The Cannonization of the Bible

[Reggie Miller]

I'm pointing out that it isn't an insult, it's a genuine question.

Everything is the difference between the Holy Spirit and mental illness.They two are not comparable.

 

[The Adept]

So why were the books that were Cannonized Cannonized? Why not the Gnostic gospels instead? How did it happen, whats the history?

Look up Marcion.

 

[Fire_Monkey]

So why were the books that were Cannonized Cannonized? Why not the Gnostic gospels instead? How did it happen, whats the history?

Your question is an excellent one that I feel not enough Christians are brave enough to ask themselves. LOL

After all, there WERE hundreds of writings to choose from for the original compilers of the New Testament. As you mentioned, there were the Gnostic Gospels. Which, for my money, have some superior and more compelling content than do the Synoptic Gospels. For instance, a few of them tell about the young Jesus during his so-called "lost years" which none of the four gospels mention.

So why were only Matt, Mark Luke, and John chosen? The answer is actually pretty simple. They are the ones that most closely supported the ethos that the compilers of the NT were trying to perpetuate. That is, they tied in most closely with their "mission statement." Which was of course to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Messiah.

Matthew for example, was chosen to be the first gospel, even though it was NOT the first written. Mark was. But see, Matt had more mentions of how JC fulfilled earlier Old Testament prophecies.

And of course it is obvious that the legend and the myth and the divinity of Jesus grew as the gospels got older. That is, by the time we get to John, which was written a good 60 years or more after JC died, gone is the old humble, parable speaking Jesus! Replaced instead by somebody who calls himself God and claims to be the Alpha and Omega and all that. The Word.

Well, the historical Jesus of course never said any such thing, and those quotes are purely fabricated. One must never forget that at the time of the writing of John, the Temple had been razed and the prosecution of the Christians by Jews and Romans was at its height. So the author of John---who of course never even MET Jesus--had to embellish a lot!

FM

 

[Politesse]

Truth by Committee. Not without merit, neither fool-proof.

 

[Politesse]

I note that there is no single canon. There are many acknowledged canons with centuries of weight and faith behind them, and I would be happy to count the Nag Hammadi library as one also, albeit a modern one, as it has been whole-heartedly embraced by modern Gnostics and I see no reason to chuck them out of the parade. Even the reading selection common to the liberal set during my seminary days - the Hebrew, Protestant and RCC canons, plus Q and Thomas at the least - are well-established enough to consider a kind of canon. Surely, if in becoming a pastor you pretty much must read something at some point, it should count as a canon of sorts even if it does not yet have the legitimacy of an ancient council? The Jesus Seminar may be recent news to us, but all it needs to do in order to be 2500's "ancient council" is survive in cultural memory for a few centuries, and plenty of ideas both good and silly have accomplished that feat.