English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

9 answers

it depends on which parts. at certain times some writings were valued higher than others, and some parts were eventually dropped.

Hebrew Scriptures: (commonly called Old Testament) were written any time after about 1000BCE. Large portions were written in and around the 500's BCE during the time of the Babylonian captivity and afterwards. (Isaiah 42 was written either IMMEDIATELY before, during or after the persian victory over the babylonians... ~~"Cyrus is Yhwh's messiah" is similar to inscriptions that Cyrus left in the conquored city Babylon. The Torah (first five books of HS/OT) was likely compiled and officially brought together into one "volume" of scrolls during the reign of Cyrus. It was the persians tendency to allow the conquored Satraps the privilege of providing a "constitituion" of sorts by which they would be governed. if the regions were incapable of doing such, they were governed by Persian Law. The next step came when the Hasmodeans took over ruling Jerusalem and surrounding areas. they were the first explicitly Priest-King rulers, and they also compiled even more documents to make them official. Around the time of Christ, the Septuagint (greek translation of the HS/OT) was considered to be as authoritative as the original hebrew manuscripts.

New Testament: (or Early Christian scriptures) cannonized officially as we have it today probably after about 400CE. we have early early writings and letters of people talking about which books must be studied which ones are optional and which should be thrown out... they do not all agree. Codex Sainaiticus is largely considered to be one of the best early manuscripts... I'd have to check my sources but I'm pretty sure its from around 350CE. this manuscript has pretty much all of the NEw Testament as well as the Letter of Barnabas and large portions of the Shepherd of Hermas. This is a handy manuscript because it shows us what the early church relied on and valued.

In case you are interested, the letters in the New Testament were written long before the Gospels. Mark was likely the first gospel written, and was used by the writers of both Matthew and Luke. Matthew and Luke also used a source known as Q (also called the Sayings Source) which was a collection of Jesus' teachings and sayings.

hope this helps. if you are interested and want to have some fun, go to wikipedia and do some searching for the following:

codex
Q Sayings Source
Redaction Criticism
Source Criticism
Marcion

good luck!

2006-12-05 12:06:44 · answer #1 · answered by dingwallplayer 2 · 2 0

The word "canon" means a measuring rod or standard. The church did not determine what was canonical. There was a standard that was used to determine what books were included. It is hard to put a date on when the Bible was canonized because the earlier church was circulating letters long before the Council of Nicaea (over 250 years prior). For a matter of fact, if you study history, the Council of Nicaea did not even discuss the canon. The first official council regarding the canon was the Synod of Hippo in AD 393. However, they did not confer upon the books of the New Testament any authority which they did not already possess, but just simply recorded their previously established canonicity.

2006-12-05 20:04:38 · answer #2 · answered by mark777 2 · 1 0

The First Council of Nicaea had NOTHING to do with canonizing Holy Writ.

Read any reputable source for the Concilliar documents.

The First Council met for these purposes only:

The agenda of the synod were:

The Arian question;
The celebration of Passover;
The Meletian schism;
The Father and Son one in purpose or in person;
The baptism of heretics;
The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.

Period.

2006-12-05 19:57:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The Christian Bible was canonized by the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. However, there were still changes to it as late as the 15th Century. Also, there are differences in which books of the Bible are accepted by different religions.

2006-12-05 19:50:47 · answer #4 · answered by nondescript 7 · 1 1

There is the Catholic canon, and there is the Holy Bible.

The Catholic leaders wanted some of the apocryphal books included in the Catholic Cannon because they think they are still good for edification.

The books the early Messianic Jews / early church tested to be true are the books in the Holy Bible.

2006-12-05 19:53:07 · answer #5 · answered by t a m i l 6 · 0 1

Canonization is for those who died such as Pope John Paul II, Mother Teresa, etc.

2006-12-05 20:17:04 · answer #6 · answered by judirose2001 5 · 0 1

at the nicene council after rome ruled that christianity was no longer illegal. a collection of church leaders gathered together to discuss, pray and decide what would become the bible as we know it today.

2006-12-05 19:53:21 · answer #7 · answered by whiteafrican01 3 · 0 0

Which one?

2006-12-05 19:51:10 · answer #8 · answered by Illegals Are S*** 3 · 0 0

canonized! I just love it when man invents that kind of crude

2006-12-05 19:50:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers