Missing Parts of the Bible

I don't know what they say but if you Google "the gnostic gospels" you will find scads of information.

I imagine there are people here who can direct you better than me but I thought I'd give you a bump out to the general forum.

The single individual who had the greatest influence on the selection of texts for inclusion in the orthodox scriptural canon was Origen of Alexandria--Alexandria in Egypt, being a center of both Jewish and Greek intellectual communities was an early center of christian scholarship.

This biography of Origen is based on the 1911 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The final decision on the scriptural canon came at the convocation of bishops and scholars of the early christian church known as the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. The scholarship of this first ecumenical council was dominated by Eusebius of Cæsarea, considered the greatest of early church historians and scholars. Eusebius himself was indebted to Pamphilus for the education that he, Eusebius, gained in the home of Pamphilus, and from the excellent library which Pamphilus maintained, which was especially known for it's collection of the books and transcripts of scripture which had been written and prepared by Origen.

Origen, more than any single individual, determined which books and "gospels" ought to be included in the orthodox scriptural canon, and thereby through the scholarship of Pamphilus and Eusebius, determined the canon agreed upon at Nicea.

This biography of Origen at "Early Church-dot-org-dot-UK gives a detailed description of the criteria which he applied in the selection of texts, as well as the criticisms of his selection methods, which are considered flaws in his scholarship and reasoning, and which were common to early church scholars.

This page on Origen at N. T. (New Testament) Canon-dot-org you might find particularly interesting, because it lists all of the specific texts which Origen considered, and either found suspect, or which he considered to have been divinely inspired, but not worthy of inclusion in the orthodox scriptural canon. This might lead to the sorts of texts you are interested in which did not make it into the scriptural canon.

Finally, This page on Origen at Early Christian Writings-dot-com has links to online versions of the major works of Origen.

Thanks for the tip, boomerang.

Setanta, that's quite some info you gave there. One of the books I think deals also with the selection criteria for inclusion in the Bible. This is really great! Thanks.

Yes, I've read them both. The Lost Scriptures book is a companion book to Lost Christianities. There isn't much discussion with the scriptures. He also has a newer book Misquoting Jesus which describes the habit of early scribes of modifying text (intentionally and not) and traces the earliest known texts through the different versions of the bible. Well worth reading.

Very interesting, thanks, JPB.

Another interesting contemporary author is John Dominic Crossan. His books Historical Jesus, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, Who Killed Jesus, and The Birth of Christianity are considered classics in contemporary studies of Jesus and early Christianity. I've also read and can recommend, Honest to Jesus by Robert Funk, founder of the Jesus Seminar (a religious scholars group that includes Crossan).

I'm currently reading Eusebius's The History of the Church

I am going to search a little bit on those ones too. On what did Crossan and Funk base the stories of their books? On historical documents?

Mostly, but not entirely. Most religious scholars base their opinions on historical writings. But, what I find interesting is their personal backgrounds and how they came to question traditional doctrine. Erhman, now Chair of Religious Studies at UNC, Chapel Hill, explains in Misquoting Jesus that he was a fundamentalist Christian until he realized that the premise of Christianity was based on stories and texts that had been modified (and forged, in some cases).

Crossan is a former Catholic priest and professor emeritus of Religious Studies at Depaul University in Chicago.



and

Crossan's The Birth of Christianity focuses on the decades of the 30s and 40s, or the years prior to Paul when no historical documents exist, and is an interesting counter-study to Erhman's texts which are primarily focused on the historical documents of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Funk and much of the writings from the Jesus Seminar focus on the historical Jesus.

The modern Bible leaves out the Book of Fred in which Fred encourages us to smoke pot and sleep with college girls. "Though shalt smoketh of the divine weed and partake of the ladies of Sorority" Fred 12;9

JPB, who wrote those early historical writings/documents? Do we have something similar to Herodotus' "The Histories" but relating to Christianity that recount the birth and development of it, etc.?

And which people kept the historical writings/documents and where were they kept? How were they discovered?

Do you mean who wrote the gospels, acts, and apocalypses or, who wrote the early histories? Most of the authors of the canonical texts are attributed to four gospel writers and Paul/Saul of Tarsus, although scholars feel that some of the texts are attributions -- texts written by others and attributed to one of the canonical authors or disciples. For example, John 7:53 - 8:12 (the woman who committed adultery and was brought before Jesus) is one of the best known stories in the bible, but was not written by the author of John. From Erhman's "Misquoting Jesus"


Another example is with the last twelve verses of Mark. Earlier texts have Mark ending after 16:8. The ending was modified at a later time and 16:9 - 16:20 was added. Some versions of the bible end after 16:8, some use a shorter ending, some amend 16:9 - 16:20 with or without a 'doubtful' after 16:8, etc.

There are apparently thousands of examples in the early texts, both canonical and extra-canonical that were modified over time. Some modifications were intentional to alter the tone of the story, some were inadvertent mistakes by scribes as they made copies of the texts. There are also entire gospels (the Gospel of Peter, for example) that were attributed to a particular author or disciple to give the story credence, but are pure forgeries. At least four of Paul's canonical letters were written by someone else (1-2 Timothy, Titus, Ephesians, and possibly Colossians and 2 Thessalonians), as were some of his letters that did not become canon. It is also thought that some of Paul's authentic letters were modified prior to insertion into the canon. For example, the portions of 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 that deal with women in church are thought to not be the words of Paul, but of someone who modified a copy of the letter at some later date (perhaps the same author who wrote 1 Timothy).

So, if your question was, "who wrote the earliest Christian texts?" the answer is very complicated. If you meant, "Who was the earliest historian?" then Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius (AD circa 260-339) are the winners. 10 books, or chapters, of Eusebius' writings have survived and are compiled in, The History of the Church, which I am in the process of reading.

Most texts that were deemed heretical were burned under orders from the Church. Much of what is known about earlier texts is from descriptions in the writings of Origen, Clement, and Eusebius. They provided detailed quotes of many texts that were deemed unsuitable for the orthodoxy of Christianity and mere mentions of others. Many no longer exist (i.e., The Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles and the Gospel of Basilides)

Other texts do exist, but not as originals. As with the texts that are part of the Christian bible, the earliest available documents are copies of copies of copies. The Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter (hair raising, to say the least), and several apocryphal texts dating to the 8th century (originally written in the later half of the second century) were found in the tomb of a Christian monk in upper Egypt in 1886. Prior to it's discovery, it was known only as referenced by the early historians.

A large cache of early documents, including the Gospel of Thomas, and other texts that were considered 'gnostic' in nature (and ordered destroyed by the Church) were discovered in Nag Hammadi in 1945. Documents that became known as the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947 in a cave 13 miles east of Jerusalem. These scrolls do not mention Jesus, John the Baptist, or any of the disciples. They are not Christian texts, per se, but provide a firsthand glimpse of life in the region at the time of the birth of Christianity.

There is plenty of fascinating material to read on early Christianity, both historical and contemporary in nature. Good luck on your search.

This is fantastic, JPB, thanks. You covered all my questions and potential ones.

I am going to spend some time to study a little bit more on this subject, this is all really fascinating. I saw one day in a bookstore a book about the Dead Sea Scrolls, I was curious but did not have more time than to look at the cover. I think that had remained in my subconscious, that's why I think the interest arose now.

Thanks again for all the info.

cello, I'd like to clarify my response on the two Erhman books you mentioned. When I said there wasn't much discussion on the scriptures, I meant that most of the discussion is in the Lost Christianities volume and that Lost Scriptures does not contain much discussion. Both are good resources for the early history of Christianity. They are well written and easy to read.

Thanks, JPB. I was also wondering, well, why there was not much discussion on scriptures, especially if one of the books is on lost scriptures. Oh, and I appreciate that they are easy to read. I am still an amateur in all of this.

Let's see if I can say this better.... The Lost Scriptures volume is a collection of the extra-canonical scriptures with little additional discussion beyond the extensive discussion they are given in Lost Christianities. They are discussed thoroughly, but if you only want to get one of them, I would get Lost Christianities. It's nice to read the actual scriptures along with the discussion, so it's best to have them both.

I figured I had probably confused you. Don't worry, I'm still an amateur too.

JPB, you are really nice. Thanks so much. I think I am going to get both books, they both look interesting.

The Muratorian Canon lists the New Testament Canon and was written about 100 years before Eusebius.

bookmark

Greetings all,



No it didn't.

The Council of Nicea did not make any decision on the books of the Bible.

You can check this by reading the canons of the council (the minutes of the meeting) :
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

This claim is an urban myth, very common on the internet.


Iasion