Chris Weimer

Julian - hold on, I'll send it to you.

Ruhan

Did they believe that the canonization at the council of Nicea would bring the NT into question? If so then they will find that the actual history of the canonization of scripture is much worse. I developed an outline on my site, however Carrier was sited as one of the sources:

http://www.atheisttoolbox.com/fcb3.htm

Chris Weimer

Sorry Julian, JSTOR doesn't carry it. I checked my databases - all results turned up nil. Sorry pal. I do have the abstact:

Michael R. Jordan

TY. I have no idea whether they think the NT would be brought into question because of this but hardly see it as paramount because they do not carry any sort of Christian belief. I suspect they do not wish to entertain the idea that they upheld a myth of some sort.:huh:

Ruhan

Then simply ask them for their evidence in believing this as we have none. We know that they could not agree on a canon and there was no official canon announced following the council. If they want to make a historical claim then they would have to provide evidence for it.

The only evidence we have of any type of canon during this period comes from Eusebius who published his own canon, which was adopted by Constantine.

mountainman

And by all the following councils, by default and precedent.
Consequently, it is quite reasonable to consider that under
Constantine and Eusebius, the foundations were cemented
in regard to anything canonical, by physically bindings.


Pete Brown

Roger Pearse

This does not seem correct.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ruhan

Roger,

I was specifically referring to the period during which the council of Nicea took place. In other words we have no records of an orthodox canon being announced by anyone else attending this council at this time.

Obviously we know of canons before this event.

Regards,

Ruhan

Roger Pearse

You wrote: "The only evidence we have of any type of canon during this period comes from Eusebius who published his own canon, which was adopted by Constantine."

I was suggesting that Eusebius published no canon; Constantine adopted no canon.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

THE CANON OF EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (A.D. 265-340)
adopted by Constantine (under sponsorship deal) and
physically bound in the (at least 50) Constantine Bibles:


From Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History,
in. xxv. I-7.

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. (2) After this must be reckoned the Epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former Epistle of John, and likewise the Epistle of Peter must be recognized. After these must be put, if it really seems right, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. (3) These, then, [are to be placed] among the recognized books. Of the disputed books, which are nevertheless familiar to the majority, there are extant the Epistle of James, as it is called; and that of Jude; and the second Epistle of Peter; and those that are called the Second and Third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. (4) Among the spurious books must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the Shepherd, as it is called, and the Apocalypse of Peter; and, in addition to these, the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the Teachings of the Apostles, as it is called. And, in addition, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem right. (This last, as I said, is rejected by some, but others count it among the recognized books.) (5) And among these some have counted also the Gospel of the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews who have accepted Christ take a special pleasure. (6) Now all these would be among the disputed books; but nevertheless we have felt compelled to make this catalogue of them, distinguishing between those writings which, according to the tradition of the Church, are true and genuine and recognized, from the others which differ from them in that they are not canonical [lit., en-testamented], but disputed, yet nevertheless are known to most churchmen. [And this we have done] in order that we might be able to know both these same writings and also those which the heretics put forward under the name of the apostles; including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or even of some others besides these, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles. To none of these has any who belonged to the succession of ecclesiastical writers ever thought it right to refer in his writings. (7) Moreover, the character of the style also is far removed from apostolic usage, and the thought and purport of their contents are completely out of harmony with true orthodoxy and clearly show themselves that they are the forgeries of heretics. For this reason they ought not even to be reckoned among the spurious books, but are to be cast aside as altogether absurd and impious.