But you forget that there are loads of surviving texts from the first century the romans were very diligent in that respect
And not one mention of a jesus
The 4 you mention cannot be eyewitnesses
So we are dealing with at best second hand information
Josephus at around 93ad we are two generations later and more for the others
So
Josephus is scant at best and the fact it’s still debated means until definitive remains dubiou
And let's not forget all the gospels they binned off cos they didn't fit their narrative. Having women with more power, for instance.
Read this earlier, interesting. If, you’re interested in how things actually happened.
In his best-selling novel, the Da Vinci Code Dan Brown wrote that the Bible was assembled during the famous Council of Nicea in 325 C.E., when Emperor Constantine and church authorities purportedly banned problematic books that didn't conform to their secret agenda.
Except that's not how it really went. "
The Da Vinci Code" was fiction, but Brown wasn't the first to credit the Council of Nicea with deciding which books to include in the Bible.
Voltaire, writing in the 18th century, repeated a
centuries-old myth that the Bible was canonized in Nicea by placing all of the known books on a table, saying a prayer and seeing which illegitimate texts fell to the floor.
In truth, there was no single church authority or council that convened to rubber stamp the biblical canon (official list of books in the Bible), not at Nicea or anywhere else in antiquity, explains Uadon Combs, an assistant professor at Brigham Young University specializing in ancient Christianity.
"Dan Brown did us all a disservice," says Combs. "We don't have evidence that any group of Christians got together and said, 'Let's hash this out once and for all.'" (The Council of Nicea was convened
to resolve a religious matterunrelated to the books of the Bible.)
What evidence scholars do have — in the form of theological treatises, letters and church histories that have survived for millennia — points to a
much longer process of canonization. From the first through the fourth centuries and beyond, different church leaders and theologians made arguments about which books belonged in the canon, often casting their opponents as heretics.
The books that make up the Bible were written by various people over a period of more than 1,000 years, between
1200 B.C.E. and the first century C.E. The Bible contains a variety of literary genres, including poetry, history, songs, stories, letters and prophetic writings. These were originally written on scrolls of parchment, as opposed to being encapsulated in "books" as we think of them today. (Remember, the
printing press wasn't invented until 1440.
Luther had issues with the book of James, which emphasized the role of "works" alongside faith, so he stuck James and Hebrews in the back of the Bible alongside Jude and Revelation, which he also thought were questionable. Combs says that in Luther's original Bible, those four books don't even appear in the table of contents.
Eusebius was a Christian historian writing in the early 300s who provided
one of the early lists of which books were considered legit and which were borderline bogus.
Over time, the books that were deemed authentic and authoritative by the communities who used them were included in the canon and the rest were discarded. Although the bulk of that editing work ended in the late 300s, the debate over which books were theologically legit continued until at least the 16th century when church reformer Martin Luther published his German translation of the Bible.
Luther had issues with the book of James, which emphasized the role of "works" alongside faith, so he stuck James and Hebrews in the back of the Bible alongside Jude and Revelation, which he also thought were questionable. Combs says that in Luther's original Bible, those four books don't even appear in the table of contents.
Eusebius was a Christian historian writing in the early 300s who provided
one of the early lists of which books were considered legit and which were borderline bogus.
Eusebius broke his list down into different categories: recognized, disputed, spurious and heretical. Among the "recognized" were the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), Acts and Paul's epistles. Under "disputed," Eusebius included James and Jude — the same books Luther didn't like — plus a few others that are now considered canon, like 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John.
When Eusebius turns to the "spurious" and "heretical" categories, we get a glimpse into just how many other texts were in circulation in the second and third century C.E. Have you ever heard of the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas or the Gospel of Thomas? Combs says that there were hundreds of texts similar to those found in the New Testament and Old Testament that didn't make it into the canon.
Why did some books make the cut and not others? Combs cites three criteria used by early church leaders. The first was authorship, whether it was believed to have been written by an apostle, by Paul or by someone close to them. Mark, for example, wasn't an apostle, but was an interpreter for Peter. The second criterium was antiquity, with older texts taking priority over newer ones. And the third was orthodoxy, or how well the text conformed with current Christian teaching.
"That last reason is so interesting, of course, because 'current Christian teaching' changed over hundreds of years," says Combs.
While it's not true to say that a single church council ruled on which books to include in the canon, it's fair to say that over those first few centuries of theological debate, the winners got to decide which books would stay and which had to go.
It's important to mention that not all Christian denominations consider the same books to be canon. Most Protestant Bibles have 66 books, 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. The Roman Catholic Bible has 73 books including the seven known as the Apocrypha. And the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes
81 total books in its Bible, including pseudepigrapha like 1 Enoch and Jubilees.
The word "apocrypha" comes from the Greek for "hidden" or "secret." It's a little confusing, because the word apocrypha is used in a couple of different ways when talking about books outside of the standard biblical canon.
First, there's the category of "New Testament Apocrypha" which includes a
long list of non-canonical texts written mostly in the second century C.E. and beyond that pertain to Jesus and his apostles. As Combs says, there are hundreds of these texts and we don't have written specimens for all of them.
The word "apocrypha" comes from the Greek for "hidden" or "secret." It's a little confusing, because the word apocrypha is used in a couple of different ways when talking about books outside of the standard biblical canon.
First, there's the category of "New Testament Apocrypha" which includes a
long list of non-canonical texts written mostly in the second century C.E. and beyond that pertain to Jesus and his apostles. As Combs says, there are hundreds of these texts and we don't have written specimens for all of them.
Many of the New Testament texts familiar to Christians today were being used authoritatively already in the second century, but different congregations preferred some texts over others and included some texts that don't appear in the New Testament. Here are a few:
The Gospel of Peter: Only a fragment of this text was recovered in 1886 in Egypt, but it includes the only narrative account of the resurrected Jesus leaving his tomb. According to Peter's version, two giant angels descended to the tomb and escorted the resurrected Jesus out, who was also suddenly gigantic. But the oddest note was that the three figures were followed by a floating cross that could talk.
And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, 'Thou hast preached to them that sleep.' And a response was heard from the cross, 'Yea.'"
The Gospel of Mary: Combs says that some apocryphal texts reflected theological and doctrinal debates going on within the early church, such as the role of women. In the Gospel of Mary (discovered in the late 19th century),
Mary Magdalene is not only referred to as one of Jesus's disciples, but perhaps his favorite one. In this text, after Jesus is resurrected, he relays esoteric teachings to Mary, who then tells the other disciples. Peter asks why they should listen to a woman, to which another disciple Levi [Matthew] responds:
"If the Savior made her worthy, who are you then, for your part, to cast her aside? Surely the Savior knows her full well. That is why he has loved her more than us."
1 Enoch: Purportedly written by the ancient prophet Enoch before the time of Noah, this text was well-known to early Christians like third-century theologian Tertullian and quoted as authoritative scripture. The text is famous for
its description of the "Watchers," fallen angels mentioned briefly in the Old Testament book of Genesis. These angels lusted after human women and came down to Earth to be with them, creating giant offspring. In 1 Enoch, these angels also introduce evil into the world in the form of weapons, magic and sexy makeup.
We all have our favorite inspirational sayings. Some popular ones are "to thine own self be true," "the unexamined life is not worth living," and "march to the beat of your own drum." Once in a while, each of us finds a quote or a saying that seems to speak directly to us; it reminds us of our ultimate goals and clarifies our priorities. Many Christians take their favorite sayings from Jesus, such as "do to others as you would have them do to you" (Luke 6:31) and "let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone" (John 8:7).
There are others who embrace the basic tenets of the Christian faith but reject certain biblical passages that don't mesh with their worldview. Many modern churchgoers quickly grow uncomfortable at the words, "Wives, be submissive to your husbands" (Colossians 3:18). In addition, some don't agree with the supposed implications of certain biblical events. For instance, Catholics take the words of the Last Supper more literally than Protestants. Conversely, Protestants often interpret the Old Testament scriptures more literally than Catholics.
Most people agree, however, that Jesus was a fascinating historical figure. Even some non-Christians say that Jesus' teachings are supremely insightful. Many who feel torn and conflicted about the Bible have at times wanted to go through it with a permanent marker, rubbing out inconvenient verses that may seem outdated, inconsistent or downright wrong to them.
What you may not know is that one of the United States' beloved Founding Fathers actually did indulge in such a catharsis. The esteemed writer of the
Declaration of Independence, who helped forge a new nation, also tried his hand at editing the Bible. Why was Thomas Jefferson inspired to rewrite this classic and -- according to many of the world's people -- sacred text?
For those who know much about Thomas Jefferson, the idea that he wanted his own version of the Bible shouldn't be surprising. He took issue with the idea of organized religion dictating what people should and shouldn't believe, and he believed that faith was a very personal thing. Jefferson wrote that the matter of religion "lies solely between man and his God" [source: Derschowitz]. In fact, the idea of separating church and state doesn't come from the Constitution (as many incorrectly think) but rather from a letter that Jefferson wrote to the Connecticut Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association [source: Hutson]. Clearly, his ideas about the individualistic nature of religion were important to him.
On top of this, Jefferson was highly skeptical of the accounts of Jesus written in the Gospels. He maintained that those who set down the story of Jesus to paper were thoroughly unqualified to do so -- Jefferson considered them "unlettered" and "ignorant" [source:
Church]. He also insinuates that the oral tradition from which the Gospels originated was flawed. The possibility of bad memories, gross misunderstandings and misinterpretations tainted his trust in these sources [source:
Church]. Jefferson felt that the Evangelists(Gospel writers) fabricated the miracles associated with Jesus to cohere with their mistaken idea that he was the son of God
Despite his skepticism, Jefferson admired Jesus. Aside from the miracles and other things he considered nonsense, Jefferson thought that Jesus was worth studying -- or, more precisely, his philosophy was worth studying. Though he didn't trust the validity of the miracles, Jefferson found enlightenment in Jesus' words. He even placed him among the ranks of the most esteemed classical Greek philosophers. More than that, Jefferson said that Jesus' system of morality was actually "more perfect" than any other ancient philosopher [source:
Church].
Given his esteem for (at least some of) Jesus' teachings and his disdain for how they were recorded by the evangelists, you can imagine how Jefferson yearned to cut the scriptures down to what he felt was truly valid and relevant. And starting in the winter of 1816, he finally did.
Scholars refer to the Jefferson Bible as a cut-and-paste job. That's literally what it is. Jefferson actually cut out the verses he liked from a few copies of the Bible and pasted them into a blank book. So he didn't actually rewrite the Bible -- but he did restructure it and write the table of contents for his book.
After retirement from public life, Jefferson worked on his bible some more. He added the corresponding Bible verses in three other languages (Greek, Latin and French) in addition to the English-language translation he originally used. In his final version, each page had two columns. On the left-hand side, he put the Greek in the first column and the corresponding Latin in the next column. On the right-hand side, he listed the French and English versions.
In all, 990 verses made the final cut. The verses he chose chiefly came from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. What he actually considered worth reading and "genuine" were events like the Sermon on the Mount, certain parables (such as the ones about the good shepherd, the
wedding feast and the 10 talents, among others) as well as the Lord's Prayer [source:
Hardon].
As we mentioned, miracles are completely absent from Jefferson's bible. This includes the stories of Jesus turning
water into wine, healing the sick, raising Lazarus from the dead and scores of others. What most people consider the most significant miracles -- the virgin birth and the resurrection -- aren't mentioned, either. The Last Supper is depicted in part, but Jefferson skips over the part about the Eucharist. These miracles and events are at the core of the Christian belief that Jesus was, in fact, the son of God. That's exactly why Jefferson skipped them. Unlike the Gospel writers, Jefferson didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. He thought it was the belief in Jesus' divinity that muddled the evangelists' accounts.
That he focused on Jesus' words and not his miracles isn't to say that Jefferson's bible doesn't have a narrative structure. It does tell a story of Jesus. Because he was merely cutting and pasting, however, Jefferson had to sometimes take a teaching out of its immediate context. In all, the story of Jesus certainly carries less punch, as you'd expect when the virgin birth and dramatic resurrection are omitted. What remains are the thoughts of an insightful philosopher, which overshadow the details of his life -- an effect Jefferson no doubt intended.
It's worth noting that the original name Jefferson lent his book was "The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth." This fit well into his idea that Jesus should be regarded much like other
ancient philosophers. After he revisited the work in retirement (when he added the translations in other languages), he tweaked the title to "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth."
When Jefferson pasted his bible together, he wasn't expecting to revolutionize Christianity and organized religion or even gain a following. Quite the contrary, the bible was a private project of his that -- aside from mentioning it in a few letters to friends -- he didn't publicize [source:
Reece]. Although one theory states that he intended to write it for the education of
Native Americans, he indicated in his letters that he wrote it for himself [source:
Church].
Regardless of the intended audience, Jefferson's work wasn't published for many decades after his death. Finally, in 1895, a Smithsonian librarian named Cyrus Adler stumbled upon the cut-up Bibles and Jefferson's work in an obscure private collection [source: Jefferson]. Adler's discovery was purchased by Congress and put in the United States National Museum in Washington, D.C. Congress published copies of Jefferson's bible for the first time in 1904. Since then, the book has been used customarily as a gift for recently sworn-in members of Congress. The original work is public domain and thus is not copyrighted, so today you can find it in many bookstores and libraries as well as online. It's sometimes classified under history and alternately under religion. However, Jefferson himself would probably be disappointed that the work isn't often found under philosophy.
Aside from its intended nature as a philosophical text, the bible has provided some useful insight into the mind of Thomas Jefferson. His personal life and beliefs have always fascinated historians. Some scholars even propose that he may have not publicized his bible because he was worried about public reaction to his unorthodox religious views.
