Christianity In The 4th Century
Friday, January 31, 2014
THE BIRTH OF
THE BIBLE
(Part 1 of 3)
By
Francis William Bessler
New Years, 300 A.D.
Where were you on New Years Day, 300 A.D.? Or perhaps better put, what were you doing on New Years Day, 300 A.D.? Whatever it was you were doing, I can assure you that you were not reading THE BIBLE. I strongly suspect that most people do not know that they could not have been reading THE BIBLE if they were around on New Years Day, 300 A.D. I think most people think that THE BIBLE has always been so - that God wrote THE BIBLE a long time ago and at least from the time of St. Peter and Jesus, THE BIBLE was around to be read and reviewed.
At least, that was my impression when I was first introduced to THE BIBLE - sometime after I first learned to read - maybe by the age of eight or so. It was for me that THE BIBLE was a book that has always been - and there never was a time when THE BIBLE was not. Needless to say, had I known that THE BIBLE had not always been around when I was a kid, I would have known that I had been mistaken thinking it had been around for “all time.”
So, before THE BIBLE came into being, what did folks do - I mean, those of us who think of ourselves as “Christian”? Therein, I think, is perhaps one of the most interesting stories of history. Before THE BIBLE came into being, there were a good number of books about Jesus, but the problem was, they all disagreed among themselves - as it were. There were, of course, the now known gospels of Mark and Matthew and Luke and John, but there were also other gospels too - like those of Thomas, one of the accepted Apostles of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene, arguably, another of the “Apostles” of Jesus.
On New Years Day, 300 A.D., for example, there were probably several different Christian “churches” in Alexandria, Egypt. Let’s us just imagine that in the northern part of Alexandria, Egypt, there was a parish that taught the story of Jesus according to what was found in THE GOSPEL OF MARK. Given that Christian worship was still banned as public offering at the time, Mark’s Christians did not meet in a church as such, but probably in the home - or house - of one of the Christians. In 300 A.D., Christianity was banned by Roman edict - that is from worshipping out in the open some place. So, Christians had to meet in one another’s home - or maybe out in some woods or other place where Christians could assemble in secret.
Anyway, in southern Alexandria in another home in restricted Alexandria, a few more Christians were meeting and following THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Down the road a bit, other Christians were meeting who paid attention to the Jesus of THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS. Across the road, other Christians were meeting who liked THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. Across town, there was another band of Christians - who found THE GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE to their liking.
Believe it nor not, that is the way it was for what could be called Christianity in 300 A.D. Different Christian sects or assemblies worshipped, as it were, paying attention to different texts - and rather contentiously so. The “bishop” of a given gospel - or the bishop of several communities that attended to the Jesus of Mark - were sometime outraged that another “bishop” over several other communities paid attention to a different Jesus - like that of Thomas; but Christianity was not unified at the time and a dissenting bishop could do absolutely nothing to prevent another “bishop” from supervising several little church groups from using a gospel not of his liking. He could rant and rave that another “bishopric” was following “heresy” in going with another scheme of worship, but he could do nothing about it because Christianity was a hidden religion at the time. Roman Paganism was the accepted religion - and in many places, Christianity was actually banned. Because Christianity was so loosely practiced, then, no one community of Christians could do anything to restrict another community from doing as it saw fit to practice.
Christianity In Conflict
So, what did the various Christian parishes believe that put them in conflict with one another? It is only one man’s opinion, of course, but I think the conflict could be summarized as one centering around “authority.” Some Christian sects simply had no need for salvation by authority; and other Christian sects depended on salvation by authority. Some saw the individual as front and center in gaining his or her own salvation by listening to him or herself as one might pursue the truth. In other words, in some Christian sects, self-confidence and self-trust to know the truth was the mainstay of a sect. In other Christian sects, it was confidence and trust in some authority that paved the way to what can be called “salvation.”
Which way was right - confidence in authority outside oneself - or confidence in oneself? Quite a conflict - I think, huh? Which way was right? In one perspective of Jesus, Jesus came to forgive those of sin who believed in him - and, of course, in those who were “authorized” to represent Jesus in some line of authority - stemming originally from Peter to whomever Peter chose to represent him - down the ages from selection to selection of authority. In the other view, Jesus came to encourage souls to find the truth on their own, listening only to others in terms of guidance by benevolence or kind interest, but not by way of believing that one can gain salvation by way of the authority of someone else - including that of Jesus himself.
Many of the Christian sects of the time believed that Jesus had been a Jewish Messiah - and that offers the notion of authority big time. If Jesus had been a Jewish Messiah, then that would have defined him in a “role of authority.” I think that is why some of the gospel writers - like all of those who eventually ended up in THE BIBLE - wanted to believe in Jesus as a Jewish Messiah. They wanted the authority that went with such an idea. If Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, then it stood to reason that Jesus would need “lieutenants” to carry out his authority. That paved the way for those who wanted authority; and many chose to believe they were proper “authorities” in the name of Jesus - Jewish Messiah.
Was Jesus really a Jewish Messiah - or the long anticipated Jewish Messiah? Some thought he was; and some thought he wasn’t; and therein was the basis of the disagreement that completely enthralled Christianity on New Years Day, 300 A.D.
It would have been hard to know the truth about such a claim when there were so many diverse gospels about Jesus on New Years Day, 300 A.D. Who was to be believed? Those gospels authored by the likes of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John - or those gospels authored in the names of ones like Thomas and Mary Magdalene?
In THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, for instance, Matthew claimed that Jesus came to forgive sins - as if he had the power or need to do such a thing. In telling about the supposed conception of Jesus from within one called Mary, Matthew offered in verse 1:20 that Jesus had been conceived by the “Holy Ghost” and not by Joseph, Mary’s husband. This was to offer that Jesus was very different from the rest of us - for who is conceived by the “Holy Ghost”?
In the following verse, Matthew instills in us the idea that Mary - who had been the mother of the one “conceived by the Holy Ghost” - was intended to bring forth a son whose name was to be called “Jesus” whose purpose was to “save his people from their sins.” Verse 1:21: And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shall call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
That, of course, was intended to, number 1: state that the people of Jesus had sin, and number 2: that Jesus could forgive them of that sin. It was all about sin, then, that is “inherited sin.”
Did Jesus really believe in sin - or that we all have sin? Who knows? Some believed he did; and some believed he did not. That was the crux of the conflict that was raging at the time of New Years Day, 300 A.D. Some Christian sects did not assume that Jesus had been a Jewish Messiah, intent on saving his people from their sins, and some believed that Jesus could only be appreciated as a Jewish Messiah.
In THE GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE, for example, when Peter asked Jesus about sin, Jesus said: there is no such thing as sin, except that you create it, as in adultery. From Verse 1 of THE GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE: Peter said to him, “You have explained everything to us. Tell us also, what is the sin of the world?” The savior replied, “There is no such thing as sin, but you create sin when you mingle as in adultery, and this is called sin.”
And therein was the controversy of the time on New Years Day, 300 A.D. One gospel wrote it that Jesus did not believe in sin, that is “inherited sin”; and another (and others) wrote it that Jesus did believe in sin - or that we all inherit it. Which one was right? Those who wanted to be accepted as “authorities” in the name of Jesus argued one way; and those who had no need for authority argued in another.
But how do you run a church if authority is not needed? That was the compelling question of the time on New Years Day, 300 A.D. Some argued that it is ridiculous to argue that Jesus did not believe in sin and the need for it to be forgiven; and the same ones argued that no church can survive if it does not call for some authority - and the need for authority - to “forgive sins” in the name of Jesus. Some who believed that authority is needed wanted to brand as heretics all those who claimed it was not needed - and burn their books as well. What idiocy, they claimed, to believe that Jesus would not have required authority - and that each of us is free to free ourselves of sin - if we have it at all - by virtue of disposition and conduct alone!
Some gospels, however, like that of the Apostle, Thomas - or at least written in the name of Thomas - claimed that Jesus preached that Heaven is spread about the Earth and implied that it is up to each of us to recognize that Heaven is all about; but some argued that Heaven was a place where the “obedient” go after death. Which idea was right? Which idea was wrong? Is Heaven here already - or do we have to die to get to it? See the controversy swirling about on New Years Day, 300 A.D.
In THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS, in talking about where Heaven really is, Jesus said in Verse 3: If those who lead you say to you: “See, the Kingdom is in heaven,” then the birds of the heaven will precede you. If they say to you: “It is in the sea,” then the fish will precede you. But the Kingdom is within you and it is without you. If you will know yourselves, then you will be known and you will know that you are sons of the Living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you are in poverty and you are poverty.
And about the place of Heaven in Verse 113 of THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS, it is offered. His disciples said to Him: When will the Kingdom come? Jesus said: It will not come by expectation; they will not say, “See here,” or “See there.” But the Kingdom of the Father is spread upon the earth and men do not see it.
Implied in both of those verses is that no one needs authority to gain salvation. Salvation is only recognizing that “the Kingdom is within you” and realizing that because it is, you are a “son of the Living Father.” The “Kingdom” is all about. Just realize it and go forward proud that it is all about and that you are among its citizens.
Where is the need for authority in that message? It is absent. Isn’t it? And therein was the basis of the great Conflict Among Christians on New Years Day, 300 A.D.
Enter - Constantine
Then fate entered the scene. A man by the name of Constantine, born a Roman Pagan, became emperor of the Roman Empire in 312 A.D. I won’t go into details of that story on how Constantine ascended to his position of “Governor of all of the Roman Empire,” but suffice it to say, he did; and for whatever reason, he decided that the previously banned religion of Christianity should be recognized as legitimate from that time forward. And not only did he decide to “tolerate” Christianity. He decided to make Christianity a “state religion” equal to the previously dominant paganism of the day.
Having been adopted by the Roman Empire as an acceptable religion, however, that religion faced a huge problem. Which Christianity should be favored - the one that preached the need for authority to gain salvation - or the one that offered that salvation is only recognizing one’s own “sacred status” as a “son of the Living Father”?
To answer that question and resolve an ongoing crisis in the church, Constantine assembled all the bishops he could summon to a place called Nicaea in the land of Turkey 25 years after New Years Day, 300 A.D. Constantine directed those bishops to settle on only some of the gospels being used by various Christian sects of the day - and go forward as a united religion - not as a fractured religion. Constantine wanted “one empire” and it stood to reason that to have “one empire,” Christianity needed to be “one religion.” Jesus had to be either an authority - or Jewish Messiah - or otherwise, but Jesus could not be both Messiah and “mere wise man.”
I am quite sure that if I had been there in Nicaea in 325 A.D. I would have witnessed a Constantine arguing that the “authority” side of Christianity must be adopted and the “know yourself as a son of the Living Father” side must be abandoned. Constantine was an emperor with “authority” and I am sure he would have settled for no less than an “authoritative” church.
Anyway, in Nicaea, Turkey in June of 325 A.D. - THE BIBLE was born. The bishops assembled at Nicaea decided on certain books that would fit into a canon of books; and the result was THE BIBLE. I was not there and do not know how many books were reviewed, but suffice it to say, there were quite a few. In the end, the bishops assembled in Nicaea chose certain books of previous Jewish authorship - prior to the life of Jesus - and certain books written after the life of Jesus.
In my mind, it was an arbitrary way of deciding on which books should be selected, but not terribly so. If a book lent to the need for authority, then it could be included in the NEW BIBLE. If a book suggested that salvation should be up to the individual, it had to go by the wayside. It was probably as simple at that. Books included that were written before the life of Jesus became the OLD TESTAMENT. Books included that were written after the life of Jesus became the NEW TESTAMENT; but sad to say, books that were excluded were not only excluded to be in THE BIBLE, but eventually directed to be destroyed - or at least many of them were - if it seemed they were arguing that salvation is not a matter needing authority.
Goodbye, Truth!
Regardless of which side you might take, or might have taken if you had been a bishop in 325 A.D., the result had to be censorship. Remember, before Nicaea, there had been conflict in the church as to which Jesus was to be believed - and often very bitter conflict. With an “authority” in government approving of “authorities” in religion, one could have foretold with accuracy what would probably happen to the dissenting side. It would have been declared as heresy and practice of that heresy would have been banned.
And that is exactly what happened. When bishops of a banned religion had no authority, they could do nothing about those who did not believe in the need for authority, but as soon as authority was granted to those who believed in the need for it, those who did not believe in the need for authority were overridden, to say the least - and declared as “heretics” - sometimes punishable by death.
But what happens when “authorities” choose to “censor” what people can read? What happens if what is censored actually represents “the truth”? The truth becomes a victim. Right? Of course, it is a matter of opinion about whether “the truth” resided in the victorious bishops of the 4th Century. Some - and many, for sure - have no doubt that the “Holy Ghost” was about that day in early June of 325 - and that the bishops only selected those books favored by the “Holy Ghost”; but in retrospect, I am not one of those - though I must admit I may have been had I been a bishop in 325 A.D. Indeed, I may have been one of the “ignorant ones” - for whatever reason.
As it actually happened, though, many of the books excluded by the bishops in Nicaea in 325 A.D. were not only banned, but directed to be destroyed. Authority often does that. It “destroys” that which might challenge its authority. Books like THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS and THE GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE were directed to be destroyed.
In “truth,” however, how would you have liked it if you had been a member of a Christian sect in Alexandria, Egypt in 325 A.D. that had taught from THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS? How would you have liked it if your chosen book about Jesus was declared heretical and that you had to abide by a book for which you had had no commitment? How would you have liked it if you could not go to church and hear what you believed was the truth, but now had to listen to a gospel that you found abhorrent?
Very quickly after 325 A.D., the whole world changed. On New Years Day, 300 A.D., Christianity was very diverse and various parishes could believe and teach what they believed is right - though under cover because Christianity was banned. By New Years Day, 400 A.D., Christianity had been set free to worship in the open and had become rather strict and no longer was there allowed an option to see Jesus as only a wise man and not a Jewish Messiah. Those who had wanted authority to rule in the name of Jesus got what they wanted; and once that happened, it was Goodbye, Jesus of Thomas! Goodbye, Jesus of Mary Magdalene! Goodbye Diversity! And very likely, Goodbye, Truth!
But fate entered in again. Though many Christian works were destroyed via ecclesiastical command, some monks - or other sources - did not obey the order to burn everything. Some works were hidden away from the authorities - like Coptic translations of THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS, THE GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALENE, and some others.
In one case, many banned books were buried in a cave overlooking the Nile River in Egypt near a town called Nag Hammadi. In 1945, some peasant stumbled on a huge jar containing THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS and some other ancient banned works. Was it an accident that the peasant stumbled over such a jar - or was it “accidental fate”? I wonder!
In any case, the world can return to Alexandria, Egypt and the year 300 A.D. - if it wants. We can go back and revere some of the ancient texts of the time - if we want - and maybe decide if we want to open those books and look at Jesus in another way.
For what it’s worth, I am such a one. I like to have options in life - to read or not to read - to believe or not to believe. I do not like to be told what I should read or what I should believe. Do you? I do not believe in censorship because I might be censoring the truth; and any who think they have a right to censor me ought to first ask themselves that if the tables were turned, would they like to be commanded to oblige me in what they “have” to believe?
It is anyone’s guess, too, as to what was lost by the burning ecclesiastics of the 4th Century. I mentioned that there was a Coptic version of THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS hidden away, but what happened to the original version? Supposedly, Thomas was of Greek origin. That means he probably wrote an original in Greek - if Thomas was the real author of the gospel in his name. Even if the Apostle, Thomas, was not the original author of the gospel in his name, it is likely the original author did not write in Coptic - an Egyptian language. What happened to the original - whatever the language it was written in? Was it burned to destroy the evidence?
As much as I am fond of THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS - as has been translated from Coptic to English - I am sure that with each translation, some biased verses were added to an original. That is probably true of gospels found in THE BIBLE too. If we do not have access to an original - and we probably have originals of nothing - how can we know that which was written or copied from one language to another represents the original?
Be that as it may, it should be clear that when any “evidence” is intentionally destroyed - as were a lot of Christian works in the 4th Century as part of an ecclesiastical purge - the world is left with a gaping wound. How do you heal a “world body” once you have burned much of it? Sad to say, we will never know just how much was lost, but we can try to make sense of some of what was left, use our brains to fill in the gaps, and still go forward with a wonderful, wonderful world.
Books may have been burned, but the majesty of life continues as it has always been. Perhaps we need to pay more attention to the very evidence of the goodness of life before our very eyes - and march forward as if we have lost little - because, in fact, if we look at life as it is, it should be clear that it has lost none of its original majesty. Of that, this one is sure.
Stay tuned, if you wish, to Part 2 of THE BIRTH OF THE BIBLE!
Thanks! (FWB)