How the Bible was put together...

[cardw]

How was the Bible put together?

Who was in charge of it?

What was used as the source?

Why were some books chosen and others ignored?

Were there particular doctrines that determined the selection of books?

These are very important questions to be considered. Depending how the Bible was put together and who decided could radically alter how we treat the Bible and how we develop the idea we call truth.

Is it God who selected which books and caused events to work out in a way that we have the current Bible or are there more political and historical influences?

Let us begin....

I have included a poll to get a feel for what might be the prevailing view.

[cardw]

I believe that the Bible is a useful record of how various writers tried to make sense of the world through monotheism. It is very useful. I don't happen to believe that God manipulated it, but anyone giving attention to the spiritual quest of meaning would certainly come in contact with God. I believe there is some record of this experience in the Bible, placed in the words of the men and women who experienced God and created enough resonance in the community that they lived that the community decided it was important enough to be included in the Bible.

Coming from a Christian backgroud I felt it important to know how the New Testament came to be, since it determines how we read the Old Testament. So that is where I will begin.....

Some say that only the Bible is inspired by God because the Bible tells us this.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

This is very interesting idea because the Bible as we know it today did not exist at the time this was written. The word scripture is from graphe meaning writings, thing written. It is not a term exclusive to the Bible.

Flavius Salerus Constantinus has been touted as the first Roman Emperor who was converted to Christianity. He claimed that Yeshua, a.k.a. Jesus, appeared to him "in 312 on the eve of the battle against Maxentius his rival in Italy." and told him to put XP (khi, hro) on his shield, which was the first two Greek letter in his name, Christ.

Constantine had also claimed a 'vision in 310 while in a grove of Apollo in Gaul of the sun god.' Constantine and Licinius were co-emperors when they "joined together in issuing the Edict of Milan(313), which granted toleration to Christians in the Roman Empire. As guardian of Constantines favored religion, the church was given legal rights and large financial donations."3

But, "A struggle for power soon began between" the two commanders from which Constantine emerged victorious. "Constantine intervened in ecclesiastical affairs to achieve unity; he presided over the first ecumenical council of the church at Nicaea in 325."

Barely 300 bishops, of over 1800 known bishops of the time, came to this council called by a man who had been responsible for the death and oppression of thousands of people by military force. Of those who came, the historical record showed that, they were financially rewarded. Those who did not beckon to the call of this military general often found themselves on the short end of Constantine's intervening stick. Ultimately he was a man of force, opportunistic influence and power.

The same could be said of other Emperors who called subsequent councils of bishops. The first council of Constantinople in 381 was convened by Theodosius I. Only 150 bishops attended condemning various religious groups that did not heed the call of the emperor. Theodosius was as much a tyrant and more a murder of thousands.

The legalizing of the christian church was more a legalizing certain sects of churches who claimed to be christian and were willing to turn a blind eye to the autocratic oppression of these manipulating chiefs of state.

These sects operated more as a religion and their descendants have been able to control the writing of history throughout the ages. They relied heavily on the strong arm of what became known as the Holy Roman Empire.

Even more important they arranged the compilation of books we know today as the Bible. "The 27 books of the New Testament are only a fraction of the literary production of the Christian communities in the first three centuries."4

"Constantine intervened in ecclesiastical affairs to achieve unity; he presided over the first ecumenical council of the church at Nicaea in 325." [Encarta 97]

He claimed the office and title of Pontifex Maximus or High Priest, till he died. As the ruling High Priest, he had demanded that the bishops of the Church come to his council. There were over 1800 known bishops at that time and barely 300 showed up. He sat on a golden throne claiming the title of "Bishop of Bishops", not as the servant of servants but as a dictator.

Of those who came, the historical record showed that, they were financially rewarded with the spoils of his imperial rule. Extravagant gifts of gold, silver, property and privilege were bestowed on these collaborating bishops who accepted his rule from the top down. Those bishops who sanctioned his benevolence and title of "bishop of bishops" are difficult to justify. His gifts had been taken from fields of corpses and an overtaxed populations. If ever there was a sin of the Nicolaitan branded on the head of men it was here at this council of hypocrisy. How could men justify this fundamental departure from the teachings of Christ?

Emperor Constantine paid Eusebius with tax dollars to personally produce fifty copies of what was to be considered the sacred scriptures. These imperial Bibles would be the basis of his official legalized Church.

That is a good start to this history....

Richard

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

This is very interesting idea because the Bible as we know it today did not exist at the time this was written. The word scripture is from graphe meaning writings, thing written. It is not a term exclusive to the Bible."

It is quite true that the Bible did not exist at that time that the above was written. In one sense the comment regarding the Greek word "graphe" is true. But, I think that one vaulable point has been missed.

The person writing the document known as 2nd Tim. was likely using "graphe" in the manner that would be understood by the person to whom he had addressed the letter. I consider it to be highly unlikely that those persons would have understood him to be saying that the common literaty works of that day, the works of heathen poets, for example, were inspired. With the known Jewish reaction to heathenism, that must be rejected. The logical understanding to me, is that "graphe" was being used to apply to what we today call the Old Testament.

Hebrews in the Intertestamental times had a common concept of what was to be considered canon of Scripture. That concept had developed over hundreds of years. Some might stay that such continued to be refined, for a period of time. I will not argue such a position. But, I will simply say that people reading the letter to Timothey likely understood the application to apply in a much more llimited manner that has been suggested here.

If you will allow me to paraphrase, here is how I will suggest it was understood:

"Scripture is that which is inspired by God. That which God has inspired should be used for doctinal understanding, for reproof, and for instruction in righteousness."

[Gregory Matthews]

The questions that Richard has raised (the ones prior to the poll questions), are important. They are valid. They are worthy of consideration.

However, in my opinion, the questions in the poll, are confusing. Several might be answered in mor than one way. They are not mutually exclusive. They depend upon some differing understndings of words.

Maybe, I shall comment individually on them, shortly?

On the other hand, I do not want to sway the responses, so I will not do it at this time.

[wicklunds]

I have trouble with someone trying to explain the canonization process who doesnt believe in the authority of His word. Your poll needs much work. I think it is by design an illogical irritant at best. It is amazing that when a person creates an Adventist website how many church-changers and opinionated unbelievers come out of the woodwork claiming to be Adventist only in culture. Somehow that makes them the ones to listen to because they have all the answers to the church's problems. You should really rethink your poll because there are people who believe the Bible is the infallible revelation of God's will. An unerring guide, where the thoughts of the men are inspired by God but they are using fallible human language to convey the inspired thoughts.

[cardw]

Quote:

---

However, in my opinion, the questions in the poll, are confusing. Several might be answered in mor than one way. They are not mutually exclusive. They depend upon some differing understndings of words.

---

I'm not really married to the poll. It was difficult to put selections that were not too wordy. I am aware that there are probably a inifinite amount of options. So maybe I'll add 'none of the above' to the next one.

Richard

[cardw]

Quote:

---

I have trouble with someone trying to explain the canonization process who doesnt believe in the authority of His word.

---

The point of this exercise is to demonstrate that the canonization process was not a God determined selection of writings. There is no evidence, in my reading, that the Bible is any more or less than other wisdom writings held to be important in other cultures and belief systems.

As usual you don't really address the issue, but attack the messenger. And your input is not based on any facts or evidence, just your own opinion.

Quote:

---

Your poll needs much work. I think it is by design an illogical irritant at best.

---

Well, the poll, if we are to take it seriously, does need some work. I did not design it to be an illogical irritant.

Quote:

---

It is amazing that when a person creates an Adventist website how many church-changers and opinionated unbelievers come out of the woodwork claiming to be Adventist only in culture.

---

Dennis, you might as well just say Richard. All this reference to the many is really an exaggeration. I am also not an unbeliever. I do believe in God. I don't happen to believe as you do.

Quote:

---

Somehow that makes them the ones to listen to because they have all the answers to the church's problems.

---

Dennis I don't believe I have much sway in this forum. You give me far too much importance. This is just one of your persecution paranoias.

I also don't claim to have the answers to the Church's problems. I do point out the problems and suggest things that work for individuals. I have no illusions that answers are going to come through any church.

Richard

[there buster]

Quote:

---

The questions that Richard has raised (the ones prior to the poll questions), are important. They are valid. They are worthy of consideration.

---

Absolutely imperative!

[cardw]

Quote:

---

To Irenaeus, more than to any other man, belongs the credit of founding the Roman Catholic church; and to him also belongs the credit of founding the New Testament canon, which is a Roman Catholic work. No collection of books corresponding to our New Testament existed before the time of Irenaeus. He was the first to make such a collection, and he was the first to claim inspiration and divine authority for its books.

Dr. Davidson says: "The conception of canonicity and inspiration attaching to New Testament books did not exist till the time of Irenaeus" ("Canon," p. 163).

At the close of the second century the Christian world was divided into a hundred different sects. Irenaeus and others conceived the plan of uniting these sects, or the more orthodox of them, into one great Catholic church, with Rome at the head; for Rome was at this time the largest and most intluential of all the Christian churches. "It is a matter of necessity," says Irenaeus, "that every church should agree with this church on account of its preeminent authority." (Heresies, Book 3).

In connection with this work Irenaeus made a collection of books for use in the church. His collection comprised the following: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians, First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, First John, and Revelation-- twenty books in all.

In the work of establishing the Roman Catholic church and the New Testament canon Irenaeus was succeeded, early in the third century, by Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. They adopted the list of books made by him. The books adopted by these Fathers were selected from a large number of Christian writings then extant-- forty or more gospels, nearly as many Acts of Apostles, a score of Revelations, and a hundred epistles. Each church had one or more books which were used in that church. No divine authority, however, was ascribed to any of them.

Why did the Fathers choose these particular books? Above all, why did they choose four gospels instead of one? We never see four biographies of Washington, of Cromwell, or of Napoleon, bound in one volume; yet here we have four different biographies of Jesus in one book. Irenaeus says it is because "there are four quarters of the earth in which we live, and four universal winds." Instead of this artificial reason he could have given a natural, a rational, and a truthful reason. While primitive Christians, as we have seen, were divided into many sects, the principal sects may be grouped into three divisions:

1) The Petrine churches, comprising the church of Rome and other churches which recognized Peter as the chief of the apostles and the visible head of the church on earth;

2) The Pauline sects, which accepted Paul as the true exponent of Christianity;

3) The Johannine or Eastern churches, which regarded John as their founder. A collection of books to be acceptable to all of these churches must contain the favorite books of each.

---

We can see that a primary purpose of collecting together books was to create a central control over what people believed that called themselves Christians. This purpose has more political overtones than what we would call seeking truth. As you read further you will see the means used to bring this all together included violence, bribes, and other forms of manipulation.

Imperial Rome saw itself as a force for moral good in the world and justified their expansion with this arguement. When Christianity came along Rome basically took the same approach they had with their previous expansions. The Bible is primarily a Roman Catholic work designed as a tool to bring all Christian thought into unity through force.

When you study the lives and the methods used by those men who were most influential in the formation and interpretation of the Bible you will discover they held some seriously flawed views of God and of life. This was a major influence in the selection, possible editing, and translation of the Bible.

The point that I am making is that the authority of the Bible is based on a lot of mythology. The Bible has become greater than the Spirit. It has been used as a tool of oppression from its beginning. This becomes more evident, the more one looks at the history.

Richard