Pretty much. There were other forgeries circulating during the time of the Apostles. Paul even brings some of these forgeries up in some of his letters. The early church (before 300AD) had to have a way to tell which books/letters were authentic and which weren't. Paul gives some criteria regarding the letters written by his own hand. I forget which letter it was in.
Most people (I don't know if you are included here, so forgive if you aren't) think the process of Biblical canonization was simply a bunch of men getting together around a table and determining which books should be authoritative and which aren't. And then the Catholic Church controlling everything from there on out. But the reality is that they simply "recognized" the books and letters that were already considered authoritative amongst the early Christian community.
Before Christianity became a State religion in 300AD'ish, and the infiltration of paganism during the same time, there was a period of 270 years of early Church history that people have a tendency to over look. It's easy to get fixated on the development (and pagan infiltration) of Christianity post 300AD. But those pre 300AD Christians knew what they were doing!
Some did. Others didn’t. Even some of those that made it into the bible and helped corrupt it.
But what was included and kept out wasn't, as you decry as an image, men sitting around a table. It was politics. Some churches had books that others didn't. These churches fought for supremacy, much as the Catholic churches did through the middle ages. The ones with manuscripts that lasted were the ones that were closest to Rome with the most political clout, not necessarily those that were superior historically.
Thunk about it like the modern day: Ivermectin vs mRNA vaccine. mRNA didnt win out because those guys knew what they were doing, its because it won politically. Had they succeeded, the victors would have burned alternative accounts and contrarians at the stake. Realize that the Vatican spent over 1200 years actively seeking out alternative sources and then hiding them while keeping the politics they required going.
No one at the time 'just knew' what was good and bad, they only knew what they grew up with. Failing the Roman political apparatus forcing a single doctrine to coalesce, we would have seen the early church splinter into regional shards, much like happened with Catholicism and protestantism hundreds of years from the 300s.
Pretty much. There were other forgeries circulating during the time of the Apostles. Paul even brings some of these forgeries up in some of his letters. The early church (before 300AD) had to have a way to tell which books/letters were authentic and which weren't. Paul gives some criteria regarding the letters written by his own hand. I forget which letter it was in.
Most people (I don't know if you are included here, so forgive if you aren't) think the process of Biblical canonization was simply a bunch of men getting together around a table and determining which books should be authoritative and which aren't. And then the Catholic Church controlling everything from there on out. But the reality is that they simply "recognized" the books and letters that were already considered authoritative amongst the early Christian community.
Before Christianity became a State religion in 300AD'ish, and the infiltration of paganism during the same time, there was a period of 270 years of early Church history that people have a tendency to over look. It's easy to get fixated on the development (and pagan infiltration) of Christianity post 300AD. But those pre 300AD Christians knew what they were doing!
Some did. Others didn’t. Even some of those that made it into the bible and helped corrupt it.
But what was included and kept out wasn't, as you decry as an image, men sitting around a table. It was politics. Some churches had books that others didn't. These churches fought for supremacy, much as the Catholic churches did through the middle ages. The ones with manuscripts that lasted were the ones that were closest to Rome with the most political clout, not necessarily those that were superior historically.
Thunk about it like the modern day: Ivermectin vs mRNA vaccine. mRNA didnt win out because those guys knew what they were doing, its because it won politically. Had they succeeded, the victors would have burned alternative accounts and contrarians at the stake. Realize that the Vatican spent over 1200 years actively seeking out alternative sources and then hiding them while keeping the politics they required going.
No one at the time 'just knew' what was good and bad, they only knew what they grew up with. Failing the Roman political apparatus forcing a single doctrine to coalesce, we would have seen the early church splinter into regional shards, much like happened with Catholicism and protestantism hundreds of years from the 300s.