Did the Chruch of Rome select writings for the Bible?

[Zzyzx]

.
Did the Chruch of Rome select writings to be included in the Bible?

If so, might that indicate a bias toward writings that were acceptable to / in Rome and/or writings that were in accord with Roman practices and policies?

[bjs]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

You say that Roman Emperors influenced selection of materials for inclusion in the Bible.

You then quote three sources, none of which mention the Bible even indirectly. None of these quotes say anything about the selection of materials for the Bible or suggest in any way that a Roman Emperor influenced the process.

Can you explain your reasoning or why you think these sources support your position?

[Zzyzx]

.

You say that Roman Emperors influenced selection of materials for inclusion in the Bible.

CORRECTION: I made no such statement. If you think otherwise kindly quote my statement verbatim with URL.

Notice that the OP ASKS "Did the Church of Rome select writings for the Bible?" That is a QUESTION, not a declaration.

You then quote three sources, none of which mention the Bible even indirectly. None of these quotes say anything about the selection of materials for the Bible or suggest in any way that a Roman Emperor influenced the process.

Can you explain your reasoning or why you think these sources support your position?

From my post #14

Somebody (some people) made decisions about which writings to include in the Bible.

WHO (what people / group / organization) made those decisions?

Was the Church of Rome NOT involved in those decisions? Was the Roman Emperor NOT involved or influential?

Denying that the Church of Rome and Roman Emperors were not involved in selection of writings included in the Bible will require some fancy footwork.


For those not aware, there were MANY writings circulating in Christian churches during the first centuries. "Early Christian Writings" lists 228 of them: http://earlychristianwritings.com/

Very few of those writings were included in the Bible. WHO decided which to include and which to exclude?

[bjs]

You say that Roman Emperors influenced selection of materials for inclusion in the Bible.

CORRECTION: I made no such statement. If you think otherwise kindly quote my statement verbatim with URL.

Notice that the OP ASKS "Did the Church of Rome select writings for the Bible?" That is a QUESTION, not a declaration.

The entire quote verbatim is:

If there is doubt that Roman Emperors influenced selection of materials for inclusion in the Bible, we might consider:

This was followed by a series of three quotations, none of which broached the subject of Roman Emperors influencing what materials were included in the Bible.

You then quote three sources, none of which mention the Bible even indirectly. None of these quotes say anything about the selection of materials for the Bible or suggest in any way that a Roman Emperor influenced the process.

Can you explain your reasoning or why you think these sources support your position?

From my post #14

Somebody (some people) made decisions about which writings to include in the Bible.

WHO (what people / group / organization) made those decisions?

Was the Church of Rome NOT involved in those decisions? Was the Roman Emperor NOT involved or influential?

Denying that the Church of Rome and Roman Emperors were not involved in selection of writings included in the Bible will require some fancy footwork.


For those not aware, there were MANY writings circulating in Christian churches during the first centuries. "Early Christian Writings" lists 228 of them: http://earlychristianwritings.com/

Very few of those writings were included in the Bible. WHO decided which to include and which to exclude?

Historia did an admirable job answering these questions in post 16. No footwork, fancy or otherwise, was required.


I have no idea what the various lists of early Christians writing has to do with the topic at hand.

[Zzyzx]

.

You say that Roman Emperors influenced selection of materials for inclusion in the Bible.

CORRECTION: I made no such statement. If you think otherwise kindly quote my statement verbatim with URL.

Notice that the OP ASKS "Did the Church of Rome select writings for the Bible?" That is a QUESTION, not a declaration.

The entire quote verbatim is:

If there is doubt that Roman Emperors influenced selection of materials for inclusion in the Bible, we might consider:

Is it REALLY difficult to distinguish between:
"If there is doubt" + "we might consider"
vs.
Roman Emperors influenced selection of materials for inclusion in the Bible.

"If there is doubt that aliens abduct humans we might consider the writings at http://www.phenomenalog.com" is NOT saying that aliens abduct humans.

You then quote three sources, none of which mention the Bible even indirectly. None of these quotes say anything about the selection of materials for the Bible or suggest in any way that a Roman Emperor influenced the process.

Can you explain your reasoning or why you think these sources support your position?

From my post #14

Somebody (some people) made decisions about which writings to include in the Bible.

WHO (what people / group / organization) made those decisions?

Was the Church of Rome NOT involved in those decisions? Was the Roman Emperor NOT involved or influential?

Denying that the Church of Rome and Roman Emperors were not involved in selection of writings included in the Bible will require some fancy footwork.

For those not aware, there were MANY writings circulating in Christian churches during the first centuries. "Early Christian Writings" lists 228 of them: http://earlychristianwritings.com/

Very few of those writings were included in the Bible. WHO decided which to include and which to exclude?

Historia did and admirable job answering these questions in post 16. No footwork, fancy or otherwise, was required.

Correction: Historia did not identify any person or group who decided which writings were to be included in the Bible.

I have no idea what the various lists of early Christians writing has to do with the topic at hand.

Okay. I'll try to simplify. It is well documented that there were hundreds of writings circulating in early Christian churches. Of those hundreds, not all were included in the Bible. SOME (a few) of them were selected for inclusion in the Bible.

That would seem to indicate that SOMEONE (some people / groups) decided which writings were to be included and which were not. Two hundred plus reduced to ten (or whatever) indicates decisions were made. Does that make sense so far?

The OP asks WHO made the decisions. Apologists seem unable to identify who made the decisions (or perhaps hesitate to acknowledge that Roman Church officials and Roman Emperors were involved).

[historia]

Denying that the Church of Rome and Roman Emperors were not involved in selection of writings included in the Bible will require some fancy footwork.

No one has denied that the Church of Rome was involved in forming the canon. All orthodox Christian churches were involved in that process. What has been denied is that Roman emperors were involved.

And Let us be clear where the burden of proof lies on that point. If anyone wants to assert that Constantine or some other Roman emperor influenced which books would be included in the Bible, it is on them to provide evidence to support that assertion, not on the rest of us to show that didn't happen.

If there is doubt that Roman Emperors influenced selection of materials for inclusion in the Bible, we might consider:

...

It appears as though Christianity Today, Christian History Institute, and National Geographics acknowledge such influence.

As bjs rightly noted above, none of the sources you cited here say anything about the formation of the canon. How then can you say that these quotes acknowledge that Roman emperor had an influence on that process?

There is clearly some mistaken assumptions in your thinking.

Historia did and admirable job answering these questions in post 16. No footwork, fancy or otherwise, was required.

Correction: Historia did not identify any person or group who decided which writings were to be included in the Bible.

Sure I did. Here's what I said again:

The decision as to which texts would be included in the canon was made by individual Christian congregations throughout the Roman Empire. Through a long process of consensus-building, they arrived at a common standard, which is the New Testament.

The group that made this decision were individual Christian congregations. Or, to be more precise, the leadership of those congregations -- bishops and presbyters (elders).

It is well documented that there were hundreds of writings circulating in early Christian churches. Of those hundreds, not all were included in the Bible. SOME (a few) of them were selected for inclusion in the Bible.

That would seem to indicate that SOMEONE (some people / groups) decided which writings were to be included and which were not. Two hundred plus reduced to ten (or whatever) indicates decisions were made. Does that make sense so far?

Sure does.

The OP asks WHO made the decisions. Apologists seem unable to identify who made the decisions (or perhaps hesitate to acknowledge that Roman Church officials and Roman Emperors were involved).

I'm not sure what "apologists" would have to say here, but the question has already been answered above. Over the course of 300 years, orthodox Christian congregations and their leaders discussed which texts were the most authoritative, and slowly came into agreement concerning what we today call the New Testament canon.

No one person or council in the Early Church made this decision on behalf of all orthodox Christians, and certainly no emperor. As Bart Ehrman, the foremost scholar of the text of the New Testament in North America today, notes, "The canon of the New Testament was ratified by widespread consensus rather than by official proclamation." Lost Christianities (2005), pg. 231.

If you've got some evidence that shows that Ehrman and the rest of mainstream scholarship today is wrong on this point, please bring it forward. We've seen precisely none so far in this thread.

[Willum]

[Replying to historia]

Ah, you don't understand how a government works!

Now it is clear!

So, an Emperor, or even corporate leader usually doesn't get involved with the nuts and bolts of a government. They'd never have time to blow their nose!

What any good leader does is say: Go align the Bible so that people obey the Empire and pay it's taxes.

Then they let their lieutenants and workers resolve how best to do that, doing the writing and refining.

The Emperor doing his own writing, ridiculous! He just provided the goals and direction. He had an empire to run.

That should clear things up. Leaving us to ask why the Emperor would do it:
The same reason governments always use religion. To pacify the masses and allow them t believe wars, taxes and obedience are God's will.

Final note: Of course they decided cannon, that is what they did, it's definitional. Except you are awfully optimistic about them including anything about te books before. If it didn't align with the needs of the Empire, I am sure it wasn't cannon.

Why would they keep it? Do you think they suddenly believed in a God their parents didn't believe in?
After the centuries of using religion to conquer countries, perfecting it, you suddenly think they re-write the Middle-East's religion and believe it?

Not SO MUch.

[historia]

[Replying to post 19 by historia]

historia you clearly have not seen the link i provided since it answer your question.

To the contrary, I've seen that BBC documentary before. And since I've enjoyed this and other documentaries by Pete Owen Jones, I decided to watch it again.

It only mentions persecution of Christians twice, and the second time only in passing. Here is the primary point Jones makes about Christian persecution:

In the third and fourth centuries, Christians throughout the Roman world, even those in Egypt, suffered persecution. Their refusal to worship other gods and their persistence in flaunting their own beliefs created tensions and suspicions, and thousands were killed for their faith.

This flatly contradicts your assertion that Christians were not persecuted for their beliefs.

While we're discussing this documentary, let us also note that Jones says that the process of canonization began in the 2nd Century and took 300 years to complete. Nowhere does he say that Roman emperors or government officials had influence. This is also what the two Wikipedia articles above say. And, of course, what I have said.

If you read my post you would know that the church tried to get political favors by playing the victim card and thus it did.

To the point that the persecution laws against the militaristic Christians had to be changed to make sure Christianity is not persecuted.

The Milan edict is about propaganda but also states to treat Christians with respect.
It is not just about acceptance, but authority, in fact the nicean decree soon followed.

I read your post, I just don't see any reason to accept your unsubstantiated opinions. And since you've cited no primary sources to back up your claims, and the one secondary source you cited directly contradicted your assertion regarding the persecution of Christians, you've given us no good reason to accept these arguments. And, in fact, every reason to doubt you know what you're talking about.

[historia]

You know Historia, you do that alot - say things support your stance

My viewpoint is in accordance with the historical evidence and the scholarly consensus, so naturally many articles and books on this topic support my "stance."

What the article does is rigidly enforce the concept of the OP!

The article you cited never mentions Roman emperors influencing which books would be included in the canon of scripture. In fact, just the opposite: It says that the emperors left doctrinal decisions to the bishops.

What any good leader does is say: Go align the Bible so that people obey the Empire and pay it's taxes.

And if you can show some primary source wherein Constantine or another Roman emperor said this, I'd be happy to entertain your argument. Until then, you have no evidence to support your assertions. And therefore the rest of us have no good reason to believe your ramblings on this topic are anything other than wishful thinking.

Gods man, the erroneous assumption is the folks wrote the truth in the Bible.

The premise of the OP, that Rome wrote/re-wrote the Bible and put what they wanted into it, is what YOU call a crack-pot conspiracy theory, despite the fact that religious propaganda is a well-known and traditional mechanism for political control, and Jesus advocated obeying Rome, despite being a Middle-Eastern demi-god.

BUT claims of resurrection, invisible Gods, who don't do anything, with the only justification of his being is a self-licking ice-cream cone of omnipotence because he does miracles, and miracles because he is omnipotent, is what you think is the baseline acceptable premise?

This is what you are so claiming?

Whether the Bible is true or not is completely irrelevant to the question of this thread, which concerns when, how, and who decided which texts should be included in the New Testament canon. Your argument here is simply fallacious.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 38 by historia]

My viewpoint is in accordance with the historical evidence and the scholarly consensus, so naturally many articles and books on this topic support my "stance."

How do you get that, it is like you are saying you are presenting all scholarly inputs and saying they all agree with your implications.

That's a big negative.

There are always points and counter-points.

But thanks for playing.

And if you can show some primary source wherein Constantine or another Roman emperor said this, I'd be happy to entertain your argument. Until then, you have no evidence to support your assertions. And therefore the rest of us have no good reason to believe your ramblings on this topic are anything other than wishful thinking.

This shows that you are haven't bothered to check out the entire Constantinian backstory. Perhaps you should do that before making such extraordinary claims.

Whether the Bible is true or not is completely irrelevant to the question of this thread, which concerns when, how, and who decided which texts should be included in the New Testament canon. Your argument here is simply fallacious.

This is cute: If the Roman Emperors placed what they wanted in the Bible, which personally is a default, seems highly relevant whether the Bible is true or not. Maybe it's just me.

[Tetragrammaton]

[Replying to post 37 by historia]

"This flatly contradicts your assertion that Christians were not persecuted for their beliefs."

Ohh really? where does it contradict what i said?

Jones:

In the third and fourth centuries, Christians throughout the Roman world, even those in Egypt, suffered persecution. Their refusal to worship other gods and their persistence in flaunting their own beliefs created tensions and suspicions, and thousands were killed for their faith.

Christians throughout the Roman world, even those in Egypt, suffered persecution.

Yes they suffered persecution not because they were Christians but because they were Christians that did not agree with the Christians in power in Rome.

Basically they were heretics, they believed that Jesus did not die, some even that Jesus did not exist but was an allegory of how to live. The Gnostic Christians.
In Egypt especially the gospel of Thomas was very popular, but not so in Rome because of its different philosophy.

If you go re-watch the video 1:20:00 it makes it very clear what I just said.

You either did not pay attention or are trying to change the entire subject of the video I linked, to support your argument which has no foundation.

So their persecution was from other Christians that were supported by the roman empire not because of a 200 year old decree against the Messianic movement against Christians who refute the authority of Rome on earth.

Jesus Christians accepted Rome's authority, while the Jewish messianic movement (Christians) did not, they declared war to Rome.

Basically all those that believed that a messiah sent by god would rise to defeat Rome had to be persecuted by the Romans.
But by 300 ad all those militaristic Christians were extinct, the Romans did a very good job at that, so the edict of Milan was issued to avoid any misunderstanding and for propaganda purposes.

Nowhere in the video does he even mention Christian persecution because they were Christians and not pagans, he says their different beliefs.(gnostic rather then literalist)
The literals won the faith war and killed more then half of all Christians at the time later on in history.

There is no contradiction there.

The literals had political value because it was more appealing to the general population and thus more valuable for an emperor that wanted to unify an empire with religious propaganda. Like Constantine and the Flavians before him.

To this day Christianity is more appealing to the common folk then it is to the intellectuals who can recognize easily the contradictions in the philosophy.

Not counting the fact that I am not the one making the claim here.
The buren of proof is on the one making the claim.

The person(church) who claims that Christianity was persecuted is the one making the claim, and since we cannot take the word of the church as gospel truth anymore, but have to rely on actual historical evidence the claim of Christianity being persecuted becomes a baseless claim.

This goes back to the original subject, that any text not supported by the roman empire did not make it in the canon.
Anybody who resists is persecuted for their different beliefs.

it did not happen over night, it took a lot of time and effort to eradicated those different beliefs but rome had the money and power to do it and they did do it.

today we only have scraps of those literature that were considered hiratical.

This is how the canon was chosen, by the Christians who had the backing of the roman empire through the course of history.