Why were ''Gospels'' omitted from the Bible?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You are focussing on inconsequential semantic minutia.

You characterized the entire process as "simple" and as merely a matter of including those texts which fit into "the story" (which, according to you, is "the story" that is composed of multiple stories and isn't "the story" at all). You summed up in one line the entire several century long process, which would still be ok were it not that instead of saying your account was a simplification, you claimed the process was simple instead. You are wrong. Nothing you've posted accurately describes the formation of canon nor the reasons for the inclusion or exclusion of texts.

It was never meant to be a completely accurate or comprehensive description. It was hyperbole.

You could have said that your account was simplified rather than describe the process as simple. You didn't.

Then what are you arguing about?

What matters: the formation of canon and why texts were or weren't included.

 

[Bunyip]

You characterized the entire process as "simple" and as merely a matter of including those texts which fit into "the story" (which, according to you, is "the story" that is composed of multiple stories and isn't "the story" at all). You summed up in one line the entire several century long process, which would still be ok were it not that instead of saying your account was a simplification, you claimed the process was simple instead. You are wrong. Nothing you've posted accurately describes the formation of canon nor the reasons for the inclusion or exclusion of texts.

On the contrary, I identified one of the important reasons why apocrypha were excluded. You have only been attacking your own misconception that I was claiming it to he the only reason.

You could have said that your account was simplified rather than describe the process as simple. You didn't.

Ok, you got me. Of course my 'account' was simplified - it was a single short sentence. I should have made it clear specifically that I meant that my point was pretty simple, not that the process by which the gospels was formed was simple. (Not that I made that claim, nor do I believe it to be so.) The process by which the gospels were formed was very complex.

What matters: the formation of canon and why texts were or weren't included.

Yes, and what I said is true - apocrypha were overlooked if they did not fit the narrative. That is not the only reason - nor did I ever suggest or infer that it was.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

On the contrary, I identified one of the important reasons why apocrypha were excluded.

1) You didn't do this. You described the process as simple and gave a single criterion for inclusion/exclusion
2) Had you done what you claim in the quote above, you'd still be wrong.

 

[Bunyip]

1) You didn't do this. You described the process as simple and gave a single criterion for inclusion/exclusion

You just misread mate. I never described the entire process. I identified one of the criteria - that was all.

2) Had you done what you claim in the quote above, you'd still be wrong.

Ok Buddy.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You just misread mate. I never described the entire process. I identified one of the criteria - that was all. Ok Buddy.

Let's pretend that's true. Now you have the opportunity to not inaccurately describe the process using a criterion that is at best marginal and at worst nonsensical. Do you have any correct characterizations of the process to offer or not?

 

[Bunyip]

Let's pretend that's true. Now you have the opportunity to not inaccurately describe the process using a criterion that is at best marginal and at worst nonsensical. Do you have any correct characterizations of the process to offer or not?

No Legion. In fact I have no interest in further engagement with you at all.

 

[Windwalker]

Well, the RCC teaches that Genesis can be viewed as a mere metaphor, and not taken literally.

I want to jump in here and make a point. I hear you on the side of getting rid of a literal understanding, which doesn't add up rationally, of course, and seeing that these are metaphors, which I certainly agree with. But I want to point something out to provoke some thought. Things, or truths stated in metaphors are not "mere" metaphors. Metaphors can be and most often are far more powerful than facts. Myth and metaphor speak volumes of truths in a symbol set, whereas mere data collection lays flat and sterile.

Bear this in mind as I illustrate further.

So, what does this mean? What happens to the idea of ''original sin'' that the Church has taught over the years? When I was a Christian, I believed Jesus died for my sins, but also for the original sin of mankind...but if Genesis is not to be taken literally...where does that position the NT?

If someone looks at the Garden of Eden story as metaphor, what is it saying? Reject the idea it's speaking of some scientific reality of we are in these "sin states", that Jesus' blood changes at some magical molecular level which changes us into "saved state" conditions. This is silliness, but is in fact how someone has to somewhat imagine this when the symbols are taken as facts. This is the trap of the literalist mind, which cannot grasp metaphor and either "believes" or "rejects" based on this mode of reasoning.

So the metaphor then, to stand back from the literalist mind, what is it saying? It can be understood in many ways, as that is really the point of myth and metaphor which is to provoke the discovery of truths in themselves through one looking through the lens of them. Here's a way I hear and understand the Genesis myth. It speaks through metaphor of the existential condition of the individual feeling separate in himself from the world and from others. It speaks of this state of separateness and the desire for unity. It paints this self-realization in a story of a fall from paradise, a separation from that state of desired unity, and it does so through story characters. Adam and Eve were one in bliss, with each other, and with the whole of the natural world, living in the light of spiritual knowledge. That's a beautiful metaphor.

And so then "something happened", to get us to where we are now, longing for that return. The story unfolds symbolically and we have us ending up in a state of where we are today, seeking a path of return to paradise, a return to unity. All the rest are ways to describe this human experience, of our hopes and dreams, and despairs and dreads. If you read these things with an eye towards that, then you understand them as they really are applicable. They speak of timeless, human truths through relative symbols and signs.

This is a shift in that mode of thinking I was talking about. Shifting from a literalist struggle with myth and metaphor in a rationalist framework. Once that's done, then all these stories from all the world religions begin to make a bit more sense, speaking certain truths, in certain contexts. The truth of them, is not from outside yourself in the texts, but what is heard and takes shape does so in the context of the individual themselves.

Here's something I always love to share because it speaks so well. I hope you find it helpful: Biblical Literalism

 

[sojourner]

Thomas presents a number of difficulties (aside from being discovered much later). The depiction of Jesus and doctrine is greatly at odds with early Christian theology.

No it's not. Not if it's exegeted correctly.

 

[gsa]

I want to jump in here and make a point. I hear you on the side of getting rid of a literal understanding, which doesn't add up rationally, of course, and seeing that these are metaphors, which I certainly agree with. But I want to point something out to provoke some thought. Things, or truths stated in metaphors are not "mere" metaphors. Metaphors can be and most often are far more powerful than facts. Myth and metaphor speak volumes of truths in a symbol set, whereas mere data collection lays flat and sterile.

Bear this in mind as I illustrate further.


If someone looks at the Garden of Eden story as metaphor, what is it saying? Reject the idea it's speaking of some scientific reality of we are in these "sin states", that Jesus' blood changes at some magical molecular level which changes us into "saved state" conditions. This is silliness, but is in fact how someone has to somewhat imagine this when the symbols are taken as facts. This is the trap of the literalist mind, which cannot grasp metaphor and either "believes" or "rejects" based on this mode of reasoning.

So the metaphor then, to stand back from the literalist mind, what is it saying? It can be understood in many ways, as that is really the point of myth and metaphor which is to provoke the discovery of truths in themselves through one looking through the lens of them. Here's a way I hear and understand the Genesis myth. It speaks through metaphor of the existential condition of the individual feeling separate in himself from the world and from others. It speaks of this state of separateness and the desire for unity. It paints this self-realization in a story of a fall from paradise, a separation from that state of desired unity, and it does so through story characters. Adam and Eve were one in bliss, with each other, and with the whole of the natural world, living in the light of spiritual knowledge. That's a beautiful metaphor.

And so then "something happened", to get us to where we are now, longing for that return. The story unfolds symbolically and we have us ending up in a state of where we are today, seeking a path of return to paradise, a return to unity. All the rest are ways to describe this human experience, of our hopes and dreams, and despairs and dreads. If you read these things with an eye towards that, then you understand them as they really are applicable. They speak of timeless, human truths through relative symbols and signs.

This is a shift in that mode of thinking I was talking about. Shifting from a literalist struggle with myth and metaphor in a rationalist framework. Once that's done, then all these stories from all the world religions begin to make a bit more sense, speaking certain truths, in certain contexts. The truth of them, is not from outside yourself in the texts, but what is heard and takes shape does so in the context of the individual themselves.

Here's something I always love to share because it speaks so well. I hope you find it helpful: Biblical Literalism

All well and good, and early Christians were divided on whether to read Genesis allegorically or literally. But I would argue that the distinction is irrelevant; even if read allegorically, the story does not appear to comport with evolution by natural selection. Certainly the early hominids did not live in a state of bliss, and to the extent that they were "one with nature" in some way that we have lost owing to technological development we are all the better for having things like modern plumbing, antibiotics and enclosed living spaces that are not caves.

To the extent that an allegory can be said to speak certain truths, it can also be said to speak certain falsehoods. And there is every reason to reject the Christian interpretation of Genesis as a falsehood, whether it is deemed literal (a position held by many Christians) or metaphorical.

 

[Windwalker]

All well and good, and early Christians were divided on whether to read Genesis allegorically or literally. But I would argue that the distinction is irrelevant; even if read allegorically, the story does not appear to comport with evolution by natural selection.

Does it need to? Does it need to have scientific accuracy to speak truth? I think the answer to that question is the real crux to any and all surrounding questions about myth and metaphor.

Certainly the early hominids did not live in a state of bliss, and to the extent that they were "one with nature" in some way that we have lost owing to technological development we are all the better for having things like modern plumbing, antibiotics and enclosed living spaces that are not caves.

That certainly is true. But a theme of a fall from paradise is common in the world's creation myths. It was how man put a face upon a very real existential realization of "separation". That's the point.

To the extent that an allegory can be said to speak certain truths, it can also be said to speak certain falsehoods.

What truths? Scientific ones? What about human ones, spoken in the language of myth and metaphor? These are not falsehoods, they are expressions of actual experience.

And there is every reason to reject the Christian interpretation of Genesis as a falsehood, whether it is deemed literal (a position held by many Christians) or metaphorical.

Why? I think what is false is the literal interpretation of it as a scientific declaration. It's not the "Christian" interpretation, BTW, it's the Fundamentalist's attempt to make myth and metaphor equal truths in the same way empiric-analytic sciences are. They are deeply flawed in this approach. And I would say to reject myth and metaphor on a scientific basis, is equally as flawed.

 

[gsa]

Does it need to? Does it need to have scientific accuracy to speak truth? I think the answer to that question is the real crux to any and all surrounding questions about myth and metaphor.
That certainly is true. But a theme of a fall from paradise is common in the world's creation myths. It was how man put a face upon a very real existential realization of "separation". That's the point.

What truths? Scientific ones? What about human ones, spoken in the language of myth and metaphor? These are not falsehoods, they are expressions of actual experience.


Why? I think what is false is the literal interpretation of it as a scientific declaration. It's not the "Christian" interpretation, BTW, it's the Fundamentalist's attempt to make myth and metaphor equal truths in the same way empiric-analytic sciences are. They are deeply flawed in this approach. And I would say to reject myth and metaphor on a scientific basis, is equally as flawed.

I do not think you are understanding my critique of the metaphorical interpretation. I am accepting it as a metaphor, but rejecting it as a false one. In other words, I am rejecting the idea that the "Fall of Man" or the punishment of Prometheus and the story of Pandora, or whatever form the paradise myth takes, is an adequate or even good account of the existential realization that you suppose it to represent.

First, I am not sure I understand what you mean by this "existential realization," but I reject any tortured individualist reading of the myth. It is a collective document, meant to serve as a parable for a people. So any existential questions it confronts are ones that are as much social as they are individual, which explains why it seeks to explain how many came to toil on the soil, child birth, etc. The Christian interpretation is also different from the Jewish one, so I am restricting myself to the Christian account of the Fall and Original Sin.

In the Christian version of the myth, the sins of Adam and Eve are actually inherited, metaphorically or literally, by the entire human race. Humanity is reconciled to God through the sacrifice of the Incarnate God, Jesus. However one reads this, it requires an initial state of bliss or "Golden Age" that is progressively ruined by human actions. My point is that the deep history of humanity reveals a completely different view: Man's natural state, far from perfection and harmony with nature, was one of subjective misery compared to the state enjoyed by the authors of Genesis. Life was precarious and short, not secure and long. Suffering, death and what man would deem the evils of existence were not the result of curiosity that angered Zeus or Yahweh, but a natural state that was slowly, ever so slowly, overcome and minimized with the advance of technology and the development of reason, logic, mathematics and other tools that unlocked the secrets of the natural world. The curiosity of humanity, far from its repudiation as a sin against the gods, was the key that makes human happiness and longevity possible.

Humans might very well experience the world as broken and unfair and mired in sin or negative karma as a consequence of humanity's fall from grace in the eyes of the gods, but that is in no small part because of religious indoctrination. The counternarrative of human progress, both moral and technological, may also be deficient, in the end, but it begins with assumptions that are much closer to reality. It also speaks to human truths as much as it speaks to natural ones.

 

[Hawkins]

If it is all the 'word of God,' why would those who supposedly compiled the Bible, omit those texts? How can anyone be certain then of the Bible's validity, if not all of ''God's word'' was included? Who is man to omit certain books out of the Bible--isn't that ''tampering'' with God's word?

According to whom or what standard you said that "something is missing" from the Bible? Your own standard?

Canonization is the authenticated process in forming the authenticated version of the Bible, anything outside the Canon cannot be considered as a formal part of the Word of God.

 

[outhouse]

Canonization is the authenticated process in forming the authenticated version of the Bible, anything outside the Canon cannot be considered as a formal part of the Word of God.

What authentication process took place? who did this?

Why are their different bibles depending on geographic location?

Which books translations have more authority over another translation?

 

[Windwalker]

I do not think you are understanding my critique of the metaphorical interpretation. I am accepting it as a metaphor, but rejecting it as a false one. In other words, I am rejecting the idea that the "Fall of Man" or the punishment of Prometheus and the story of Pandora, or whatever form the paradise myth takes, is an adequate or even good account of the existential realization that you suppose it to represent.

False because it doesn't square with a modern scientific understanding? That's what hear you saying. Isn't saying I am making a "false statement" because I say the sun rises in the East and sets in the West? Yes, of course there was no actual state on this planet in our evolutionary past where mankind lived in some idyllic garden. But the point is man has envisioned his past this way, not as a way to have an scientific understanding of his origins, but as a way to describe what I would call his anxiety as a result of a self-reflexive conscious awareness. And like saying the sun rises and sets in the sky, we "lost" unity, is an expression from the human perception of himself and his condition. Not everything in myth and metaphor needs to be scientifically valid to qualify as either good or bad, or true or false. It is a true metaphor, of self-experience, even if it isn't back by "facts".

First, I am not sure I understand what you mean by this "existential realization," but I reject any tortured individualist reading of the myth. It is a collective document, meant to serve as a parable for a people. So any existential questions it confronts are ones that are as much social as they are individual, which explains why it seeks to explain how many came to toil on the soil, child birth, etc.

Sure, yes and of course they do. It works as a myth because people collectively share in this experience. The condition of existential dread is not a "tortured individualist" experience, but a human one. How consciously self-aware one is of what that exactly is, is another matter. It is a felt experience, all seeking in one form another an escape from that anxiety. The anxiety that "I" shall be no more, that I am separated from the great mother, etc.

The Christian interpretation is also different from the Jewish one, so I am restricting myself to the Christian account of the Fall and Original Sin.

Sure, but do bear in mind that the "Original sin" doctrine and the depravity of man is an Augustinian interpretation and doctrine, and not necessary reflective of all who self-identify as Christian. In other words, Christianity as a whole is not dependent on that doctrine.

In the Christian version of the myth, the sins of Adam and Eve are actually inherited, metaphorically or literally, by the entire human race. Humanity is reconciled to God through the sacrifice of the Incarnate God, Jesus. However one reads this, it requires an initial state of bliss or "Golden Age" that is progressively ruined by human actions. My point is that the deep history of humanity reveals a completely different view: Man's natural state, far from perfection and harmony with nature, was one of subjective misery compared to the state enjoyed by the authors of Genesis.

Sure, and this is a very, very modern understanding of history. The Retro Romantic movement is not that terribly old, and they are the ones who created the myth of the Noble Savage, for instance. So even in modern times, this imagination of a paradise lost runs deep in the collective consciousness.

Could we create a new mythology that speaks better to what we understand scientifically? Sure, and that is of course what Science Fiction as a genre does. But my point is this, even though it is technically not true, that there was in fact no time in our evolutionary past where we lived in a state of full conscious unity, such myths reflect that sensed or projected reality on the our imagined past. And as such it does speak to the collective of the sense of a "Return to Paradise" model (as opposed to a "Growth to Goodness" model, which I personally favor). The myth of heaven, of an afterlife, speaks to this as well. "When the troubles of the earthly toil are over, then we'll meet on that golden shore".

I think maybe what you should focus on is not calling these myths and metaphors "false", but rather if they still hold validity as a metaphor anymore. I would argue it still does, but not if held literally of course! It does in the same way we understand the sun does not move, yet speak of it as rising and falling, or standing in the sky. We express ourselves in myth and metaphor all the time. The only error is when we mistake these as needing to be "factual" to have validity. Do they? Do they have to be scientifically valid to have metaphoric or mythological value?

Humans might very well experience the world as broken and unfair and mired in sin or negative karma as a consequence of humanity's fall from grace in the eyes of the gods, but that is in no small part because of religious indoctrination.

People create these myths, and their religions stand as supports to the collective. People create religions, and they also evolve and change as societies do. I think you assign far more power to the institutions as the source of this, rather than the fact that people create these institutions for themselves in the first place. All cultures indoctrinate it's members into the image of its self-created image. That's the nature of these systems. We create God in our own image, so God can create us in His.

The counternarrative of human progress, both moral and technological, may also be deficient, in the end, but it begins with assumptions that are much closer to reality. It also speaks to human truths as much as it speaks to natural ones.

Again, I'm going to argue that the problem lays with the hearer, and not so much the with the symbols. It's the lack of imagination, the inability to think symbolically that leads to this dearth of collective dancing. One can celebrate the myth of Christmas, with joy and thanksgiving, without needing to accept as a scientific fact a biological female gave birth without having ever had sex with a male.

 

[sincerly]

sincerly said: ↑
Wrong! Sojourner, the scriptures are GOD communiques to mankind in order for mankind to have a right relationship to GOD and one's fellow beings. Not only were they "authentic"-- they were Sacred---since they were from GOD by way of HIS human spokespersons.
Mankind has wanted to do the determining of what they should believe as was evidenced by Adam and Eve.
Your "it's only proper" confirms the erroneous idea is still alive and well.
Mankind as a whole, today, still each wants to have things "my way".

GOD'S instructions were just as valid "in church" as in everyday life situations. That is why they were placed for a witness--"against ye".

Your post just goes to show how the texts become grossly misrepresented when you refuse to do your history lessons and refuse to engage in biblical criticism.

Sojourner, Not only are they records of what the Creator GOD has instructed to mankind, but the record of how mankind has dealt with HIM. It is a history which you refuse to accept---instead, preferring to accept the misunderstanding the assumptions of mankind.

"Biblical criticism" isn't a safe road to travel, because the end thereof is as the scriptures denote---destruction/death.

 

[sojourner]

Not only are they records of what the Creator GOD has instructed to mankind,

Rot. The texts are a library of human origin about God.

It is a history which you refuse to accept

It's a pietistic smokescreen I refuse to accept. The history is just fine with me.

instead, preferring to accept the misunderstanding the assumptions of mankind.

I don't accept your misunderstandings. I accept the considered, studied, and peer-reviewed conclusions of scholars who actually have an idea what they're talking about.

"Biblical criticism" isn't a safe road to travel, because the end thereof is as the scriptures denote---destruction/death.

Balderdash! If it weren't for biblical criticism, you wouldn't have a precious concordance or any reliable interpretations.

 

[Bunyip]

No it's not. Not if it's exegeted correctly.

Sure. Of course you could. Careful exegesis could make the Harry Potter books fit. Careful enough exegesis and anything can be harmonised with anything.

 

[idea]

The truth is...if we were all illiterate...blind...and deaf...would God or the concept of him, mean any less?

No one needs organized religion or books or churches or priests or pastors or rabbis or anyone at all to discover a connection with a higher power, should they be open hearted to it.

I don't need for someone else to tell me what truth is, for it will only be their version of it. As is the case with all religions.

So, you don't think college is good? that is what college is, someone else explaining something and teaching something. Do you believe there is no one who is smarter than you are out there? no one who could teach you anything? Of course you have to be careful who your teacher is, "by their fruits ye shall know them" and all that, but the way to see farther, is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

 

[sojourner]

Sure. Of course you could. Careful exegesis could make the Harry Potter books fit. Careful enough exegesis and anything can be harmonised with anything.

Exegesis doesn't have anything to do with twisting or "making" things harmonize. The exegetical process uncovers what the text is. You're thinking of eisegesis, which is not something I waste time on. I've exegeted Thomas. It's obviously from a different source that the synoptics, but does share some source material. It's really no "different" from the theology presented by John.

 

[leibowde84]

Well, I mean.. It's kinda obvious.
Certain Gospels meet certain criteria to be considered valid, The Gospels that are ommitted don't meet that criteria.

There are many false prophets, Many people claiming to be Jesus, to know Jesus and so on. Just because they write their opinions down and call it a Gospel does not make it the word of God.

You kind of dodged the question. These were texts written at the same time as the recognized "Word of God" Gospels, and they were all written in worship of Jesus. Obviously anyone could write whatever they wanted about Jesus at that time and, if it survived, we would consider them. But, the real question is what specifically made the chosen Gospels valid and the unchosen unworthy.

For example, the Gospel of Thomas is a book of quotes suposedly spoken by Jesus. It is an amazing text, and, as a Christian, I find it extremely interesting. Why was it taken out? The most obvious, likely answer seems to be that it was political decisioin making, as certain aspects of early Christians were bothering those in the hierarchy. Thoughts?