The Christian Canon

[The Grand Nudger]

So long as it can clear the rio grande I want one too.

[Minimalist]

I'd be interested to know what information this understanding is based on.

Many years of school/church/reading. I found the quote from the wiki article that support that. 

Writings attributed to the Apostles circulated among the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating, perhaps in collected forms, by the end of the 1st century AD.[a] Justin Martyr, in the mid 2nd century, mentions "memoirs of the apostles" as being read on "the day called that of the sun" (Sunday) alongside the "writings of the prophets."[5] A defined set of four gospels (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c. 180, who refers to it directly.[6][7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen...ollections

You know, it would have been nice if you had provided a link that actually worked because I was dying to check out the "sources 6 & 7" which were undoubtedly a couple of apologetic assholes because that is all you seem to read.  Anyway, nice try at trickery.  I'm sure "jesus" is proud of you.

[vulcanlogician]

Lol. I think he just mis-pasted the link.

[Minimalist]

His type never think anyone will double check them.  That's why they are called "assholes."

[Angrboda]

I'd be interested to know what information this understanding is based on.

Many years of school/church/reading. I found the quote from the wiki article that support that. 

Writings attributed to the Apostles circulated among the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating, perhaps in collected forms, by the end of the 1st century AD.[a] Justin Martyr, in the mid 2nd century, mentions "memoirs of the apostles" as being read on "the day called that of the sun" (Sunday) alongside the "writings of the prophets."[5] A defined set of four gospels (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c. 180, who refers to it directly.[6][7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen...ollections

Although, I thought about this recently. No one has to live by what those councils decided. We still have all the contested documents. We can do incredible things with word usage and sentence structures than ever before. It is easy to reapply some of the same doctrinal-consistency tests the councils would have done back then. The charge that "the winners" decided what was in the Bible is meaningless.  You can re-check their work--with more precision. There is not one book that "should" have been included after reexamination. There are some epistles that might not be from Paul--so? Did any doctrine change? Any new teaching get introduced? No.

Like Nixon's 18 minute gap, there appears to be a large undocumented gap between the writings in the first century and the consolidation that began in the latter second century. The Dead Sea Scrolls point to the possibility that there was much more going on during that time than we are aware of today. I'm not inclined to give a vague reference to your cumulative life experience and reading much credence, especially given your background and prior attempts to defend canon. If you have something specific to add, I would be most interested. Otherwise I'm inclined to just disregard your comment.

[Amarok]

Lol. I think he just mis-pasted the link.

Beware of Christian bearing sources

---

Many years of school/church/reading. I found the quote from the wiki article that support that. 

Writings attributed to the Apostles circulated among the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating, perhaps in collected forms, by the end of the 1st century AD.[a] Justin Martyr, in the mid 2nd century, mentions "memoirs of the apostles" as being read on "the day called that of the sun" (Sunday) alongside the "writings of the prophets."[5] A defined set of four gospels (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c. 180, who refers to it directly.[6][7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen...ollections

Although, I thought about this recently. No one has to live by what those councils decided. We still have all the contested documents. We can do incredible things with word usage and sentence structures than ever before. It is easy to reapply some of the same doctrinal-consistency tests the councils would have done back then. The charge that "the winners" decided what was in the Bible is meaningless.  You can re-check their work--with more precision. There is not one book that "should" have been included after reexamination. There are some epistles that might not be from Paul--so? Did any doctrine change? Any new teaching get introduced? No.

Like Nixon's 18 minute gap, there appears to be a large undocumented gap between the writings in the first century and the consolidation that began in the latter second century.  The Dead Sea Scrolls point to the possibility that there was much more going on during that time than we are aware of today.  I'm not inclined to give a vague reference to your cumulative life experience and reading much credence, especially given your background and prior attempts to defend canon.  If you have something specific to add, I would be most interested.  Otherwise I'm inclined to just disregard your comment.

 Now watch them chant "argument from silence "

[Fireball]

[xtians in one place, sorting through scrolls] "Let's take this batch, it best represents what we have."

[other xtians in another place, sorting through scrolls] "Let's take this batch, it best represents what we have."

.
.
.

[other xtians in another place, sorting through scrolls] "Let's take this batch, it best represents what we have."
.
.
.
[yet other xtians in another place, sorting through scrolls] "Let's take this batch, it best represents what we have."

All four groups engage in heated arguments, up to and including holy wars and burning "heretics" at the stake.

Rinse and repeat, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

[yet other xtians in another place, sorting through scrolls and some additional fiction] "Let's take this batch, it best represents what we have."

Everyone else in the world calls this last group Muslims, even though they claim that they are the true xtians®.

[vulcanlogician]

I'm gonna read Carrier's paper that was posted earlier in the thread some time in the next few days and post my opinions on it. The first few paragraphs lead me to believe that this is exactly what I was looking for. After I read the paper, I might even try to raise some objections to it and see if I can't poke some holes in Carrier's position. A research project might even be a somewhat constructive way to take my mind off some personal issues I'm having right now.

If there is one problem I have with religion, it is its willingness to eschew the findings of those who have genuinely investigated reality and adopt a readymade truth found within their "sacred texts." Not only is the typical believer urged to accept a dogma solely on the basis of tradition, but also to consider further investigation into the truth fruitless, or (at the very least) fruitful only inasmuch as it conforms to a doctrine. Regardless of a doctrine's particular origin, I see adherence to a doctrine as nothing less than closing one's eyes to the truth.

Moreover, I believe that there are many valuable insights to be gleaned from the scriptures themselves. Some of the things found in the Bible are the result of genuine reflection and even perhaps (in some cases) genuine philosophical discourse. But believers are told to accept these insights and look no further for any more truth. "All you need to know is found in the Bible." If the authors of the Bible had adopted the same attitude, they wouldn't have bothered to add their own contributions. An atheist equivalent would be treasuring the theories of Albert Einstein, yet hating and distrusting science. Logic does not permit such a position.

Believe in God all you want. As an agnostic, I readily admit that I cannot disprove God's existence. But I can argue against the reasonableness of believing a book simply based on historical happenstance and the modern tradition that resulted from it. To me, it looks very much like a description of the shadows in Plato's cave in text form.

I'm not too clued up on who exactly made the decisions, but clearly some group of people did, or various groups over time.

What I find bizarre/amusing is this: where else do we see the word "canon", except in works of fiction? Some people just decided that certain recorded events happened, and some didn't, based on what? Usefulness for their agendas I guess, or just popularity. Clearly it's not accurate reporting or internal consistency that are the criteria. Normally in historical study, no sources need to be omitted, they either stand up to scrutiny or they don't.

You make a good point. A "widespread and ancient consensus" means very little in regards to the accuracy of the canon's contents. After all, there was a "widespread and ancient consensus" that the Earth was flat.

[Minimalist]

Like Nixon's 18 minute gap, there appears to be a large undocumented gap between the writings in the first century and the consolidation that began in the latter second century.

The difference Jorm is that Nixon's tape actually had a gap.  He was talking.... then there was the 18 minute gap... and then he was talking again.  With this jesus shit we have no solid evidence that any of this crap existed in the first century.  It just starts in the second.

And yes... I can hear the assholes now.  "Argument from silence."

[robvalue]

The only canon that would make any sense to me, and be actually useful, would be to carefully date the order of the texts. This has been done for most of them I imagine, so why not include them all? I can understand that a "pocket book" cannot always accomodate all relevant sources, but that's hardly the reasoning the bible uses.

I wonder how many Christians even know that the real order of the gospels is Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, unlike the order they are presented. Mind you, most probably think they were all written about the same, and during Jesus's lifetime.