The contents of what would be included and excluded from the Bible was at the "Council of Nicea". What criteri?

The Council of Nicea was convened to answer the theological arguments of Arianism. The assembled bishops took major steps through argumentation (not throwing books into the air) toward understanding the trinitarian nature of God.

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

The canon of scripture was finalized at the Council of Cathage in 397 AD. Again, the bishops did not make their decisions by throwing books into the air, but by carefully examining their inerrancy, revelatory character, and consistency with Jesus teachings.

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

Cheers,

Bruce

"What criteria was used at this council which was governed by Emporer Constantine and attended by 300 elders, to decide what was to be included and what books were to be excluded from the canon of scripture?"

The Council of Nicaea did not even discuss the Canon of Scripture. The Counciil was instead convened to confront the Arian heresy that denied the divinity of our Lord.

"I've heard that the criteria was that they placed a huge slab of stone before them, then threw the individual books up in the air and whatever landed on the stone was holy and whatever didn't was not of God."

You heard wrong!

"Since this seems like a ludicrous method, then could anyone tell me if this is true, and if not what true criteria was used to distinguish holy from unholy books."

Not true, they did not discuss the Bible at all. The Bible was chosen at the African Synods early in the fifth century and authorized by Pope St. Damasus.The criteria was that the author be an apostolic witness and known. That is showed signs of divine inspiration and that it was suitable for teaching. No apocryphal books were included. But the full Canon of the Septuagint were included.

Your research is all flawed. Do you have a source for this nonsense? Here is the real history of the Bible from my blog:

http://fiatvolvntastua.blogspot.com/2009/06/was-it...

And also here is more information:

http://fiatvolvntastua.blogspot.com/2009/06/is-fin...

God bless!

In Christ

Fr. Joseph

That's not true at all. The Council of Nicea determined the Nicean Creed and declared Aranism a heresy. The settlement of the biblical canon for the Catholic Church was still a century off. However, it is true that Eusibius, Constantine's biographer and early Church historian, first began circulating a list of what he considered to be inspired texts versus what he thought were not while the bishops were gathered for the council. Other bishops started circulating their own lists, and the debate raged, but by the time of St. Jerome, and his translation of scriptures into the Latin Vulgate bible in the early fifth century, the debate was pretty well settled. While it's not as silly as tossing scripture into the air, it's not exactly an exalted, holy spirit ordained process either.

cristoig gave a good answer.

First: the council of Nicea did *not* address this issue.

We know this not only because we still have the records of that council, but also because the "proto-bibles" that were produced in the following decades (but not until after Constantine's death, as far as we know) do not include an identical set of Scriptures. Compare the contents of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus - both produced shortly after Constantine's death - and see for yourself that there was no agreement on Scriptures at this point. Finally: the later council of Laodicea **did** address this issue, and they created a list of Scriptures not used by any Bible known.

Laodicea seems to have been the first "stab" at forming a common set of authorized Scriptures agreed upon by officials. The synod of Hippo and council of Carthage established what we might call the first agreed-upon Biblical canon that was actually put into use (used first in the Latin Vulgate of 405). That list of Scriptures was used in Latin Bibles at least until the 8th century (Codex Amiatinus).

The determination "Apocrypha" as you mean it was first made by Martin Luther in 1534! He moved several Scriptures from the Old Testament into a separate section that he titled "Apocrypha". Such a thing was unknown prior to Luther.

Evidence about Nicea

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

I can't imagine how any research could have unearthed such a mass of unsubstantiatable claims. Authentic sites and public domain books discussing the early history of the Western Biblical canon are all over the internet. Important topics:

* compare contents *

Codex Vaticanus

Codex Sinaiticus

council of Laodicea

synod of Hippo

council of Carthage (early Western Biblical canon)

Latin Vulgate

codex Alexandrinus (Eastern Biblical canon; inspect contents)

Decretum Gelasianum (agrees completely with Carthage; also lists several Scriptures rejected as false)

codex Amiatinus (inspect contents)

Luther Bible (inspect contents, learn about the Apocrypha)

Coverdale's Bible (inspect contents; classic English Biblical canon, including Apocrypha)

1563 Convocation of Canterbury (English Protestant Biblical canon established)

council of Trent (modern Roman Catholic Biblical canon established)

http://www.christianwebprogramming.com/br/charts_s...

Jim

It was shortly after the 325 CE Council of Nicea that Constantine ordered fifty copies of the Christian canon be copied and distributed to Christian churches in the Roman Empire. Lists of books had already been compiled by many of the bishops that had attended the Nicene Council. The letters of Paul and the four gospels that made Jesus divine were almost unanimously agreed upon. By then, Arianism, the doctrine that Jesus was just a man, had been defeated and its proponents exiled. There was some controversy over certain letters and Revelation. The Shepherd of Hermes, the letters of Clement, and other gospels and letters were demoted to the Agrapha. With the discovery of the Gnostic gosples in 1945, it became evident that there was a greater variety of Christian literature in the first three centuries CE than previously believed. The canon, or what the majority of bishops felt to be right Christian doctrine, was actually just the tip of the iceberg of literature about Jesus.

I'm pretty certain that the "Apocryphal" books are those that the protestant church rejected, especially as the Catholic Church existed first.

I can't remember where I heard/read it, but it has been suggested that several of the Church leaders had most if not all of the books pre-chosen and guided the rest of the council. This is supported by the codexes being pre-prepared.

Edit:

Interestingly various sects do not always recognize all of the books of the mainstream Bible, the disagreement over which books are correct is not limited to the protestant/catholic split.

The tossing up is obviously a "tall tale".

I think it's safe to say you didn't do any research prior to posting the question..

There were four criteria that were used to determine canonicity.

1.Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based upon the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).

2.Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world.

3.Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).

4.Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar to or complementary to other accepted Christian writings

However, there was general agreement long before this time about what books belonged in the Bible.

So then why do you continue to use a Catholic document? The Holy Bible was compiled by the Holy Spirit and the Catholic Church

I'm not buying the "throw it in the air and see what lands on the stone" idea. No way. The texts were more or less agreed on by the time of the Council anyway, and they were voted in (or out) by the assembled bishops. The criteria was largely based on the degree to which the books considered supported the then current "orthodox" line and/or supported the power of the hierarchy. The teachings in the book were chosen for a political agenda, not a spiritual one. The book of Revelation was strongly opposed as non-canonical by the majority but one fruitcake bishop with a lot of influence "filibustered" it in and now we are stuck with it. There are 80 some Gospels that were not included, along with numerous other early christian writings. Most of the excluded books are now available at your local library (limited) and bookstore (a lot of them).

Blessings on your Journey!

There was a great deal of time, effort put into the process.

There is a book "Why Trust the Bible" Rose publishing Co. Torrence, California.

ISBN 978 - 1 - 59636-201 - 7 (pbk)

Nothing silly about the process. Lots of people choose to discredit Bible because it is so powerful / convicting. But it gives hope, peace, joy that nothing else can give.

There were many false Gospels written but only Matthew, Mark, Luke, John included.