What stays? What goes? The Bible (part the 2nd)

 

 

Who or what determined which books would be included in the New Testament? A good question but without any clear answer; here are a few to consider:

 

Eusebius of Caesarea, (born c. 260–265 CE) also known as Eusebius Pamphilus, was a Greek historian of Christianity, an exegete (a textual interpreter, especially of scripture), and a Christian polemicist, known primarily for being favored by Emperor Constantine I and for being associated with Arianism, a major heresy of the early Church. His writings are said to include a rough compilation of early scriptures, a eulogy for Constantine the Great, and a mash–up of Biblical place names and a lexicography referred to as the ‘Onomasticon’.

 

Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Easter letter of 367 CE to the churches in Egypt under his jurisdiction, gave a list of the books that would become the twenty-seven-book New Testament canon, and he used the word "canonized" (Greek: κανονιζόμενα or kanonizomena) in regard to them.

Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp in the 4^th Century CE are all claimed by some scholars to be ones who listed the scriptures appropriate to be included in the ‘official’ New Testament.

 

The first council that accepted the present canon of the New Testament may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa, 393 CE - a brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405 CE…

 

Or…

It is as probable that it was a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I which gave the same list first.

 

But… don’t touch that dial! There’s more!

 

The Muratorian Canon is believed by some scholars to be the earliest compilation of canonical texts resembling the New Testament. It was not until the 5th century that all the different Christian churches came to a basic agreement on Biblical canon. That’s right; 500 years after the ‘fact’ and after many diverse interpretations by many different Christian churches.

 

Imagine the log of the voyages of Columbus only being formalized and complied in the 20^thCentury or the good news regarding the Magna Carta only becoming ‘official’ in the 18^thcentury. In light of that demi-millennial delay, the Constitution of the United States wouldn’t be recognized until sometime late in 2276! Now consider, that the stories of the Bible predated not only literacy but Gutenberg’s printing press!

 

Richard Dawkins, amongst a host of scholars who deride the Bible, liken it to a game of ‘Chinese Whispers’ which went on over hundreds, perhaps thousands of years by an illiterate, migratory people of the Bronze Age. Textual experts such as Bart Erhman, who studied the Biblical texts as a ‘believing’ Christian before declaring himself an agnostic, cites that the oldest extant texts of the Bible were transcribed in Ancient Greek, ancient Aramaic and ancient Hebrew. 

Ref: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

 

Spoiler! The Book of Revelations almost wasn’t included in the compilation of the Bible because it makes no sense and seems the ravings of a man-man. By some wags, the book was the aftermath of the author, (John the Revelator) consuming magic mushrooms on the island of Patmos.

 

To recap: It was not until the 5th century that all the different, approved, regional Christian churches came to a basic agreement on Biblical canon. Even then, the designation of ‘canon’ was not church-wide but was only regional in its mandate. The Syrian church had a canon of 22 books; the church in Ethiopia settled on 31 books. The books that eventually were considered canon in each region reflect the times in which they were embraced as much as the times in which the events they portray were purported to have happened. They also reflect the distinct tenets embraced by each regional church.

 

For 400 years or more, the Bible didn’t actually exist in any compiled, approved ‘canonized’ form. Paul had his version; some of which he wrote himself. The Gnostic had theirs. Each of the heretical sects had their own versions. Each community of Christians, (in Asia Minor, Africa, the Levant, Greece, Rome, etc.) had texts which they referred to as the ‘Word of God’. 

 

Confused? Get used to it. This whole hot mess is a muddle and a dog’s breakfast of confusion, obfuscation, deflection and obscure tradition taken by fiat as fact. By the way, there was no official, church-wide declaration on the canonical New Testament until the Council of Trent held between 1545 and 1563 in response to the Protestant Reformation. The pronouncement of the official canon was, even then, binding only for the Roman Catholic Church.

 

Did you catch that? It wasn’t until the 16^th fricking century that there was an ‘official’ New Testament!

 

Here’s a thought; if god came to earth in human form to reveal a special message to humanity, why didn’t he bother to write anything down? Or invent video tape? Or the printing press? 

Why - as Sir Andrew Lloyd-Weber asks in ‘Jesus Christ, Superstar’ - would this incarnate god go to ancient Palestine, a back-water at best, to reveal his/its message to illiterates, rather than appear in Rome or Athens, Luxor, Alexandria, Babylon or Byzantium and share his/its holy word with educated, literate people? What a grand load of bollocks! How can anyone of any intelligence accept the rot that makes for the basis of the incoherent Biblical narrative?

This is all silly speculation, of course; especially if one has concluded (even conditionally) that there is no such god as the one in the Wholly Bobble. As a reminder: It makes no sense to try to make sense of nonsense. Likewise, it is senseless to expect sense from those who have abandoned good sense, no matter how intelligent or educated or erudite they are.