Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 01-30-2009, 11:38 PM

Consider the following:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Holding

.......the canon has been fixed, not by some 4th-century Church Council, but by the witness of history itself. As Metzger writes: "the canon cannot be remade - for the simple reason that history cannot be remade." (ibid., 275) The books that made it into the canon did so by means of "survival of the fittest" - it was not a random drawing with all participants beginning on equal footing. The church did not create the canon, "but came to recognize, accept, affirm, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church. If this fact is obscured, one comes into serious conflict not with dogma but with history."(ibid., 286) We may freely learn from the non-canonical literature [MacD.FormCB, 257], and it may be that some of that literature contains authentic strands of teaching by Jesus. Nevertheless, we have our canon.

What does "survival of the fittest" prove?

Switch89 · 01-30-2009, 11:43 PM

That's what I wonder. It seems that choosing the books of the new testament was a popularity contest. When you consider the fact that many of the Paulin epistles weren't actually written by Paul, you start to wonder whether the Holy Spirit has other errands to run during the council of Nicea, and couldn't be there to ensure the Bishops voted for the right books.

James Brown · 01-31-2009, 12:00 AM

Is this a case where they liked the books that supported the doctrines that they gleaned from the books that they liked?

dog-on · 01-31-2009, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Holding

.......the canon has been fixed, not by some 4th-century Church Council, but by the witness of history itself. As Metzger writes: "the canon cannot be remade - for the simple reason that history cannot be remade." (ibid., 275) The books that made it into the canon did so by means of "survival of the fittest" - it was not a random drawing with all participants beginning on equal footing. The church did not create the canon, "but came to recognize, accept, affirm, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church. If this fact is obscured, one comes into serious conflict not with dogma but with history."(ibid., 286) We may freely learn from the non-canonical literature [MacD.FormCB, 257], and it may be that some of that literature contains authentic strands of teaching by Jesus. Nevertheless, we have our canon.

What does "survival of the fittest" prove?

An over-abundance of Twinkies, I suppose...

andrewcriddle · 01-31-2009, 04:33 AM

The historical claim being made is that the Canon is the result of a strong consensus of a very wide group of Christians rather than the result of the decisions of a few 4th century bishops.

There are separate issues of whether this claim is true and whether or not if true it establishes the authority and validity of the canon as normally understood.

Andrew Criddle

Kapyong · 01-31-2009, 01:02 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch89

That's what I wonder. It seems that choosing the books of the new testament was a popularity contest. When you consider the fact that many of the Paulin epistles weren't actually written by Paul, you start to wonder whether the Holy Spirit has other errands to run during the council of Nicea, and couldn't be there to ensure the Bishops voted for the right books.

Switch,
The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with choosing the books of the Bible.
It's just an urban legend.

Kapyong

show_no_mercy · 01-31-2009, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch89

That's what I wonder. It seems that choosing the books of the new testament was a popularity contest. When you consider the fact that many of the Paulin epistles weren't actually written by Paul, you start to wonder whether the Holy Spirit has other errands to run during the council of Nicea, and couldn't be there to ensure the Bishops voted for the right books.

Switch,
The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with choosing the books of the Bible.
It's just an urban legend.

Kapyong

Then what was the point of Eusebius' "contested books"? Some of which made it into the final canon and some of which didn't?

aa5874 · 01-31-2009, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Holding

.......the canon has been fixed, not by some 4th-century Church Council, but by the witness of history itself. As Metzger writes: "the canon cannot be remade - for the simple reason that history cannot be remade." (ibid., 275) The books that made it into the canon did so by means of "survival of the fittest" - it was not a random drawing with all participants beginning on equal footing. The church did not create the canon, "but came to recognize, accept, affirm, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the Church. If this fact is obscured, one comes into serious conflict not with dogma but with history."(ibid., 286) We may freely learn from the non-canonical literature [MacD.FormCB, 257], and it may be that some of that literature contains authentic strands of teaching by Jesus. Nevertheless, we have our canon.

What does "survival of the fittest" prove?

But, Eusebius who wrote Church History gives a total different picture. There was some conflict. Many books of the canon were disputed.

Church History 3.3.1

Quote:

. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures.

And in Church History 3.24.17-18

Quote:

But of the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times. But the other two are disputed.

18. In regard to the Apocalypse, the opinions of most men are still divided. But at the proper time this question likewise shall be decided from the testimony of the ancients.

Again in Church History 3.25.3

Quote:

Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also 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.

The canon could not have created itself, it must have been created by the Church, unless J P Holding wants people to believe that God or his Son from heaven put the canon together.

Kapyong · 01-31-2009, 02:29 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Then what was the point of Eusebius' "contested books"? Some of which made it into the final canon and some of which didn't?

Pardon?
Some individuals, and some councils, DID discuss the canon.
But the Council of Nicea did NOT.

Kapyong

Joan of Bark · 01-31-2009, 07:24 PM

It was a case of 'survival of the most popular', not 'survival of the fittest'. In other words, which writings agreed with the theological views of those Christians with the most power. If it was accurate history that early Christians were most concerned with, why are there contradictions in the chronologies of Jesus' lineage, birthdate, age, trial, resurrection, etc?

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

01-30-2009, 11:43 PM	#2
Switch89 Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montgomery, AL Posts: 453	That's what I wonder. It seems that choosing the books of the new testament was a popularity contest. When you consider the fact that many of the Paulin epistles weren't actually written by Paul, you start to wonder whether the Holy Spirit has other errands to run during the council of Nicea, and couldn't be there to ensure the Bishops voted for the right books.

01-31-2009, 12:00 AM	#3
James Brown Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Texas, U.S. Posts: 5,844	Is this a case where they liked the books that supported the doctrines that they gleaned from the books that they liked?

01-31-2009, 04:33 AM	#5
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	The historical claim being made is that the Canon is the result of a strong consensus of a very wide group of Christians rather than the result of the decisions of a few 4th century bishops. There are separate issues of whether this claim is true and whether or not if true it establishes the authority and validity of the canon as normally understood. Andrew Criddle

01-31-2009, 07:24 PM	#10
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	It was a case of 'survival of the most popular', not 'survival of the fittest'. In other words, which writings agreed with the theological views of those Christians with the most power. If it was accurate history that early Christians were most concerned with, why are there contradictions in the chronologies of Jesus' lineage, birthdate, age, trial, resurrection, etc?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.