Roger Pearse

If you have evidence for your claims, produce it. Can you even name the "committee" you assert did this?

steve_bnk

It is a generalization. What was passed down to us as the cannon for Christians was part of the emergence of Catholicism as the state religion. Christianity went from diverse groups of Christians with differnce in beliefs to a dogmatic theology useful to a centralized religion and state for Rome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblica...cion.27s_Canon

'....Marcion's Canon
Marcion of Sinope was the first Christian, albeit heretical, leader in recorded history to propose and delineate a canon[citation needed] (about 140 AD) which included 10 epistles from St. Paul as well as parts of the Gospel of....'

'....Apostolic Fathers
A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c. 160.[16] By the early 200s, Origen of Alexandria may have been using the same 27 books found in modern New Testament editions, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation (see also Antilegomena).[17] Likewise by 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.....'


It is interesting that many Christians appear to think that the New Testament was perhaps dictated or ordained by Christ and unaware that there were nany more Chrtistian writings.. It was not. It is what was picked and chosen to fit a centralized and controlled theology not subject to ineterpretation by the laity.

What became heretical was in large part due to the battle foi domminance and control.

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html

Comitee

'...DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,--thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,--print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author's name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed; and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned. ......'

Organized Christianity as we know it started around here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_C...n_of_canon_law

'....The Biblical Canon
A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the Biblical Canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the Biblical Canon at the council at all.[45][46] The development of the Biblical Canon took several centuries, and was nearly complete by the time the Muratorian fragment was written, over 150 years before the council. Regional councils such as the Synod of Hippo in 393 and Council of Carthage in 397 gave formal recognition to the canon, but by then the canon was well ingrained in the church. Additionally no discussion or decisions regarding Gnostic Gospels were made by the council...'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Canon

'...The canons listed below are usually considered "closed" (i.e., books cannot be added or removed),[3] reflecting a belief that public revelation has ended and thus the inspired texts may be gathered into a complete and authoritative canon.[4] By contrast, an "open canon" permits the addition of books through the process of continuous revelation.

These canonical books have been developed through debate and agreement by the religious authorities of their respective faiths. Believers consider these canonical books to be inspired by God or to express the authoritative history of the relationship between God and His people. Books, such as the Jewish-Christian Gospels, excluded from the canon are considered non-canonical, but many disputed books considered non-canonical or even apocryphal by some are considered Biblical apocrypha or Deuterocanonical or fully canonical by others. There are differences between the Jewish and Christian Biblical canons, and between the canons of different Christian denominations. The differing criteria and processes of canonization dictate what the communities regard as the inspired books...'


The debate goes on today. as far as can be seen neirther JC nor his disciples left a cogent set of teachings analogous to the Koran or Buddha.

The way I look at it JC was said to be a Jewish rabbai teaching from and quoting Jewish law and scripture. He did need to create anything.

The gentile interpretation comes largely from Paul. Christianity today is more aptly called Paulism.

Roger Pearse

I don't think this very simple question should be dodged. It isn't a "generalization" to say the canon was selected by committee -- it's a myth; and when stated firmly enough, a falsehood.

Are you really comfortable offering "Trent" as an answer?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

stephan huller

My favorite explanation to how the canon developed is Trobisch's First Edition of the New Testament. There are other explanations of course but what I like about Trobisch's work is the deceptive simplicity of his argument. He packs a lot of insight into a work that could be read by any one of our mothers (if they were inclined to read this sort of thing - my mother definitely not).

There is an editorial concept to the New Testament but as Trobisch notes it was established in the second century. Trobisch thinks Polycarp was the hand behind the canon; I say Irenaeus but I know from personal conversations with him that he allows for my possibility based on the available evidence.

steve_bnk

History is what it is.The selection process ocured over time with offical cannon determined by the RCC up through the reforamation..

If not how was the New Testament you read selected? Who and when? Can you trace it back to JC himself?

It really comes down to the Catholics who formulated a consistent theology in conjuntiion with selected wrtings.

The refornation was both about rejecting the pope an biblical content. Around the time of Henry 8th there were great disputes going on about what the bible would look like with several competing political/theological factions. Henery 8 is the perfect example of the bible being a piece in the game of politics.

Our iconic pilgrims were fleeing the aftermath.

The RCC controled the bible for dear life. Translating into common language such that the many could read and interpret could be punishable by death. During the reformatioin bible smuggling was a business.

What the cannonical bible is in Christianity was always tied in part to the politics both secular and religious.

Trent serves as a reference point for European/Western Christianity.

Considering there are differnces, they can't all be right...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

Roger Pearse

I don't think this needs any comment from me.

steve_bnk

As my aunt once told me as a kid 'Tell the truth and shame the devil'.

Tell the truth, on what do you base your concept of the origins of the bible you use? If you haven't thought it through before, just say so. I don't think god will think any less of you. If you are afraid of finding sometghing so revealing as to negate your faith fear not. There is no good academic proof either way.

'yea though i walk through the valley of the shadow of death i will fear no evil'...how can words possibly harm your faith?

I use the Oxford NSRV Bible and its rather lengthy commentary as my reference. i've also read several histories of Christianity, both written by Christians.

Jump over to The Orgins of Modern Christianity

Doug Shaver

It's a metaphor. Church authorities reached a consensus as to which writings were to be regarded as authoritative. It took a while, from sometime in the late second century until around the middle of the fourth.

If your point is that there was never a particular group of authorities whose opinion on the issue was accepted by all Christians, then I agree. That never happened. From that perspective, it could well be argued that a canon has never existed.

Doug Shaver

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html

Roger Pearse

Is not evidence for the claims made, as well you know.