Emperor Constantine Did NOT Choose the Books of the Bible
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ต.ค. 2016
- One of the most enduring myths today about the Council of Nicaea is that the council members voted on which books to include in the Bible. This myth is sometimes expanded to include Emperor Constantine as some driving political force behind the formation of the canon. This, in actuality, is almost certainly a fable. Dive into the historical evidence to see why.
Patreon: www.patreon.com/religionforbreakfast
Twitter: @andrewmarkhenry
Facebook: religionforbreakfast
Blog: www.religionforbreakfast.com
Bibliography:
20 Canon Laws from Nicaea: www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801...
Theodoret Ecclesiastical History: www.newadvent.org/fathers/2702...
Athanasius De Decretis: www.newadvent.org/fathers/2809...
Athanasius Festal Letter info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_...
Voltaire Dictionnaire Philosophique Section 3: (see edition: Oeuvres Completes de Voltaire, 1874, p. 357).
Synodicon Vetus (out of print): www.doaks.org/resources/public...
Thanks especially to our Patrons on Patreon!:
Brian B.
Daniel D.
Kalei W.
Alex B.
Mark H.
Alice C.
Wilson
Cain D.
I feel so called out for perpetuating this myth for so long! Shame on me for not doing the research myself into this claim I simply accepted as fact.
DamienZshadow agreed. I'm an atheist who throws this one around a lot. I'm a little embarrassed
Graham Walton I blame Dan Brown like he did. Lol
Graham Walton 😂
Well it’s really honourable that you two can admit you’re wrong and learn from mistakes:)
Thank you. We always need to if I hope and expect others to do the same.
This is the most comprehensive video on this subject that I've ever seen. I freakin love this channel.
You know its ridiculous right? Who decided which books went into the official Constantine bibles he ordered? Did god select them?
Same. It reminds me of the Christian Beginnings class I took in uni.
Who's Jesus??? My name is certainly not John! This is relevant simply because the name "jesus" is a corrupted transliteration. The majority refer to the messiah as jesus and all are guilty because of it...the roman Catholic Church is corruotive regardless of Constantine supposed dictation on canonisation...please call me by my real name!!
@@nosuchthing8 - "God"? Yeah, right.
I suggest JWO Jesus Words Only channel. Detailed information. Half truths in this video.
I like that the Emperor is only concerned about holiday schedules... that sound like a businessman.
Good point Calvin. Probably businessman Constantine was too busy being C.E.O. Caesar to spend much time debating the finer points of religious doctrine like Arianism. He had a vast empire to run, military matters to attend to, grain imports from Egypt and Africa, dealing with any rebels in his own Senate, and keeping the aqueducts and sewers operating. Between his ribbon cutting duties he was in high demand as a "guest speaker". Christianity was only a fleeting part of his every day concerns, and being the pragmatist he was, I'd guess his professional interest in it was limited to how it affected Rome, and his other duties, even if he personally believed. We all know how Christianity changed Rome, but Rome also influenced Christianity. Cheers, P.R.
Also, the Emperor actually sided with the Arians. This evaporates a lot of the myths about Constantine inventing the Church or whatever those people say.
Someone needs to tell Joe Rogan...
Victor Weis lmaoo good one
Yeah, but he’s a stubborn atheist. I doubt he’ll allow evidence to change his mind.
Zeno Carrow or it is because it is a commonly spread myth.
Loool yup
Victor Weis he won't listen. He thinks he knows everything and will not listen to opposing views
Whenever I tried looking online for who wrote The Bible (more than one author, I know) or who decided which books would be in The Bible, I never get a definitive answer. I concluded on my own that it occurred at the Council of Nicaea because I could not find any other answer. You said in the video that the process of deciding what should be in The Bible was an organic process. Could you please make a video describing that process? There are books and stories that aren't part of The Bible. I could go to a store and purchase a copy, and aside from translation differences it is now a standardized book. How did it become so standardized?
As a lawyer I also got very curious by this. Even with an organic process, at some point it seems logical that at some point an official decision was made, specially considering that made bishops usually disagree on matters. It would be shocking to me if there was no sort of decree (or equivalent).
Check the "Who wrote the Bible" series from Useful Charts channel here in youtube, its very much indepth and goes into detail for each books
@@reimukonpaku Thank you very much, I saved all the videos to be watched later.
@@jonascoelho You're correct. To quote Wikipedia - "For the Orthodox, the recognition of these writings as authoritative was formalized in the Second Council of Trullan of 692. The Catholic Church provided a conciliar definition of its biblical canon in 382 at the (local) Council of Rome (based upon the Decretum Gelasianum, of uncertain authorship)[4][5] as well as at the Council of Trent of 1545, reaffirming the Canons of Florence of 1442 and North African Councils (Hippo and Carthage) of 393-419.[6][7] For the Church of England, it was made dogmatic on the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563; for Calvinism, on the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647."
@@magicdog9523 yes, what andrew means is that the books that made official were already the popular form of the new testament
You forgot to mention the council of Carthage in AD 397. This is were the 27 books of the NT were canonized and this was later reaffirmed by the 5th Ecumenical Council.
Yep!
You forgot the 50 Constantine bibles too.
I don't think he "forgot", rather than he didn't have time to go into such greater detail in a short TH-cam video.
If it was a later council - even worse... and if most of the books of the Bible had been decided upon much earlier, so far so good - however you still have the possibility that some key authoritative brainwashing had been added later. As far as I am aware the book of Revelation was a contested book - the Book of R. has lots of fear provoking content, and so that was now declared as being authoritative. Jesus said we should pray for his Kingdom to come and ...if you believe that you have already received it then you will get it - that is something very positive, also something likely to trigger persecution. However, the authorities who just persecuted Christians obviously had an agenda to push their own version of Christianity. They likely knew the power of the mind, the power of faith - presently known as the law of attraction. Fear is a very powerful catalyst for negative faith. For that reason also predictions of fortune tellers become true, not because the source of the prophecy is divine. Fulfilled prophecy is not a proof of divine origin. It's the functioning of faith. Especially when it comes to prophecy we are advised to test everything and to keep only that what is good. I understand that this is a difficult thing to swallow. However, our first responsibility must be to search truth and to stay for what is good.
That's not what he's denying, so why should he mention it?
TY for clearing this up, its seems i've been in err for a while now . My appologies to anyone i've mistakenly reffered to the council of nicea about in any comments or discussions.
Same here, wow I really need to seriously study ancient Christian history lol
eric cloud you should. It’s fascinating stuff.
Percy Barbarossa the reason many believe that Constantine is responsible for the canon is because of Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code
I blame Voltaire.
eric cloud book of acts
Thank you for correcting my dangerous ignorance in a concise, educational, and entertaining manner. This will help a great deal in my discussions with friends and family on the subject, since I won't be spreading as much disinformation
I'm glad (and moderately conflicted) that I'm not the only one who was enlightened about this. I had learned of how much Constantine had essentially syncretized Christianity with many pagan traditions and changed all sorts of things, but this is making me rethink everything I've heard and seen about his actual footprint in Christianity. Thank you for the video! :)
I offer a theory of what Jerome meant, which will hopefully help you, since the debate on Nicea was about a debate on Arianism, and since Christians (as far I'm aware) debate on theological themes based on scriptures, mainly, I'm certain that what Jerome meant by "counting it among the holy scripture" is that, in the council of Nicea, while debating about Arianism, that book which Jerome didn't like was quoted with the same level of weight as books like The Gospel of John.
Opinions?
Yes I was thinking EXACTLY this, excellent theory!
Who constructed the Bible , the Church, Politicians ? Do we know ?
@@barbaraolson6783 The Old Testament was established by the times of Jesus. The New Testament was chosen slowly as the christians agreed on which scriptures were the ones that emphasized on Jesus and his doctrine.
Somehow found your videos on my home page. I'm really enjoying how you succinctly describe some of the early church history, as well as its myths. Keep it up!
Thank you man. God bless you. I love your work. It’s very informative.
Wow Andrew... you've given us more to digest than, I think, you're last ten videos put together. In my early days of undergraduate work, I was indeed taught, again and again, that the Council of Nicaea determined the biblical cannon. Later I found this not to be true, although I'm not clear on how and why. Given the current information I can understand how, like a bit of gossip, it infiltrated church teaching. (Once again, the difference between theological teaching and religious studies may come to bear.) I'll have to diligently follow your links to catch up. I'm sure I'll comment more later. I will say that it interests me that Constantine was given credit for the canon, holidays we celebrate, etc. I still have to unravel the fiction from truth. Thanks for causing my head to spin like a top!!!
I tried to pack in as much evidence as possible! It is a pervasive myth, so I needed a lot of proof to dismantle it. I agree it is curious how much credit we give to Constantine. Don't get me wrong, he did a lot for Christianity early on in its history...but we can't attribute EVERYTHING to him.
This is interesting. I need to look into this. Are you a christian?
Bob Smith
Most churches today are teaching the false doctrine of the Trinity.
The Catholic Church brought what they call the "holy trinity doctrine" into Christianity !
The trinity doctrine is not biblical.
There is one God, The Father.
Christ is His only begotten son and therefore divine (God by nature).
The spirit belongs to God and not a different person to him.
The Holy Spirit = The Spirit of God and Christ
John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
The Holy Spirit is not a 3rd God !
called God The Holy Spirit.
Romans 8:14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
Galatians 4:6
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth ''THE SPIRIT OF HIS SON'' into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
The Holy Spirit = The Spirit of God and Christ
God is God the Father !
Jesus is the only begotten SON OF God (Divine) !
and the Holy Spirit is the spirit of God that reveals all truth.
John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Jesus Christ himself said that His Father is greater than Him.
Jesus Christ the Son of God died for our sins !
not God The Father.
God The Father cannot die.
Deuteronomy 32:39-40
See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever.
Psalm 90:2
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
Psalm 102:27
But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.
Zechariah 6:13
“Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.”
In this verse it's very clear, the plan of salvation shall be between them both !
1) God The Father !
2) Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son !
Two persons !
not 3.
John 4:21
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
John 4:22
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
John 4:23
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
John 4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
These verses talk about our Father who is spirit, and we are to worship him in spirit and in truth.
Many think that our God is a "mystery" which they call a Trinity.
The words of Jesus "Ye know not what ye worship" would apply if our God is a mystery.
When we get to heaven, God will not then say "Meet my spirit".
We will see God face to face, and we will know him.
The Father of Jesus Christ.
Ephesians 1:17
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
Ephesians 1:18
The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now pope Benedict XVI) makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19 saying: "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism.
So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.
The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around 33 A.D. It was rather, as the evidence proves, a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated.
Very few know about these historical facts.”
(www.askacatholic.com/_webpostings/answers/2012_01JAN/2012JanWhyWereAdjustmentsMade.cfm)
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”
Not sure what you are trying to say by saying the Catholic Church "brought" the concept of the Trinity into Christianity. The Catholic Church defined Christianity. Aside from heretical splinter groups, the only persons you could even call Christians for most of the history of Christianity were Catholics. Really, until you had the Orthodox vs Catholic split in the Medieval Era, the terms Catholic and Christian were synonymous. Therefore, the concept of the trinity is intrinsic to Christianity itself from the earliest beginnings of Christianity.
Adam 1984
How exactly is Jesus the son of God? How, and when, was Jesus begotten, since, ‘begetting’ is a wholly biological concept? How is Jesus different from the rest of us?
You're my favourite YT channel by far. Thanks for providing stuff with an unbiased lense. It's quite hard to find such videos about Constantine 👌🏽
Thank you for this!! I find myself continually fighting this battle🤦🏻♀️. This was thorough and I much appreciate the reference links!
Great work! Thank for clearing that up! So the Council of Lao dacea mentioned the list. ,and the council of Nicea was about the Arian controversy that believed Jesus was not God.
Thank you for this video. Great job busting this myth. Thanks also for including your sources. This is how the world gets better educated !
I have heard this so many times. Thank you so much your video. I just subscribed.
You're most articulate and very clued up my bro...I've been watching your stuff for awhile now....let's have your personal and educated opinion on the Shroud of Turin. ...I'm looking forward to it. best regards Selwyn Katz.
Why has nobody named a Pizza Joint after one of these dudes???? I would totally get a large pepperoni and mushroom, from a place called "Eusebius of Caesarea".
There's a hippie pizza place in Colorado with its pizza's dishes names likend to "Eusebius of Caesarea".
Pizza pizza!
Thanks for helping me better understand the truth, dispell myths and open my mind to other theories.
thank you so much for your videos - so much clearer and engaging than other 10 videos I've watched on the same topic
I really like your channel! Even handed and researched well! Bravo!
Question: When was the first “Bible”?.... Before, there were always many writings and many books. At some point several books were compiled into a “Bible” or a generally accepted cannon. When was this and how was this done?
A.D. 328 Eusebius Sophronius Heronimus otherwise known as St. Jerome.
Books as we have them today were put together in the year 1500 onward nothing was in book format as these scholars say it was all on leather, stone ,parchment,stone etc what we all need to keep in mind when looking into matters of history religious beliefs etc is who the sources are who funds them and what sources are they using at the end of the day the new testament is written by Greeks and is not included in Torah and tanakh they created the bible and distorted it by adding the new Testament teachings all of them are written years after so called disciples existed and some hundreds of years after they were supposedly around the fact is the bible is completely mistranslated and some completely made up stories taken from various cultures around Africa and the world none are original
Council of Rome, Council of Carthage and Council of Hippo
Thank you! Dan Brown is a fun writer, but he is NOT to be taken seriously. This video suggest that by the time Constantine I came on the scene, the basic canon was more or less set. It is interesting that by Jerome's day the rumor that the canon had been set by Constantine was taking hold. Thanks again for the correction. It is better to light a single candle than to curse the internet.
This is an excellent summary of the research I have also found. Great job sir!
First of all, I think your videos (including this one) are spot on. This one is a very good discussion of the weird idea that the Council of Nicaea was about deciding the Biblical canon. I do have one small (admittedly trivial) nitpick - the name "Arius" should be pronounced on the second syllable in English: a-rī-us (IPA [əˈrɑɪəs]), in accordance with the Greek Ἀρειος (Latinized "Arīus") .
True, but it's Anglicized in American English the way he pronounced it; Which leads to interesting & sometimes amusing incidents, conflating that with Aryan for German speakers. Who says scholars don't have a sense of humor?
Vocalis ante vocalem corripitur
Great video. I am greatly annoyed by the myth you are talking about.
Anyway a little idea for a Christmas special. Did Santa punch Arius?
HappyDane - Fun idea, but it wasn’t Santa who allegedly struck Arius; it was Athanasius of Alexandria - what a piece of work he was!...
my eyes are blurry.. i read that name entirely differently...
If you counted the times someone argued with me about the _Da Vinci Code_ being historically accurate, you’d probably start referring to its author as Damn Brown!
yes Constantine created christianity. It was a propaganda tool .
Hollywood has been doing fine work spreading heresy.
@@sampuspitakumarajiva8930 This comment demonstrates a laughable ignorance of history on your part. Did you even watch this video - or any of the videos on this channel, for that matter?
@@789uio6y I'm studying for a degree in History, actually. Are you also under the impression that the owner of this channel is a Christian? If so, I question what you're even doing here.
Excellent vid! The best breakdown of this fable that I've ever seen!
Awesome video! I just have one question; Did they talk about what day should be the Sabbath?
I actually learned the version about the texts being placed on an altar in the early '80's. Well before Dan Brown so while we can look askance at him for a lot of things, he's more or less just keeping alive an unproven and unlikely story. I do love your channel and am glad that I took the time to listen to this episode.
Great video! Is it possible Jerome's quote is simply referring to the members of the Nicaean Council and not the Council of Nicaea itself?
Awesome stuff I really appreciate your series keep it up
Thanks for watching!
Alright, you did an excellent job of dispelling myth. Now for the complicated and messy process of establishing facts. My first impression is that a book-by-book series on how each book of the New Testament became canonized in the early church would be a useful way to untangle the controversy. It sounds like a lot of work, admittedly, but if you were able to do that, it would probably help a lot of folks develop an informed stance toward the Biblical canon and contextualize their opinions accordingly.
"The Council of Laodicea was held in AD 364 and is considered a minor convention in historical Christianity. The meeting featured only about thirty members, all from the local Middle Eastern churches." according to GotQuestions.org. They continued; "The 59th ruling of the Council of Laodicea declared that only canonical books should be read in church. The 60th ruling specified this canon as the traditional 27 books of the New Testament, minus Revelation; and the 39 books of the Old Testament, plus the book of Baruch and its extended ending, the Epistle of Jeremiah."
So...it would appear that *_the Council of Nicaea has been erroneously accredited_* with the New Testament canon and we should be instead be citing the Council of Laodicea...and the Council of Trent of 1546. For adopting the agreed-upon list of twenty-seven books that includes the Canonical Gospels, Acts, letters of the Apostles, and Revelation.
In conclusion, we can state with certainty that the books in the New Testament are *_an agreed-upon list of 27 books_* where religious leaders met in Council and voted on what to leave out and what to include. Thanks for clearing up the myth of Nicaea’s canon creation.
Who decided which books appeared in the 50 Constantine bibles then
Please we had the 66 books of the current Bible before there was any Council.
Someone sometime decided. So who cares on who and when. ? I can’t trust any of them. Lol. Come on. What a mess it all is.
@@nosuchthing8
We don't know.
But Eusebius of Caesarea is a likely candidate.
The council of trent was much later and only affirmed what was already known. The council of Rome in the 4th century was a council that formulated the Bible canon
Thank you for this. I taught this very thing for years in classes, and it is a frustratingly persistent piece of misinformation. You just have to keep coming back to scholars like Bruce Metzger and historical source material actually outweigh Dan Brown and Internet rumors.
New to the channel......I'm now binge watching ❤
I really appreciate the information that you provide and I hope you have a great New Year as I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of your videos I would like to see you do one of the scripture in the Old Testament about the law should go forth from Zion And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
Points for using Stenographic in a sentence :)
We can say with some certainty that the first widespread edition of the Bible was assembled by St. Jerome around A.D. 400. but it was in 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing, the 367 Athanasius’s Festal Letter lists complete New Testament canon (27 books) for the first time and the complete 66 books belonging to the canon.
He distinguished those from other books that were widely circulated and he noted that those 66 books were the ones, and the only ones, it was universally accepted that.the need to have a definite list of the "inspired" Scriptures became apparent. Heretical movements were rising, each one choosing its own selected Scriptures, including such documents as the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Epistle of Barnabas
The bible was the product of centuries of reflection and decades of debate between the time of the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 and the First Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381.
Bro. You got me sending apologies for being wrong af. Love the stuff. Weird how TH-cam got me back into the word somehow
Thanks for sharing. Will keep sharing.
It's trully amazing that we can get more scholarly accurate info in 12 minutes through TH-cam, than in 1 hour through Discovery or History Channel. I love Internet and being alive in this era!
The history and discovery channels are a lot like Wikipedia in a way there’s correct information and then there’s unbelievably incorrect information and that makes it hard to trust.
This was fascinating, but if this is the truth it means that the study of divinity was simply a popularity contest. That's unsettling.
what? In the council there was a number of famous arguments onto why Christ should be consider divine. How is the study and formulation of theological arguments is a popularity contest?
Interesting- in my undergrad college (history, New Testament as Lit), we were taught that Emperor Constantine did have a great influence over the NT and the creed. It was the main subject for a couple weeks. I'll dig up my old notes and see how it compares to this. Thank you for the info!
Thank you for clearing this up!
I was about to comment about you forgetting to include St. Nicolas (Santa Claus) smacking Arius in the face, but after looking it up it looks like he probably wasn't even there. Yet another myth about the Council of Nicea.
Sir_Sethery aw man basically every video or talk I’ve heard about the council of nicea mentions saint nick punching arius
Unfortunate, That myth is hilarious & fitting looool.
Wow. How did I not know this? I had always thought, The 325 Council of Nicae, had decided the books of the bible as well. Thanks for the information, and the correction.
The council of Nicaea never discussed the Gospel or Paul's letters to the churches 😂ecumenical means politics and religion just to please the king
Excellent and informative video!
Thanks for clarifying, I also believed in that lie of the books of the Bible being chosen in a single council(but I always thought that the claim that Constantine chose them was ridiculous).
Voltaire’s account sounds like a joke we aren’t in on.
You don't know pig-latin?
;-)
Is it accurate to assume that since the council settled the church's stance on Jesus' divinity, this made some gospels non-canon by default, which contributed to this confusion? Dan Brown novels aside of course 🙂.
no. The Gnostics and the Catholics fought over the Canon 200years before Constantine.
@@hesedagape6122 woah .. so were the first Christian's really gnostics?
@@JewessChrstnMystic no please. The first Christians were Jews - Nazarene Jews. The sect converted a lot of non-Jews who were not integrated into Judaism proper since the Romans destroyed the Temple but to the Nazarene faith and style of worship. Along the line some felt they could stray from their Jewish roots and become more Greco-Roman (the Gnostics). Those who resisted this were the Catholics (not to be confused with Roman Catholics who appeared in the 9th to 11th century) who insisted that the Jewish roots were fundamental and could not be discarded.
AustinThinker What gospels became non-canon for this reason?
Great video!
There could be a plethora or reasons for why people might believe that the council was about the bible, and many varying degrees of conviction on the matter.
Sometimes people have a hard time letting go of a preconception.
I often find that it becomes easier if you replace it with something else.
In this case, the “something else” could be some precise dates, places, and names involved in the forming of the bible. Then, people will have a substitute quip to use. Many people are uneasy with having “no answer” on a given topic, so as long as we can provide them with something tangible, they will have something and will be at ease.
The last line you wrote was so incredibly true. In any given topic people have such a hard time with having no answer that they'll accept anything with even the flimsiest of logic attached to it.
LOL Dan Brown refers to Constantine as a "pagan Emperor!" Constantine was absolutely not a pagan at the time of the Council of Nicea
Yet he still kept his pagan statues in his bedroom.
Brilliant! My compliment! I´m gonna share this video with my welsh friends on facebook. It is very important to them to see this! Constantine was linked to the welsh noble family of Magnus Maximus through his mother Helen.
Come one, it might not have happened at Nicaea. But the notion that the many dozens of evangalian books could be reduced to just 7 that spread across a pan-continental empire wihout an authoritive council or figure deciding which books should be included and which not is just absurd. Sure the process could have happened semi organically. Some of those books would lose popularity and eventually fade into obscurity. But the testimony of Jerome is enough that someone somewhere at sometime dictated what books should and should not be included into the new testament.
rutger5000
Worth noting that the church had a defined and somewhat centralized authority structure from the first century with appointed leadership to which many of the epistles were written. This is attested by the epistles themselves and confirmed by the Roman bishop Clement in 96, and the Bishop Ignatius in 108.
With central bishops in each city that were communicating with each other from the time of the authorship of the New Testament literature, the earliest of whom much of the New Testament literature was written *to* in the first place, it would be very easy for a canon to be defined organically just by whatever books they considered more valuable being the most read and copied, and indeed this is what we see happen with the canonical lists of different parts of the world only being different by a few books here and there. These canons eventually converged over time until a consensus was reached.
Also the Roman empire wasn't that strictly organized with only 1 bureaucrat for 10000 inhabitants
thanks for the vids. may i suggest a video on enoch. ive been reading up on him n would like to hear ur breakdown.
Great suggestion. I think I'll do a "Book of Enoch" episode...
I love your commentary: entertaining, enlightening, and energetic. Have you done anything on the early Eastern Christian (Catholic) mothers and their influence on Byzantine Christianity? If so, could you give me a link? Also, any idea on the role that Empress Helena may have played in Nicaea as the hostess for the large group of visiting priests and bishops? Are there any records as to whether spouses may have attended -- since some of the priests were married at the time. ;)
Bro it irritates me when people tell me Rome invented Jesus.
This channel is so useful.Really. I am not a christian but my interest is economics andcrisis where our belief system is changing. The transition from antiquity and the Roman Empire and emergence of christianity and rabbinic judaism is really difficult to examine, a) without examining your own beliefs b) without wading through a lot of pseudohistory. Thanks much.
1:17 most of the bishops denounced Arius's claim about Jesus. But i've read somewhere that Athanasius was likely the only church father that actually stood up for Jesus' divinity. Quoting his own word "it seems like the whole world was Arians ".
Can someone please clarify this?
Big Like for this one, my sanity is significantly greater having seen this, thank you
If Jerome is right, it could be something as simple as Judith used to support a particular cannon or argument, and thus by quoting it it has de facto acceptance.
It's so weird/interesting to see how many people are offended by this video.
It’s because it destroys the skeptics fake news.
@@tan1591 Mind explaining a bit more? I'm not sure that I'm clear on exactly what your point is and would like to make sure that I'm understanding you correctly.
ReligionForBreakfast
: Nice video series, very informative. Like you, I really like and dislike Dan Brown, but he did bring the whole issue up in 2006 and made a lot of people wonder about the truth behind the Bible. Now to my point. I was thinking about you said about the remark Jerome had made about translating the "Book of Judith". This reminded me that according to Eusebius, Constantine had requested at the end of the Council of Nicaea 50 Bibles or canon created. Now granted we have no evidence to support Eusebius claim to who wrote or even what these Bibles (Books) contained, but it does give us "Food for thought". As you stated It wasn't until 367 c.e. that Bishop Athanasius gives us our list of what the canon (Bible) should contained, so gives me to believe that the canon was pretty much settled probably by the middle or late 3rd century. We just don't know the names until the middle of the 4th century, this is my opinion. Your thoughts and thank you in advance?
Thanks for giving us the sources!
Great video. A family member of mine just hit me with this lie and I'd never heard of it. Now I'll be sending the video to them. Thanx 👌🏽
It was ANOTHER COUNCIL....
Prologue to Judith, makes the claim that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures".[3]
Luke 18:18-19 "And one of the rulers questioned him, saying: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?” Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good except one, God."
If Jesus was God, according to the Trinitarian Doctrine say this? Jesus always gave glory to the Father, His Father, God. If he were God, wouldn't he give glory to himself? Saying that God and Jesus are the same does not acknowledge that he is the Son of God, created by God. He couldn't create himself, could he? But he was beside God as His Master Worker, while the cosmos was being created, so that still makes Him a very powerful being.
I love the insinuation that this is a topic that just pops up in conversation on a regular basis.
This is a better of explanation of the Council of Nicea. A history professor I had in college (2006) said that the council had set down the books to be within the Bible and then mentioned Dan Brown in the same breath, which had seemed completely off; granted when some of my classmates mentioned that she went off into a long winded tangent.
The issue at Nicaea was homoousios vs. homoiousios; i.e.,... "of the same substance" or "of like substance." The fun fact is that this argument gives us the expression "Not one iota of difference..." the difference between the two arguments being only the letter "i", "iota" in Greek.
When I was a kid in Catholic school almost 5o years ago they taught that the books of the Bible were decided at the Council of Nicaea. Can’t blame a modern fiction author.
Very good videos and references.
Praise God that you were able to open so many eyes
I appreciate how difficult it is to make a concise and informative presentation on this subject, but I do feel that your idea of a 'consensus' process of forming the bible canon might sound just as naive as Dan Brown's claims about Constantine: "General agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision-making and follow-up action". Where is the evidence that there was some sort of democratic debate and vote among equal bishops and elder-presbyters? I mean, for starters, the bishops were overseers-episkopos and church 'fathers', which sounds a lot to me like religious governers, comparible to the guardian council of modern day Iran. Political figures such as Emperor Constantine (but more so Theodosius I) and his generals did have an influence on which ones were prominent and the fathers in turn dictated what their communities would hear read out in Church services - it's not like people really had any choice, unless they went into hiding. I mean why do you think the Nag Hammadi library was stashed away in hiding from the mad bishops of Alexandria? ...because it lost the debate fair and square? Take the Gospel of the Nazarenes for instance, apparently an early hebrew version of Matthew, studied by the translator of the vulgate latin, Jerome, from a copy in Caesaria. When was a translation of that ever included in any of the potential lists? You would think that it would at least be considered, but there's no evidence of that. Same for the Gospel of Thomas, around half of which can be found mixed in with the four gospels anyway. The later justification they used of 'consistency' makes no sense, since as Bart Ehrman has been pointing out for years, the four main accounts they chose are wildly inconsistent. There's also various superstitious statements made by early church fathers about how the number four was special and holy - that's not consensus forming based on grass-roots popularity, it's just an arbitrary limit decided behind closed doors for reasons we'll never know. While the Council of Nicaea did not declare a biblical canon, by the year 391, only 66 years after the first council, the Synod of Hypo was already declaring a canon identical to the modern Catholic Church's. There had only been one additional Nicaean Creed in between those two events in 381. Officially, most of these councils post legalisation just seem to deal with condemning heretics, sometimes for quite obscure theological reasons that the majority of Christians would not understand. What part of that is consensus building? I think that if heresy was their main concern, part of the discussion and the declarations made by the dominant figures in the councils must have involved what texts should be excluded from consideration. It seems very implausible that this topic would be completely absent. It's my opinion that one of the main things that influenced the direction of development was antisemitism e.g. the creed of Constantinople later in the same century: "I renounce everything Jewish, every law, rite and custom and if afterwards I shall wish to deny and return to Jewish superstition" - did the Syriac-Aramaic church get any say in that 'consensus'?
The Gnostic gospels just weren't coincidentally destroyed when Constatine took over the church the Gnostic faith would undermine the Trinity by it's teaching of an andrgynous deity in heaven greater than the male.
The Gnostic gospels just weren't coincidentally destroyed when Constatine took over the church the Gnostic faith would undermine the Trinity by it's teaching of an andrgynous deity in heaven greater than the male.
This video and the one following it in the playlist may be a useful reference,
th-cam.com/video/oNADG1MQzKk/w-d-xo.html
Well said. Good retort.....decision in debate, is yours. You win.
Also, I do like this guys videos for his presentation, his writing, his knowledge, and he is likable....he may just carve out a career for himself as a presenter. What I do not like is that in this episode (I hope only this one, as I like his channel) he seems to contradict himself. To say that tbe council made no decisions about which gospels were to be included in the new testament.....umm, they were there to debate, decide, and determine the divinity of Christ, so they were INcluding that which backed their consensus and EXcuding that which opposed it. So....the presenter is wrong.
He says there is no record!?
Seriously....
The new testament as we have it is the record of what they decided (what the council chose) and no, there is no record (made by the council) of what they did not choose...why would there be? Why would they wish to legitimize the very things they deemed illigitimate? Until the 'minutes' are found, he cannot say what he claims.
So no, his iis not the last word on it.
(Yours was great though!)
Cheers!
@@roisglassco8986 "misogynist gnosticism" jeez
I learned this in ministry school 20 years before Dan Brown.. Glad to finally know the truth though. I'd now like to know when and how the New Testament was resolved! Thanks ☺
yes Constantine created christianity. It was a propaganda tool .
@@sampuspitakumarajiva8930 you need some more history lessons.
I have learned more history from TH-cam than all my years in school. This is great and really informative. I also thought the Council of Nicea chose the books of the New Testament. The more I learn the more fascinating Biblical history is.
Wikipedia is good on this.
The source of the error is a Byzantine account of ecumenical councils probably written in the late tenth century.
It was translated into Latin in 1601 (as the Synodicon Vetus) and so became widely known in The West.
Its fanciful story about how The Canon was decided amused Voltaire, who popularised it.
And so it passed into popular myth - history and has remained current until the present day.
Thanks!
This is really cool to know but I have a hard time believing that the editing of the bible happened organically. So whodunnit?
I haven't gone through your entire video list yet, but have you ever focused on Julian the Apostate and his efforts to bring back Hellenism? He was an interesting character!
Love your videos man
"...Let's end this rumor once & for all..." I _wish_ *any* rumor could _ever_ be ended once & for all but rumors seem to hv some sort of evidence proof protective barrier that allows even the most idiotic of rumors to be resurrected time & time again
"Judith is a Jewish text of a Greek translation from the Hebrew bible."
First of all, what does that statement even mean? It is such a convoluted sentence that it has no meaning whatsoever. Judith is not in the Hebrew bible, which he should know is called the Torah, not "the Hebrew bible".
Second, no it's not. There is no Judith in the Torah. It was an early book, that wasn't holy and therefore was not canonized into what is called the "TaNaCh" (acronym for: Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim = Torah- 5 Books of Moses, Nevi'im - Prophets, Ketuvim- holy Writings).
He shouldn't have called the "Old Testament" accepted by Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians the "Hebrew Bible." This Old Testament includes the same books found in the Hebrew Bible, albeit in translated form and in some cases these translations are biased towards Christian theology (e.g. the use of "virgin" in Isaiah 7.14). It also includes some other books like Judith that were popular (albeit not canonical) among some Second Temple era Jews and later found favor within the early Christian community. Moroever some books found in this Old Testament like 1 & 2 Maccabees were originally written in Greek and never existed in the Hebrew language so it would be absurd to speak of them as being part of the "Hebrew Bible."
The Fifty Bibles of Constantine were Bibles in the original Greek language commissioned in 331 by Constantine I and prepared by Eusebius of Caesarea. They were made for the use of the Bishop of Constantinople in the growing number of churches in that very new city. Eusebius quoted the letter of commission in his Life of Constantine, and it is the only surviving source from which we know of the existence of the Bibles.[1]
Need it have been the main subject of debate at the council? What if standard protocol involved a series of rituals and formalities which no contemporary writer felt it was necessary to record, and one of these was clarifying which texts will be considered canonical, for the sake of argument, and so avoid debate breaking down on such an avoidable hurdle? Jerome may have been collating for the Vulgate in an atmosphere in which different versions were associated with different councils, but it was generally felt that Nicaea's was the best.
Man nothing makes my day like having my own misinformation debunked. Always glad to learn something
Great episode once again Andrew. On a side note, Arius' view seems to be more in line with Islamic views. Non trinitarian and non-eternal view points share commonality. The Quran states that the "people of the book" (i.e. Chrisitians) "disbelieved," as they made Issa, who was a Muslim (def. 'one who submits to the will of God') a partner of Allah, but Allah has no partners and is "shirk" to disagree. Woe is onto them that disbelieved. I mean, that is paraphrased but the passages are clear and unambiguous in there. Had Arius' view been accepted from the very beginning, history hypothetically could have greatly changed, though some psychological momentums may still have created things like the Crusades regardless of scriptural support. Its a shame little survives directly from Arius and seems to be a tiny footnote int he annals of history, but is theoretically, a huge bridge between two major but disparate world religions.
Good points...and yeah I have always speculated what would have happened if Arius' view became the dominant view. Lots and lots of varieties of Christianity were "Arian" in some respects. He wasn't alone.
@@ReligionForBreakfast
I seem to remember reading that John of Damascus regarded Islam is a new variant of Arianism rather than a new religion.
Paul was called to the council of Jerusalem by jesus deciples who walked with Jesus they admonished Paul for changing the teaching of Jesus and made to pay penance one being to shave his head and to stop preaching what he preached , which is now being preached by the church.
I seem to recall somewhere in some ancient document a mention of a book containing all the debates at Nicaea--though that book is lost. Clearly the transcribed debates existed for a long time, but no one cites that source as deciding the Cannon. Also, it occurs to me that the Book of Judith is an odd piece to have actually come up at Nicaea. I'm a protestant and I read Judith--its a romping good story, but I don't recall much interesting theology in it.
So who determined the NT canon? When and why? I LOVE YOUR CHANNEL!!
The Catholic Church
Josephus did...all other answers are bullshit propaganda.
Loren Braum It was more of just a very slow evolution. People and groups here and there making changes and additions. Putting in books, taking them out. Such as, someone just slipped in those pages that say old testament and new testament. More people copied those added pages until all bibles contained them. There was never an instant of no bible, then 3 months later a bible, at least in its present form. Didn't happen that way. Plus along the way many forms that fell into obscurity.
Loren Braum the early churches did. These churches sent letters the apostles wrote back and forth and copied them. It happened organically. Later councils only solidified by recognition of the books being used.
But Festal letter 9. A publication of an official list what should be in the Bible.🤔 So they did decide what went into the Bible. It seems to me the evidence does point to the fact that they had everything to do with the formation of the Bible.
It's cool to see people account for their myth perpetuating.
I like learning the truth, the buzz from knowing something new far surpasses any embarrassment from being previously wrong and/or ignorant for me. In this case I was simply ignorant (as I haven't read or watched The Da Vinci Code), but I can honestly say that I have been wrong about a lot of other things in the last 4 decades.
I really appreciate this channel.
Thanks for the encouragement! Religion is a tough topic to cover on TH-cam.
@@ReligionForBreakfast That's very true.Since 1998 I've being doing research to fully understand who or what is God.My position is agnostic.To me, God is just a concept,so it is real but not literal.Human Beings developed personal and impersonal conceptions of God.Also my position is agnostic on the historicity of Jesus.I've listened to Dr.Bart Ehrman alot and also Dr.Robert price and Dr.Carrier too.The more I learn the less I know.and I'm going where ever the evidence takes me.You're doing a phenomenal work.
Dear sir, I'm glad to subscribe your channel a very good source of knowledge indeed, I like it that you tend to be objective.
I have a few questions.
We know for a fact that early christians were diverse and they seemed to have more differences then similarities, we know many scriptures are banned from the bible, so how is it that many of them did not become part of the official christianity?
What about the gnostics?
And also, why was christianity really banned and forbiden by the romans and then later on it became their official religion? I don't think it was all just a misunderstanding thinking that christians were cannibals and rejected the idea that the cesar was son of God. The romans had no problem with most religions of their enemies so how come the new christianity after Constantine could fit in the roman culture and also having some pagan influences?
Wouldn't the idea of Nicea you reject was mentioned in the dark ages, would that not be considered a heresy? Maybe after all it was important to censor a lot of deals in that meeting, maybe it was forbiden to be very transparent as the organized religion of the new testament very soon became a political instrument to manipulate the crowds and as it gained power it became a force of cruelty with the holly inquisition and all that savagery, so are you suggesting that early christians wrre not soo different then the evil christians from the dark ages or the stupid christians of modern times as far as we concern for the majority of believers?
I would love a video about what's true and what's not in Dan Brown's books!
My guess 99% fiction and apocryphal. He just likes stirring up ideas and make a name to sell a story. Unfortunately, a lot of people do not know their history and then take this as gospel.
@@c.w_ I've never seen Dan Brown argue that his books were anything other than fiction designed to entertain the reader. It's really not his fault that his readers fail to grasp that. For instance, I love "Angels & Demons." It's an entertaining book that I couldn't put down. I'm also quite happy to acknowledge that precious little of it has any basis in fact. It's just a fun book.
Voltaire, the man who claimed that Antoinette made the famous "If you don't have bread, you can eat cake."
He was a devil!
I wouldn't say it had nothing to do with the new testament. But just not about determining which books should compromise the entirety of tbe n.t.
I had long believed this myth. I will add my voice to those thanking you for dispelling it.