RCC Revisions To The Bible?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2007-01-19 06:14pm

I'm in a debate on the nature of the revisions to the bible by the ancient church and I'm wondering if anyone can supply me with the name of the council that decided on what books to include and which ones to drop.

Melchior · Post by **Melchior** » 2007-01-19 06:24pm

IIRC they did it several times, the last one in Trent (Trento) in 1563.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2007-01-19 07:24pm

I believe you're thinking of the (First) Council of Nicea

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2007-01-19 08:29pm

SancheztheWhaler wrote:I believe you're thinking of the (First) Council of Nicea

That's a popular but wrong idea. Carthage was about the canon, Nicea was about theology and the arian heresy.

In the case of the New Testament the fixing of the Canon was done mainly at the council at Carthage in 387 AD, though the core of the related gospels etc were mentioned by others prior to that, so they did have something already established to go from. The OT I think was settled about 400 BC by a jewish council.

As for "revisions" ...uhm, as far as I know it's pretty close to the first things they copied from. The main issues crop up around different translations done at different times, the knowledge, diction & biases of the translators, etc.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2007-01-19 09:08pm

http://www.bible-history.com/

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-01-20 01:33am

Damn, I saw the thread title and thought that the RCC was thinking about revising its canon. That would be a real blockbuster of a news day.

Elaro · Post by **Elaro** » 2007-01-20 11:18am

Darth Wong wrote:Damn, I saw the thread title and thought that the RCC was thinking about revising its canon. That would be a real blockbuster of a news day.

So did I. I honestly thought they were going to follow your suggestion.

Still, how likely would that be?

Tolya · Post by **Tolya** » 2007-01-20 11:37am

Still, how likely would that be?

Even if they chose to revise the content of the Bible it wouldn't really change much.

Imagine a college of cardinals saying "Fuck it! Let's throw out everything that is illogical or promotes violence! Let's clean the Bible up!". What's left would probably have the size of scientologic pamphlet and about as much content.

But, of course, this is all a theory. Because the day that the catholic church admits that they did something wrong, or even more importantly, that the Bible was ill-constructed, would be the day that the Pacific Ocean froze.

Anyways, the possibility is entertaining. What do you think would they change in the Bible if there was a revision today?

CaptJodan · Post by **CaptJodan** » 2007-01-20 04:05pm

Tolya wrote:What do you think would they change in the Bible if there was a revision today?

It would probably, as an overall shift, move towards a more modern secular bend. By and large I would suspect they would go from homosexuals being killed to simply being in the great need of being "saved" and cured. It would likely still carry the penalty of eternal hellfire, however. Same likely goes for much of the OT (when I speak to my own catholic friend, he says he believes in the 10 Commandments (no word yet on which ones) and the NT. He ignores pretty much the rest of the OT). They'd likely completely cut those things that athiests and people with a shred of morality usually object to, like stoning your children for being disrespectful and the sin of planting two different types of crops next to each other. Jesus would likely become even more of a superhero in order to pull in more of the youth crowd.

God Fearing Atheist · Post by **God Fearing Atheist** » 2007-01-20 05:09pm

Rye wrote:
SancheztheWhaler wrote:I believe you're thinking of the (First) Council of Nicea
That's a popular but wrong idea. Carthage was about the canon, Nicea was about theology and the arian heresy.

In the case of the New Testament the fixing of the Canon was done mainly at the council at Carthage in 387 AD, though the core of the related gospels etc were mentioned by others prior to that, so they did have something already established to go from. The OT I think was settled about 400 BC by a jewish council.

As for "revisions" ...uhm, as far as I know it's pretty close to the first things they copied from. The main issues crop up around different translations done at different times, the knowledge, diction & biases of the translators, etc.

Neither Nicaea nor Carthage were about the canon.

The Third Council of Carthage (canon 24) ended the practice of reading non-canonical books which, in the words of Athanasuis (39 Festal letter), "have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and which to be instructed in the doctrine of piety."

Canonization was a process, not a matter of fiat.

defanatic · Post by **defanatic** » 2007-01-20 05:32pm

Tolya wrote:But, of course, this is all a theory. Because the day that the catholic church admits that they did something wrong, or even more importantly, that the Bible was ill-constructed, would be the day that the Pacific Ocean froze.

Anyways, the possibility is entertaining. What do you think would they change in the Bible if there was a revision today?

You're saying we have to freeze the Pacific Ocean...

Probably root out all the contradictions and stuff. Well, actually, they probably wouldn't. I have no idea.

Elaro · Post by **Elaro** » 2007-01-21 12:56pm

Actually, I think they would just cut all the violent things out of the New Testament (the bits where Jesus goes apeshit on those who talk against the holy ghost, where he talks about setting a son against his father, the kind of thing that the mainstream person objects to) and maybe cut the Old Testament out entirely. That's pretty much what the Quebec clergy do already: they take their lectures out of the NT and only the parts of the OT that talk about the coming of the Messiah.