas gan ebreju, gan grieķu valodā, iespējams, bija lielas grūtības konsekventi citēt vienu un to pašu versiju.

Septuaginta, kas citēta agrīnajās baznīcās

Agrīnās baznīcas pret agrīnajiem kristiešiem

Ir ierasts, ka mēs 2. un 3. gadsimta kristiešus saucam par "agrīnajiem kristiešiem".

Tomēr vēstures vietas kontekstā, manuprāt, ir prātīgāk atsaukties uz "agrīnajām baznīcām", nevis uz "agrīnajiem kristiešiem", it īpaši uz šādas lapas. Baznīcas izlēma, kuras grāmatas tika pieņemtas kā Svētie Raksti viņu vidū, nevis atsevišķi kristieši. Katra baznīca var atšķirties no citas, bet kristieši izmantoja savas baznīcas izmantotās grāmatas.

Tas pats attiecās uz “ticības likumu” - katras kristietības kodificētajiem kristietības “pamatiem”. Ticības likums dažādās baznīcās bija atšķirīgs - lai arī ne pārāk daudz -, bet katrs kristietis savu ticības likumu uzzināja no draudzes, kurai viņš piederēja. Viņš nebija brīvs, lai viņam būtu savs ticības likums. To sauca par "ķecerību".

Stāsts ar 2. un 3. gadsimta kristiešiem ir daudz atšķirīgs. Viņi gandrīz tikai izmantoja Septuagintu.

Iemesls tam ir vienkāršs. Viņi gandrīz tikai runāja grieķu valodā.

2. gadsimta baznīca lielā mērā bija pagānu, un tā lielā mērā tika atrasta ārpus Izraēlas, jo Izraēla ir maza valsts. Baznīca bija izplatījusies visā pazīstamajā pasaulē pat 1. gadsimtā. Tomass bija aizgājis līdz Indijai, un pēc tradīcijas Pāvils nokļuva pat Britu salās.

Turklāt visi mūsu 2. gadsimta raksti nāk no grieķu valodā runājošajām impērijas daļām. Izņēmums ir daži iespējamie raksti, kas veikti sīriešu valodā.

Grieķu valodā runājošie izmantoja tulkojumu grieķu valodā. To nevar izmantot kā pierādījumu tam, ka mums visiem šodien vajadzētu izmantot LXX kā pamattekstu.

Kuras grāmatas ir iekļautas Septuagintā (LXX)

Agrīnās baznīcas tomēr izmantoja grāmatas, kas nav iekļautas mūsu 66 grāmatu protestantu Bībelē, jo tām nebija kristiešu grāmatnīcas ar katoļu Bībeli, protestantu Bībeli un pāris dažādām pareizticīgo Bībeles versijām, jūs nevarat īsti piespraust uz leju "un"deuterokanoniskās grāmatas.

Romas katoļu apokrifs

Romas katoļi ietver 7 grāmatas, kuras protestantiem nav. Septuaginta ietver vēl vairāk.

7 Romas katoļu deuterokanoniskās grāmatas.

  • Tobīts
  • Džūdita
  • Gudrība
  • Ecclesiasticus (jeb Siraha gudrība)
  • Baruch
  • Pirmie makabieši
  • Otrie makabieši

Apocrypha ietver arī divas papildu nodaļas Daniela un papildinājumu Esterei.

Līdz šai dienai pareizticīgo baznīcām ir atšķirīgs kanons. Lielākajā daļā būs iekļautas visas 4 Makabiešu grāmatas, bet Romas katoļiem - tikai 2. Tajos ir arī 1 Esdras, kas Romas katoļiem nav. Tas pats ar Zālamana gudrību.

  • Armēņu pareizticīgo baznīcā ir 3 korintieši.
  • Etiopijas pareizticīgo baznīca savā kanonā iekļauj Ēnoha grāmatu.
  • Asīriešu pareizticīgo baznīca beidz savu Jauno Derību pie 1. Jāņa.

Pat aptuveni 395. gadā pēc mūsu ēras Augustīns teica, ka labs Svēto Rakstu pētnieks uzsver grāmatas, kuras pieņem visas baznīcas, tad tās, kuras pieņem lielās baznīcas [i., tie, kurus 1. gadsimtā izveidoja apustuļi, piemēram, Efeza, Roma, Korinta utt.] un visbeidzot tās, kuras pieņem mazākas baznīcas.

Grāmatas, piemēram, Džūditu, Tobitu un Sirahas gudrību, citē daudzi agrīnie kristieši, kas liecina par to, ka tās ir pieņēmušas daudzas baznīcas. Augustīns pieņem visus trīs. Viņa laikabiedrs Džeroms noraida visus trīs.

Šķiet, ka arī lielākā daļa agrīno kristiešu bija pazīstami ar Ēnoha grāmatu. Šī grāmata ir tieši citēta un attiecināta uz Ēnohu Jūdā mūsu Bībelē (14.-15. P.).

Ēnoha grāmata

Mūsdienu kristiešiem Ēnohu būs grūti norīt ar 300 pēdām. gari milži un saule lec un riet pa logiem debesīs. Neskatoties uz to, 1. Ēnohs 1: 9 (vai 2: 1, atkarībā no jūsu versijas) ir citēts Jūdas 14.-15.

Es personīgi iesaku Ecclesiasticus [Siraha gudrība]. Tā ir satriecoša grāmata ar lielisku Kristus pravietojumu otrajā nodaļā. Jūs to atradīsit visās katoļu Bībelēs vai jebkurā Apocrypha eksemplārā.

Ebreji un slēgtais kanons

Godīgi sakot, es nesaprotu, kā mēs, mūsdienu kristieši, varam kanonā iekļaut ebrejus. Tā ir lieliska grāmata. Man nav problēmu ar tās mācīšanu, bet tajā ir konkrēti teikts, ka to nav uzrakstījis apustulis vai apustuliskais darbinieks. Tas nebija vispārēji pieņemts pat 4. gadsimtā, un Euzēbijs no Cēzarejas, iespējams, sava laika spējīgākais zinātnieks, to apšauba savā rakstā. Baznīcas vēsture in 323.

Tas ir Ebrejiem 2: 3-4 grāmatā praktiski teikts, ka tam nevajadzētu būt Svētajos Rakstos.

Kā mēs varam izbēgt, ja mēs atstājam novārtā tik lielo pestīšanu, kuru vispirms mums sāka runāt Tas Kungs, bet pēc tam apstiprināja tie, kas dzirdēja? Dievs viņiem liecināja arī ar zīmēm, brīnumiem un dažādiem Svētā Gara brīnumiem un dāvanām.

Ja jūs izlasīsit agrīno baznīcu rakstus, jūs drīz sāksit saprast, ka NT Svētie Raksti ir visi raksti, ko rakstījuši "tie", kas apstiprināja Evaņģēliju "mums", kā to saka ebreju rakstnieks.

Iemesls, kādēļ ebreji iekļuva kanonā, ir tas, ka baznīcas, kas to pieņēma, uzskatīja, ka to rakstījis Pāvils, un tas ir ļoti dīvains uzskats, ņemot vērā Ebrejiem 2: 3-4. Kā Pāvils varēja kaut ko tādu uzrakstīt? Viņš nepārprotami uzskatīja sevi par vienu no tiem, kas sludina evaņģēliju no Tā Kunga, nevis saņem to no citiem (Gal. 1: 11-12).

Es gribu teikt, ka agrīnajās baznīcās kanons bija elastīgs. Kāpēc lai tā nebūtu arī mums?

Nesakārtotais Canon agrīnajās baznīcās

Fakts ir tāds, neviens nevar precīzi noteikt, kad tika iestatīts kanons.

The Roman Catholics didn't officially decide the canon until the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Martin Luther objected to the canon, and he wanted to remove Hebrews, James, and the Book of Revelation.

Internet rumors abound that the synod of Hippo (often falsely called the council of Hippo) decided the canon in 393.

True, they did. But they were simply a local synod with no authority. No one listened to them (Catholic Encyclopedia).

How do I know? Because Augustine, the bishop of Hippo, gives directions for picking which books a good student of Scripture will emphasize, and he mentions books accepted by only some churches. He wrote that during the same decade that the synod of Hippo convened, but in 397, four years later.

How We Got Our Canon

To this day, if you ask an Orthodox believer which books belong in the canon, most won't be certain. Orthodox churches, even though they're organized into much bigger organizations than they were in Augustine's day, still vary in their canons.

  • The Armenian Orthodox Church includes a letter called 3 Corinthians, which most churches reject as false.
  • The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has Enoch in their Bible.
  • The Assyrian Orthodox New Testament ends at 1 John.

There is a reason this is not true among western Christians, and it is not because the canon was decided upon by a council.

In the early 5th century, Jerome translated the Scriptures into Latin.

A High View of Scripture is an excellent coverage of the canon in the early church by a respected, conservative Evangelical publisher.

In Roman-ruled Europe, Jerome's "Vulgate" soon became the only translation in use.

Sadly, the product of the rule of the Roman bishop was ignorance and superstition [thus fully establishing that the Pope cannot be God's representative on earth since good trees produce good fruit]. Latin became the only intellectual language of Europe, and the Roman Catholic Church forbad its translation into common languages for fear of misinterpretation by the ignorant masses.

This horrific state of affairs continued for nearly a thousand years until the Renaissance began a change and Martin Luther਌ompleted it with the Protestant Reformation.

In this way, Jerome's Vulgate�me the standard for canonicity without there ever being an official decision on it at any general council until Trent in the mid-1500's.

The Real Role of Scripture . And, Thus, the Septuagint as Well

The worst problem of all, I think, is the wrong emphasis we put on Scripture. Scripture is important. All Scripture is inspired by God, makes wise for salvation (2 Tim. 3:15), and equips the man of God for good works (2 Tim. 3:17 Note: not good systematic theology, but good works).

Nonetheless, the sons of God are those who are led by the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:14). As Jesus told the Pharisees, "You search the Scriptures because you think that you have life from them. But these are they which testify of me yet you refuse to come to me so that you might have life" (Jn. 5:39-40).

What I'm saying on this page is very controversial, so here's my apologetic for my position, which is nothing more than the position of all early churches .

The Standard of Truth for the Early Churches

In the early churches, they were given a rule of faith. That rule of faith contained the basics that each Christian had to believe. Each Christian learned and confessed it at their baptism.

The rule of faith for the Church of Caesarea is what was used as a basis for the Nicene (or Apostles) Creed.

Their teachers taught from the Scriptures. They, like us, were willing to be corrected by the Scriptures. But they knew what the Scriptures teach—which is that the Christian life is about obeying Christ, not analyzing doctrines to extremes.

Of course, they didn't have to worry about some of the things that we have to deal with. No one then believed in eternal security. All of them had hands laid on them to receive the Spirit immediately after baptism. Only some spoke in tongues, and there were no movements to get everyone to speak in tongues.

If there had been, it would have been shut down.

Churches could answer any such questions by consulting the churches started by apostles or just looking at what they did.

Irenaeus (c. A.D. 185) said it this way .

Suppose there arises a dispute relative to some important question among us. Shouldn't we have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant interaction and learn from them what is certain and clear concerning the present question? (Against Heresies III:4:1).

Thus, while the Scriptures are important due to their being inspired by God, they were never meant to create systematic theologies. Instead, they provided encouragement, insight into the will of God, and guidance for living righteously. Paul sums up their purpose by saying, ". so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Once you focus on systematic theologies and the doctrinal arguments go with systematic theologies, then all the exactitudes concerning the Septuagint or the Masoretic text do not matter much. You have lost your focus, and you are probably sinning (1 Tim. 1:5-7).

Jerome, the Septuagint, and the Exact Wording of Scripture

No To Pammachius on the Best Method of Translating, par. 9, as found in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 2, vol. VI. (Everything below this paragraph in this box are the words of Jerome, including the paragraph in italics. I added the italics of course, but those are Jerome's words.)

Matthew says: . " . are not the least among the princes of Judah." In the Septuagint this is, " . are small to be among the thousands of Judah," while the Hebrew gives, " . though you be little among the thousands of Judah."

     There is a contradiction here—and that not merely verbal—between the evangelist and the prophet, for in this place at any rate both Septuagint and Hebrew agree. The evangelist says that he is not little among the princes of Judah, while the passage from which he quotes says exactly the opposite of this "You are small indeed and little, but yet out of you, small and little as you are, there shall come forth for me a leader in Israel." This sentiment in harmony with that of the apostle, "God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty" [1 Cor. 1:27]

     Let us pass on now to the apostle Paul who writes thus to the Corinthians: "For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written, 'Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love Him'" [1 Cor. 2:8-9]. . It is found in Isaiah according to the Hebrew text: "Since the beginning of the world men have not heard nor perceived by the ear, nor has the eye seen, oh God, beside you what you have prepared for them that wait for thee" [Is. 64:4]. The Septuagint has rendered the words quite differently: "Since the beginning of the world we have not heard, nor have our eyes seen any God beside you and your true works, and you will show mercy to them that wait for you."

 .  From all these passages it is clear that the apostles and evangelists—in translating the Old Testament Scriptures—have sought to give the meaning rather than the words, and that they have not greatly cared to preserve forms or constructions, so long as they could make clear the subject to the understanding.

It may be nice to research things like how Matthew 1:23 came to be quoting Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin" rather than "young maiden." It may be nice to know why Jesus quotes words in Matthew 4:10 that aren't in our version of the verse. However, your knowing the answer to those questions will have no effect on your obedience to God, and obedience, after all, is the purpose of the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:17).

How Important Is Exact Wording?

Whether exact wording is important affects whether our use of the Septuagint is important.

The fact is, God hasn't given much effort to preserving exact wording for us. There are thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. While this helps establish that the general wording of our New Testament is accurate, it also has made it impossible to determine the exact wording of hundreds and perhaps thousands of verses.

King James only adherents, for example, like to say that modern versions have "corrupted" over 5,000 verses.

We will never be able to decide on many of those extremely minor differences in wording. That is because God doesn't want us to focus on words!

Words were Old Testament. The New Testament is written on our hearts! (1 Cor. 4:20 2 Cor. 3:6)

This doesn't mean we ignore Scripture, but it does mean that if we spend time trying to nail down words and letters, we will be distracted from our real purpose.

Where To Go From Here

If you enjoyed this page, you may enjoy History of the Bible. Also, my doctrine page gives a Scriptural and historical look at what exactly qualifies as "sound doctrine."

Finally, please consider signing up for our monthly Early Church History Newsletter.


Writer's Timeline

Hosea

Hosea was active in the Northern Kingdom.

Syria & Israel are at war with Judah to force Judah into an anti-Assyrian position.
King Hoshea's rebellion ended with the defeat and destruction of the northern kingdom in 722 BC.

Isaiah 1

Chapters 1-39 (without 24-27)
Time period includes Syro-Ephraimite War, revolt against Sennacherib.
Includes material reused from from Isaiah by Isaiah.
Not all of this material can come from Isaiah of Jerusalem.
Creation of the Book of Isaiah in about 435 BC?

Jeremiah

Jeremiah stayed in Jerusalem after the destruction of the city in 587.

He stayed until the assassination of Gedaliah at which time he fled (willingly?) with the rest of the Jewish leaders, fearing reprisal from Babylonia.

Gedaliah was Jewish and had been chosen to serve as governor of the region for Babylonia. He was murdered by a descendant of the House of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah.

Dan Set

Isaiah 2?

Chapters 40-55.
Toward the end of the Babylonian Exile.

Babylon in the enemy, not Assyria.
Cyrus mentioned twice.

Isaiah 3?

Chapters 24-27 & 56-66.
Dates are rough. Post-return & pre-Temple .
Creation of the Book of Isaiah happening at around 435 BC?

Malachi?

Malachi means "the messenger". Is it a name or a title?
Makes no reference at all to historical situation.
Dating is estimated by looking at issues raised - mixed marriage for example.

Daniel "Written?"

Isaiah Final Edit

Book of Isaiah edited together?


The Great Myths 4: Constantine, Nicaea and the Bible

It seems the “Philosophical Atheism” group on Facebook is going to be the New Atheist bad history gift that just keeps on giving. No anti-Christian snippet or meme seems to be able to get by this group without it being posted as factual, without any hint of checking its claims. So the gloriously stupid (and grammatically bizarre) pastiche of nonsense above was posted to “Philosophical Atheism” yesterday, with the group’s followers reverently genuflecting to its mighty historical truth and insight. The irony of this meme urging readers “Don’t just believe me. Go look it up.” is particularly amusing. But okay, let’s “look it up”.

The Myth of the Biblical Canon at Nicaea

This utterly confused meme is referring to the hoary myth that the canon of the Bible was voted on at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD and even helpfully includes an image of an icon depicting the Emperor Constantine and key figures from that Council holding a copy of the Nicene Creed formulated by the assembled bishops at Nicaea. This is the basis of the claim that “Constantine and his bishops voted a bunch of works as the Word of God (325 AD)”. Of course, there certainly was a council held by the emperor Constantine at his palace in Nicaea between May 20 and around June 19 in 325 AD and at it bishops from across the Roman Empire gathered to vote on several things, including the date of Easter, the role of church law and a number of administrative issues. The key purpose of the Council, however, was the resolution of the Arian Controversy over the status of Jesus as “God the Son” in relation to “God the Father” in the doctrine of the Trinity. The statement of the Council on this matter formed the Nicene Creed which became the basis of future Christological formulations (and the subject of later disputes on the matter).

What the Council did NOT vote on or even discuss was the Biblical canon – i.e. which Christian books and texts could be considered divinely inspired and therefore “Scripture”, which were useful but not scriptural and which were actually “heretical”. Despite this, the idea that the “Bible was created by a vote at the Council of Nicaea” is a pseudo historical myth that has been kicking around for centuries and forms part of several key pieces of pseudo scholarship and pop culture, which reveals the apparently “shocking” but actually rather obvious idea that the Bible was put together by a consensus of human beings. It certainly formed a key plot element in the schlock pseudo historical thriller The Da Vinci Code (2003) and in its film adaptation in 2006. Perhaps whoever is responsible for posting this meme to the “Philosophical Atheism” group was living under a rock at the time, but it was one of the claims peddled by Dan Brown as historical that attracted criticism not just from Christians but also from scholars generally. Agnostic atheist scholar Bart Ehrman was typically emphatic on the subject:


“The historical reality is that the emperor Constantine had nothing to do with the formation of the canon of scripture: he did not choose which books to include or exclude and he did not order the destruction of the gospels that were left out of the canon. …. The formation of the New Testament canon was a long and drawn out process that began centuries before Constantine and did not conclude until long after he was dead.” (Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine)


Even if the “Philosophical Atheism” person was living in a cave in the early 2000s and so missed the memo that this stuff is garbage, even the most cursory fact checking would have at least raised doubts in someone who was a genuine rationalist. After all, the meme’s bizarre grammar and reference to “Black Ankhwakening” – a crackpot Afrocentrist/Black Revisionist group – should have been a signal that this needed to be checked carefully. And a quick Google of “Constantine + Bible” turns up a plethora of detailed links debunking the whole idea. But it seems fact checking is not high on the priority list of the so-called rationalists over at “Philosophical Atheism”.

How the Biblical Canon Actually Developed

As Ehrman notes above, far from being determined by one council and an emperor in 325 AD, the formation of the Christian canon was one of slow development over several centuries. The whole idea of a “canon” of accepted and authoritative works pre-dates Christianity and began with the development of schools of Greek philosophy. As works by key philosophers circulated in the decades after their deaths, other works wrongly or falsely attributed to them also found their way into circulation. So later followers of some philosophical traditions developed rules by which they decided which works were genuine and which were pseudepigraphical forgeries – the word “canon” comes from the Greek κανών meaning “rule”, or literally “measuring stick”.

By the early second century Christianity had a similar problem, with a wide range of texts, letters and gospels in circulation all claiming to be authentic works of the first generation of Christians. Any given isolated Christian community may well have known of some of them but not others. They may also have had copies of a few of them, but have only heard of others (since copies of any books were expensive and precious). And they may also have used a variety of other writings, many of which did not find their way into the Bible. There was no single, central “Church” which dictated these things at this early stage – each community operated in either relative isolation or intermittent communication with other communities and there were no standardised texts or a set list of which texts were authoritative and which were not at this very early stage of the Christian faith.

Christianity’s parent faith, Judaism, had a similar plethora of religious texts from which it chose a few and considered these to be “Scripture” and especially authoritative as the word of God. There is evidence that this idea was beginning to be applied to some of the early Christian writings as well, with references to four definitive gospels being made by Irenaeus in the mid second century and a reference to interpretation of the letters of Paul alongside “the rest of the Scriptures” being made as early as c. 120 AD (see 2Peter 3:16).

But it seems that the “heresy” of Marcion was what gave second century Christianity the impetus to begin to define which of these various texts had the status of “Scripture” and which did not. Marcion was born around 100 AD in the city of Sinope on the southern coast of the Black Sea. After a falling out with his father, the local bishop, he travelled to Rome in around 139 AD. There he began to develop his own Christian theology one which was quite different to that of his father and of the Christian community in Rome. Marcion was struck by the strong distinction made by Paul between the Law of the Jews and the gospel of Christ. For Marcion, this distinction was absolute: the coming of Jesus made the whole of the Jewish Law and Jewish Scriptures redundant and the ‘God’ of the Jews was actually quite different to the God preached by Jesus. For Marcion, the Jewish God was evil, vengeful, violent and judgemental, while the God of Jesus was quite the opposite. Marcion decided that there were actually two Gods – the evil one who had misled the Jews and the good one revealed by Jesus.

This understanding led Marcion to put together a canon of Christian Scripture – the first of its kind – which excluded all of the Jewish Scriptures that make up the Old Testament and which included ten of the Epistles of Paul and only one of the gospels: the Gospel of Luke.

Marcion tried to get his radical reassessment of Christianity and his canon accepted by calling a council of the Christian community in Rome. Far from accepting his teachings, the council excommunicated him and he left Rome in disgust, returning to Asia Minor. There he met with far more success, and Marcionite churches sprang up which embraced his idea of two Gods and used his canon of eleven scriptural works. Alarmed at his success, other Christian leaders began to preach and write vigorously against Marcion’s ideas and it seems that his canon of eleven works inspired anti-Marcionite Christians to begin to define which texts were and were not Scriptural.

As mentioned above, it was Irenaeus who made the first know defence of the four canonical gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – as the oldest and only scriptural ones, and he did so at least partially on the grounds that these four had always been regarded as the earliest and most authoritative. Interestingly, after two centuries of sceptical analysis, the overwhelming majority of historians, scholars and textual experts (Christian or otherwise) actually agree with Irenaeus and the consensus is that these four gospels definitely are the earliest of the accounts of Jesus’ life.

Not long after Irenaeus’ defence of the four canonical gospels we get our first evidence of a defined list of which texts are scriptural. A manuscript called the Muratorian Canon dates to sometime in the late second century AD and was discovered in a library in Milan in the eighteenth century. It details that the canonical four gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – along with most of the other books found in the modern New Testament, as well as a couple which are not (the Wisdom of Solomon un Apocalypse of Peter) are ‘scriptural’ and authoritative. It also gives some approval to other, more recent works like The Shepherd of Hermas, but says they should not be read in church as Scripture.

The Muratorian Canon document accepts twenty-three of the twenty-seven works which now make up the New Testament in the Bible. It also explicitly rejects several books on the grounds that they are recent and written by fringe, “heretical” groups and it specifically singles out works by the Gnostic leader Valentius and by Marcion and his followers.

It seems that the challenge posed by Marcion and other dissident groups caused the early Christians to determine which books were scriptural and which were not. And it also seems that recent works, whether they were “heretical” (like the Gnostic gospels) or not (like The Shepherd of Hermas), did not have the status of works from the earliest years of Christianity. It was only these earliest works which were considered authoritative.

So it’s clear that the process of deciding which texts were canonical and which were not was already well under way over a century before the Emperor Constantine was even born. It also continued for a long time after he died. Constantine’s contemporary, the Christian historian Eusebius, set out to “summarise the writings of the New Testament” in his Church History a work written towards the end of Constantine’s reign. He lists the works which are generally “acknowledged” (Church History, 3.25.1), including the four canonical gospels, Acts, the Epistles of Paul, 1 John, 1 Peter and the Apocalypse of John/”Revelation” (though he says this is still disputed by some). He gives other texts which he says are “still disputed” including James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John. He gives other books which are probably “spurious” and then lists others which are definitely considered heretical, including the Gospels of Peter, Thomas and Matthias and the Acts of Andrew and John.
So not only did the process of deciding the canon begin long before Constantine, there was still debate within the Church about the canon in his time.

And it continued. In 367 Athanasius wrote his 39th Festal Letter in which he laid out the current twenty-seven books of the New Testament – the first time this canon had been definitively stated by any churchman. A synod convened in Rome by Pope Damasus in 382 AD also considered the question of the canon and, with the help of the great multi-lingual scholar Jerome, settled on the same twenty-seven books set out by Athanasius. At this stage there was still no central authority which could compel church communities in any way but local councils and synods in Hippo and Carthage in north Africa and later ones in Gaul also settled on the same canon.

These local definitions mean that there was actually no definitive statement by the Catholic Church as to the make-up of the New Testament until the Council of Trent in 1546: a full 1209 years after Constantine died. The full development of the canon took several centuries, though the basics of which gospels were to be included was settled by 200 AD at least.

François-Marie Arouet aka “Voltaire”

The Origin of the Myth

So the central historical claim in the meme is total and complete garbage, but if that’s so, where did the myth come from? It seems that it can be traced to a quip made by Voltaire in reference to a miracle story of no historical value. François-Marie Arouet (1694–1778), better known by his nom-de-plume “Voltaire”, is still justly famous for his wit, his erudition and for his attacks on the established position of the Catholic Church in the France of his day and his advocacy of freedom of religion and the separation of Church and State. He made several mentions of the idea that the Biblical canon was decided at the Council of Nicaea in his Dictionnaire Philosophique (1764), noting with amusement the rather silly way the Council supposedly chose the relevant books:


Il est rapporté dans le supplément du concile de Nicée que les Pères étant fort embarrassés pour savoir quels étaient les livres cryphes ou apocryphes de l’Ancien et du Nouveau Testament, les mirent tous pêle-mêle sur un autel et les livres à rejeter tombèrent par terre. C’est dommage que cette belle recette soit perdue de nos jours.

(It is reported in the Supplement of the Council of Nicaea that the Fathers, when they had no idea how to determine which were the questionable or apocryphal books of the Old and New Testament, piled all of them disorderly on an altar and the books to be rejected fell to the ground. It’s a pity this nice method has fallen into disuse nowadays.)”

None of the accounts of the Council from the time give so much as a hint about any such event, so Voltaire was clearly working from much later sources. Some online detective work by Roger Pearse and others has untangled the story of this anecdote, and it appears Voltaire was working from an appendix to the Jesuit scholar Philippe Labbé’s Sanctissima concilia (1671), which is the “supplement” mentioned in the quote above. But the ultimate source seems to be an anonymous medieval Byzantine work, the Vetus Synodikon , which gave an account of the major synods and councils of the Church up to around 887 AD. This work became available in western Europe in the early seventeenth century and so seems to be where whole story came from. Un Synodikon account of Nicaea concludes:


“The canonical and apocryphal books it distinguished in the following manner: in the house of God the books were placed down by the holy altar then the Council asked the Lord in prayer that the inspired works be found on top and – as in fact happened – the spurious on the bottom.”


This ninth century miracle story is only found in this one work and is not referenced in any earlier material on the Council of Nicaea. So it appears to have found its way via its publication by the Lutheran theologian Johannes Pappus (1549-1610) to Philippe Labbé’s appendix and thus to Voltaire. And, thanks to the popularity of Voltaire’s work across Europe, his quip about this miraculous selection of books at Nicaea has given rise to the whole myth.

Constantine’s Bible

Despite the fact that the process of establishing the canon of the Bible began long before Constantine was born and continued after he died and despite him playing no part in it at the Council of Nicaea or anywhere else, the myth continues. The idea that the Bible was selected by a wicked politician for various nefarious purposes is just too appealing to many people. And those alleged nefarious purposes include everything from suddenly imposing a divine Jesus on Christianity (according to Dan Brown and his kooky source Holy Blood Holy Grail) to covering up Jesus’ New Age beliefs in reincarnation and Indian mysticism (according to that great scholar, Shirley MacLaine). But it seems the baseless origins and the crackpot supporters of this silly idea don’t matter to the guys at “Philosophical Atheism”. Not that any of them checked on this whole thing anyway.

A few of those who are devoted to the whole “Constantine created the Bible” myth have been forced to admit that there is no direct evidence linking the Council of Nicaea to the formation of the canon, so they cling to two pieces of evidence to try to salvage the idea. The first is a fifth century reference by Jerome in his Prologue to Judith where he notes the Old Testament book of Judith was “found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures”, which they try to argue means the Council did have some kind of discussion on the make up of the canon. Unfortunately Jerome is simply noting that Judith was considered scriptural in that it was referred to in the deliberations of the Council.

Alternatively, they point to an account by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Konstantīna dzīve detailing how the emperor commissioned him to oversee the copying and production of 50 copies of “the sacred Scriptures”. Exactly which “sacred Scriptures” is not specified, so it’s unknown if this refers to the Old Testament, some canon of the New Testament or both. But this request (and another one made to Athanasius of Alexandria around the same time) simply reflects the fact that such an enterprise was so massively expensive that it took Imperial sponsorship to fund it and it seems to be one of many acts of patronage of Christianity by Constantine, not some attempt at establishing a canon of his own. As has already been shown above, the canon was well on the way to being established well before this anyway.
Fact Checking Memes?

So the silly meme posted without the faintest whiff of scepticism or critical analysis by the so-called rationalists of “Philosophical Atheism” is a crackpot myth peddled by New Agers based on an eighteenth century joke and ninth century folk tale. It’s presented by a Black Revisionist kook, along with other pseudo historical conspiracist nonsense and some appalling grammar and syntax. The obvious question to ask, therefore, is why the hell “Philosophical Atheism” posted this laughable junk? Simple – because it’s anti-Christian. The New Atheist ideologues at “Philosophical Atheism” don’t care about facts, reason, logic or scepticism. They are just fanatics who post whatever tickles their emotional and irrational prejudices. Much like many religious believers, ironically enough.

Edit 23.05.17: After making detailed critical comments on this and other pseudo historical memes on the so-called “Philosophical Atheism” Facebook group I have now been banned from the group, blocked from commenting and all my many detailed comments have been erased. Thus another great victory has been won for “rationalism” and “free thought”.


1. Biomedical Methodology

One way to parse the groups of Hippocratic writers revolves around their geographical origins: Cos vs. Cnidos. Though this classification is controversial, it is useful (whether one accepts the literal geographical demarcation) to mark some clear distinctions in the Hippocratic body of writing. It appears to be the case that the Cos writers sought to create general biomedical “laws” that for the most part would give the explanation for why someone was sick. Any physician might make reference to these “laws” and thereby have an etiology for the disease, and by extension a strategy for treatment.

A. The Four Humors

The most historically prominent theoretical scheme of the Coan writers was the doctrine of the four humors of the body: blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile (or sometimes serum). Health was defined as the balance of the four humors. Disease was defined as the imbalance of the humors. When imbalance occurred, then the physician might intervene by making a correction to bring the body back into balance. For example, if the individual were too full of phlegm (making her phlegmatic or lethargic), then the phlegm must be countered. Citrus fruit was thought to be a counter-acting agent. Thus, if one feels lethargic, increasing one’s citrus intake will re-create balance. The treatment is, in fact, generally effective. Moderns might describe the therapy differently by ascribing the effect to vitamin-C, phosphorus, and natural sugar. This example illustrates the scope of the Hippocratic physician in this context: something like a cross between the modern roles of an herbalist dietician and a personal trainer. Nonetheless, the cures that were dictated by the four humor theory seemed to work well enough for this theory to extend to the nineteenth century (in various guises).

B. An Ancient Debate: Are General Causal Theories Beneficial?

Other biomedical writers–some say from Cnidos–held that strict empirical principles did not allow scientists to go far beyond the data. It was a better methodology for the biomedical practitioner to stay as close as possible to the data that were before him. This meant that each patient would be seen in her particularity. Such a method required careful trial and error observation and only slight manipulation of the patient in the form of treatment.

There was a great conflict in the ancient world concerning the status of observational conclusions (the empirically concrete). Should they be given in their specificity and remain as disparate, individual accounts, or should they be grouped and more general principles drawn from them? In this instance it was very much in dispute whether it was better to set out individual reports of particular illnesses (case studies) or to try to draw general rules from the particulars.

Take, for example Epidēmijas III:

THE MORTIFICATION OF THE GANGRENE. If the gangrene mortifies itself there is a head pain and frequently a scratchy throat the sick limb loses sensation, a feeling of cold comes to the head and the affected limb sweats. He suddenly loses his speech and blows blood from his nose as he becomes pale. If the disease takes hold of the patient with a weak force, he recovers the discharged blood. If the disease takes him with a strong force, he dies promptly. In this case one induces sneezing by pleasant substances one evacuates by the upper and lower. Alternatively those odors will be a little active. The soup will be light and hot. Wine is absolutely forbidden. (Epidēmijas III, Littré 7, p. 123)

In this passage one is left merely with symptoms and treatment. But when one practices medicine in this way there are severe restrictions. For the disease is seen as a collection of symptoms. The cure can only be guessed at unless it has been previously written down in a manual. When a physician is confronted with a novel disease he must find a similar set of symptoms and use that treatment. This aspect of the “trial and error” method brought harsh rebuke from Galen.

The point is that they [the Cnidians] looked at the varieties of symptoms which change for many reasons and failed to consider the specificity of the dispositions, as did Hippocrates, who used for their discovery a method only by using which, one can find the number of diseases . . . . Hippocrates censures the Cnidian physicians for their ignorance of the genera and species of diseases, and he points out the divisions by which what seems to be one becomes many by being divided. (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum 5.9.1, pp. 121-22 Claudii Galeni De Placitis Hippocratis et Platonis, red. I. Mueller (Lipsiae, 1874), p. 776)

C. Prognosis and Treatment

What was it that made the Cnidians different from the Coan writers? This can be found by examining the two steps in any medical practice: Prognosis and Treatment. In the Coan work, On Prognosis, the writer suggests that prognosis consists in knowing the patient’s condition in the past, present, and the future. Now how could a physician know this? Well, this could also have been part of a handbook catalogued through similar case studies. The practitioner could memorize each individual description. Next, the practitioner could add to this his own experience. But the problem is that each case is individual. It possesses “nature” only in the sense of possessing a unique set of properties. The practitioner would not be in a good position to treat novel cases. When confronted with a novel case, the practitioner is left with seeking līdzīgi cases. The implied premise is that similar cases call for similar remedies. The more the experience, the more refined the practitioner can be in balancing similar cases with the remedies.

Obviously, much rides on the word, ‘similar.’ Is a rich body of knowledge enough? Is it not also requisite to have a classification procedure, which itself implies rules of classification. And how does one select and justify such rules? It would seem that we are pressed backwards toward archai, starting points for some axiomatic system (à la Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics, I, i-ii).

Such an alternative to the empiricist program aims at establishing a theory of causes that underlie individual cases. These causes such as the “hot,” “cold,” “wet,” and “dry” or “the four humors” are more general because they seek to describe a different sense of the nature of disease. ‘Nature’ in this context refers to the sort of condition that comes from observations based upon the individuality of actual patients. For here we are interested in the genera and species of the disease in question. Such an exercise creates a classification of veidi of diseases.

But for this classification not to be based upon accidental characteristics, it is requisite that it include the causal factors that operate to bring about the disease in the first place. This is really the foundational vai causal network that is responsible for the disease’s very existence. Such an understanding of “nature” moves away from individuals and their “similarities” toward the theoretical. Understood in this way, the daba of disease is a regulating factor upon the prognosis of the physician. This nature must be understood in order to offer treatment. In this sense, nature is the overarching principles that give an account of the mechanism of the disease. What made the Coan writers so attractive to Galen was that they investigated various senses of nature while the Cnidians confined themselves only to the data as they presented themselves.

D. The Hippocratic Writings and Hellenistic Medicine

The Hippocratic writings were influential in the development of later biomedical practitioners. The three principal Hellenistic schools: Dogmatists, Methodists, and the Empirics all hearken back in various ways to the Hippocratic writings. Many debates in the Hippocratic writings (such as the “preformation” vs. “epigenesis” debate) are picked-up again and given a twist according to the predilections of the Hellenistic schools. Galen, himself, often cites Hippocrates, aka “the Hippocratic writers,” as the point of departure for his own theory building. Thus, it would be fair to say that not only were the Hippocratic writers the first systematic biomedical writers in the Western tradition, but also the most influential to later writers.


Secinājums

For thousands of years, the Old Testament has largely remained true to its original form. While we don’t know exactly how the original Hebrew books were selected, we have every reason to believe that the decisions were guided by the same Holy Spirit who inspired the dozens of Old Testament authors. Together, these written works represent a body of oral history that the ancient Hebrews relied upon, lived out, and remembered daily.

Learn more in John Walton and Andrew Hill's Old Testament Survey course.

Books and articles that equip you for deeply biblical thinking and ministry.

Guide to the Attributes of God


Skatīties video: ПОПАЛ в КАБИНУ И ОФИГЕЛ! FREIGHTLINER CLASSIC - Американский грузовик изнутри (Augusts 2022).