The Forged Origin of The New Testament Monday, August 14, 2017

By Tony Bushby

Spanish version

March 2007

Extracted from Nexus Magazine

Volume 14, Number 4 (June - July 2007)

from NexusMagazine Website

In the fourth century, the Roman Emperor Constantine united all religious factions under one composite deity, and ordered the compilation of new and old writings into a uniform collection that became the New Testament.

About the Author

Tony Bushby, an Australian, became a businessman and entrepreneur early in his adult life. He established a magazine-publishing business and spent 20 years researching, writing and publishing his own magazines, primarily for the Australian and New Zealand markets.

With strong spiritual beliefs and an interest in metaphysical subjects, Tony has developed long relationships with many associations and societies throughout the world that have assisted his research by making their archives available. He is the author of The Bible Fraud (2001; reviewed in NEXUS 8/06 with extracts in NEXUS 9/01—03), The Secret in the Bible (2003; reviewed in 11/02, with extract, "Ancient Cities under the Sands of Giza", in 11/03) and The Crucifixion of Truth (2005; reviewed in 12/02) and The Twin Deception (2007; reviewed 14/03).

Copies of these books are available from the NEXUS website and the Joshua Books website address here: http://www.joshuabooks.com

As Tony Bushby vigorously protects his privacy, any correspondence should be sent to him care of NEXUS Magazine, PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560, Australia, fax +61 (0) 7 5442 9381.

WHAT THE CHURCH DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW

It has often been emphasized that Christianity is unlike any other religion, for it stands or falls by certain events which are alleged to have occurred during a short period of time some 20 centuries ago. Those stories are presented in the New Testament, and as new evidence is revealed it will become clear that they do not represent historical realities.

The Church agrees, saying:

"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted."

(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)

The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament. For example, when discussing the origin of those writings,

"the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era"

(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6).

This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel Jesus Christ.

In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that,

"the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD"

(Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7).

That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history. There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest misrepresentation of all time.

It was British-born Flavius Constantinus (Constantine, originally Custennyn or Custennin) (272-337) who authorized the compilation of the writings now called the New Testament. After the death of his father in 306, Constantine became King of Britain, Gaul and Spain, and then, after a series of victorious battles, Emperor of the Roman Empire. Christian historians give little or no hint of the turmoil of the times and suspend Constantine in the air, free of all human events happening around him. In truth, one of Constantine's main problems was the uncontrollable disorder amongst presbyters and their belief in numerous gods.

The majority of modern-day Christian writers suppress the truth about the development of their religion and conceal Constantine's efforts to curb the disreputable character of the presbyters who are now called "Church Fathers" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1). They were "maddened", he said (Life of Constantine, attributed to Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea, c. 335, vol. iii, p. 171; The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, cited as N&PNF, attributed to St Ambrose, Rev. Prof. Roberts, DD, and Principal James Donaldson, LLD, editors, 1891, vol. iv, p. 467).

The "peculiar type of oratory" expounded by them was a challenge to a settled religious order (The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature and Art, Oskar Seyffert, Gramercy, New York, 1995, pp. 544-5). Ancient records reveal the true nature of the presbyters, and the low regard in which they were held has been subtly suppressed by modern Church historians.

In reality, they were:

"...the most rustic fellows, teaching strange paradoxes. They openly declared that none but the ignorant was fit to hear their discourses ... they never appeared in the circles of the wiser and better sort, but always took care to intrude themselves among the ignorant and uncultured, rambling around to play tricks at fairs and markets ... they lard their lean books with the fat of old fables ... and still the less do they understand ... and they write nonsense on vellum ... and still be doing, never done."

(Contra Celsum ["Against Celsus"], Origen of Alexandria, c. 251, Bk I, p. lxvii, Bk III, p. xliv, passim)

Clusters of presbyters had developed "many gods and many lords" (1 Cor. 8:5) and numerous religious sects existed, each with differing doctrines (Gal. 1:6). Presbyterial groups clashed over attributes of their various gods and "altar was set against altar" in competing for an audience (Optatus of Milevis, 1:15, 19, early fourth century). From Constantine's point of view, there were several factions that needed satisfying, and he set out to develop an all-embracing religion during a period of irreverent confusion. In an age of crass ignorance, with nine-tenths of the peoples of Europe illiterate, stabilizing religious splinter groups was only one of Constantine's problems.

The smooth generalization, which so many historians are content to repeat, thatConstantine "embraced the Christian religion" and subsequently granted "official toleration", is "contrary to historical fact" and should be erased from our literature forever (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. iii, p. 299, passim). Simply put, there was no Christian religion at Constantine's time, and the Church acknowledges that the tale of his "conversion" and "baptism" are "entirely legendary" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1).

Constantine "never acquired a solid theological knowledge" and "depended heavily on his advisers in religious questions" (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. xii, p. 576, passim). According to Eusebeius (260-339), Constantine noted that among the presbyterian factions "strife had grown so serious, vigorous action was necessary to establish a more religious state", but he could not bring about a settlement between rival god factions (Life of Constantine, op. cit., pp. 26-8). His advisers warned him that the presbyters' religions were "destitute of foundation" and needed official stabilization (ibid.).

Constantine saw in this confused system of fragmented dogmas the opportunity to create a new and combined State religion, neutral in concept, and to protect it by law. When he conquered the East in 324 he sent his Spanish religious adviser, Osius of Córdoba, to Alexandria with letters to several bishops exhorting them to make peace among themselves. The mission failed and Constantine, probably at the suggestion of Osius, then issued a decree commanding all presbyters and their subordinates "be mounted on asses, mules and horses belonging to the public, and travel to the city of Nicaea" in the Roman province of Bithynia in Asia Minor.

They were instructed to bring with them the testimonies they orated to the rabble, "bound in leather" for protection during the long journey, and surrender them to Constantine upon arrival in Nicaea (The Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, 1917, "Council of Nicaea" entry).

Their writings totaled,

"in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty-one scrolls and legendary tales of godsand saviors, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them"

(Life of Constantine, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 73; N&PNF, op. cit., vol. i, p. 518).

THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA AND THE 'MISSING RECORDS'

Thus, the first ecclesiastical gathering in history was summoned and is today known as the Council of Nicaea. It was a bizarre event that provided many details of early clerical thinking and presents a clear picture of the intellectual climate prevailing at the time. It was at this gathering that Christianity was born, and the ramifications of decisions made at the time are difficult to calculate.

About four years prior to chairing the Council, Constantine had been initiated into the religious order of Sol Invictus, one of the two thriving cults that regarded the Sun as the one and only Supreme God (the other was Mithraism). Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was "held in a hall in Osius's palace" (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598).

In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea,Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said,

"Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing"

(Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).

This is another luminous confession of the ignorance and uncritical credulity of early churchmen. Dr Richard Watson (1737-1816), a disillusioned Christian historian and one-time Bishop of Llandaff in Wales (1782), referred to them as "a set of gibbering idiots" (An Apology for Christianity, 1776, 1796 reprint; also, Theological Tracts, Dr Richard Watson, "On Councils" entry, vol. 2, London, 1786, revised reprint 1791). From his extensive research into Church councils, Dr Watson concluded that "the clergy at the Council of Nicaea were all under the power of the devil, and the convention was composed of the lowest rabble and patronized the vilest abominations" (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.).

It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for the commencement of a new religion and the theological creation of Jesus Christ.

The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings at Nicaea are "strangely absent from the canons" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 160). We shall see shortly what happened to them. However, according to records that endured, Eusebius "occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor and delivered the inaugural address on the emperor's behalf" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, pp. 619-620).

There were no British presbyters at the council but many Greek delegates. "Seventy Eastern bishops" represented Asiatic factions, and small numbers came from other areas (Ecclesiastical History, ibid.). Caecilian of Carthage traveled from Africa, Paphnutius of Thebes from Egypt, Nicasius of Die (Dijon) from Gaul, and Donnus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia.

It was at that puerile assembly, and with so many cults represented, that a total of 318 "bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered to debate and decide upon a unified belief system that encompassed only one god (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). By this time, a huge assortment of "wild texts" (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, "Gospel and Gospels") circulated amongst presbyters and they supported a great variety of Eastern and Western gods and goddesses:

Jove, Jupiter, Salenus, Baal, Thor, Gade, Apollo, Juno, Aries, Taurus, Minerva, Rhets, Mithra, Theo, Fragapatti, Atys, Durga, Indra, Neptune, Vulcan, Kriste, Agni, Croesus, Pelides, Huit, Hermes, Thulis, Thammus, Eguptus, Iao, Aph, Saturn, Gitchens, Minos, Maximo, Hecla and Phernes

(God's Book of Eskra, anon., ch. xlviii, paragraph 36).

Up until the First Council of Nicaea, the Roman aristocracy primarily worshipped two Greek gods -Apollo and Zeus- but the great bulk of common people idolized either Julius Caesar orMithras (the Romanized version of the Persian deity Mithra). Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate after his death (15 March 44 BC) and subsequently venerated as "the Divine Julius". The word "Savior" was affixed to his name, its literal meaning being "one who sows the seed", i.e., he was a phallic god.

Julius Caesar was hailed as, "God made manifest and universal Savior of human life", and his successor Augustus was called the "ancestral God and Savior of the whole human race"

(Man and his Gods, Homer Smith, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1952).

Emperor Nero (54-68), whose original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (37-68), was immortalized on his coins as the "Savior of mankind" (ibid.). The Divine Julius as Roman Savior and "Father of the Empire" was considered "God" among the Roman rabble for more than 300 years. He was the deity in some Western presbyters' texts, but was not recognized in Eastern or Oriental writings.

Constantine's intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all religious factions under one deity. Presbyters were asked to debate and decide who their new god would be. Delegates argued among themselves, expressing personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special deity. Throughout the meeting, howling factions were immersed in heated debates, and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion.

"As yet, no God had been selected by the council, and so they balloted in order to determine that matter... For one year and five months the balloting lasted..."

(God's Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire's translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36, 41).

At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects:

Caesar
Krishna
Mithra
Horus
Zeus

(Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325).

Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus, be joined with the Eastern Savior-god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit for Christ), and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of the new Roman god.

A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became one God. Following longstanding heathen custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman apotheosis decree to legally deify two deities as one, and did so by democratic consent. A new god was proclaimed and "officially" ratified byConstantine (Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618). That purely political act of deification effectively and legally placed Hesus and Krishna among the Roman gods as one individual composite.

That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines for the Empire's new religion; and because there was no letter "J" in alphabets until around the ninth century, the name subsequently evolved into "

Jesus Christ".

HOW THE GOSPELS WERE CREATED

Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council.

His instructions were:

"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."

(God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)

"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly"

(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39).

Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars.

Merging the supernatural "god" stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefseffectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together "to form a new universal belief" (ibid.). Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story.

Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce,

"fifty sumptuous copies ... to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in their art"

(ibid.).

"These orders," said Eusebius, "were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself ... we sent him [Constantine] magnificently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms"

(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p. 36).

They were the "New Testimonies", and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record.

With his instructions fulfilled, Constantine then decreed that the New Testimonies would thereafter be called the "word of the Roman Savior God" (Life of Constantine, vol. iii, p. 29) and official to all presbyters sermonizing in the Roman Empire. He then ordered earlier presbyterial manuscripts and the records of the council "burnt" and declared that "any man found concealing writings should be stricken off from his shoulders" (beheaded) (ibid.). As the record shows, presbyterial writings previous to the Council of Nicaea no longer exist, except for some fragments that have survived.

Some council records also survived, and they provide alarming ramifications for the Church. Some old documents say that the First Council of Nicaea ended in mid-November 326, while others say the struggle to establish a god was so fierce that it extended "for four years and seven months" from its beginning in June 325 (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.). Regardless of when it ended, the savagery and violence it encompassed were concealed under the glossy title "Great and Holy Synod", assigned to the assembly by the Church in the 18th century.

Earlier Churchmen, however, expressed a different opinion. The Second Council of Nicaea in 786-87 denounced the First Council of Nicaea as,

"a synod of fools and madmen" and sought to annul "decisions passed by men with troubled brains"

(History of the Christian Church, H. H. Milman, DD, 1871).

If one chooses to read the records of the Second Nicaean Council and notes references to "affrighted bishops" and the "soldiery" needed to "quell proceedings", the "fools and madmen" declaration is surely an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Constantine died in 337 and his outgrowth of many now-called pagan beliefs into a new religious system brought many converts. Later Church writers made him "the great champion of Christianity" which he gave,

"legal status as the religion of the Roman Empire"

(Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Matthew Bunson, Facts on File, New York, 1994, p. 86).

Historical records reveal this to be incorrect, for it was "self-interest" that led him to create Christianity (A Smaller Classical Dictionary, J. M. Dent, London, 1910, p. 161). Yet it wasn't called "Christianity" until the 15th century (How The Great Pan Died, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux [Vatican archivist], Mille Meditations, USA, MCMLXVIII, pp. 45-7).

Over the ensuing centuries, Constantine's New Testimonies were expanded upon, "interpolations" were added and other writings included (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 135-137; also, Pecci ed., vol. ii, pp. 121-122). For example, in 397 John "golden-mouthed" Chrysostom restructured the writings of Apollonius of Tyana, a first-century wandering sage, and made them part of the New Testimonies (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.).

The Latinized name for Apollonius is Paulus (A Latin-English Dictionary, J. T. White and J. E. Riddle, Ginn & Heath, Boston, 1880), and the Church today calls those writings the Epistles of Paul. Apollonius's personal attendant, Damis, an Assyrian scribe, is Demis in the New Testament (2 Tim. 4:10).

The Church hierarchy knows the truth about the origin of its Epistles, for Cardinal Bembo (d. 1547), secretary to Pope Leo X (d. 1521), advised his associate, Cardinal Sadoleto, to disregard them, saying,

"put away these trifles, for such absurdities do not become a man of dignity; they were introduced on the scene later by a sly voice from heaven"

(Cardinal Bembo: His Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, A. L. Collins, London, 1842 reprint).

The Church admits that the Epistles of Paul are forgeries, saying,

"Even the genuine Epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of their authors"

(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vii, p. 645).

Likewise, St Jerome (d. 420) declared that the Acts of the Apostles, the fifth book of the New Testament, was also "falsely written" ("The Letters of Jerome", Library of the Fathers, Oxford Movement, 1833-45, vol. v, p. 445).

THE SHOCK DISCOVERY OF AN ANCIENT BIBLE

The New Testament subsequently evolved into a fulsome piece of priesthood propaganda, and the Church claimed it recorded the intervention of a divine Jesus Christ into Earthly affairs. However, a spectacular discovery in a remote Egyptian monastery revealed to the world the extent of later falsifications of the Christian texts, themselves only an "assemblage of legendary tales" (Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759).

On 4 February 1859, 346 leaves of an ancient codex were discovered in the furnace room at St Catherine's monastery at Mt Sinai, and its contents sent shockwaves through the Christian world. Along with other old codices, it was scheduled to be burned in the kilns to provide winter warmth for the inhabitants of the monastery. Written in Greek on donkey skins, it carried both the Old and New Testaments, and later in time archaeologists dated its composition to around the year 380.

It was discovered by Dr Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874), a brilliant and pious German biblical scholar, and he called it the Sinaiticus, the Sinai Bible. Tischendorf was a professor of theology who devoted his entire life to the study of New Testament origins, and his desire to read all the ancient Christian texts led him on the long, camel-mounted journey to St Catherine's Monastery.

During his lifetime, Tischendorf had access to other ancient Bibles unavailable to the public, such as the Alexandrian (or Alexandrinus) Bible, believed to be the second oldest Bible in the world. It was so named because in 1627 it was taken from Alexandria to Britain and gifted to King Charles I (1600-49). Today it is displayed alongside the world's oldest known Bible, the Sinaiticus, in the British Library in London. During his research, Tischendorf had access to the Vaticanus, the Vatican Bible, believed to be the third oldest in the world and dated to the mid-sixth century (The Various Versions of the Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1874, available in the British Library).

It was locked away in the Vatican's inner library. Tischendorf asked if he could extract handwritten notes, but his request was declined. However, when his guard took refreshment breaks, Tischendorf wrote comparative narratives on the palm of his hand and sometimes on his fingernails ("Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?", Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, lecture, 1869, available in the British Library).

Today, there are several other Bibles written in various languages during the fifth and sixth centuries, examples being the Syriacus, the Cantabrigiensis (Bezae), the Sarravianus and the Marchalianus.

A shudder of apprehension echoed through Christendom in the last quarter of the 19th century when English-language versions of the Sinai Bible were published. Recorded within these pages is information that disputes Christianity's claim of historicity. Christians were provided with irrefutable evidence of willful falsifications in all modern New Testaments. So different was the Sinai Bible's New Testament from versions then being published that the Church angrily tried to annul the dramatic new evidence that challenged its very existence.

In a series of articles published in the London Quarterly Review in 1883, John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, used every rhetorical device at his disposal to attack the Sinaiticus' earlier and opposing story of Jesus Christ, saying that,

"...without a particle of hesitation, the Sinaiticus is scandalously corrupt ... exhibiting the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with; they have become, by whatever process, the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders and intentional perversions of the truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the word of God".

Dean Burgon's concerns mirror opposing aspects of Gospel stories then current, having by now evolved to a new stage through centuries of tampering with the fabric of an already unhistorical document.

THE REVELATIONS OF ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT TESTING

In 1933, the British Museum in London purchased the Sinai Bible from the Soviet government for £100,000, of which £65,000 was gifted by public subscription. Prior to the acquisition, this Bible was displayed in the Imperial Library in St Petersburg, Russia, and "few scholars had set eyes on it" (The Daily Telegraph and Morning Post, 11 January 1938, p. 3). When it went on display in 1933 as "the oldest Bible in the world" (ibid.), it became the centre of a pilgrimage unequalled in the history of the British Museum.

Before I summarize its conflictions, it should be noted that this old codex is by no means a reliable guide to New Testament study as it contains superabundant errors and serious re-editing. These anomalies were exposed as a result of the months of ultraviolet-light tests carried out at the British Museum in the mid-1930s. The findings revealed replacements of numerous passages by at least nine different editors.

Photographs taken during testing revealed that ink pigments had been retained deep in the pores of the skin. The original words were readable under ultraviolet light. Anybody wishing to read the results of the tests should refer to the book written by the researchers who did the analysis: the Keepers of the Department of Manuscripts at the British Museum (Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, British Museum, London, 1938).

FORGERY IN THE GOSPELS

When the New Testament in the Sinai Bible is compared with a modern-day New Testament, a staggering 14,800 editorial alterations can be identified. These amendments can be recognized by a simple comparative exercise that anybody can and should do. Serious study of Christian origins must emanate from the Sinai Bible's version of the New Testament, not modern editions.

Of importance is the fact that the Sinaiticus carries three Gospels since rejected:

1. the Shepherd of Hermas (written by two resurrected ghosts, Charinus and Lenthius)
2. the Missive of Barnabas
3. the Odes of Solomon

Space excludes elaboration on these bizarre writings and also discussion on dilemmas associated with translation variations.

Modern Bibles are five removes in translation from early editions, and disputes rage between translators over variant interpretations of more than 5,000 ancient words. However, it is what is not written in that old Bible that embarrasses the Church, and this article discusses only a few of those omissions.

One glaring example is subtly revealed in the Encyclopaedia Biblica (Adam & Charles Black, London, 1899, vol. iii, p. 3344), where the Church divulges its knowledge about exclusions in old Bibles, saying:

"The remark has long ago and often been made that, like Paul, even the earliest Gospels knew nothing of the miraculous birth of our Saviour".

That is because there never was a virgin birth.

It is apparent that when Eusebius assembled scribes to write the New Testimonies, he first produced a single document that provided an exemplar or master version. Today it is called the Gospel of Mark, and the Church admits that it was "the first Gospel written" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 657), even though it appears second in the New Testament today. The scribes of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were dependent upon the Mark writing as the source and framework for the compilation of their works. The Gospel of John is independent of those writings, and the late-15th-century theory that it was written later to support the earlier writings is the truth (The Crucifixion of Truth, Tony Bushby, Joshua Books, 2004, pp. 33-40).

Thus, the Gospel of Mark in the Sinai Bible carries the "first" story of Jesus Christ in history, one completely different to what is in modern Bibles. It starts with Jesus "at about the age of thirty" (Mark 1:9), and doesn't know of Mary, a virgin birth or mass murders of baby boys by Herod. Words describing Jesus Christ as "the son of God" do not appear in the opening narrative as they do in today's editions (Mark 1:1), and the modern-day family tree tracing a "messianic bloodline" back to King David is non-existent in all ancient Bibles, as are the now-called "messianic prophecies" (51 in total).

The Sinai Bible carries a conflicting version of events surrounding the "raising of Lazarus", and reveals an extraordinary omission that later became the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ and his ascension into Heaven. No supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any ancient Gospels of Mark, but a description of over 500 words now appears in modern Bibles (Mark 16:9-20).

Despite a multitude of long-drawn-out self-justifications by Church apologists, there is no unanimity of Christian opinion regarding the non-existence of "resurrection" appearances in ancient Gospel accounts of the story. Not only are those narratives missing in the Sinai Bible, but they are absent in the Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark, code-named "K" by analysts. They are also lacking in the oldest Armenian version of the New Testament, in sixth-century manuscripts of the Ethiopic version and ninth-century Anglo-Saxon Bibles. However, some 12th-century Gospels have the now-known resurrection verses written within asterisks-marks used by scribes to indicate spurious passages in a literary document.

The Church claims that "the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), yet no supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any of the earliest Gospels of Mark available. A resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non ("without which, nothing") of Christianity (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), confirmed by words attributed to Paul:

"If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain"
(1 Cor. 5:17).

The resurrection verses in today's Gospels of Mark are universally acknowledged asforgeries and the Church agrees, saying,

"the conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine ... almost the entire section is a later compilation"

(Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. ii, p. 1880, vol. iii, pp. 1767, 1781; also, Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. iii, under the heading "The Evidence of its Spuriousness"; Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, pp. 274-9 under heading "Canons").

Undaunted, however, the Church accepted the forgery into its dogma and made it the basis of Christianity.

The trend of fictitious resurrection narratives continues. The final chapter of the Gospel of John (21) is a sixth-century forgery, one entirely devoted to describing Jesus' resurrection to his disciples.

The Church admits:

"The sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is that the 21st chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel"

(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. viii, pp. 441-442; New Catholic Encyclopedia (NCE), "Gospel of John", p. 1080; also NCE, vol. xii, p. 407).

'THE GREAT INSERTION' AND 'THE GREAT OMISSION'

Modern-day versions of the Gospel of Luke have a staggering 10,000 more words than the same Gospel in the Sinai Bible. Six of those words say of Jesus "and was carried up into heaven", but this narrative does not appear in any of the oldest Gospels of Luke available today ("Three Early Doctrinal Modifications of the Text of the Gospels", F. C. Conybeare, The Hibbert Journal, London, vol. 1, no. 1, Oct 1902, pp. 96-113). Ancient versions do not verify modern-day accounts of an ascension of Jesus Christ, and this falsification clearly indicates an intention to deceive.

Today, the Gospel of Luke is the longest of the canonical Gospels because it now includes "The Great Insertion", an extraordinary 15th-century addition totaling around 8,500 words (Luke 9:51-18:14). The insertion of these forgeries into that Gospel bewilders modern Christian analysts, and of them the Church said:

"The character of these passages makes it dangerous to draw inferences"
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. ii, p. 407).

Just as remarkable, the oldest Gospels of Luke omit all verses from 6:45 to 8:26, known in priesthood circles as "The Great Omission", a total of 1,547 words. In today's versions, that hole has been "plugged up" with passages plagiarized from other Gospels. Dr Tischendorffound that three paragraphs in newer versions of the Gospel of Luke's version of the Last Supper appeared in the 15th century, but the Church still passes its Gospels off as the unadulterated "word of God" ("Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?", op. cit.)

THE 'EXPURGATORY INDEX'

As was the case with the New Testament, so also were damaging writings of early "Church Fathers" modified in centuries of copying, and many of their records were intentionally rewritten or suppressed.

Adopting the decrees of the Council of Trent (1545-63), the Church subsequently extended the process of erasure and ordered the preparation of a special list of specific information to be expunged from early Christian writings (Delineation of Roman Catholicism, Rev. Charles Elliott, DD, G. Lane & P. P. Sandford, New York, 1842, p. 89; also, The Vatican Censors, Professor Peter Elmsley, Oxford, p. 327, pub. date n/a).

In 1562, the Vatican established a special censoring office called Index Expurgatorius. Its purpose was to prohibit publication of "erroneous passages of the early Church Fathers" that carried statements opposing modern-day doctrine.

When Vatican archivists came across,

"genuine copies of the Fathers, they corrected them according to the Expurgatory Index"

(Index Expurgatorius Vaticanus, R. Gibbings, ed., Dublin, 1837; The Literary Policy of the Church of Rome, Joseph Mendham, J. Duncan, London, 1830, 2nd ed., 1840; The Vatican Censors, op. cit., p. 328).

This Church record provides researchers with,

"grave doubts about the value of all patristic writings released to the public"

(The Propaganda Press of Rome, Sir James W. L. Claxton, Whitehaven Books, London, 1942, p. 182).

Important for our story is the fact that the Encyclopaedia Biblica reveals that around 1,200 years of Christian history are unknown: "Unfortunately, only few of the records [of the Church] prior to the year 1198 have been released". It was not by chance that, in that same year (1198), Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) suppressed all records of earlier Church history by establishing the Secret Archives (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xv, p. 287). Some seven-and-a-half centuries later, and after spending some years in those Archives, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux wrote How The Great Pan Died.

In a chapter titled "The Whole of Church History is Nothing but a Retroactive Fabrication", he said this (in part):

"The Church ante-dated all her late works, some newly made, some revised and some counterfeited, which contained the final expression of her history ... her technique was to make it appear that much later works written by Church writers were composed a long time earlier, so that they might become evidence of the first, second or third centuries."

(How The Great Pan Died, op. cit., p. 46)

Supporting Professor Bordeaux's findings is the fact that, in 1587, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) established an official Vatican publishing division and said in his own words,

"Church history will be now be established ... we shall seek to print our own account"

(Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759).

Vatican records also reveal that Sixtus V spent 18 months of his life as pope personally writing a new Bible and then introduced into Catholicism a "New Learning" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, p. 442, vol. xv, p. 376). The evidence that the Church wrote its own history is found in Diderot's Encyclopédie, and it reveals the reason why PopeClement XIII (1758-69) ordered all volumes to be destroyed immediately after publication in 1759.

GOSPEL AUTHORS EXPOSED AS IMPOSTERS

There is something else involved in this scenario and it is recorded in the Catholic Encyclopedia. An appreciation of the clerical mindset arises when the Church itself admits that it does not know who wrote its Gospels and Epistles, confessing that all 27 New Testament writings began life anonymously:

"It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves ... they [the New Testament collection] are supplied with titles which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those writings."

(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 655-6)

The Church maintains that "the titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship", adding that "the headings ... were affixed to them" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. i, p. 117, vol. vi, pp. 655, 656). Therefore they are not Gospels written "according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John", as publicly stated. The full force of this confession reveals that there are no genuine apostolic Gospels, and that the Church's shadowy writings today embody the very ground and pillar of Christian foundations and faith.

The consequences are fatal to the pretence of Divine origin of the entire New Testament and expose Christian texts as having no special authority. For centuries, fabricated Gospels bore Church certification of authenticity now confessed to be false, and this provides evidence that Christian writings are wholly fallacious.

After years of dedicated New Testament research, Dr Tischendorf expressed dismay at the differences between the oldest and newest Gospels, and had trouble understanding...

"...how scribes could allow themselves to bring in here and there changes which were not simply verbal ones, but such as materially affected the very meaning and, what is worse still, did not shrink from cutting out a passage or inserting one."

(Alterations to the Sinai Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1863, available in the British Library, London)

After years of validating the fabricated nature of the New Testament, a disillusioned Dr Tischendorf confessed that modern-day editions have "been altered in many places" and are "not to be accepted as true" (When Were Our Gospels Written?, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1865, British Library, London).

JUST WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY?

The important question then to ask is this: if the New Testament is not historical, what is it?

Dr Tischendorf provided part of the answer when he said in his 15,000 pages of critical notes on the Sinai Bible that,

"it seems that the personage of Jesus Christ was made narrator for many religions".

This explains how narratives from the ancient Indian epic, the Mahabharata, appear verbatim in the Gospels today (e.g., Matt. 1:25, 2:11, 8:1-4, 9:1-8, 9:18-26), and why passages from the Phenomena of the Greek statesman Aratus of Sicyon (271-213 BC) are in the New Testament.

Extracts from the Hymn to Zeus, written by Greek philosopher Cleanthes (c. 331-232 BC), are also found in the Gospels, as are 207 words from the Thais of Menander (c. 343-291), one of the "seven wise men" of Greece. Quotes from the semi-legendary Greek poetEpimenides (7th or 6th century BC) are applied to the lips of Jesus Christ, and seven passages from the curious Ode of Jupiter (c. 150 BC; author unknown) are reprinted in the New Testament.

Tischendorf's conclusion also supports Professor Bordeaux's Vatican findings that revealthe allegory of Jesus Christ derived from the fable of Mithra, the divine son of God (Ahura Mazda) and messiah of the first kings of the Persian Empire around 400 BC. His birth in a grotto was attended by magi who followed a star from the East. They brought "gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh" (as in Matt. 2:11) and the newborn baby was adored by shepherds. He came into the world wearing the Mithraic cap, which popes imitated in various designs until well into the 15th century.

Mithra, one of a trinity, stood on a rock, the emblem of the foundation of his religion, and was anointed with honey. After a last supper with Helios and 11 other companions, Mithra was crucified on a cross, bound in linen, placed in a rock tomb and rose on the third day or around 25 March (the full moon at the spring equinox, a time now called Easter after the Babylonian goddess Ishtar). The fiery destruction of the universe was a major doctrine of Mithraism - a time in which Mithra promised to return in person to Earth and save deserving souls. Devotees of Mithra partook in a sacred communion banquet of bread and wine, a ceremony that paralleled the Christian Eucharist and preceded it by more than four centuries. Christianity is an adaptation of,

• Mithraism welded with the Druidic principles of the Culdees 

• some Egyptian elements (the pre-Christian Book of Revelation was originally called The Mysteries of Osiris and Isis) 

• Greek philosophy 

• various aspects of Hinduism

WHY THERE ARE NO RECORDS OF JESUS CHRIST  

It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christand the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life.

This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:

"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."

(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)

This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. DrTischendorf made this comment:

"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life ofJesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century."

(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence:

the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable"

(Cardinal Bembo: His Letters..., op. cit.).

[Source: bibliotecapleyades.net]

Serious Problem With Luke's Cencus Sunday, August 13, 2017

Excerpted from God, Reason, and the Evangelicals

(Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1987), 

pp. 145-49, Copyright held by N. F. Gier

          Much has been said about Luke's excellence as an historian.  Luke did indeed emulate the models of historical narrative which were current in his day.  But to claim that Luke is a consummate historian by modern standards--as many evangelicals do--is a position which cannot be maintained.  In a letter to me, F. F. Bruce concedes that conservative apologists have been too eager to declare Luke's inerrancy.  So eager was W. M. Ramsey to prove Luke correct about the enrollment in Bethlehem that he, according to Bruce, "unwisely damaged his well-founded reputation as a very considerable scholar."  In his Anchor Bible commentary Catholic scholar J. A. Fitzmyer lists other historical mistakes in Luke's writing and offers the most definitive argument against Ramsey's claims about the famous Christmas census.

          There is no record of Caesar Augustus' decree that "all the world should be enrolled" (Lk. 2:1).  The Romans kept extremely detailed records of such events.  Not only is Luke's census not in these records, it goes against all that we know of Roman economic history.  Roman documents show that taxation was done by the various governors at the provincial level.  As we shall see later, the property tax was collected on site by travelling assessors, thus making unnecessary Joseph's journey away from what little property he must have owned.  Gleason Archer quotes a census expert who claims, without documentation, that "every five years the Romans enumerated citizens and their property to determine their liabilities.  This practice was extended to include the entire Roman Empire in 5 B.C.E." [1]  This goes against the fourteen-year cycle which Archer himself uses to argue that Quirinius was pulled from his busy duties in Asia Minor to do a Syrian census in 7 B.C.E., fourteen years earlier than the one recorded in Josephus and Acts 5:37.

          Many have joined Archer in the hypothesis that Quirinius had an unrecorded term as Syria's governor during the time of Jesus' birth.  Some misuse the "Tivoli" inscription which they say proves that some Roman official served twice in Syria and Phoenicia.  First, the name is missing, so this is no proof that Quirinius is involved.  Second, the inscription has been mistranslated.  It should read:  "legate of Augustus for a second time" not a second legate in Syria as the harmonizers insist.  Archer does not refer to the Tivoli inscription directly; but still argues that since Luke knew of the census of 6 C.E., he correctly called this one Quirinius' "first" (prote).  But Fitzmyer shows conclusively that the grammar clearly indicates that this was the first census in Judea, not Quirinius' first enrollment. [2]

          It has long been known that Tertullian held that S. Sentius Saturninus, not Quirinius, was governor at the time of Jesus' birth.  Saturninus ruled from 9-6 B.C.E., the period most likely to be Jesus' birth time.  P. Quintilius Varus was governor during the next most likely period of 6-4 B.C.E.  M. Titius was in Syria ca. 10 B.C.E.  Quirinius himself was very much occupied during this time, having been assigned to the campaign in Cilicia in Asia Minor from ca. 11-3 B.C.E.  Archer's theory is that Quirinius was given a special assignment to do the census in the interval between Saturninus' and Varus' terms.  There is of course no extant evidence for this, but this does not seem to be necessary for the harmonizing that takes place in evangelical "historical" theology.  In fact, there is much to say against it.  Fitzmyer paraphrases one authority:  "...It was unheard of that a proconsul would become a legate...twice in the same province." [3]

          F. M. Heichelheim speculated that Herod himself took the census to which Luke refers.[4]  Realizing the problematic nature of his solution, Heichelheim takes great pains to qualify his pro-Luke interpretation.  He describes Luke 2:1-5 as "an extremely difficult passage," and then proceeds to give it an interpretation that has no basis in the text.  Heichelheim uses the 4th Century church historian Eusebius to support Joseph's presence in Bethlehem at the census.  Eusebius speculated that Joseph's family "most probably had a small holding near Bethlehem up to the reign of Domitian."  Heichelheim interprets the idios in "each to his own (idios) city" as meaning the private possessions of the Jewish royal family, who would collect the poll and land taxes and send them to Rome.  This rendering of idios is supportable, but it is not compatible with Jesus' own use of the word.  In each of the places where we find the famous saying "a prophet has no honor in his own country (en ten idia patridi)" (Jn. 4:44; Matt. 13:57; Mk.  6:4), the adjective idios is used in a way quite different from Heichelheim's proposal.  And from the context it is also clear that Jesus claimed the country of his father to be Galilee and the town to be Nazareth.

          Heichelheim's thesis is highly speculative and open to the following general objections. 

(1) Given the conflicting genealogies of Matthew and Luke (which cannot be gratuitously solved by giving one to Mary), the descent of Joseph from David is highly problematic.  

(2) The idea of Joseph owning property in Bethlehem stands in stark contrast to his destitute status and Jesus' birth in a strange stable. (The property would at least had a few shacks on it.) Matthew does have Mary and Joseph living in a house in Bethlehem (2:11), and only after the flight to Egypt do they settle in Nazareth.  

(3) It would not have been necessary for Mary, nine-months pregnant, to make the arduous three-day journey.  

(4) Not all descendants of David would have owned property in Bethlehem, and yet Luke would still require them to return from distances far greater than from Galilee.  

(5) E. W. Barnes states that "any such census under Herod is highly improbable, inasmuch as it would be made for purposes of taxation; and Herod managed, and showed great skill in managing, his own finances." [5]  Finally 

(6), even if there had been a Herodian census, Luke would still have been wrong about Augustus' universal census and wrong about Quirinius administering it.

          In Josephus' account of the census in 6 C.E., he explicitly states that those people taxed were assessed of their possessions, including lands and livestock.  In other words, the census takers were also the tax assessors.  In Egypt these tax assessors went from house to house in order to perform their duties.  With this in mind, let us look at a crucial error in Luke's account.  Luke has Joseph and Mary making a three-day journey away from their home in Nazareth to register in theiralleged ancestral home Bethlehem.  But an Egyptian papyrus recording a census in 104 C.E. explicitly states that "since registration by household is imminent, it is necessary to notify all who for any reason are absent from their districts to return to their own homes that they may carry out the ordinary business of registration...." [6]  Unlike Matthew, who does not mention a census nor Nazareth as Mary and Joseph's home, Luke describes Nazareth as "their own city" (Lk.2:39).  If the rules of this Egyptian census applied to Palestine, then Joseph and Mary should have stayed in Nazareth to be enrolled.

          Imagine a system of taxation based on people returning to their ancestral homes, going back a thousand years in the case of Joseph.  By this time the Jews were spread out all over the known world.  Can we seriously believe that the Romans would have required them to come back to Palestine, carrying everything they owned?  How would the tax officials have assessed their land?  In The Rise of Christianity the former Bishop E. W. Barnes remarks:  "The Romans were a practical race, skilled in the art of government.  It is incredible that they should have taken a census according to such a fantastic system.  If any such census had been taken, the dislocation to which it would have led would have been world-wide.  Roman historians would not have failed to record it." [7]

          In his famous book entitled Jesus, Charles Guignebert states:  "It is all outside the plane of reality....It is incredible that such an unusual and disturbing proceeding, as the census spoken of by Luke must necessarily have been, should have escaped all notice in Josephus...."  Guignebert continues:

         "We will not unduly stress the peculiarity of the mode of census taking implied in our text, but it is to be noted that it is a very strange proceeding.  The moving about of men and families which this reckless decree must have caused throughout the whole of the Empire is almost beyond imagination, and one cannot help wondering what advantage there could be for the Roman state in this return, for a single day, of so many scattered individuals, not to the places of their birth, but to the original homes of their ancestors.  For it is to be remembered that those of royal descent were not the only ones affected by this fantastic ordinance, and many a poor man must have been hard put to it to discover the cradle of his race.  The suspicion, or rather, the conviction, is borne in upon us at first sight that the editor of Luke has simply been looking for some means of bringing Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, in order to have Jesus born there.  A hagiographer of his type never bothers much about common sense in inventing the circumstances he requires" [8]

          We can now understand why Jesus never mentions his birth in Bethlehem; and that, except for the birth stories, Jesus is always connected with Nazareth.  The writer of John apparently does not know of Jesus' alleged birth in Bethlehem.  Nathanael does not know it (7:46) and no one answers the challenge of thecrowd when they say "Is the Christ to come from Galilee?  Has not the scriptures said that the Christ...comes from Bethlehem?..." (7:42).  In Evidence That Demands a Verdict evangelical Josh McDowell challenges skeptics to assess the evidence for the Christian faith.  McDowell uses the mistranslated Vatican inscription and ascribes it to Quirinius without good scholarly reasons.  He even cites the Egyptian papyrus above, but astonishingly enough implies that it required people to return to their ancestral homes.9  Concerning the birth stories of Jesus, the evidence demands this verdict:  most of the details are legendary and Jesus was in all probability born in the Galilean town of Nazareth.

Note: Simply for the sake of balance I offer a defense of Luke's census by Ronald Marchant.  To his credit Marchant summarizes the objections to historicity mentioned about, but nonetheless offers a quite convoluted defense. Click here for his article, linked to the fundamentalist Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute.  I find at least three major problems:

1) Marchant assumes the Joseph owned land in Bethlehem;
2) that Quirinius somehow had authority in Judea when two other governors ruled during the most likely times of Jesus' birth; and
3) that the Egyptian census of 104 CE supports the idea of returning to ancestral homes.. 

ENDNOTES

1. Gleason Archer, An Encyclopedia of Biblical Differences (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982), p. 366. Such an empire-wide census, if it did indeed happen, would still have been  too  late for Archer's 7 B.C.E. date.
2. Joseph A. Fitzmyer The Anchor Bible: The Gospel According to Luke. Two Volumes. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1981, 1985), p. 401..
3.  Ibid., p. 403.  Fitzmyer also counters Archer's attempt to demote Quirinius to something less than an official legate.Fitzmyer shows that the use of hegemon as real legate is found also in  Josephus (p. 402).
4. Tenney Frank, , ed., An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1938), vol. 4, pp. 160-62.
5. E.W. Barnes, The Rise of Christianity (London: Longmans, Green, 1947), p. 75.
6.  Quoted in Fitzmyer, p. 405.  Check this link for a copy of an Egyptian census declaration. Look under K. C. Hanson's Collection of Ancient Documents (Greek).
7.  Barnes, p. 75.
8. Charles Guignebert, Jesus (London: Kegan Paul, 1935), pp. 99, 101.
9. Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (San Bernadino, CA: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972), vol. 1, p. 73. 

[Source: uido.edu]

The New Testament And Christian Ignorance Tuesday, September 4, 2012

I find it rather amusing that the vast majority of Christians, demonstrating their well-known ignorance, appear to believe that when Jesus ascended into heaven, just before he left, he turned to his disciples and said, "Here lads- your 27 writings. This is your New Testament. Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!". And off he went - never to be seen again ~ fortunately

In reality, the fact is that what constitutes the New Testament today took hundreds of years to sort out. Secondly it is rather "odd" that present-day Christians reject writings that the early Christians did use, and in contrast, they do not accept writings that the early Christians did (Who presumably were in the best position to choose ?).

Thirdly, the fact that as the church selected the New Testament canon, it simply selected those writings that agreed, and did not conflict with its already established (manmade) doctrines. Fourthly, if the New Testmaent is the word of God, why did it take God over 300 years to get the right writings accepted ?

In sum, the Church and the New Testament are entirely manmade and lacking any sign of any divine origins. The following relates to the composition of the New Testament.

The New Testament Canon

For Paul any question was decided by a 'word of the Lord', eg. 1 Thess 4:15; in 1 Cor 9:9,13f he places alongside scriptural proof, the instruction of the Lord. In 1 Cor 11:23f he describes the words of Jesus at the eucharist as the norm for such celebration in the church.

A further development arises when Paul is forced to make a decision himself; here he appeals to the fact he has been 'commissioned by the Lord' and possesses the Spirit (1 Cor 7:25,40). Paul even presupposed his letters would be read in the churches and be exchanged (1 Thess 5:26f, 2 Cor 13:12, Rom 16:16- Col 1:1, 4:16).

Side by side the church had the scriptures and the words from the prophets, as well as those from the apostles. Ignatius designates as authorities the 'prophets, but above all, the Gospel' (Sm 7:2); the cross was a voice above the written word (Phil. 8). There is no agreement whether 1 Clem or Ignatius knew of a written Gospel - the letters do not say this; as time passed and the voice of the apostles faded, a search began for the written word.

The collection of writings most likely began with Paul's - Marcion (ca. 140) did this and 1 Clem originating in Rome uses Rom, Heb and refers to 1 Cor. Ignatius knew of a collection also. In 2 Pet 3:15f there is a ref. to Paul's letters. It has been suggested that the collection arose in Asia Minor and this effec- ted more letter-writing (eg. Rev). In fact, it is not known when this first collection took place.

Kummel points out that Ignatius does not refer to any written source and has no knowledge of written Gospels - the idea that the 4 Gospels were brought together at the beginning of the second century 'cannot be proved'. Towards the middle of the 2nd cent, the situation appears to have changed. Tatian then later composed his Diatessaron ('harmony') of all four Gospels. However during this time there was still use of apocryphal gospels and oral Jesus-traditions; there is no evidence the Gospels were read in worship.

The main section of the letter of Polycarp uses Gospel material and Paul's letters and 1 Peter. A little later in 2 Clem, the apostles are placed as living authorities alongside the O.T. Barnabas (4:14) gives a saying of Jesus (Matt 22:14) and it is introduced by 'It is written' (ie. Scripture), although the situation is unclear how this arose.

In Polycarp's letter (Phil 12:1), there is a quote from Eph 4:26 which is referred to by the expression he uses for the O.T and it seems that he intended to refer to the O.T, although is is possible, though unlilkely, he is referring to Eph in this. About the mid-2nd cent, Justin refers to the service of worship when the 'memoirs of the apostles' were read.

Corresponding to this, there are frequent quotes from the synoptics; he stresses these were written by the apostles or their disciples; he includes Mark and Luke in this category. It is not known if Justin knew John although there is an echo of John but this may come from tradition. It is even possible some of the Gospel quotations are from oral tradition. Despite this, he places the Gospels on the same level as the O.T. The Pauline letters are not quoted but he mentions Rev.

Marcion in ca. 140 AD, produced a canon of 10 Pauline letters and Luke. This were altered to remove Jewish references. He had a prologue to these letter which attacks the false apostles who taught the Jewish law. It is argued that Marcion took his canon from a church canon already existing, but Harnack believed Marcion was the first to promote the idea. Marcion's canon did not force the canon to be made, but he certainly furthered it. In fact the church adopted the Marcion text forms (Roms doxology) and the Laodiceans, which was rejected by the Muratorian canon as a Marcionite forgery, ie. it is found in some 6th cent Latin Bibles.

The next stage was Tatian who was a disciple of Justin. In ca. 170 AD, he constructed a harmony of the four Gospels and showed there was now 4 accepted Gospels.

The apologist Athenagoras (ca. 180 AD) cited both Gospels and the O.T. and treated them the same. At this point Paul's writings and the Gospels were being treated as having equal value, although they may not have achieved full equality.

One further event assisted the formation; this was the Montanist sect; one result of this sect was the 'Alogi' who threw out John and Rev which they attributed to the Gnostic Cerinthus. Bishop Serapion of Antioch (ca. 200), allowed the Gos of Peter to be read although he later withdrew permission for this.

Irenaeus (180 AD) stressed the acceptance of all 4 Gospels which were expanded by Acts; he also adds thirteen letters of Paul. However at this time there was still no fixed canon.

Tertullian (220 AD) recognised the 4 Gospels, but the acceptance of the apostolic writings was still fluid. He accepted Acts, the 13 letters of Paul, 1 Pet, 1 John, Jude and Rev. He does not mention the Catholic epistles, 2 and 3 John, James and 2 Pet. He called Hebrews the epistle of Barnabas; at one stage he accepted Hermas also.

Clem. Alex (190 AD) accepted the 4 Gospels and 14 letters, incl- uding Heb, of Paul and Acts and Rev. However he used the Gos. of Hebrews and Egyptians and also regarded the Rev of Pet, Kerygma of Peter, Barnabas, 1 Clem, Didache and Hermas as scripture. The canon was therefore still very much open at the beginning of the 3rd century and still undecided/unsettled.

It appears that at this time the 'canon' was 4 Gospels, the 13 letters of Paul, Acts, 1 Pet, 1 John and Rev whilst the other writings were still disputed.

The Muratorian frag. attests to this fact. This is an 8th cent Latin MS and came from a Greek text from the end of the 2nd cent. The beginning is missing and goes on to list the accepted writings; the role of the eyewitness is here emphasised. Wisdom and Rev of Peter were also accepted. Hermas was being read, but not publicly. It lists the writings to be received and details some rejected. 1 Pet is missing and so is Heb, James and 3 John. What becomes clear here is that a writing is not accepted on its content but rather, whether it was written by an apostle or through one. Whilst rejected writings are now known, the apostolic part was still in flux.

The Christian apologist Origen (220 AD) had 3 classes of writings - (1)Those uncontested - the 4 Gospels, the 13 letters of Paul, 1 Pet, 1 John, Acts and Rev. (2)The doubtful- 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Heb, James and Jude. He cited Hermas and the Didache but does not appear to have accepted them into the canon; he does list Barnabas within the N.T though. (3) Those that were rejected.

The view on 'accepted writings' was more open-minded in Alexand- ria; different areas did not necessarily agree with others.

In the Codex D, Phil, 1 and 2 Thess are missing - no doubt through oversight, but so are the 7 Catholic letters, Rev, Acts and Heb. However Hermas, Acts of Paul, Rev of Peter are included. Methodius of Olympus, an opponent of Origen, quotes all the N.T writings as canonical but also the Rev of Peter, Barnabas and the Didache.

Eusebius (330 AD) had three classes of writing - accepted, disputed and those completely rejected. The first set was the Gospels, Acts, l4 letters of Paul (ie. Heb included), l Pet, l John, and 'if one will' Rev. In the second class, this is broken into two groups - the first set that are still esteemed - James, 2 Pet, 2 John; the second group included the Acts of Paul, Rev of Pet, Hermas, Didache, Barnabas and 'if one will' Rev. He says that some accepted the Gos of the Hebrews. In Eusebius' day, the Catholic letters were still disputed and so was Rev. Cyril of Jerusalem, ca. 350, in the 59th or 60th canon of the synod of Laodicea (after 360) and Gregory of Nazianus (d. 390) there are 26 writings - Rev being omitted. In 367 Athanasius issued his Easter letter and lists 27 writings as the only canonical ones; in addition to these and rejected writings, he mentions a 3rd group - those that could be used in instruction - Didache and Hermas.

Athanasius was the first to name this collection as the 'kavwv'. Athanasius' authority was such that the canonicity of the 7 Catholic letters was rapidly established although Rev was still disputed. A number of leading Christians did not accept it. There is a list from the 9th cent that omits it and in reality, it was only from the 10th cent that the number of 27 prevails in the Greek church.

The Greek influence on the West in deciding about Heb is discernible. The Latin church did not view it as Pauline and Tertullian attributed it to Barnabas. Hilary of Poitiers (d.367) quoted Heb, James and 2 Pet as did others. Doubts remained about it but it was was gradually accepted. Variations continued, eg. Laodiceans is found in MSS of the Vulgate. However it does appear the N.T was settled for the Latin church from the 5th century.

*The following deals with the acceptance of two specific books - Hebrews and Revelation - into the canon.

Whilst there were a number of books received into the canon, with little or no hesitation, and at an early date, there were several writings that remained on the fringe and were viewed with doubt and only received after a considerable length of time; two such writings were Hebrews and the Revelation.

In the case of Heb, there were a number of problems; there is no introductory form that would be found in a letter and it almost appears to be a sermon; early Christian preaching has certainly been identified within Heb, and as its style is reminiscent of the Hellenistic synagogue preaching, as presented for example by Philo of Alexandria, it is not surprising that its unusual style created doubts about its suitability for the canon.

One of the principle problems concerning Heb was authorship; the writing is quoted as early as l Clement (17:1, 36:2-5); although the West did not accept Heb as Pauline until the fourth century, the church in the East did; it was through the influence from the East that the West did finally accept it as a Pauline writing.

Attributing Heb to Paul inevitably created problems; the language and style of Heb is quite different from that of Paul; there are some 124 words within Heb that are not found in the Pauline writings. The language of Heb corresponds to a sophisticated Hellenistic Greek and manifests a regular carefully rounded sentence structure unlike Paul who sometimes even failed to complete his sentences. One noticeable feature in Heb is that quotations from the O.T are never introduced by the formulas usually used by Paul, eg. 'it is written', 'the scripture says', etc.

The unusual features in Heb also distinguishes it from Paul's writing; the title of high priest is frequently attributed to Jesus in Heb, but this title is never used by Paul; unlike Paul's stress on Jesus' resurrection from the dead, Heb is more concerned with his ascension into heaven and his activity there. The problem over authorship is illustrated by the list of 'possible authors' supplied by early Christian writers, eg. Clement of Alexandria (200 AD) believed that Luke could have translated Heb from a letter written by Paul in the Hebrew language; Origen (220 AD) was acquainted with the idea that Clement of Rome had written Heb; since the time of Tertullian (220 AD) ,the person of Barnabas has been suggested as a possible author; Apollos was also suggested. Despite all these suggestions, the authorship is unknown, and it has, traditionally, remained a letter written by Paul.

Therefore the obvious problems that Heb created, not only by its unknown authorship, but the contents within it, delayed its acceptance into the canon for a lengthy period of time. It was not recognised as canonical by the West before the third century. In the case of Rev, this was undoubtably written for a specific period of time, ie. the beginning of state persecution in the closing years of the first century. The author identifies himself as 'John' (1:1,4,9, 22:8) and this later led to Rev being attributed to the apostle John. However there is no indication that the writer had seen the earthly Jesus and in fact virtually nothing is said about Jesus' life.

Some statements in Rev conflict with Jesus' teachings as in the Gospels (eg. Rev 6:10 when the martyred saints cry for vengeance, with Matt 5:44, when Jesus teaches that persecutors should be loved and prayed for). The realised eschatology of John's Gospel is missing in Rev; instead, there are a number of events to occur before the final climax when Jesus returns and the present system, including the earth itself, is ended (Rev 20-21).

The contents of Rev therefore, not surprisingly, led to discussion and dispute about whether it should be received into the canon. Its attitude to the church's enemies was viewed as 'sub-Christian' and its stress on God's wrath eclipses any suggestion of God's love.

Doubts about Rev are very clear from early Christian writings; it is omitted in several lists of 'received books' and as early as the third century, some Christians even thought it appropriate to question Rev's authorship in writing; Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria challenged the belief that the apostle John (who he believed had written the Gospel and the three Johannine letters) could have also written Rev; he deals with the differences in style, vocabulary and ideas. In the case of Heb, Dionysius did use this and furthermore, he did view it as a Pauline writing.

The Muratorian fragment which is a Latin translation of a Greek canon list usually dated ca. 180-200 AD (although some date it as a century later) lists the accepted writings in Rome, and Rev is included in this; although it mentions writings to be rejected, it does not mention Heb.

Irenaeus (180 AD) used most N.T. writings, but he did not use Heb; in the case of Tertullian (220 AD), he used Rev but did not accept Heb. Clement of Alexandria (200 AD) quoted extensively from the N.T writings and although he used Heb, he also quoted from pagan writings, so Clement is not an ideal guide to the church's view towards certain N.T. writings.

In the region of Antioch, the canon did not include Rev and even after doubts about the seven 'Catholic' letters had been cleared up in the fifth/sixth centuries, doubts about Rev still continued.

Although doubts continued over certain N.T.writings, one significant event in the church's history in relation to settling its canon was Athanasius' Easter letter of 367; in this he lists the twenty-seven writings as those that were to be received; despite this, doubts did however still linger on.

Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem in the mid-fourth century omitted Rev (Catech. IV.36) as did Gregory Nazianzen, bishop of Constantinople in the latter part of the fourth century. Philastrius, bishop of Brixia shortly afterwards omitted Heb from his list. Other Christian leaders, eg. Chrysostom and Theodoret, also rejected Rev.

The fourth cent. Codex Sinaiticus has all twenty-seven writings, but it also has 1 and 2 Clement. The fourth century historian Eusebius of Caesarea stated that Heb had been rejected by some as it was not seen as being written by Paul (H.E. III.3.1-5). In H.E. 25.1-7, he lists the accepted writings, but with regard to Rev, this was accepted only 'if it seems right'. He also lists Rev under the category of those writings deemed 'spurious' (ie. doubts about authorship), and adds that Rev was accepted by some, although others rejected it. According to H.E. III.39.12, Eusebius clearly had doubts about Rev himself.

In H.E.IV, he comments on Origen's view of accepted writings and states it was unlikely that Heb's author was Paul, but it was possibly Clement bishop of Rome, or Luke. Origen had also classed the different writings into groupings, ie. those to be accepted (he included Rev in this), the doubtful (which included Heb), and those that were rejected.

Jerome (ca. 347-420 AD), who was responsible for the Vulgate translation of the Bible did include Heb in his N.T, but was aware of the doubts that had been raised about it. In the same period, Ambrose did not view it as a Pauline letter.

The Codex Claromontanus, which is dated ca. sixth century, and apparently of Western origin does include Rev and 'an 'Epistle of Barnabas' which some feel may be Heb. Although it is dated ca. sixth century, some believe that it reflects a view that existed in the third/fourth century.

With regard to the formation of the canon, J.N.D. Kelly in Early Christian Doctrines, states,

"For example, Hebrews was for long under suspicion in the West, and Revelation was usually excluded in the fourth and fifth centuries where the school of Antioch held sway...."

The Stichometry of Nicephorus, usually dated as mid-ninth century omits Rev. The 'Catalogue of the Sixty Canonical Books', transmitted in several MSS, reflects the view of the Greek church at a later date - this however also omits Rev. Therefore even at this late stage in the church's history, it appears some did not accept Rev into the canon.

Errors that arose in manuscripts

Examination of different MSS shows the variants which have occurred in the time of copying.

In 1707 some 30,000 variants were listed from Greek MSS by John Mill; early this century von Soden printed evidence of some 45,000 variants that he had found in N.T MSS.

There are a number of reasons for these variants, eg.

(1) If the eye skipped over a word, letter, word or line(s), the error is 'haplography' ("single writing"); (1a) If it was a case of seeing something twice, the error is termed 'dittography' ("double writing"). One example of this can be found in 1 Thess 2:7 - the difference between 'we were gentle' and 'we were babes' (as per RSV footnote), is whether one or 2 'n's' belong in the Greek. In Matt 27:17, the insertion of 'Jesus' before 'Barabbas' in some MSS may arise through repetition (dittography) of the last two letters of the Greek word 'for you' which in fact was the regular abbreviation for 'Jesus'. In contrast to this, it may in fact be a case of haplography where 'Jesus' has been omitted.

(2) If the confusion is due to similiar endings on two words or lines, so the intervening words are omitted, this error is termed 'homoeoteleuton' ("similiar ending"); if it is the case of omission due to a similar beginning, it is termed 'homoeoarcton'; an example of this arises in the O.T, ie. 1 Sam 14:41 where several clauses have dropped out in the Hebrew between 'Israel' - the LXX and the Vulgate however preserve the correct reading.

(3) A cause for another type of error was the copyist mishearing; if a letter was being dictated, a scribe could mishear things; such a situation appears to have arisen in Rom 5:1 - 'we have peace' and 'let us have peace' (RSV Footnote) which sounded the same in first cent. Greek.

This error was possible in N.T copying but not for the O.T -there are no rabbinic references to a practice of reading aloud to a copyist.

(4) There were also errors through poor judgement. A copyist might misinterpret the abbreviations that were often used in MSS, especially for 'God' and 'Christ' which were frequently abbreviated. The variants found in 1 Tim 3:16 undoubtably involved this point.

On occasion a copyist would have to divide a word; as Greek uncials were written continuously, without a break, a scribe introducing his own word divisions would have to decide upon the position of the word-break. It is was not always clear where a sentence ended; Rom 9:5 is a good example of this and is important as some believe Paul calls Christ 'God' here (although unlikely).

(5) Liturgical instructions also appear to have been added in some cases, eg. Acts 8:37 (RSV footnote) which most likely reflects the baptismal confession in the church of the second cent. copyist.

1 Cor 4:6 is a good example of the errors that could arise when notes were added in the margin or under the text; the phrase 'to live according to the scripture' is literally 'not above what is written'; it is suspected that a copyist made an error in the first verses of l Cor 4, then made a note for the next copyist not to repeat this error, but instead, the next copyist not only did this, but also included the instruction which had been left for him.

(6) Deliberate alterations also occur in the text; this is due to a number of reasons.

Copyists made changes for theological reasons, eg. to remove what appeared to be a contradiction, to expand upon something that he felt was important, to change the meaning to suit his own viewpoint, or changing the statement simply to clarify the meaning. On occasions the copyist might simply make changes to supply a more familiar word, eg. the unusual verb in Mark 6:20 when Herod was 'perplexed' was changed in later MSS to 'did'. Clarification of a verse can be seen by Mark 14:12 'lest...it be forgiven them' becomes in certain MSS 'their sins should be forgiven them'. In John 5:3b-4 (RSV footnote), there is an insertion to explain the conversation that follows.

When Matt (27:9) quotes an O.T passage which is mostly from Zechariah but it is attributed to Jeremiah, some MSS show that a copyist has attempted to remove this. In Mark 1:2, two statements are brought together, one from Isaiah and the other from Malachi, but Mark attributes both to Isaiah; again some MSS omit 'Isaiah' to try and remove this error.

In time, some copyists felt it would be useful to add further details, eg. in one Old Latin MS, the two thieves being crucified with Christ are given names in Mark 15:27. In Matt 24:36 Jesus states that even the Son did not know when the parousia was to occur and obviously some copyists felt this impugned Jesus' omniscience, and in some MSS 'nor the Son' is missing.

It is suspected a copyist's marginal protest note has been included in Luke 16:16-18. In v.16 Jesus states that the law and the prophets were only until John, and in v.l8, Jesus forbids divorce (against the Deut 24:1-2 ruling), but in v.17 he states that not one dot of the law will pass away.

Some feel this is a marginal protest against 16:16 (and possibly v.18) by a Jewish-Christian copyist that has been incorporated into the text and hence the apparent contradiction.

The view of the copyist towards Jesus' status is reflected in the MSS; in John 1:18 'the only Son' becomes 'the only God' in some MSS; therefore the Christology of the copyist sometimes led to changes being made on occasion. Heb 1:8 has two different renderings and one of these has the Son being addressed as 'God'. The personal view of the copyist could sometimes result in word changes that drastically altered the meaning of the sentence; in the Western text, the Jews 'act evilly' when crucifying Jesus, but in the Codex Vaticanus, the Jews merely act 'in ignorance'. In Acts 2:17 when Peter explains about the prophesy of Joel - that the spirit would be poured out on all flesh - the Codex Bezae has the noun for flesh in the plural to stress that this promise was for all nations and peoples, and not just the Jews. In Vaticanus, the wounded side of Jesus, as detailed in John l9:34 is also introduced at Matt 27:49.

One of the most significant additions to N.T writing is Mark 16:9-20; here the abrupt ending of Mark has been continued to include post-resurrection appearances by Jesus to his disciples. The critical time for this was most likely ca. 70-ca. 150 AD; at this time Christian writings were not seen as 'Scripture', but 'guides to Christian living' so there was no real difficulty in making changes. Later on, Origen condemned copyists who made deliberate changes for their 'depraved audacity' and Jerome reported to pope Damascus that 'numerous errors' had arisen through attempted harmonisation by copyists.

One rule adopted by those endeavouring to ascertain the original reading is to choose the reading that (a)is the most confused (ii)contradicts or is least likely to agree a statement in another N.T. writing (iii)is shorter. It was usual for a copyist to change a statement to make it clearer, or if it contradicted another passage, or if it could be made to support another passage; a longer passage is therefore most likely the one that has been changed as a copyists would tend to lengthen it to include an explanatory note. The general rule is 'Lectio difficilior probabilior', ie. it affirms the more difficult expression as the one to be regarded as more likely the original.

[Source: HolySmoke.Org]