a reply to: Akragon
First I have never read anything Dan Brown wrote.
I agree with you .. I am probably mistaken ..
"There is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council. The development of the biblical canon took centuries, and was nearly
complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian fragment was
In 331 Constantine commissioned fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople, but little else is known (in fact, it is not even certain whether his
request was for fifty copies of the entire Old and New Testaments, only the New Testament, or merely the Gospels), but some scholars believe that this
request provided motivation for canon lists. In Jerome's Prologue to Judith he claims that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to
have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures", which suggests that the Nicene Council did discuss what documents would number among the
The main source of the idea that the Bible was created at the Council of Nicea seems to be Voltaire, who popularised a story that the canon was
determined by placing all the competing books on an altar the Council and then keeping the ones that didn't fall off. The original source of this
story is the Vetus Synodicon, a pseudo-historical account of early Church councils from AD 887"
But still we see
"This process was not yet complete at the time of the First Council of Nicaea in 325, though substantial progress had been made by then. Though a list
was clearly necessary to fulfill Constantine's commission in 331 of fifty copies of the Bible for the Church at Constantinople, no concrete evidence
exists to indicate that it was considered to be a formal canon. In the absence of a canonical list, the resolution of questions would normally have
been directed through the see of Constantinople, in consultation with Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (who was given the commission), and perhaps other
bishops who were available locally.
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would formally become the New Testament
canon, and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them. The first council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon
of Trent) may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was
read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils took place under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the
canon as already closed. Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical
canon identical to that mentioned above, or if not the list is at least a 6th-century compilation claiming a 4th-century imprimatur.
Likewise, Damasus's commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West. In
405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter,
however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the church." Thus, from the 5th
century onward, the Western Church was unanimous concerning the New Testament canon."
as you said Re: Council of Laodicea
"The 59th canon forbade the readings in church of uncanonical books. The 60th canon listed Canonical books, with the New Testament containing 26
books, omitting the Book of Revelation, and the Old Testament including the 22 books of the Hebrew Bible plus the Book of Baruch and the Epistle of
The authenticity of the 60th canon is doubtful as it is missing from various manuscripts and may have been added later to specify the extent of
the preceding 59th canon. Around 350 AD, Cyril of Jerusalem produced a list matching that from the Council of Laodicea."