Restoring the Original Bible - by Ernest L. Martin

[student1]

Hello back, student.

Please note that in my first post above I stated two arguments:

1. Martin did not "restore" C because it did not exist before him. Only "A" and B existed.
2. The Jews wanted A to have 22 books but they never settled down at it.

Argument 1 was the center and reason of my post. Of course 2 can be discussed and is important too, but I only mentioned it as a secondary note.

Please note that in your reply you left out any mention of argument 1. Is it not a simple and straightforward idea?

We can move on to point 2 after point 1 is clear.

I think point 1 is clear. Dr. Martin shows that both the OLD and the NEW in their original order was not what Jerome and modern day publishers give us. Dr. Martin is talking about restoring both the OLD and NEW to their original order, and placing those restored volumes into one volume for us today. He is not talking about restoring a one volume Bible, as we have today, that had both the Old and New in their correct order. This is not, I feel, pertinent to the question. i.e. to claim that Dr. Martin is "restoring" a single volume that did not exist. This is to me a diversion to avoid what Dr. Martin is actually saying. Restore to the world the OLD and the NEW in their correct and original order in ONE volume.

One may not agree at this point what the order is. And, that is the question, not is Martin trying to restore something that didn't exist. If one restores the Hebrew Scriptures into their original order, that is a restoration over against what we are presented today. If one restores the Greek Scriptures into their original order over against what we have today, than that is a restoration. The combining of the then restored books into a single volume is not the question at all.

To say the Jews "wanted" 22 books is a personal comment and not a fact. What is a fact is that they originally had their books combined into 22. It had nothing to do with what they "wanted".

[Richard Amiel McGough]

No, you are right. The Wheel is not a "new" arangement of the ORDER of the books of the Bible, since it is the old and not accurate order of Jerome and others.

I notice you added "and others" to Martin's false assertion that it was a "new arrangement of Jerome." Here is bit of what he wrote:

This new arrangement of Jerome had the advantage in Jerome's eyes and to some western theologians of exalting the position of Paul (the apostle to the Gentiles) to a primal authority of rank above the Jewish apostles who were commissioned to go to the Jews. Jerome's new and radical placement of Paul’s epistles before the seven "Catholic Epistles" in his Latin Vulgate also placed the Book of Romans and the city of Rome (the city to whom the first epistle of Paul's collection of books was sent) into a first rank position ahead of the Jewish apostles who once had Jerusalem for their top rank position. This rearrangement by Jerome (to exalt the Gentile section of the Christian Church, and the city of Rome in particular) does not have the slightest justification when one consults the majority of the early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. -- RTOB, chapter 1

Here is what I wrote in response to his absurd assertions:

From a scholastic point of view, Martin's errors are simply incomprehensible. He cited no documentary evidence for any of his assertions about Jerome's motivations. He seems to be pretending to be some kind of "psychic archeologist" who can read the undocumented secret motivations hidden in the hearts of men long dead. And even if his accusations were true, they would not prove which order was "proper" because such ad hominem argumentation is logically fallacious. Yet those errors are nothing compared with his assertion that the order of the Vulgate was a "new arrangement of Jerome" and that the setting of the Pauline before the Catholic epistles was a "new and radical placement." Neither statement could be further from the truth. Jerome was born around 347 AD and it is a documented fact that the pattern that became the basis of his Vulgate had been already established some 23 years earlier when Eusebius wrote his Ecclesiastical History III.25 around the year 324 AD:

At this point it seems appropriate to summarize the writings of the New Testament which have already been mentioned. In the first place must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul

I would be very interested if you would like to respond to this evidence that proves Martin made fundamental errors in the most basic elements of biblical scholarship.

Richard

[Craig.Paardekooper]

My point is that the Bible Wheel pattern simply does not exist prior to Protestant times. The pattern only emerges with -

1. the Protestant divisions of the OT
2. the Protestant divisions of the NT
3. the chapter and verse divisions of both

To the extent that the pattern could not have been created by human hands, it stands as a modern miracle.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

My point is that the Bible Wheel pattern simply does not exist prior to Protestant times. The pattern only emerges with -

1. the Protestant divisions of the OT
2. the Protestant divisions of the NT
3. the chapter and verse divisions of both

To the extent that the pattern could not have been created by human hands, it stands as a modern miracle.

Hi Craig,

I agree that it is a "modern miracle" in that it was not fully realized as a "single object" until the 66 Book Protestant Bible was published, but we should remember that the Bible Wheel has been implicit in the Vulgate since the 5th century because the deuterocanonical books have always been recognized as such and the order of the protocanonical books was the same (as far as I know) as the modern Bible.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The Bible Wheel is not, as you say a new arrangement, but the old arrangement of Jerome which is incorrect.

In actual fact, although I "believe" you feel the arrangement of Dr. Martin, distorts or negates your Bible Wheel, I don't feel that way. I personally believe that when you finally get it you will find your "corrected" Bible wheel, after seeing correctly what Dr. Martin says, will establish your Bible Wheel beyond your own understanding at the moment. I am not arguing against it, I am arguing for it, and a much expanded understanding of it.

Hi student1,


You have brought up a very important point. It is the essence of the Bible Wheel Challenge, which I state as follows:

THE BIBLE WHEEL CHALLENGE asserts that the Christian canon is truly perfect in the twofold sense that

1. No rearrangement of its books would improve upon the patterns discovered on the Bible Wheel,
2. Any rearrangement would cause an obvious degradation of existing patterns.

The challenge is for the opponent to suggest a rearrangement and present arguments for why such a change would produce patterns equal to or superior to those presently seen in the Bible Wheel. This challenge simultaneously proves the invincibility of the Bible Wheel even as it demonstrates the vacuity of the skeptics canard that "patterns mean nothing because they can be found in anything." It is an extremely powerful challenge because it can not be refuted without interacting with the data, and the data is the touchstone that proves the Bible Wheel.

Your suggestion fits the challenge to a "T." If I were to follow Martin's order, we would arrive at a "Spoke 1" containing the following three books:

1. Genesis
2. Zephaniah
3. James

This is to be contrasted and compared with the three books on Spoke 1 of the genuine Bible Wheel:

1. Genesis: The First Book of the Law
2. Isaiah: The First Book of the Prophets
3. Romans: The First Book of the New Testament Epistles

The overwhelming and incontrovertible superiority of the genuine order of Scripture is self-evident to anyone who knows anything about the Bible. I have documented this in numerous articles. Here are three:

• Isaiah - the Supreme Prophet of the Sovereign Lord
• Isaiah - the Romans of the Old Testament
• Romans - The Cathedral of the Christian Faith

Of course, you are most welcome to challenge my assertion ....

Richard

[student1]

I notice you added "and others" to Martin's false assertion that it was a "new arrangement of Jerome." Here is bit of what he wrote:

This new arrangement of Jerome had the advantage in Jerome's eyes and to some western theologians of exalting the position of Paul (the apostle to the Gentiles) to a primal authority of rank above the Jewish apostles who were commissioned to go to the Jews. Jerome's new and radical placement of Paul’s epistles before the seven "Catholic Epistles" in his Latin Vulgate also placed the Book of Romans and the city of Rome (the city to whom the first epistle of Paul's collection of books was sent) into a first rank position ahead of the Jewish apostles who once had Jerusalem for their top rank position. This rearrangement by Jerome (to exalt the Gentile section of the Christian Church, and the city of Rome in particular) does not have the slightest justification when one consults the majority of the early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. -- RTOB, chapter 1

Here is what I wrote in response to his absurd assertions:

From a scholastic point of view, Martin's errors are simply incomprehensible. He cited no documentary evidence for any of his assertions about Jerome's motivations. He seems to be pretending to be some kind of "psychic archeologist" who can read the undocumented secret motivations hidden in the hearts of men long dead. And even if his accusations were true, they would not prove which order was "proper" because such ad hominem argumentation is logically fallacious. Yet those errors are nothing compared with his assertion that the order of the Vulgate was a "new arrangement of Jerome" and that the setting of the Pauline before the Catholic epistles was a "new and radical placement." Neither statement could be further from the truth. Jerome was born around 347 AD and it is a documented fact that the pattern that became the basis of his Vulgate had been already established some 23 years earlier when Eusebius wrote his Ecclesiastical History III.25 around the year 324 AD:

At this point it seems appropriate to summarize the writings of the New Testament which have already been mentioned. In the first place must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul

I would be very interested if you would like to respond to this evidence that proves Martin made fundamental errors in the most basic elements of biblical scholarship.

Richard

Richard,
I thoroughly enjoy your use of words that prejudice the reader's mind before they read what you say. I.e., making you appear to know more than the person you criticize. As in, "Martin's ABSURD". Absurd to whom? To the reader? How can they know that until they do their own full research to prove whether or not you yourself are correct. If your use of such vocabulary is totally permissible, then perhaps I could use the same word in speaking of your "absurd" pseudo-knowledgeable understanding of this matter. I doubt that you would like that because you would recognize immediately that that is totally unfair. So, I won't use it. However you are incorrect in your assessment of Dr. Martin's work. In fact, I highly suggest that everyone interested in this information, or thread to actually go get a copy of the book and read it. It can be downloaded at: http://www.askelm.com

Let's start with this first. IF Jerome's is not a "new" arrangement, then WHY does he present us a "new" order of the Old Testament books when he himself writes there were 22. As in "WE...." acknowledge the books as 22?

I'm sure you can come up with reason. Be that as it may, Dr. Martin's work is not absurd, and is more accurate than you seem to understand. Have you read the full book, from beginning to end? Have you read his references? Have you then read others who comment on the book numbers and orders? I suspect not, but see, I don't know what you really have read yet.

Anyway, for the moment, let's stick with just the 22 books. Who, besides Jerome stated that there were in reality 22 books? Not Jewish sources, but Christian sources? Well:

1. Melito, 170
2. Origen, 210
3. Hilary of Poiters, 360
4. Athanasius, 365
5. Council of Laodicea. 343-391
6. Cyril of Jerusalem, 386
7. Gregory of Nazinzus
8. Epiphanius, 400
9. Rufinus, 410
10. Jerome, 410

So, up till Jerome, and including him, there are a minimum of ten sources for the 22, not counting the others that came after Jerome.

In spite of that, Jerome followed the LXX 39 books and the Apocrypha's 14 books. Protestants have continued to follow Jerome's "sanctioned?" order of the OT.

[student1]

My point is that the Bible Wheel pattern simply does not exist prior to Protestant times. The pattern only emerges with -

1. the Protestant divisions of the OT
2. the Protestant divisions of the NT
3. the chapter and verse divisions of both

To the extent that the pattern could not have been created by human hands, it stands as a modern miracle.

Because of the nature of the Scriptures being a "living" book, many arrangements of it fit together. It is also a book of numbers, letters, patterns, etc. For instance, modern Bibles are in the 66 book number order, i.e. the "work of man" trying to make the Bible into their dream of perfection.

6 is the number of man most say. And, others say to add a 6, as in 66, shows an attempt of men to turn something into perfection as they, men see it. And, others say that 666 is the ultimate attempt of man to reach perfection in competition with the Creator and His Son, to show men are not so dumb after all.

Further, on can put the books of the Bible into chronological order and the reader gets great information out of it and a further insight of how things occurred over the millenia. Or, one can combine the four Evangels into one book in a side by side comparison, and we gain much. And, some have combined all four into one version text to show how clear, accurate and full the story is when ALL words are combined. As in, The Llife of Christ in Stereo, etc.

Then there is the Seamless Bible which intersperses Paul's writings etc in the Book of acts when the timeline is felt to call for it. And, more is learned. Do any of these negate the 22 book order of the original Bible before it began to be translated? I think not. That 22 book order is for a reason. It was not put in that order by happenstance.

The same can be said of the NT. It has been placed in several different orders, and the reader gains insight. Does that negate the order that is the most ancient, i.e. with the General Epistles after Acts? No. But, the argument is, this order must be absurd because it doesn't agree with what we have today. But, this most ancient order was there for a reason. And, I can tell you that when one begins studying this order of both OT and NT they begin to gain insights the won't get by the LXX/Jerome order.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,
I thoroughly enjoy your use of words that prejudice the reader's mind before they read what you say. I.e., making you appear to know more than the person you criticize. As in, "Martin's ABSURD". Absurd to whom? To the reader? How can they know that until they do their own full research to prove whether or not you yourself are correct. If your use of such vocabulary is totally permissible, then perhaps I could use the same word in speaking of your "absurd" pseudo-knowledgeable understanding of this matter. I doubt that you would like that because you would recognize immediately that that is totally unfair. So, I won't use it. However you are incorrect in your assessment of Dr. Martin's work. In fact, I highly suggest that everyone interested in this information, or thread to actually go get a copy of the book and read it. It can be downloaded at: http://www.askelm.com

Hey there student1,

My use of the word "absurd" has nothing to do with an attempt to "prejudice" anyone's perceptions "before they have done their own research." If anything, that word is an understatement of Martin's egregious and inexcusable errors. If he were not presenting himself as a teacher and "restorer" of the "orginal Bible" then the judgment would not be so severe.

James 3:1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.

Let's start with this first. IF Jerome's is not a "new" arrangement, then WHY does he present us a "new" order of the Old Testament books when he himself writes there were 22. As in "WE...." acknowledge the books as 22?

His acknowledgement of the 22 books has nothing to do with the question of whether or not he introduced a new order.

You seem to be avoiding the two ton elephant in the middle of the room. We have solid historical evidence that the order existed before Jerome was born. Therefore, Martin's statements on this matter are simply false. If you want to dispute this point, you will need to dispute the records that show the order existed before Jerome was born.

I'm sure you can come up with reason. Be that as it may, Dr. Martin's work is not absurd, and is more accurate than you seem to understand. Have you read the full book, from beginning to end? Have you read his references? Have you then read others who comment on the book numbers and orders? I suspect not, but see, I don't know what you really have read yet.

Yes! I read his book and it's references! It appears that you have yet to read my refutation of his book. Here is an excerpt where I discuss his "references" -

Given the overwhelming evidence that the actual historical documents exhibit nothing like the uniform sequence that Martin suggested in his second paragraph, we could wonder if he was simply ignorant of the evidence, or if perhaps his zeal had caused him to accidentally overstate his case in that one instance. Unfortunately, neither provides a viable solution to the enigma of his error. We know he did not "accidentally" overstate his case because the thesis of his entire book is that the order he advocates is the one and only "proper manuscript order." Indeed, he uses the phrase "proper manuscript order" or its equivalent ten times in chapter one to refer to his prefered sequence. A typical example is found in the eleventh paragraph of chapter one [my emphasis]:

Almost all the Greek-speaking ecclesiastical authorities from the areas of Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece refer to the books of the New Testament and they do so in the proper manuscript arrangement. Note in all cases that they position the seven 'Catholic Epistles' (from James to Jude) before those of the apostle Paul.

... [here he cited five witnesses that agree with him] ...

Further names could be cited in support of this prevalent view among eastern churchmen. These included Cassiodorus, Nicephorus and also the Syrian Peshitta Version of the New Testament.11 -- RTOB, chapter 1

The ignorant might be impressed by these eight witnesses, but those familiar with textual criticism recognize them as a small minority cherry-picked from a much larger set containing many variations. That Martin was aware of these facts is evident from his footnote numbered 11 which cites page 14 of James Moffatt's Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, (3rd ed. T&T Clark Ltd, 1981) where Moffatt presented a table listing a few of the more prominent variations in the manuscript sequences. The abreviation "Evv" stands for Evanglia (Gospels). Column "B" lists a few of the dominant documents with the traditional sequence of Gospels, Acts, Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Revelation, denoted "Evv, Acts, Paul, Cath, Apoc." This is the pattern we see in all modern Bibles. Martin's prefered order is presented in column "E":

See article for Moffett's Table of the various orders of early NT Manuscripts (or read online )

Martin cited information from this table, so we know he was not ignorant of the wide variations in the manuscript order. How then did he support his assertion that his was the one and only "proper" sequence? The answer is as simple as it is disturbing. Martin attributed the primary variation from his "proper" order to Jerome who "willfully devised" an alternate sequence "to exalt the so-called 'Gentile' epistles of the New Testament into a primal position over those which had 'Jewish' characteristics.'" He repeated this charge over and over and over again throughout his first chapter without ever producing any documentary evidence whatsoever. Here is an example from the seventh paragraph of chapter one [Martin's italics, my underlining]:

This new arrangement of Jerome had the advantage in Jerome's eyes and to some western theologians of exalting the position of Paul (the apostle to the Gentiles) to a primal authority of rank above the Jewish apostles who were commissioned to go to the Jews. Jerome's new and radical placement of Paul’s epistles before the seven "Catholic Epistles" in his Latin Vulgate also placed the Book of Romans and the city of Rome (the city to whom the first epistle of Paul's collection of books was sent) into a first rank position ahead of the Jewish apostles who once had Jerusalem for their top rank position. This rearrangement by Jerome (to exalt the Gentile section of the Christian Church, and the city of Rome in particular) does not have the slightest justification when one consults the majority of the early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. -- RTOB, chapter 1

From a scholastic point of view, Martin's errors are simply incomprehensible. He cited no documentary evidence for any of his assertions about Jerome's motivations. He seems to be pretending to be some kind of "psychic archeologist" who can read the undocumented secret motivations hidden in the hearts of men long dead.

Listen student, it would be a lot easier (and more interesting) if you would just read my refutation and then respond to what I have written. As it is, I'm just repeating myself because you have yet to inform yourself of that which you are opposing.

Anyway, for the moment, let's stick with just the 22 books. Who, besides Jerome stated that there were in reality 22 books? Not Jewish sources, but Christian sources? Well:

1. Melito, 170
2. Origen, 210
3. Hilary of Poiters, 360
4. Athanasius, 365
5. Council of Laodicea. 343-391
6. Cyril of Jerusalem, 386
7. Gregory of Nazinzus
8. Epiphanius, 400
9. Rufinus, 410
10. Jerome, 410

So, up till Jerome, and including him, there are a minimum of ten sources for the 22, not counting the others that came after Jerome.

In spite of that, Jerome followed the LXX 39 books and the Apocrypha's 14 books. Protestants have continued to follow Jerome's "sanctioned?" order of the OT.

It looks like you got that list from the article I wrote. Why are you telling me what I already know? That list has nothing to do with the question of whether or not Jerome invented a "new and radical order" of the books of the Bible.

Richard

[student1]

Neither statement could be further from the truth. Jerome was born around 347 AD and it is a documented fact that the pattern that became the basis of his Vulgate had been already established some 23 years earlier when Eusebius wrote his Ecclesiastical History III.25 around the year 324 AD:

At this point it seems appropriate to summarize the writings of the New Testament which have already been mentioned. In the first place must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul

[/INDENT]I would be very interested if you would like to respond to this evidence that proves Martin made fundamental errors in the most basic elements of biblical scholarship.

Richard

Here is the fuller quote of E.:
"1. Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels;
2 following them the Acts of the Apostles.
3. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; 4 next in order the extant former epistle of John, 5 and likewise the epistle of Peter, 6 must be maintained. 6a After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, "

I'd like for you who read this thread to look at the above carefully, and slowly. Then go to the full quote posted by Richard.

Now, notice this. IF we follow this reasoning, then Eusebius gives us something we don't accept today. I.e. An incomplete list of the accepted canon of the NT. Following his statement we should only have:

1. Evangels
2. Acts
3. Paul
4. I John
5. I Peter
6. Apocalypse/ Revelation.

Interestingly, if you read the whole thing, E. is giving us the "accepted" books of his day by the Latin Church, NOT the list of books that existed in the various Greek text manuscripts. And, if we continue to follow the above then our Bible today should be 39 OT books and 9 NT books. We know that is not correct.

So, quoting E. here does not answer the question. The manuscripts themselves, are found in the order Dr. Martin discovered, not created on his own. And, the highest of textual "producers" Tregelles, Lachmann, Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf, show the same. The ancient order within the manuscripts places the General Epistles after Acts, not Paul's. Now, on the other hand, it they are wrong on that, we ought to dump them as sources for they must have goofed on other parts of their works. We should return to the 9 books listed by E. and be happy with that, right?

Eusebius is simply giving his understanding at the time of what the Latin Church accepted. Even Augustine states that the canonization was done in the "days of the Apostles", not in the days after that. Again, please go to the url given by Richard and read what Eusebius wrote abut what he was giving us in this section of his writings.

[student1]

Hey there student1,

My use of the word "absurd" has nothing to do with an attempt to "prejudice" anyone's perceptions "before they have done their own research." If anything, that word is an understatement of Martin's egregious and inexcusable errors. If he were not presenting himself as a teacher and "restorer" of the "orginal Bible" then the judgment would not be so severe.

James 3:1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.

His acknowledgement of the 22 books has nothing to do with the question of whether or not he introduced a new order.

You seem to be avoiding the two ton elephant in the middle of the room. We have solid historical evidence that the order existed before Jerome was born. Therefore, Martin's statements on this matter are simply false. If you want to dispute this point, you will need to dispute the records that show the order existed before Jerome was born.


Yes! I read his book and it's references! It appears that you have yet to read my refutation of his book. Here is an excerpt where I discuss his "references" -

Given the overwhelming evidence that the actual historical documents exhibit nothing like the uniform sequence that Martin suggested in his second paragraph, we could wonder if he was simply ignorant of the evidence, or if perhaps his zeal had caused him to accidentally overstate his case in that one instance. Unfortunately, neither provides a viable solution to the enigma of his error. We know he did not "accidentally" overstate his case because the thesis of his entire book is that the order he advocates is the one and only "proper manuscript order." Indeed, he uses the phrase "proper manuscript order" or its equivalent ten times in chapter one to refer to his prefered sequence. A typical example is found in the eleventh paragraph of chapter one [my emphasis]:

Almost all the Greek-speaking ecclesiastical authorities from the areas of Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece refer to the books of the New Testament and they do so in the proper manuscript arrangement. Note in all cases that they position the seven 'Catholic Epistles' (from James to Jude) before those of the apostle Paul.

... [here he cited five witnesses that agree with him] ...

Further names could be cited in support of this prevalent view among eastern churchmen. These included Cassiodorus, Nicephorus and also the Syrian Peshitta Version of the New Testament.11 -- RTOB, chapter 1

The ignorant might be impressed by these eight witnesses, but those familiar with textual criticism recognize them as a small minority cherry-picked from a much larger set containing many variations. That Martin was aware of these facts is evident from his footnote numbered 11 which cites page 14 of James Moffatt's Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, (3rd ed. T&T Clark Ltd, 1981) where Moffatt presented a table listing a few of the more prominent variations in the manuscript sequences. The abreviation "Evv" stands for Evanglia (Gospels). Column "B" lists a few of the dominant documents with the traditional sequence of Gospels, Acts, Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Revelation, denoted "Evv, Acts, Paul, Cath, Apoc." This is the pattern we see in all modern Bibles. Martin's prefered order is presented in column "E":

See article for Moffett's Table of the various orders of early NT Manuscripts (or read online )

Martin cited information from this table, so we know he was not ignorant of the wide variations in the manuscript order. How then did he support his assertion that his was the one and only "proper" sequence? The answer is as simple as it is disturbing. Martin attributed the primary variation from his "proper" order to Jerome who "willfully devised" an alternate sequence "to exalt the so-called 'Gentile' epistles of the New Testament into a primal position over those which had 'Jewish' characteristics.'" He repeated this charge over and over and over again throughout his first chapter without ever producing any documentary evidence whatsoever. Here is an example from the seventh paragraph of chapter one [Martin's italics, my underlining]:

This new arrangement of Jerome had the advantage in Jerome's eyes and to some western theologians of exalting the position of Paul (the apostle to the Gentiles) to a primal authority of rank above the Jewish apostles who were commissioned to go to the Jews. Jerome's new and radical placement of Paul’s epistles before the seven "Catholic Epistles" in his Latin Vulgate also placed the Book of Romans and the city of Rome (the city to whom the first epistle of Paul's collection of books was sent) into a first rank position ahead of the Jewish apostles who once had Jerusalem for their top rank position. This rearrangement by Jerome (to exalt the Gentile section of the Christian Church, and the city of Rome in particular) does not have the slightest justification when one consults the majority of the early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. -- RTOB, chapter 1

From a scholastic point of view, Martin's errors are simply incomprehensible. He cited no documentary evidence for any of his assertions about Jerome's motivations. He seems to be pretending to be some kind of "psychic archeologist" who can read the undocumented secret motivations hidden in the hearts of men long dead.

Listen student, it would be a lot easier (and more interesting) if you would just read my refutation and then respond to what I have written. As it is, I'm just repeating myself because you have yet to inform yourself of that which you are opposing.


It looks like you got that list from the article I wrote. Why are you telling me what I already know? That list has nothing to do with the question of whether or not Jerome invented a "new and radical order" of the books of the Bible.

Richard

Actually, no I did not get anything from your article since it is not the source of the information we are discussing.

I have read your refutation. Bluntly, it is off the wall and is incorrect. You are trying to stand on an elephant created by you, which is not the discussion at all. You are trying to make a totally misunderstood and twisted statement into an elephant to ignore the other material. Leave Martin out of this and your absurd false criticisms of him, especially since he is now gone and cannot defend himself.

It is interesting that while you have been arguing against this information over the past year or two there are now Bibles coming out with this correct understanding of the order of the books. And, more are on the way, by the way.

However, I thank you for your interest in the subject and will suggest that all your arguments against will not stop the progress being made in the field of "manuscript order" Bible publications.

Now, as to your article of refutation, which it isn't. I started off by saying let's stick with one point because too many become confusing. Let's go back to one step at a time.

Whether or NOT you believe Dr. Martin's whole thesis falls because you falsely claim he stated he was restoring what was not in existance before, which is a diversion not a real fact against, can you disprove the first point?
Were the original number of the OT books 22 or not?

Can you disprove Josephus? Can you disprove Eusebius? Can you disprove that the oldest canon was 22 in Hebrew until changed when translated later into Greek, LXX? If not, then we must agree with 22 as the oldest accepted order by the Jews who were placed in charge of the oldest and original "oracles". And, can you disprove the Cat. Ency. which shows 22, the Jewish Ency. 22, and on and on? Please, stick to that one point first. Then, when you "disprove" the original 22, let's go on to tackle the 27 books of the NT and their textual order, not the partial "accepted order" of Eusebius, and the expanded changed order of Jerome.