Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 03-06-2010, 04:24 AM

The answer according to the "Home of the Jesus Seminar" ... "our sources are mute on this issue." and concludes with ...

the New Testament canon was settled for all practical purposes
when Constantine gave the order to create fifty bibles.
Their publication was papable evidence of the unity of the church
and hence the unity of the empire.

The Bible and Political Intrigue

Quote:

What happened between the time of Eusebius and the time of Athanasius to account for the last step in the direction of a consensus? How did the church decide finally on what to include and what to exclude? Unfortunately, our sources are mute on this issue. The Council of Nicea in 325 C.E. did not address the question, and neither Eusebius or Athanasius nor any other writer from the period tells us how this came about.

One development suggests an intriguingly plausible explanation. In 331 C.E. the Roman Emperor Constantine sent a letter , the text of which has survived, to Bishop Eusebius in Caesarea asking him to arrange for the production of fifty bibles. These books were to be skillfully executed copies of "the divine scriptures" on fine parchment for use in the churches of the new capitol of the Empire, Constantinople . Constantine not only promised to pay all of the expenses incurred in this project, he also provided two carriages to assure the swift shipment of the completed copies for his personal inspection.

Eusebius was an advisor to and confidant of the Emperor. He is widely regarded as the principal architect of the political philosophy of Constantine's reconstituted empire. He was a trusted ally of the Emperor in advocating and implementing the policies of the newly Christianized state. Eusebius knew that Constantine was concerned about the unity of the church and the unity of the state. Eusebius also knew that these new bibles prepared for the capital city would play an important role in the unity of the church. The inclusiveness of Athanasius' list has the look of political accommodation. It resolves the disagreement about the canonical status of Hebrews and Revelation by including both. It therefore seems plausible to conjecture that the addition of the last six books to the canonical list was not the result of historical or theological argument, but was prompted by the needs of the state. In other words, the New Testament canon was settled for all practical purposes when Constantine gave the order to create fifty bibles. Their publication was papable evidence of the unity of the church and hence the unity of the empire.

schriverja · 03-06-2010, 06:00 AM

Arguably, there was still disagreement at late as the 16th century over what should be canonical when Martin Luther produced the Luther Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible)... It seemed that Luther wanted to minimize the 'works and faith' doctrine compared to the 'faith alone'...

schriverja · 03-06-2010, 06:04 AM

To me, it seemed that those with the most influence (such as Martin Luther) essentially decided what to deem canonical. In other words, like most human institutions, it was political power that determined what made the cut and what didn't... The books/letters that supported the view of those with more political power were included, and the rest deemed heretical...

storytime · 03-06-2010, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

To me, it seemed that those with the most influence (such as Martin Luther) essentially decided what to deem canonical. In other words, like most human institutions, it was political power that determined what made the cut and what didn't... The books/letters that supported the view of those with more political power were included, and the rest deemed heretical...

That seems to sum it up pretty well, except for the fact that Jew and Gentile were still divided on issues such as the god-man Jesus.

Toto · 03-06-2010, 11:43 AM

If you like lectures, Yale U Prof Dale Martin talks about the formation of the canon in lecture 2 of his course.

"Mute" only refers to

Quote:

What happened between the time of Eusebius and the time of Athanasius to account for the last step in the direction of a consensus? How did the church decide finally on what to include and what to exclude?

It is only this last step in a small slice of time, post-Eusebius, where the sources are mute. Otherwise, they are quite vocal, even if unbelievable.

The description is quite at odds with your usual theory that Eusebius forged the entire canon and Constantine rammed it down the ex-pagan's throats by force of his imperial army. It describes a contentious group of Christians before Eusebius, with Constantine as a political mediator. Have you finally abandoned your conspiracy theory?

mountainman · 03-07-2010, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If you like lectures, Yale U Prof Dale Martin talks about the formation of the canon in lecture 2 of his course.

Motto of course = "Doubt everything".

Lecturer mentions "Papias" a great deal, and other "early christians" but does not mention that the story of these early authors, and the only extracts (or longer portions of their works) were preserved in Eusebius, and by Eusebius alone.

Finally, the closing words of the lecture are these:

"So in the end, the canon is a list of the winners in the historical debate to define orthodox christianity"

Quote:

"Mute" only refers to

Quote:

What happened between the time of Eusebius and the time of Athanasius to account for the last step in the direction of a consensus? How did the church decide finally on what to include and what to exclude?

It is only this last step in a small slice of time, post-Eusebius, where the sources are mute.

This last step in the closure of what has been regarded as the NT canon is nevertheless an essential step in the story.

Quote:

Otherwise, they are quite vocal, even if unbelievable.

But what you do not say, and what is a fact, is that all these sources are actually presented under the author Eusebius.

Quote:

The description is quite at odds with your usual theory that Eusebius forged the entire canon and Constantine rammed it down the ex-pagan's throats by force of his imperial army. It describes a contentious group of Christians before Eusebius, with Constantine as a political mediator.

It describes a Eusebian research sample of the "Nation of Christians" and these are contentious. They are contentious because Eusebius is not known to be an honest historian. They are quite questionable.

Quote:

Have you finally abandoned your conspiracy theory?

The cited article seems to suggest that the New Testament canon was settled for all practical purposes when Constantine gave the order [TO EUSEBIUS] to create fifty bibles. Their publication was papable evidence of the unity of the church and hence the unity of the empire.

haitu · 03-08-2010, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If you like lectures, Yale U Prof Dale Martin talks about the formation of the canon in lecture 2 of his course.

Is dr. martin a christian?

cool link by the way.

mountainman · 03-09-2010, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haitu

Is dr. martin a christian?

cool link by the way.

No idea, however he states that the motto for the entire course
is .... "Doubt everything". This may indicate that he is not.

archaeologist · 03-11-2010, 01:25 AM

Quote:

How did the church decide finally on what to include and what to exclude?

I am just going to address this question as the rest of the stuff posted just is not so and not worthy of reply.

Quote:

You have to understand that the canon was not the result of a series of contests involving church politics. The canon is rather the seperation that came because of the intuitive insight of Christian believers...When the announcement was made about the canon, it merely ratified waht the general sensitivity of the church had already determined. You see, the canon is a lit of authoritative books more than it s an authoritative list of books. These documents didn't derive their authority frombeing selected; each one was authoriitative before anyone gathered them together. ...For somebody now to say thatthe canon emrged only after councils and synods made these pronouncements would be like saying, 'let's get several academies of musicians to make a pronouncement that the music of Bach and Beethoven is wonderful.'

(strobel:1998:69 interview with the late Dr. Metzger)

Toto · 03-11-2010, 09:30 AM

Hi archaeologist - I thought you would claim that the Holy Spirit inspired the canon compilers?

Strobel has got Metzger to say something that he can spin into his Christian view of history, but Metzer doesn't really support the orthodox church view. For a more complete exposition of Metzger's work, see Richard Carrier's essay on the Formation of the New Testament Canon.

And here's a hint: when you are talking to skeptics, citing Lee Strobel will only lead to snorts of derision.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-06-2010, 06:00 AM	#2
schriverja Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Western Connecticut Posts: 1,545	Arguably, there was still disagreement at late as the 16th century over what should be canonical when Martin Luther produced the Luther Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible)... It seemed that Luther wanted to minimize the 'works and faith' doctrine compared to the 'faith alone'...

03-06-2010, 06:04 AM	#3
schriverja Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Western Connecticut Posts: 1,545	To me, it seemed that those with the most influence (such as Martin Luther) essentially decided what to deem canonical. In other words, like most human institutions, it was political power that determined what made the cut and what didn't... The books/letters that supported the view of those with more political power were included, and the rest deemed heretical...

03-11-2010, 09:30 AM	#10
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hi archaeologist - I thought you would claim that the Holy Spirit inspired the canon compilers? Strobel has got Metzger to say something that he can spin into his Christian view of history, but Metzer doesn't really support the orthodox church view. For a more complete exposition of Metzger's work, see Richard Carrier's essay on the Formation of the New Testament Canon. And here's a hint: when you are talking to skeptics, citing Lee Strobel will only lead to snorts of derision.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.