How was the bible put together, how did it come to be?

Question

I watched a documentary that said one of the Roman emperor's told the church to unify and accepted Christianity but was worried about the different teachings offered by different churches. This led to the bible being put together in the format we know today. It also says there were other gospels, David and Mary that did not make it into the bible and had different accounts of important things that took place. An example was that David's gospel says Jesus was not crucified etc. I myself do not accept the bible as the word of god but have been trying to understand why so may people accept it and even say it was not man made. These other gospels also have a lot of information about the life of a young Jesus but this was not used either. Is the bible the word of God or the collaboration of the church? Why do those who accept it do so and why do those that don't refuse to?

Answer 1

You are looking for a few chapters of information. I wish I could just condense it for you. There were a lot of copyists in the past who made copies of the letters and the books that were written. Today we have over 10,000 ancient manuscripts (copies of the originals) that we can compare to see which ones are more accurate. Usually the older ones, the ones that were copied closer to when the original was written, are the more accurate ones.



We also know what the ancient Jews used and accepted as part of the Bible canon and that helps us. For instance, there are many so-called holy writings that weren't accepted back then that people all of a sudden want to add to the Bible, like the apocrypha and so forth.



We also can just easily tell when a book really deviates from the overall theme of the Bible. The Bible has a theme and all of the 66 canonical books therein all talk about the same subject -- the vindication of God's sovereignty by means of the Messianic kingdom over which his son, Jesus, rules.



I could write a lot more but then you might get bored.



The idea that Constantine put the Bible together is also so very untrue. There were scholars and copyists decades, even a couple centuries before him who already had the Bible canon together and accepted. People just say that as though they know something but secular history will attest to this. It is a lot more widely accepted now due to more detailed study of the time.

Answer 2

No, Constantine did not have anything to do with the Bible. He did change the laws and allow religious freedom (the Edict of Milan 313 AD), which stopped the killings of the Catholics, the first Christian religion.



Constantine was actually baptized Arian (not Christian) before he died in 337 AD. About 60 years later, Emperor Theodius made Catholicism the religion of the land.



The original Christian Church was Catholicism. By 300 AD, there were many writings floating around (including Gnostic writings) and it was determined that a compilation of the writings of the Apostles were in order.



The 73 books of the Bible were chosen at the Catholic Council of Rome (382 AD), the Council of Hippo (393) and the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419 AD).



In 382 AD Pope Damasus (the 37th pope) asked St. Jerome to compile and translate the books into the common language (Latin). This was completed by 420 AD. The term "Bible" was used by Jerome. The Bible is called the Latin Vulgate (also known as the Douay-Rheims).





Regarding the other writings you mention, there were some respected writings that did not make it in to the Bible, but were known in the Oral Tradition of Christianity, and there were also forgeries, like the ones you mention, which are called the Gnostic gospels (2nd-3rd C). The group that wrote the Gnostic gospels have a very different belief system than Christianity.



Interestingly, Mohammad seems to have chosen some Gnostic gospels to include in Islam by 700 AD so they have a very different, and erroneous, idea of who Jesus Christ was.





<)))><

Answer 3

Depends on what part of the Bible you are referring to. It is usually divided into two section, the Old and New Testament. The Old Testament reached the form that we know today back around 500 BC, more than 800 years before the Council Of Nicea.



The New Testament was written between 48 and 95 AD. At that time "books" did not yet exist. Everything was contained on scrolls. Because of the limits of a scroll, it was impractical to place the entire New Testament on one scroll. So while there are about 2,300 copies of the different New Testament books from before the Council, there are no "single volume" copies of the New Testament. There are list as far back as 120 AD that list which books were accepted by the church. The Council in 324 just made official what the churches had already been using for 200 years.



The "codex" which was an early version of the "book" was created about 200 AD. The first "complete" New Testament in one single codex appears to date from about 250 AD. While it does not survive anymore, we do have a list of what the book contained. It is the same books found in our New Testament, plus two letters written by Clements of Rome and a poetry book called the Shepherd of Hermes. Both these books were later dropped because they were known NOT to have been written by first century apostles. (Did not claim to be.)



In the mid 300s emperor Constantine lifted the ban on Christianity, and actually funded the printing of 50 Bibles. One of those may still survive in reasonably readable format today. (If it is not one of the original 50, it was copied from one of them.)



There have been lots of others books written about Jesus. Just as there are books today like the recent best seller DiVinci Code. But no one has suggested that the DiVinci code should be added to the Bible. So there have been lots of books written about Jesus.



If you go and write the writing of the early Christian father, they mention many of these books and when they were written. Unlike the books which make up the New Testament, which were all written within 65 years of Jesus' life (and the majority within 35 years), these other books date from 200 years and more later. Many of them even date from AFTER the Council (so they did not have them to include if they had wanted). Some are even as recent as the 11th century AD.



There is no "David's gospel". There is a document that claims to be a letter written by Barnabus (one of Paul's traveling companions) that claims Jesus was not crucified, but that Judas was killed in his place. But every scholar who has ever examined the documents believes it to be from the 8th or 10th century and written by Muslims trying to alter the Bible account.



Many of those "other books" are available, and have been all through church history. There is nothing in them that damages or disproves the Christian faith. Rather when you read them you see why they were not included in the scriptures. Often they are obviously false, having Jesus mean people like Alexander the Great and Plato.



The church fathers often mention when these books appeared, who wrote them, and why they are rejected by the church. Again, they often date from centuries after the time of Christ. When the Council of Nicea made its determination on what books to include and what to exclude, they used the writings of the church fathers in making their decisions. They also had the advantage of being closer to the time when the books were written. So they often knew first hand what the origin of the books was.

Answer 4

That is a very long story. The canon of the Tanakh (Old Testament), which was written over a period spanning from the 13th century BC to around the 5th century BC, was settled long before the New Testament was written. The books that were accepted into the New Testament were written sometime between 45 and 95 AD according to conservative estimates, or between 65 and 150 AD according to liberal estimates.



Over the centuries leading up to the Councils of Hippo and Carthage (which is when the New Testament canon was officially settled; not, as some believe, at the Council of Nicea), many early Christians had lists of books they considered to be canon. None of the books they accepted were rejected, but some that they considered dubious were accepted.



Constantine did have a hand in the events leading up to the official canon, but he did not preside over the actual councils. He was actually long dead by that time.



A good place to start for the development of the New Testament canon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

and Old Testament:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon



I've read many early Christian writings, and I think these articles are fairly close to the truth.



BTW, there was no gospel of David. There is a "gospel" of "Barnabas" which survives in a 16th century manuscript written in Italian. Some claim it's based off of an earlier gospel of Barnabas, but there's no proof of that. It's this gospel of Barnabas that claims Jesus wasn't crucified.



Edit: Oh, and the canon was *not*, I repeat NOT, settled at the Council of Nicea. The canon wasn't even discussed there.



The agenda of the Nicene council was:

The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being;

The date of celebration of the Paschal/Easter observation

The Meletian schism;

The validity of baptism by heretics;

The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Agenda_and_procedure

Answer 5

I'd like to see that documentary, because from everything I've learned about The Bible, that is not at all what happened. It sounds like one of those cheesy "council of Nicea" conspiracy theory videos, which are exposed by the info on this web site

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html



There **were** Scriptures that were rejected when The Bible was formed - and they were rejected on grounds such as:

* they contain obvious error

* they do not agree with the most well-authenticated Scriptures

* they could not have been written by the claimed author



You can read most of those known to exist here

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/



As an example, you mention the infancy gospels of Jesus. If you read them, you see clearly they radically disagree with the 4 gospels, which were claimed (in writing) to be authentic in the early 2nd century. You can see, I think, how something like an infancy gospel - with a very shaky pedigree - that contradicts the 4 gospels would be rejected purely on the grounds that it was almost certainly not authentic.



I you read the pseudepigrapha on the page provided (there called "New Testament Apocrypha"), I believe you will find in every case either obvious error or obvious disagreement with the 4 gospels, each of which has a better pedigree than the Scripture not included.



Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com

Answer 6

Constantine did urge the Church to better organize and gave them many resources to do so. However, he was not involved in the creation of the Bible, which was debated over many years by bishops. (It was NOT created at the Council of Nicea, as several answerers claim. It was debated at several later councils.) There are a variety of reasons why some books were accepted and some were not.



One of the reasons for rejecting a book was if they knew it was written too recently to be authentic.



Other books were rejected because their messages were contrary to what had already been accepted by that point as the truth. This is one of the reasons gnostic writings were not included: gnosticism itself had been rejected.

Answer 7

According to Dr.Erham Bart of the university of north carolina, Chapel hill, there are 5,500 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament even though Jesus never spoke this language. And the most astonishing fact is that no two manuscripts match with each other 100%.The oldest bible ie The Roman Catholic bible ie The Duay Version has 73 books. the protestant bible ie The King James version has 7 books less, they have thrown out 7 books from the Duay version because they think these books are apocrypha ie doubtful. next in 1930 36 scolars of highest eminence backed by 66 denominations gathered togather and compiled the Revised Standard Version. why? because according to them (preface) "the KJV has some grave defects and they are so many and so serious that needs revision".and they trew out John 3:16 "God gave his only begotten son and 1 epistle of John 5:7, Mark 16:16, Mark 16:19 and Luke 24:2. But later in 1971 some individuals and 2 corporate denominations forced the publishers to put the things back and these things were restored again in the 1971 edition of the RSV. Now the question is which of these is a word of God? and when human beings are able to put things and remove it can this be called a word of God? The quran answers this question , Allah says in the quran, "and woe to those who write the book with their own hands and then say its from Allah to traffic with it for a miserable price- woe to them for what they write and woe for the gains they make thereby".(quran 2:79). The quran confirms that Allah send guidance throughout the world and confirms that Revelations ie books were given to Moses (Torah), Psalms (David) Injeel to Jesus and quran To Muhammad (peace be upon them all) but all the books that God sent except the quran were either lost or tampered by humans so Allah has promised to protect his last revelation to mankind ie the quran cos its meant for all of humanity till eternal time."we have without doubt send the message and we will assuredly guard it"(quran 15:9}. according to Sir.William Muir, "there is probably in the world no other book which has remained for 12 centuries so pure a text( now 14)". to veiw the quran you can check out http://allahsquran.com

Answer 8

OK, first off, the History Channel and Discovery are no place to find responsible historical scholarship. The Bible as we know it today was in circulation long before the time of Constantine, but the canon of scripture was not formalized until after his death.



There was no Gospel of David and the Gospel of Mary is a late second century to early third century fake, as are the so-called Gospels of Thomas, Peter and James.



If you are seriously interested in responsible historical documentation on these issues, see F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downer's Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1959)



Also helpful is Robert L. Wilken, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the Face of God, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003)

Answer 9

The Bible is a collection of books written by men claiming to be inspired by God. There are no proofs (external corroberation) that any of them were written by those given credit for writing the biblical books, or that many of the people mentioned in the Bible even existed. The only exception is Paul, and only five of the letters claiming to be authored by him are authenticated (he eitther wrote them or dictated them--most likely). There is no external corroberation of Biblical events. Although some of the material is definitely historical most is a matter of ancient myths (not myth as in "fairy tale") passed on orally from ancient story tellers that were later written (much later). There is no original biblical manuscript in existance and what does exists are only copies of copies. Moreover, there is much variation within certain manuscripts as they all were edited and modified throughout time. Those who accept the Bible as being inerrant and directly authored by God are those whose faith depends on this stand. Those who do not except the Bible as being inerrant and directly authored by God are those who either do not believe in the Judeo-Christian religion or are comfortable enough with their faith in God to veiw the Bible as just a book written by men. Incidently, the term "Bible" means just that: book. Whether it is Holy or not is a matter of opinion.

Answer 10

The Bible as we know it today is a product of countless revisions, (bad) translations and guess work. The structure of the the modern Bible - the old and new testament - were put together at the Council of Nicea by the Emperor Constantine and the leading scholars and theologians of the day. The old testament was taken from Jewish texts, coupled with gods and mythology of Egyptian, Syrian and Roman gods (also borrowed) to account for holidays and holy personages. But the problem is that it was translated into Latin by people who didn't really speak the language. Ancient Hebrew is much like Arabic - there's a lot of room for interpretation depending on who's reading it - so a lot of the translation was guess work. The new testament is a collection of 'gospels' telling about the life (and lies) of Jesus Christ. The twelve gospels that were chosen were chosen because they 'godified' Jesus. They were chosen from more than eighty gospels, most of which were destroyed by the early Catholic church after having them deemed heretical. Much like the old testament, the new testament is full of bad translation and guess work.



At best, you can say that the modern day Bible is a inflated political document.



An interesting footnote. Constantine himself was a pagan until the day he died. He was baptised on his deathbed, against his will. Makes you wonder why he wanted to have the Bible compiled. Control?

Answer 11

The Council if Nicea gathered together a bunch of religious texts to make a single book and decided what was the "word of god" or not depending on what they wanted people to know and believe. That's why the bible is so fractured and conflicting--there are many things missing, highly edited (especially the ones that state Eve was not the first woman, the children of Adam and Eve had to procreate with each other, and that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a relationship and she even had respect and influence), and they come from a huge variety of sources, many of which had contrary views, opinions, and interpretations of stories.



It's purely a work of man, not some god.

Answer 12

The Bible is a compilation of 66 smaller books.

It started in 1540 B.C and finished being compiled in 98 A.D.

Approximately 40 people contributed to it.

The fact that 40 people, from drastically different walks of life, over a span of 1600 years, can contribute to such a harmonious book that sticks to theme, is an indication that it has one over-all author - God.

There are plenty of other books (the catholic church added 9 of them in the 3rd century after Christ)

however, a book meant for the Bible must stand up to certain criteria.

e.g.

Be referred to by Jesus.

Mention God's name (Yahweh).

Uphold God's supremacy.

Other books, though historically accurate, do not live up to the criteria.

Answer 13

it is not the word of god but the word of man the early church who put the bible together only put in books that seemed worthy of controlling the masses and decided to leave other books out that did not fit what jesus was about

Answer 14

The bible are a set of translated ancient scrolls translated into Old english by King James.

These ancient manuscripts can be dated to time of Moses. They are a set of manuscripts written through the ages and they all compliment each other as if they were author by one person but scribed by many through time. The older scripts compliment the newer scripts and the newer script give credit to the older scripts. There are predictions of Christ crucifixion with many details a thousands years before it happen and my favorite... there are description of dinosaurs in a time of Moses when this was written people didn't know anything about dinosaurs.



When read with common sense and logic the bible makes 100% sense and all the books compliment each other with no contradictions.

Answer 15

In the begining a small sect of ancient Egyptians decided to modify their polytheistic religion and created the Cult of Aten. This turned all of the Egyptian gods like Ra into one god with the characteristics of all the others. This is pretty much all they changed though. Later on part of the group became its own nation after a few battles and became the Hebrews. (it goes on, mostly taking new ideas from other religions around the area and adding to its own and another big schism where they incorporate a lot of the Greek mythology...)

Answer 16

The council of Trent meetings.

Answer 17

it was written by people who's sole desire was to control the masses. they put themselves between god & the man. and then say "if you want god, you have to get through ME and follow MY directions"



it doesnt matter what god said or didnt say. you'll never know. and to trust some secular human to present you with the word of god is foolish. they are still human and can say whatever they wanna say.



and the thumbs down that im getting or will get further proves my point, that people operate based on emotions and not logic.

Answer 18

constantine took the bits he liked at the council of Nicaea and made 50 copies to be distributed throughout europe.

Answer 19

I think you know the answer already but you are holding on to something for sentimental reasons.

Answer 20

Emperor Constantine had it put together.