The Christian Canon

[vulcanlogician]

He cited Ehrman in the article. Why do you think that there is obvious bias (I assume that you mean eneough to make it untrustworthy)?

If as you correctly stated, it was not formed at Nicea or any other council, or official proclamation. Then wouldn’t the a natural adoption of the text by the people and Churches be left?

I didn't mean to imply it was untrustworthy, just that there was a bias. Biased assertions can nonetheless be true.

I'm just curious if there is another side to the story. Also, the article doesn't address my question about apocrypha. Apocryphal texts were around, so who (if anyone) decided that those texts were non-canonical?

Critical Thinking: Seven Steps
1) What am I being asked to believe or accept?
2) What evidence is available to support the claim?
3) What alternative ways are there to interpret the evidence?
4) Rate the evidence/alternatives on 0-10 scale based on validity/strength
5) What assumptions or biases came up when doing the above steps?
6) What additional evidence would help us evaluate the alternatives?
7) What conclusions are most reasonable or likely?

https://www.uncw.edu/jet/articles/Vol13_2/Kraus.html

I'm on step three

--I did throw in the line about "bullshit apologetics" which might have inferred I found the article untrustworthy. You can thank gotquestions.org for my being jaded in that respect.