Who gave Constantine the right?

by codeblue 11 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  codeblue

  NOdenial and I were talking : Who gave Constantine the right to dictate that the Bible Canon should only include the 66 books that we see today? There are dozens of other accounts on the life and time of Jesus that non of us ever hear about or are able to research.

  Constantine in the 3rd century was a PAGAN! Yet we take his word for what is Christian and what is spurious! This is absurd.

  What do you think?

  P.S. Does anyone know of any referrence material that completes the records about Jesus life and times in a single document?

  Codeblue and NOdenial
• 

  Leolaia

  I don't know the niceties of exactly what happened with Constantine. But from what I recall, the canon was "fixed" more by the bishops that Constantine had convened rather than Constantine himself, and I use "fixed" in a provisional sense because the process continued further until the Third Council of Carthage in A.D. 397, which is where we finally see the modern Catholic canon. And the process of canonization had already been going on for centuries in the orthodox churches, from the second century in the case of the NT (cf. Marcion) and a few centuries earlier in the case of the OT (which for the Church was largely fixed by the Septuagint translation that was generally used by Christians, which was produced in the second century BC or so). Thus many of the sectarian books within Essenism or the later books of Gnosticsm really never came up for discussion in the orthodox churches. And Constantine, afaik did not authorize a 66-book Bible, since Jerome's Vulgate included the Apocrypha which the Christians inherited through the Septuagint. The 66-book Bible is rather a product of Protestantism, who rejected the Apocrypha as a taint of Catholicism and later based their OT on the Masoretic text.
• 

  Leolaia

  P.S. Does anyone know of any referrence material that completes the records about Jesus life and times in a single document?

  You might want to find The Complete Gospels or New Gospel Parallels.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Actually debate and dispute continued among theologians in and out siede the Catholic Church for centuries. It was not until the Council of Trent that the Catholic position was established, fixed. Protestant churches of course dissented about a number of the books. Notice below in the Quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia that it was tradition rather than scholarly debate that established the Canon.

  The Council of Trent's Definition of the Canon (1546)

  It was the exigencies of controversy that first led Luther to draw a sharp line between the books of the Hebrew Canon and the Alexandrian writings. In his disputation with Eck at Leipzig, in 1519, when his opponent urged the well-known text from II Machabees in proof of the doctrine of purgatory, Luther replied that the passage had no binding authority since the books was outside the Canon. In the first edition of Luther's Bible, 1534, the deuteros were relegated, as apocrypha, to a separate place between the two Testaments. To meet this radical departure of the Protestants, and as well define clearly the inspired sources from which the Catholic Faith draws its defence, the Council of Trent among its first acts solemnly declared as "sacred and canonical" all the books of the Old and New Testaments "with all their parts as they have been used to be read in the churches, and as found in the ancient vulgate edition". During the deliberations of the Council there never was any real question as to the reception of all the traditional Scripture. Neither--and this is remarkable--in the proceedings is there manifest any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings. In the mind of the Tridentine Fathers they had been virtually canonized, by the same decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding ecumenical synod. The Council of Trent did not enter into an examination of the fluctuations in the history of the Canon. Neither did it trouble itself about questions of authorship or character of contents. True to the practical genius of the Latin Church, it based its decision on immemorial tradition as manifested in the decrees of previous councils and popes, and liturgical reading, relying on traditional teaching and usage to determine a question of tradition. The Tridentine catalogue has been given above.
• 

  JCanon

  Interesting topic, but there is another "criteria".

  It turns out that out of the books considered to be sacred, the NT Bible writers quoted from all 39 books except 3. Excluded were "Ecclesiates", "Song of Solomon" and "the Book of Esther."

  Canticles (SOS) and Esther were not considered part of the sacred books at the time of Josephus who mentioned which books were considered sacred. Canticles and the Book of Esther were late additions. But of note, the pagan festivals associated with the celebration of "Purim" were condemned by the orthodox Jews in Jesus' day and seen no more than a takeoff of the pagan Persian New Year's celebration. Of further note, there are two versions of this book, the earlier of which in the LXX contradicts Scripture, so we know the Book of Esther for historical reasons should not be in the official Biblical canon.

  That sets up the premise that perhaps the cross-quoting by the NT Bible writers was a means of including as well as EXCLUDING any books they considered not worthy of the final "canon", thus some use the "Apostolic Canon", the Bible's own internal canon to exclude or include certain books. Of course, one should not think that Ecclesiates was "excluded" but simply not included as there were many other "wisdom writings" and apocryphal works about. The "Song of Solomon" though, as noted in my previous thread is definitely a "mysteries" pagan book that gives specific descriptions of several of the mother goddesses, particularly Artemis of Ephesus... So definitely that would have been a difficult book to believe belonged in the canon. But since it was not "included" by cross-quoting by the NT Bible writers, we can exclude it for obvious reasons from the "sacred canon".

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/70787/1.ashx - SOS an Ode to Artemis!

  Now some may not like this idea, but it IS there, the subjective canon is there and books excludable for other means are dismissible so I believe it's a relevant and "true" canon that the Christians understood would protect the integrity of the canon, even if some others in authority included other books in the Bible. Of note, the Catholic Bible's include some of the so-called "apocryphal" books as well. ?

  I don't have a true position on Ecclesiates if someone wanted to include that extra-apostolically to the Bible's collection of sacred books, but Esther and Canticles are absolutely out.

  As a reference in this regard, most libraries especially theological schools have numerous versions of Bible commentaries on each and every book. I'd recommend reading several of the various commentaries, all of which will have a different take on things, of Canticles, Esther and Ecclesiates in particular. It's interesting what is being said about these books in general, but it resonates better when you understand they possibly don't belong in the canon and are not inspired.

  JC
• 

  Justin

  The four gospels and thirteen letters attributed to Paul were already considered canonical by the orthodox churches in the second century. This had to be done in response to Marcion, who wanted his own canon consisting of an abridged version of Luke and the letters of Paul. Marcion wanted to reject the Hebrew Scriptures completely, whereas the churches retained them in the form of the Septuagint. What was left to be decided later, and what led to the final canons as we know them today (in their Catholic and Protestant forms), was the acceptance of such works as 2 Peter and the book of Revelation. Of course the Council of Trent relied upon tradition, for the Council Fathers were not in the same situation as the early church, and were merely reacting to the changes called for by the Protestants (namely, the rejection of the Apocrypha).
• 

  gumby

  Luminaries of Deceit

  Jerome is not alone in his candour. Bishop Eusebius, the official propagandist for Constantine, entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation:

  How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived.

  Eusebius is notoriously the author of a great many falsehoods ? but then he does warn us in his infamous history:

  'We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity.'
  (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2).

  Gumby
• 

  Leolaia

  So the NT doesn't quote from Esther and Canticles, but it quotes from 1 Enoch? So is 1 Enoch to be "included" in the canon?
• 

  JCanon

  So the NT doesn't quote from Esther and Canticles, but it quotes from 1 Enoch? So is 1 Enoch to be "included" in the canon?

  Very good and relevant question, but 1 Enoch was never considered part of the "22 books" considered sacred by the Jews, thus, so the "Apostolic canon" is the cross-quoting from those Jewish sacred books. I think Paul even quotes from Aristotle for that matter and there are others "references" materials mentioned in the Bible (i.e. the "Book of Kings", etc.) that might have been around at one time as source material but still did not meet the criteria of the sacred works. Thus the cross-quoting is a second criteria after the official Jewish OT sacred books. But I would like to finally read 1 Enoch. I think the WTS commentary on that "quote" was that Enoch might have quoted a well-known saying or information that was common knowledge and truthful; the NT was not necessarily quoting from that source, but perhaps an earlier source which was common to both. Thus the "rule" is the Jewish sacred exclusion around the time of Josephus first, then of those which were quoted from by the NT Bible writers. All of them were except those late additions. Further, in this case if 1 Enoch comes under this special category of exclusion by the Jewish OT canon but inclusion by one quote by the NT Bible writers, it would have to pass all compatibility tests with the other scriptures and I believe it varies the stories of Enoch too much. If you have the WT CD literature ROM (which I don't have handy) then you can see what they have to say specifically on that issue. It's a relevant point, though, certainly. JC
• 

  Kenneson

  From Col. 4:16: "And when this letter is read before you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and you yourselves read the one from Laodicea."

  Why is our current canon lacking the latter letter?