The Abagond New Testament (ANT) is made up of all known Christian writings that were written by the year 100 – during the time of Christ’s first followers. Writings are arranged in the order in which they were written.
Why ANT:
The New Testament has two drawbacks:
- Books are not put in the order in which they were written. Books form a conversation. They talk about a set of ideas that changes and grows over time. That conversation is hard to understand if put in the wrong order.
- Books were chosen by the Catholic Church in the 300s. There were at least 22 gospels, for example, not just four. It is bad enough that the Church burned books – we do not need to add yet another Catholic filter onto our view of early Christianity.
Dating: When scholars disagree or are unsure about the date when something was written, the latest date is used. For example, the Gospel of Thomas was written sometime between 50 and 140. So Thomas is dated as 140 – too late for ANT. ANT errs on the side of caution.
For dates I will go by earlychristianwritings.com, which has all the known early Christian writings along with some scholarly discussion of them.
Here are the books of ANT in order (date ranges included):
30-60 Passion Narrative* (Mark 14:32 to 15:47)
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 Philemon
50-60 Philippians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q*
50-80 Colossians
65-80 Gospel of Mark
50-90 Signs Gospel*
50-95 Book of Hebrews
90-95 Apocalypse of John (Revelation)
70-100 Epistle of James
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
* Those marked with a star are scholarly reconstructions of writings that the gospels used: a book of Jesus’s sayings (Q), a book of his miracles (Signs) and a book about his crucifixion (Passion Narrative).
If you want a good history of that time and place written by someone who was there, read Josephus, particularly books 18 to 20 of his “Antiquities”, written in the 90s. He was Jewish, not Christian.
ANT, as it turns out, is in effect the older half of the New Testament. It has no material that does not appear in the New Testament while throwing out much that does: the books of Titus, Timothy, Peter, Jude, Luke (including Acts) and all but one of John’s. It is pretty much the Jesus of Paul, Mark and Matthew, in that order.
The main thing ANT is missing are the gospels of Luke and John. To add them I would have to go up to AD 130. That would mean adding all these books (the New Testament ones are in bold):
80-110 1 Peter
105-115 Ignatius of Antioch
50-120 Didache
70-120 Egerton Gospel
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
120-130 Quadratus of Athens
120-130 Apology of Aristides
By this time all the Apostles were dead – and the Catholic Church is clearly picking and choosing what counts as Scripture.
That is not to say the Church is wrong in its judgement – just that you are now moving beyond the idea that “the earliest writings are the most trustworthy” to trusting a church.
See also:
- earlychristianwritings.com – Christian writings up to about AD 200
- Bible
- New Testament canon – how the New Testament was created
- Nag Hammadi Library – Christian writings that were hidden when the Catholic Church was burning books
- Catholicism
- Gnosticism
Ah. If you must hold a Bible, let it be a Gnostic one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is really interesting.
LikeLike
Very, very interesting. Great post Abagond.
I’ve always wondered about this, as a Christian. Another point that I have always wondered about is the interpretation of the Hebrew to English (for the old testament), and the Greek to English translation (for the new testament). It has been acknowledged, on various occasions, by Bible scholars and historians, that there are numerous words in the Hebrew, that do not have English equivalents, so many parts of the English Bible were translated without complete accuracy. This leaves a lot of rooms for error.
Also, a number of the names of women in the Bible were changed to the masculine version of those names in order to conceal the fact that they were women. Specifically female pastors and leaders of the burgeoning church.
The Amplified Bible is one of the best attempts to completely capture the Hebrew definitions of the words in its original Hebrew text, through emphasis, by using a number of words. But as far as I know, a complete corrective in accurately translating the original Hebrew and Greek text is yet to “come to pass.” (← Pun intended.)
As for the various books not excluded from what we now know as “The Bible” that’s like a maze, man.
LikeLike
I read somewhere years ago that an indication of Jesus (“bar Joseph’ = Aramaic for “son of Joseph”) having been an actual person could be found in a book (“Antiquities of the Jews”) which was written by an early Jewish historian named Flavius Josephus.
A few years ago it came to me to do a search for that particular passage on the internet.
Well, suffice it to say, the search results returned many sites which attempted to debunk the passage, often referred to as “Testimonium Flavianum”, or ‘TF’, by declaring it as having been forged at a later date by a historian of the Catholic Church.
The ‘TF’ definitely does read more like religious propaganda than an objective account of an actual person. . . .
http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm
LikeLike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
The above link is for a Wikipedia article regarding Josephus and the Testimonium Flavianum.
LikeLike
I don’t think Abagond’s intention is to push the Christian religion unto anyone. It is my understanding that the post is simply an exploration of how The Bible was compiled. It would be ridiculous to get into a “said religion: true or false” debate.
There are a number of archaeological findings that support the fact that Jesus did in fact exist, from his tomb, to the mutiple historical accounts/testimonials. Multiple witnesses is what is considered to be a cause for validity. The part that is debatable is whether or not he was a supernatural being. This idea butts heads with science, as it (the man Jesus being a supernatural being), cannot be proven, in the here and now, through the proper course of credible scientific experiment.
Ultimately, since the bones of the ape found, that was used as evidence of evolution, turned out to be an ordinary ape with a deformity, evolutionary theory is just that, a theory, a faith.
“The Big bang” is also a theory, a faith. There is no difinitive proof that the world was created through such an event.
All of these are theories, and therefore, faiths, which is essentially a religion, since they’re ideologies that are unable to stand the rigors of science. They’re all religions, it’s just a matter of which one you choose to believe in.
Thankfully, in the Western world, we are given the liberty to make our own choices.
LikeLike
“I don’t think Abagond’s intention is to push the Christian religion unto anyone. It is my understanding that the post is simply an exploration of how The Bible was compiled. It would be ridiculous to get into a “said religion: true or false” debate.”
– – –
My comments above were in response to the following excerpt of abagond’s post: “If you want a good history of that time and place written by someone who was there, read Josephus. He was Jewish, not Christian.”
That said, I wasn’t actually trying to debate the validity of religion of any kind as much as I was pointing out the possibility that Josephus’ “Antiquities of the Jews” might have been tampered with or ‘doctored up’ over the centuries, and most especially in the case of the Testimonium of Flavianum.
So, inasmuch as I agree with you that “it would be ridiculous to get into a said religion: true or false debate”, I’ll refrain from commenting on the very specific debating points made by you concerning Christianity versus . . . archaeology and the “Big Bang” theory (<– neither of which was mentioned in my previous two comments in this thread).
You are free to believe whatever you want as far as I'm concerned.
LikeLike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
LikeLike
v8driver, Tacitus’s writings on Christ is news to me! There is also a link to the Wiki article “Mara bar Serapion on Jesus” near the bottom of the Tacitus article; I’ll look into both. Thank you!.
LikeLike
@ Pay it forward.
I wasn’t attacking your post, I apologise if I failed to make myself clear. It was just conversation, and was meant to be interpreted as the following…
1. Interesting post Abagond, and interesting post Pay it forward.
2. I won’t get into the “is the Christian religion real or false,” debate as that is clearly not the intent of Abagond’s post so excuse me if I go outside of the confines of its intent; with that being said, you, (“Pay it forward”), brought up an interesting issue regarding the validity of the text you mentioned.
3. Which leads me to randomly voice my observations, that the text, the religion, and many theories in the field of science, struggle to find a pocket of solid validity.
Once again, I apologise for failing to make this clear. It was just random conversation.
LikeLike
“All of these are theories, and therefore, faiths, which is essentially a religion, since they’re ideologies that are unable to stand the rigors of science. They’re all religions, it’s just a matter of which one you choose to believe in. ”
That’s not what theory is in science. “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.”.
Shush, Abagond shuold do a post about the scientific method and scientific theory. FAR too many people have no clue what the scientific method is, or how it works, and how saying evolution is a theory is pretty much the same as saying evolution is confirmed.
LikeLike
*and don’t understad how saying.
LikeLike
The early Church via the infallible Council of Jerusalem codified the Bible, no?
LikeLike
@Ebonymonroe: Hello, just wanted to say like your writing.
LikeLike
Testimonium Flavianum:
– Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3
Since Josephus was Jewish, not Christian, it is unlikely he would have said all that. Since the book comes down to us through Christian copyists, the passage was probably mucked with, unfortunately.
Most scholars think Josephus probably said something more like this:
Josephus also talks about John the Baptist and James, the brother of Jesus. Those passages seem to be as he wrote them since they are at odds with the Christian accounts.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
LikeLike
“It would be ridiculous to get into a “said religion: true or false” debate.”
But Inevitable non the less.
And as A Afrocentric Atheist I’ll be all in, from my acceptance of reason,science and one of its primary products – evolution ,to the critique of the current albinic/white hegemony that causes many melaniated/black people to false associate whiteness/albinism with reason and science.
LikeLike
@ naishee
Isn’t psychology considered a pseudo science because although there are ways to repeatedly experiment whether or not a theory is legitimate, and have that theory confirmed, it is not something that is up to the air tight process of science?
Evolution does exist, but evolution has not been proven in regards to human beings, or “The Big bang.” Because there is plenty of evidence supporting “The Big bang” theory, “human evolution,” and the existence of Jesus, but not a solid way to measure and prove any of the three ideas are 100% the truth, they are substantial theories that still require one’s faith, and this is why I class all three as religions, because it’s a matter of faith.
In a court of law, I would imagine that Jesus’ existence, the multiple testimonies from his witnesses, evidence of “The Big Bang” theory, and evidence of human evolution, would all fall under the umbrella of reasonable doubt for the jury. We’re the jury, and it’s a matter of which one we choose to believe. They say the Grand canyon lines up with the time of Noah and the flood, they say they’ve found Jesus’ tomb, they say the details of kings and wars in the Bible are quite accurate. But there is still no immediate evidence to prove that the man, Jesus, was a supernatural being, or even the existence of Yahweh, the God of The Bible.
We can agree to disagree on that, however.
@ Mary Burrell
Hey babe, that’s very sweet of you.
LikeLike
Charles Darwin actually ended up converting to Christianity shortly before he died. Lol. But I won’t go back and forth with this, it is unfair when the religious try to cram their beliefs down the throats of others, and it is equally as irritating when science fanatics get their panties in a twist over their theories. Back to the post…
“The church” said they included the books that they found to be most reliable. The area in which that gets tricky, is when we ask ourselves how they chose to categorise what was good and what should be disqualified. That, I would be interested to know.
LikeLike
You should consult other sources regarding the text of the NT. Just the dating presented on some of these texts alone is open to considerable question. The church began to gather its sacred texts into a canon much earlier than the date you provide, largely in reaction to the heretic Marcion, mid. 2nd century. Marcion rejected the “Jewish God” and so rejected the Hebrew canon (Old Testament) and the gospels of John, Matthew, and Mark, all of which had association with Jewish authorship. He accepted Luke’s gospel, who was a Gentile, and Paul’s writings–although he allegorized the latter’s terminology to fit his gnostic thoughtstyle. It is not true that there were 20+ gospels; the gnostics produced many so-called gospels, but did so centuries later. The catholic (universal) church never recognized them as having historical authenticity, let alone divine authority. Books like the Didache were popular devotional books among Christians but never considered scriptural. Your dating is often later than historical and traditional Christian understanding. You’re typically good at sniffing out the unreliability of white/western society’s thought style when it comes to “race” and racism; but, respectfully, you seem much more open to accepting liberal European scholarship’s ideas about dating and the NT canon. Almost all of the NT books were easily identified and gathered into a canon because they were long recognized as having historical authenticity and association with apostolic authority and tradition. A few did come later into the canon–James, some of the Johannine epistles, 2 Peter, and a couple of others. But this had more to do with their lack of wide circulation. It’s trendy among non-traditional and sensation-prone writers today to say a lot of stuff about the political nature of the canon’s formation, etc. This itself is open to serious question. It sort of assumes that we know more about what early Christians believed and knew than they did themselves. For some of this, see Bruce Metzger, The Text of the NT; and F. F. Bruce’s two books, The NT Documents: Are They Reliable? and The Canon of Scripture. Don’t buy into “dot.com” sources on the NT. I’m no fan of the Roman Catholic church; but there’s a lot of faddish stuff out there regarding the early church, canon, etc. that doesn’t hold water. Typically it’s the stuff that diminishes the traditional and historic content and dating. This is no time for you to be thinking like a European 😉
LikeLike
“You’re typically good at sniffing out the unreliability of white/western society’s thought style when it comes to “race” and racism; but, respectfully, you seem much more open to accepting liberal European scholarship’s ideas about ”
Religion and specifically Christianity….
“This is no time for you to be thinking like a European”
when is there ever a good time for a pro black african american to do such?
LikeLike
Great post Louis DeCaro Jr. Thanks for the information.
LikeLike
@ Louis DeCaro Jr.
Great comment! Thanks.
I think most people understand that a website, a dot.com, is not necessarily coming from a place of rock-hard scholarship. I chose this one because it had the writings themselves, scholarly discussion about them for the interested and, in general, more inclusive date ranges than my two printed scholarly sources (one Catholic, one liberal Protestant). It is not the last word but rather a good starting point for someone on the Internet.
Note that my list is not “what liberals think” but what both liberals and conservatives can broadly agree on was written in the first century. It cuts both ways, after all: Luke gets kicked out, but so does the Gospel of Thomas. Mark, on the other hand, stays because no one seriously doubts it was written in the first century.
The 300s is when the New Testament became the 27 books we know. There were earlier collections. Some of them did have Didache, like Origen’s.
Do you have any thoughts on Bart D. Ehrman? He is the one whose books you see at Barnes & Noble.
LikeLike
“Charles Darwin actually ended up converting to Christianity shortly before he died. Lol.”
Which isn’t true. The “Darwin recanted on his deathbed” thing is, in short, made up by creationists, who keep repeating it ad nauseum. It doesn’t make it any more true though.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html
“But I won’t go back and forth with this, it is unfair when the religious try to cram their beliefs down the throats of others, and it is equally as irritating when science fanatics get their panties in a twist over their theories. Back to the post…”
Thing is, you brought up science, and when you did, you used a bunch of misconceptions and/or misunderstandings about science. Then, when somebody points that out, we’ve “got our panties in a bunch”? Hmm.
LikeLike
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/42035
LikeLike
@ Louis DeCaro Jr.
There were at least 23 gospels, here listed along with when they are probably written:
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
90-120 Gospel of John
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
110-160 Oxyrhynchus 840 Gospel
120-180 Gospel of Mary
120-180 Gospel of the Savior
130-170 Gospel of Judas
140-170 Infancy Gospel of James
140-170 Infancy Gospel of Thomas
140-180 Gospel of Truth
170-200 Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony
180-250 Gospel of Philip
Most are Gnostic. Their late date makes them probable forgeries. That is why I do not put them in ANT.
But to say, “The catholic (universal) church never recognized them as having historical authenticity, let alone divine authority,” is an appeal to authority, it is applying a Catholic filter. The Catholic Church burned books, fought heresies, in time doing it with the backing of the Roman Empire. To say it was biased is an understatement. If you want to talk about the bias of liberal European scholars, you need to talk about the bias of the Catholic Church too. I tried to set things up so that I am shielded from both as much as possible.
LikeLike
@ naishee
Thing is, you brought up science, and when you did, you used a bunch of misconceptions and/or misunderstandings about science. Then, when somebody points that out, we’ve “got our panties in a bunch”? Hmm.
……………………….
I’m sorry, but where exactly did I say YOU (specifically) have gotten YOUR panties in a twist? You’re gonna have to point that out to me, because I’m looking, but I can’t find anywhere where I said that.
From the moment I began participating in the discussion, I made it clear that my comments were not an attack on anyone who is chooses not to embrace Christianity, mostly because, as I stated, I felt that that was not the intention behind Abagond’s post.
I stated that it is my understanding that theory in science is not substantial enough, no matter how much evidentiary support it has, using the fact that psychology is considered a pseudo science, for this very reason, (because it is all founded on theory) to elaborate on why I’ve come to this outlook. I then accompanied this statement with the disclaimer that that contribution to the topic are not an attempt to rouse a religious vs science community debate, as I feel it is unfair to BOTH parties when both positions attack one another…Which was very much a general statement.
It is becoming clear at this point that if I were to post a completely blank post, it would offend someone, which is what I have repeatedly tried to avoid. In case this clarification offends you, which it probably will, I’ll avoid responding, in the hopes that it will bring this to an end.
Good day. .
LikeLike
*I made it clear that my comments were not an attack on anyone who chooses not to embrace Christianity,
*I stated that it is my understanding that “theory,” in science, is not substantial enough, no matter how much evidentiary support it has, using the fact that psychology is considered a pseudo science, for this very reason, (because it is all founded on theory), to elaborate on why I’ve come to this outlook. I then accompanied this statement with the disclaimer that that contribution to the topic is not an attempt to rouse a religious vs science community debate, as I feel it is unfair to BOTH parties when both positions attack one another
In case this clarification offends you, which it probably will, I’ll avoid responding, in the hope that it will bring this to an end.
LikeLike
“In case this clarification offends you, which it probably will, I’ll avoid responding, in the hope that it will bring this to an end.”
Sure thing. Just don’t talk about science anymore, and I won’t respond to your talk about science 😉 Simple. No “offense” involved either, unless you think anyone who engages you when you talk about science is offended. (BTW, your understanding of what a scientific theory is is profoundly wrong; I suggest you read up on it, else you’ll always seem ignorant when talking about science. Just a helpful suggestion).
LikeLike
“Shush, Abagond shuold do a post about the scientific method and scientific theory. FAR too many people have no clue what the scientific method is, or how it works, and how saying evolution is a theory is pretty much the same as saying evolution is confirmed.”
“made up by creationists, who keep repeating it ad nauseum.”
“Thing is, you brought up science, and when you did, you used a bunch of misconceptions and/or misunderstandings about science. Then, when somebody points that out, we’ve “got our panties in a bunch”? Hmm.”
“Sure thing. Just don’t talk about science anymore, and I won’t respond to your talk about science 😉 Simple. No “offense” involved either, unless you think anyone who engages you when you talk about science is offended. (BTW, your understanding of what a scientific theory is is profoundly wrong; I suggest you read up on it, else you’ll always seem ignorant when talking about science. Just a helpful suggestion).”
………………………………………..
“No “offense” involved either, unless you think anyone who engages you when you talk about science is offended.”
Yes, I must admit, from your posts which I included above, I assumed you were offended. I’m happy to know I was wrong about that.
When I used the word “theory,” that could have easily been replaced with the word “concept” or “idea.” An acquaintance of mine is a scientist, and he once told me that “The Big bang” CONCEPT, though it is widely accepted in the scientific community, there are opposing schools of thought, and so therefore, it is not necessarily classified as 100% definitive. With this idea, (stating MY personal opinion/outlook) that I view it as a correlation between this and psychology, which is considered a pseudo science…
“Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.”
Thus far, you’ve not said anything about the topic of the post. I do understand that literal “theory” is constructed through rigorous experimentation. I stated that I considered and weighed up both scientific and theological concepts, and their evidentiary support, and choose to consider them all, religions. If there is no ill will behind such a statement, I don’t think that’s a problem.
“(BTW, your understanding of what a scientific theory is is profoundly wrong; I suggest you read up on it, else you’ll always seem ignorant when talking about science. Just a helpful suggestion).”
No, I was stating my opinion, my outlook, my worldview, my take on things. To be honest, I think I am more than entitled to state my opinion without being called “ignorant.” It doesn’t have to line up with anyone else’s opinion.
“Sure thing. Just don’t talk about science anymore, and I won’t respond to your talk about science 😉
I’m sorry naishee, but as long as I’m not being rude and throwing out ad hominem insults, or dishonoring the bloggers space by going completely off topic, I don’t really feel I need anyone’s permission to talk about anything, whether you agree with it or not.
LikeLike
@ Abagond, I’m just skimming through, so forgive if I have missed the obvious and misunderstood your point, but could you clarify this, you say:
…does this not reject the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary? As I understand it, the belief that James was a child of Mary and Joseph after the birth of Jesus was only orthodoxy after the third century, and this was the line of not only Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, but also some Anglicans.
LikeLike
“I’m sorry naishee, but as long as I’m not being rude and throwing out ad hominem insults, or dishonoring the bloggers space by going completely off topic, I don’t really feel I need anyone’s permission to talk about anything, whether you agree with it or not.”
That’s the point. really. You said something about a subject, I responded to that, but you seemed, well, offended at somebody gainsaying you. As for going off topic, well, that happens, and it’s up to the blog owner to decide if it is too far off topic or not.
As for the topic of this post, dating various christian texts, I think Abagond has missed the most important point: The older the texts are the LESS they focus on miracles and the divinity of christ and such, and the less detailed they are. Which, I think, gives us a hint about how christianity happened. Stories got embellished as time went by. Jesus, when/if he existed was probably no more than Just Another Rabbi, and then some people went overboard after he died. Kinda interesting that the oldest surviving gospel, the Gospel of Mark, doesn’t have a lot to say about the ressurrection.
LikeLike
@ naishee
You are wrong there. Seven letters of Paul are older than Mark and make no bones about the divinity of Christ or his rising from the dead. Stories about Jesus do get more exaggerated as time goes on, like in the Gnostic gospels of the second century, most of them probably forgeries, but the resurrection itself does not come from that. It was there from the beginning.
LikeLike
I’ve done nothing but clarify my position from post to post.
I’ve not taken issue with anyone’s position, and as a result, made underhanded comments, like “Shush, Abagond you really should do a post on blah, blah, blah,” or eluded to anyone being ignorant, and at no point have I given any suggestion that I was offended.
If you would take the time to go over the posts, you would clearly see that you have, in fact, taken the offensive start to present standing post, and I have done nothing but try to clarify my position. I didn’t even complain about clarifying my position, the only thing I was firm about was that it is best to agree to disagree when it comes to the faith position against the science position.
Thanks for the info Abagond. I wonder what the eldest book in the Bible is? It’s said to be Job.
LikeLike
@Br nice, time to dig out the e l budge
LikeLike
Hello Everyone, just wanted to stop in and say hello. It’s been awhile since I’ve been able to spend some time on your site and I dearly miss the brilliant and deeply emotional discussions. I really have been trying to find the time just to say hello but I have neglected my business so much and I really have to build it back up or I won’t even have electricity to join you guys. I became so addicted to the amount of knowledge I was absorbing by just being here and joining in from time to time. Anyway it’s a great site and in the famous words of Mr. Schwarzenegger, “I’ll be back!”…
LikeLike
This is interesting. The reality though is this: we have not a single original copy of any of these anywhere in the world, so the dating of texts is speculative. We have only later copies and in most cases the so-called gnostic texts found in 1940’s are actually the oldest objects physically that we have.
What Jesus preached was nothing new. None of his sermons had anything new in a sense that it had not been brought up as an idea well before him. Early church fathers had some problems to explain away the pagan critics who, correctly, pointed out that everything Jesus teached had been teached even centuries before him by other religions, philosophers etc. Early church fathers answered to this critisims by claiming that Satan himself had been time travelling in the past and spread the word among the heathens BEFORE Jesus was born so that there would be confusion AFTER Jesus.
As for the first “christians”, there were no christians before Paul forged his own religion out from judaism of Yeshua/Yeshu. Jesus himself was a devout jew to the very last, even though some his practises were un-orthodox. The very word Judeo-christian is revealing since it implies that James and the surviving followers of Jesus were somehow christians AND jews. That was not the case. They were jews to the end and were wiped out by the romans in 70 AD when romans destroyed Jerusalem and all its people.
Christianity was and is an invetion of Paul. He was actually kicked out from Jerusalem by Jesus/Yeshu’s own brother and the followers of Jesus because his ideas were not in line with those of Yeshu/Jesus and other jews. Paul never met Jesus, he never saw him, never heard him and never belonged to his followers. He simply had an vision or sorts on the road to Damaskos and the key claim he had was that this spirit Jesus had told to him and only to him what this is all about.
The only religious book that has some credible claim to be authentic is koran, but even its birth is veiled by legends and myths so we can not be sure ven about that. What we do know about the bible that it did not exist before 300’s. Period. That is the historical fact. We also know that the oldest physical copies of the so-called christian texts are at earliest decades after Jesus was dead. Not one has survived, or was ever written, during his life time..
LikeLike
Historically speaking Christianity precedes Islam. Mohamed, founder of Islam, was born around the 6th century by the Gregorian calendar. Islam is a response of the times and was written using Christianity/The Torah as it’s catalyst. Jesus was born of the tribe of Judah and he was raised by Jewish parents but he did not continue with his Jewish faith as he became a man as the accounts of his life clearly point out. He did not believe that the church leaders were the way to God, nor did he believe that we will be saved by our works but by our faith. He preached that resting on the Sabbath when your family is hungry is just stupid, if you are hungry eat, if you need to work, work and if you want to pray, pray. He taught to ignore the silly structure of worship and that our faith and more importantly our LOVE for one another is the best way to please the Lord and is the number one lesson we should all get out of life.. He taught against structural worship and instead was more concerned with how man treated each other and the planet, two views the Jewish religion persecuted him for.
LikeLike
do not be so easy to reject Catholicism. If Christianity is true (which is also very likely if one studies the figure of Christ and the gospels completely objectively), it is highly likely Catholicism is the true version of Christianity. It has been there since the time of Christ and was founded by the apostles himself. The evidence points to Catholicism being there from the very beginning, although the history of the church is marked by heresies from the start as well. It can determine which books are allowed in the Bible because God has promised his Church that it will protect it from doctrinal error. Only a church that can claim divine protection from doctrinal error has the authority to determine which books should be in the Bible. Otherwise, there will be hundreds of versions to suit everyone’s fancy, just as is exemplified by protestantism. Catholic church teaches what the original church fathers taught. although doctrine has been allowed to develop under divine protection, the deposit of faith cannot be changed.
Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should … With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me… No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.
-St Augustine
LikeLike
As a Christian, I cannot practice Catholicism, as there is the worshipping of saints, like Mary, in its practices, which goes against the teachings of The Bible. In fact, according to The Bible, this act (worshipping anything other than God, son and Holy Spirit), is considered to be of the occult.
It is interested what was pointed out by a previous poster, because although it is more understandable for others, if I just identify my faith as “Christianity,” My faith is actually that of a Messianic Jew.
LikeLike
While these comments are interesting, I wonder if the very fact that you put together ANT isn’t a bit presumptuous, Abagond. It seems to me all other conversation is putting the cart before the horse. I’m just as suspicious of the white/western religious agenda as you are. And its well know that at least by the time Constantine became involved every aspect of the Christian church, from the hierarchy to sacred texts, was political. However, I think that given the importance of the subject and the number of tomes on it that have been written over time, more scholarship is needed on your part. (I can only judge by the sources you sighted and I’m familiar with all of them.) After all, many have studied these texts and all haven’t been white or liberal or western or from recent centuries. I think that’s the crux of Mr. DeCaro’s polite comment.
But then again, others have tried this and one ended up in the Smithsonian. (The Jefferson Bible) What do I know? Maybe when our museum is finished in 2015, ANT will occupy a prominent place of honor. 🙂
LikeLike
I see you have not included The Apocalypse of John. Care to explain why?
LikeLike
@ Satanforce
I did include it.
LikeLike
@ Stop Along The Way
Regard it as an exercise, a kind of thought experiment. “What would the New Testament look like if….”
LikeLike
@ Sam
The oldest near-complete Bibles, like Codex Sinaiticus, go back to the 300s, but there are pieces of the Bible that go back at least another 400 years. And they, in turn, because of the differences in versions, point to much older Bibles. So we are talking at least 500 BC, probably more like 1000 BC according to scholars.
LikeLike
@ Julian
Where did I reject Catholicism? In my last paragraph I said:
LikeLike
@abagond:
Well, yes, if we include the oldest jewish texts in bible. I was thinking about new testament, the real christian part of the bible, sorry.
I wonder what is the oldest existing copy we have of any of these? I think when I was in Jerusalem there was some talk about some copies being from 400’s BC or around that time.
LikeLike
@ Abagond, I asked a question earlier, and remain curious about what you meant when you said this:
Followed by this:
I’ve not read Josephus. Being Jewish, Josephus would not have believed in the virginity of Mary, and nor would he have accepted the Catholic notion of Mary’s perpetual virginity after the birth of Jesus. (The Talmud makes no direct reference to Mary, afaik, only to Jesus’s father.)
I always believed that early and traditional Christianity meant Jesus the Son “became flesh” because he was conceived in the womb of a woman, Mary the Virgin, and Mary had a state of perpetual virginity. In Ancient Greek this was called “aeiparthenos”. This meant that Jesus was her only child, her only biological son.
If Josephus gives a good history, if he is reliable, then who exactly is James, the brother of Jesus, and why would Josephus have called James this? Sure, his history of the time and place is “good” but how reliable is he on matters of of family blood-ties or the marital life of Joseph and Mary?
What do you believe about James?
Where do you apply this “Catholic filter” that you mention?
I realize that the New Testament talks about Jesus having siblings.
But those children may not have been Mary’s.
There was a lot of disagreement in the Church about this very point: even Origen believed these children to be Joseph’s from a previous marriage.
As a thought exercise, ideas can stretch, be attached and disconnected.
This leaves me asking whether I have missed something, or whether you may have contradicted yourself on the subject of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
My previous question upthread:
LikeLike
@sam
I also thought you were talking strictly about the New Testament as well, as I thought that was the subject of Abagond’s post and replies.
LikeLike
@ Bulanik
James was apparently the son of Joseph but not Mary: When Jesus was on the cross he gave the care of his mother to John. That implies that Joseph is dead and that James is not her son.
LikeLike
@ Sam
Sorry, my mistake.
The oldest copy of the New Testament is from Codex Sinaiticus from the early to middle 300s.
The oldest piece of New Testament is a bit of the Gospel of John from 200 years before, between 125 and 160.
The writings themselves are dated by scholars as listed in the post. Half the letters of Paul are from the 50s. That seems to be pretty certain.
LikeLike
Yes, I heard that Joseph was likely significantly older than Mary and probably a widower, so James would be Jesus’ stepbrother or something.
LikeLike
This is one of many reasons why people who think the Bible is inerrant are full of bunk.
i also mourn the loss of the Gospel of Luke, since it is the Gospel of the Poor, featuring the shepherds at the Nativity and most of the best verses about serving the oppressed, which are the Scriptural backbone of liberation theology and Christian social justice.
LikeLike
@abagond;
No problem.
LikeLike
I don’t get this dating of Luke’s books at 80-130. Luke’s gospel and Luke’s acts are clearly a continuum, they should be read as one piece.
And it looks like a piece – a legal piece that Luke prepared, to be read to Emperor Nero in the defense of Paul. It begins with a copy-and-paste of Mark, where he inserted things he found out, and finishes with Paul in prison, waiting to be judged by the Emperor.
And, if tradition is right, Luke was quite successful at this time, since Nero didn’t execute Paul at that time.
LikeLike
@ Bulanik and Abagond
If we are using words like ‘I heard’ and ‘apparently’ towards whether Jesus had siblings or not by his mother Mary, I’ll take the opportunity to say how come no one asked ‘why?’
Why would Mary remain a virgin after she gave birth to Jesus?
Why was Joseph planning to marry her in the first place? (even before conception?)
“James was apparently the son of Joseph but not Mary: When Jesus was on the cross he gave the care of his mother to John. That implies that Joseph is dead and that James is not her son.”
Why did you mention that to explain that James was not her biological son? If James was her step son is it not more normal for Jesus to leave his mother with a step son than some stranger.
ANYWAY, a very thought provoking post and you’ll always get me on board on discussions like this. Although my approach to any canon is to read with common sense, evidence, little to no bias and faith.
LikeLike
Agabond, on Oct 8 you wrote;
“@ Stop Along The Way- Regard it as an exercise, a kind of thought experiment. “What would the New Testament look like if….”
I think you should have said that at the onset of the post instead of, “Why ANT:The New Testament has two drawbacks…” I’m glad you’ve said it now.
LikeLike