6 ms·

I'm probably reading too much into this, but it looks like the story has been refined since these were written. The Leviticus claims could be proven false eas

I'm probably reading too much into this, but it looks like the story has been refined since these were written. The Leviticus claims could be proven false easily by a small tribe. Everyone does everything right, and you get a 2 year drought. Is this common, that the orriginal texts were refined to make them less flimsy? Or was that the point of Nicene, to create a coherent narrative with that was a tad more believable at the time?

emodendroket 10y ago
It's hard to tell what specifically you're referring to in either paragraph, but if you're talking about the Nicene Creed in the second, the point was to settle a bunch of theological arguments among early Christians. The Israelite people writing Leviticus were writing long before Jesus lived.
- shot_o_goof 10y ago
  Yea, I didn't think that through at all.
teilo 10y ago
I'm not sure what your point is. The Qumran scrolls have nothing whatsoever to do with Nicaea. The OT canon was well established before the Christian era. As far as canonical issues, the council of Nicaea had nothing to do with establishing the canon of Scripture as accepted by the 4th century church. They did publish a list of those books which were already widely recognized in the church, however, no votes were taken as to what books were or were not to be counted as part of the NT canon. No decisions regarding the canon, whether of the Old or the New Testament were made. This is not speculation. We have the proceedings of the council.
- shot_o_goof 10y ago
  I forgot these were part of the old testament. So who took the hundreads of accounts and compiled it into a book?
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    Accounts of what? The Bible has "accounts" (and poetry, and other literary genres) of countless different events. Do you want to know who established the canon? Or who wrote and assembled the books in the first place? The latter is an entire field of scholarly inquiry.
  - sesqu 10y ago
    Several collections have been formed. Perhaps most pertinent to your inquiry is the Vulgate, a translation commissioned in the 4th century by the 37th Pope.
  - teilo 10y ago
    There are not "hundreds of accounts" to deal with in the first place. Regarding the OT: There are specific works, and not that many in all, that were universally recognized in Judaism as the works of recognized prophets. We have no records or evidence of any formal process of canonizing these books. By the time of the inter-testamental period, there was unanimity regarding the canonicity of these books. Likewise there was unanimity regarding the status of the Apocrypha: works that were useful for history or piety, but were not considered to be scripture. Regarding the NT, the situation is pretty much the same. Works which could reliably be attributed to an apostle, or one of the close associates of the apostles, were widely recognized by the early church as scripture. A few books that were "spoken against," meaning there was not unanimity regarding their apostolic provenance. These are known as the "antilegomena," and were placed into a separate category. They were subordinate to the other books, and were not used as the primary sources for any particular doctrine, but were still highly regarded. For the record, the antilegomena are: Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude, and Revelation. There are several lists of NT books extant which are largely consistent with one another, but with some differences. See the Muratorian Fragment for one such example. A third category of books were also recognized: books which did not have apostolic authority, and thus were not considered to be scripture, but were useful theological treatises and widely disseminated. The "Shepherd of Hermas" was one such work. The Didache is also often considered to be such a work. Outside of this, there were many late works which were never considered to be part of the recognized canon. These are often, and inaccurately, referred to by modern authors as "lost books of the Bible." However, they were never "lost", and were known by the early church fathers to be works of late authorship, and thus lacked apostolic provenance. In other words, they recognized them as forgeries, and the church never took them seriously. Regarding any "official" canonization of the books of the Bible, we have no extant official pronouncements until the Council of Trent in the late 1540s. Some suspect that the Synod of Hippo Regius made a determination regarding the canon, but as those proceedings have been lost, it is an open question. Regardless, all extant evidence demonstrates that the NT canon as we know it was settled by the mid 2nd century.

emodendroket 10y ago

It's hard to tell what specifically you're referring to in either paragraph, but if you're talking about the Nicene Creed in the second, the point was to settle a bunch of theological arguments among early Christians. The Israelite people writing Leviticus were writing long before Jesus lived.

shot_o_goof 10y ago
Yea, I didn't think that through at all.

teilo 10y ago

I'm not sure what your point is. The Qumran scrolls have nothing whatsoever to do with Nicaea. The OT canon was well established before the Christian era. As far as canonical issues, the council of Nicaea had nothing to do with establishing the canon of Scripture as accepted by the 4th century church. They did publish a list of those books which were already widely recognized in the church, however, no votes were taken as to what books were or were not to be counted as part of the NT canon. No decisions regarding the canon, whether of the Old or the New Testament were made. This is not speculation. We have the proceedings of the council.

shot_o_goof 10y ago
I forgot these were part of the old testament. So who took the hundreads of accounts and compiled it into a book?
- emodendroket 10y ago
  Accounts of what? The Bible has "accounts" (and poetry, and other literary genres) of countless different events. Do you want to know who established the canon? Or who wrote and assembled the books in the first place? The latter is an entire field of scholarly inquiry.
- sesqu 10y ago
  Several collections have been formed. Perhaps most pertinent to your inquiry is the Vulgate, a translation commissioned in the 4th century by the 37th Pope.
- teilo 10y ago
  There are not "hundreds of accounts" to deal with in the first place. Regarding the OT: There are specific works, and not that many in all, that were universally recognized in Judaism as the works of recognized prophets. We have no records or evidence of any formal process of canonizing these books. By the time of the inter-testamental period, there was unanimity regarding the canonicity of these books. Likewise there was unanimity regarding the status of the Apocrypha: works that were useful for history or piety, but were not considered to be scripture. Regarding the NT, the situation is pretty much the same. Works which could reliably be attributed to an apostle, or one of the close associates of the apostles, were widely recognized by the early church as scripture. A few books that were "spoken against," meaning there was not unanimity regarding their apostolic provenance. These are known as the "antilegomena," and were placed into a separate category. They were subordinate to the other books, and were not used as the primary sources for any particular doctrine, but were still highly regarded. For the record, the antilegomena are: Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude, and Revelation. There are several lists of NT books extant which are largely consistent with one another, but with some differences. See the Muratorian Fragment for one such example. A third category of books were also recognized: books which did not have apostolic authority, and thus were not considered to be scripture, but were useful theological treatises and widely disseminated. The "Shepherd of Hermas" was one such work. The Didache is also often considered to be such a work. Outside of this, there were many late works which were never considered to be part of the recognized canon. These are often, and inaccurately, referred to by modern authors as "lost books of the Bible." However, they were never "lost", and were known by the early church fathers to be works of late authorship, and thus lacked apostolic provenance. In other words, they recognized them as forgeries, and the church never took them seriously. Regarding any "official" canonization of the books of the Bible, we have no extant official pronouncements until the Council of Trent in the late 1540s. Some suspect that the Synod of Hippo Regius made a determination regarding the canon, but as those proceedings have been lost, it is an open question. Regardless, all extant evidence demonstrates that the NT canon as we know it was settled by the mid 2nd century.