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?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 20 by historia]

You know Historia, you do that alot - say things support your stance - I guess it relies on people's natural reluctance to read, however, I find it antithemical to the principles of the website.

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

Or are you suggesting that the Roman government had pure motivations in "repeating"/ or having Jesus say support of Roman (Pagan/blasphemous) rule is Yaweh's will or that touching coins that would make Jews unclean is also OK?

[Zzyzx]

.

The question under consideration is not whether Roman emperors were (generally) influential, but whether they were influential in selecting which texts would be included in the Bible. There is no evidence of the latter, and I'm afraid your rambling post did not provide any.

If the US President orders Big Oil CEOs to meet and develop a unifying document / agreement for national oil policy, would the president be rationally considered to be an influence upon the documents included (without personally deciding on them)?

Would the CEOs, knowing that the President had final say in all matters, be inclined to produce a document / agreement that he would find acceptable?

Would the CEOs be likely / expected to produce a document / agreement that also reflected the majority opinion of their group and promoted their agenda as much as possible regarding policy?

[theophile]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Dissenters of Historia, please ask yourselves one question: what reason would the emperor have in influencing canon?

I can only think of one, which I said from the get-go: to unify a fragmenting empire, using a popular religion to accomplish that.

i.e., in order to unify the empire the emperor needed to unify the churches.

I assume the emperor(s) could care less what texts were in versus out (otherwise please provide a criteria for selection to suit imperial needs). Rather the point was simply to unify the multitude of churches (through canon, doctrine, whatever), tie the church to the empire (as its official religion), and through this serve the one and only goal: solidification of a fragmenting empire.

I see no other reason why the emperor would care about such arcane matters. Unless a theologian, but unlikely.

Thus I find it hard to believe they influenced canon, i.e., the specific texts that were in versus out.

[Willum]

[Replying to theophile]

Non readers of this OP:

Why would Rome wish to re-write cannon?
To have their spokes person, Jesus say you should pay your taxes and obey your government.

To have the prophesies fulfilled by Roman Emperors - particularly Isaiah, (don't worry, Augustus' maternal grandmother was a Jewess, making Augustus Jewish and Tiberius half-Jewish).

Is there a better reason?

As far as I can tell,every other thing Jesus did has no observable impact.

[historia]

The question under consideration is not whether Roman emperors were (generally) influential, but whether they were influential in selecting which texts would be included in the Bible. There is no evidence of the latter, and I'm afraid your rambling post did not provide any.

If the US President orders Big Oil CEOs to meet and develop a unifying document / agreement for national oil policy, would the president be rationally considered to be an influence upon the documents included (without personally deciding on them)?

In that particular scenario, I could certainly see the argument that the President influenced the final decision.

But this analogy shows precisely the problem with your argument. There is no evidence that any Roman emperor ordered Christian bishops to develop a single canon of scripture in order to create a unifying document for the Empire -- or for any other reason.

In fact, as the Wikipedia articles cited above make abundantly clear, the canon of the New Testament was largely settled during the 2nd and 3rd centuries -- before Constantine became emperor, and at a time when the Roman government was (sporadically) persecuting Christians and destroying their scriptures.

The status of a handful of minor texts (e.g., Jude, 2 Peter) remained undecided by the time we get to Nicaea in 325, but this was of no major concern. The fact that the status of these minor texts was not fully resolved until long after Constantine had died also shows that there was no decision made about them at his order.

As we've seen above, any arguments to the contrary have been based on erroneous assumptions, which at least one participant has had the good sense to abandon.

[Willum]

[Replying to historia]

Huh?
No evidence?

Gods man, what do you consider evidence?
Does Tiberius himself have to tell you:
"Yeah, Ratio autem huius Jesus accepit aurum et sexus-stimuli, et omnia mea sunt."?

I mean what would be sufficient?

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

It is impossible to show two, maybe three people rose from the dead, and that's major!

Easy to show folks wrote something for political purposes.

Get your possibilities straight.

[tfvespasianus]

As we've seen above, any arguments to the contrary have been based on erroneous assumptions, which at least one participant has had the good sense to abandon.

What historia has said is exceptionally viable as far as it goes. That is, positing a conspiracy is wholly untenable based upon available evidence. Moreover, despite the popularity of said conspiracy theory with some (one) in this forum, not only does it not fit with even the most critical of assessments for date of the composition of the texts in question, it presents without any documentation, a cabal that lacks a clear raison d'etre.

Nonetheless, it should be kept in mind that the success of an explicitly anti-Roman religion in the time of Roman hegemony is not something that should be expected. That is, the texts to some extent, had already been vetted by the pressure of what was in fact possible. I say that not alluding to some bureaucratic/legal apparatus that would have suppressed said documents, but rather that Roman hegemony was the 'fish tank' in which the world at this time existed. Today, because of civil liberties we have the option of dissent (depending upon where we reside) through the rule of law, but as we can tell from the available primary evidence from ancient times there was not an equivalent to counter-cultural (i.e. explicitly in opposition to the dominant paradigm) literary scene. So, the conspiracy is lacking primary evidence and a more 'benign' alternative has the weight of plausibility.

take care,
TFV

[Willum]

[Replying to tfvespasianus]

So allow me to get this straight:

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?

[Tetragrammaton]

[Replying to post 19 by historia]

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

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.


tfvespasianus:

Nonetheless, it should be kept in mind that the success of an explicitly anti-Roman religion in the time of Roman hegemony is not something that should be expected.

You seem to have the mistaken idea that the gospels are anti-Roman in anyway.

Would you please find a singe passage that is anti-roman in the whole NT?

Most scholars know that the NT is a pro-roman piece of literature.

The most compelling evidence is that the authors were more fluent in Greek and used the Septuagint as a source for the NT, which is the Greek translation of the Torah(OT).

When you consider that that the NT was written in Greek and the authors themselves repeated the mistakes in the Septuagint rather then correcting them, there is little room for doubt that the gospels were never written in Aramaic or Hebrew by fisherman, but instead were written in Greek for a Greek reading audience like the Romans.

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's"

No Jew who wanted freedom from the oppression of a fascist roman empire would say something like that, but a roman propagandist would to his subjects.
Like no american would want to pay taxes to the fascist Nazis, but the Nazis themselves would.

Not counting that that god for the Romans was the emperor which at some point in time(when these gospels were written), the emperor had also the title of messiah.

So basically that phrase is saying give everything to Cesar in an indirect way.

All the philosophical concepts of Christianity are well in line with roman principals.

[Zzyzx]

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

Constantine at the Bishops Conference

This is what he was like to everybody, but he particularly cared for the church of God. When churches in different regions had a disagreement, he, like some bishop-of-bishops constituted by God, called his ministers to a conference. He was not above sitting with them in their meeting, and even took part in their discussions, taking charge of everything that concerned the peace of God. He took his seat in the midst of them as one individual amongst many, dismissing his bodyguards and soldiers because he was protected by the fear of God and surrounded by the guardianship of his faithful friends. Those whom he knew to be calm, conciliatory and sound in judgment received his highest approval, because he delighted in harmony and agreement, and did not look kindly on the unyielding and dogmatic.
https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.o ... nstantine/

In 323 Constantine triumphed over Licinius and became the sole ruler of the Roman world. The victory enabled Constantine to move the seat of government permanently to the East, to the ancient Greek city of Byzantium (now Istanbul). He enlarged and enriched the city at enormous expense and built magnificent churches throughout the East. The new capital was dedicated as New Rome, but everyone soon called the city Constantinople.

Christians were more populous and vocal in the East than they were in Rome, so during the last 14 years of his reign, "Bullneck" could openly proclaim himself a Christian. He proceeded to create the conditions we call "state-church" and bequeathed the ideal to Christians for over a thousand years.

In 325 the Arian controversy threatened to split the newly united empire. To settle the matter, Constantine called together a council of the bishops at Nicea, a city near the capital. He ran the meeting himself.

"You are bishops whose jurisdiction is within the church," he told them. "But I also am a bishop, ordained by God to oversee those outside the church."

Presiding at the council, Constantine was magnificent: arranging elaborate ceremony, dramatic entrances and processions, and splendid services. He was also a gifted mediator, now bringing his skill in public relations to the management of church affairs.

Unfortunately he could not follow abstract arguments or subtle issues and often found himself at a great disadvantage at these councils. http://www.christianitytoday.com/histor ... ntine.html

After unifying the Roman Empire under his rule in A.D. 324, Constantine rebuilt his seat of his power in largely Christian Byzantium, which was renamed Constantinople and today is Istanbul. The growth of a Christian ruling class under Constantine ensured the faith's increasing and enduring prominence through the Roman, and later Byzantine, Empire.

Constantine convened and took part in the first meeting of Christian churches, the Council of Nicea, held in 325 in what is today Iznik, Turkey. He hoped to help church leaders find common ground on some contentious aspects of Christian doctrine. Chief among these issues was the relationship and relative divinity of God the Son (Jesus) and God the Father. Arianism was popular during this period. This Christian belief championed by Arius, a priest of Alexandria, Egypt, held that Jesus, though the Son of God, was inferior to God the Father.

The Council of Nicea established the equality of Father and Son and documented this in a creed, or universal statement of faith, to which all but two attending bishops agreed. The dissenting bishops were exiled, as was Arius himself. After this council, orthodox Christians agreed on the critical point that Jesus and God were equally divine and created of the same substance. The council also condemned the practice of money lending by clerics and attempted, unsuccessfully, to standardize the date of Easter.

Ancient Christian historians enthusiastically portrayed Constantine as a pious Christian convert. In later years some scholars suggested that the emperor simply used the faith to his political advantage. The truth may lie somewhere in between, but Constantine's importance to his adopted religion is beyond doubt. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostg ... ne_10.html

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