Doug Shaver

They became important primary documents for orthodox Christianity. I don't think we can assume that they originated as such.

No doubt each author individually wanted his readers to believe something. But if, as I suspect, they were writing fiction, then what they wanted their readers to believe was not that these were the things Jesus said and did during his incarnation. In any case, the authors themselves were obviously not all trying to induce the same set of beliefs. Surely, any of the synoptic authors who saw John's book would have said, "What a bunch of crap"; and vice versa.

Sure. That force was called heresy. Leaders of the sect that became orthodox Christianity got it into their minds somehow that those four gospels collectively supported their doctrines, and so they canonized them. Whether they in fact supported anything at all was beside the point. It became a case of "These books say it, we believe it, that settles it."

Having been one myself, I know how Christians think. When anybody they perceive as having some authority tells them, "This is the word of God," then as far as they're concerned, it's the word of God, coherence be damned. And said authority does not for a second have to be political.

bacht

Question (apologies if you've laid this out before):

If the pre-Torah Yahweh was part of the Canaanite pantheon, does that mean you accept the existence or importance of other deities in that system? One of the distinguishing characterisitics of later Judaism was its focus on Yahweh as the one true God, but in the early days wasn't he just one among many others?

stephan huller

The bottom line for on any claim that Constantine was the first to make the fourfold canon - patently untrue but suggested here at this post. If previous Emperors did not assist in 'favoring' the Catholic tradition (something I think suggested in the reigns of Commodus and the Severan Emperors) then Constantine should be venerated as a person of messianic greatness for his amazingly unprecedented accomplishment. Too bad its not true.

Sheshbazzar

Let me explain it this way, although I'm certain I'll mostly be restating what is already known to most that are well read within this forum.

Looking at the evidence provided by archaeology and the many pre-Biblical clay tablets and inscriptions that have been recovered from the Ancient Near East, along with the contents of Torah, it may be seen that the original situation was one where a great many different deities were commonly worshipped, often with multiple deities being invoked by individuals, the collective community, or national leadership.
These individual Elohim were usually concieved of as holding power over certain specific or principal domains, as such, their abilities to 'help', or to 'answer' the petitioners prayers were considered primarily to deal in matters pertaining to whatever domains they were representative of.
Therefore, for example, if a household wanted fish for supper they would make offering and petition to Dagon, and if there were fish to be had, it would be to 'Dagon' they gave their thanks.
Now say that same family desired the birth of a son, they would not normally direct their petition to 'Dagon' the Elohim of Water and Fishes, but rather they would petition Astart the Elo'hooth (fem. 'Goddess') of Hearth, Home, and Family. And so on for the elohim of Grain harvest, and for the elohim of the Vine harvest, a multitude of different Elohim, each with a specialty and being the cheif elohim holding dominion over that specialty.

Then there arose the practice of the ancient City States selecting one particular Elohim as being their particular Patron, and the heavenly represenative of their collective welfare, as well as their emblem in warfare.
This eventually evolved to be the common practice of the politically joined cities and lands that became 'kingdoms' and 'nations'.

Now to get to the meat of your query. Individuals during these ages were (relatively) free to select their own personal patron deity (elohim) from among that large assortment of elohim. (or even create and believe in one more to their own liking.)
As such, any man's patron elohim was his one true individual elohim (deity), that one being esteemed as particularly sacred to him above all others, and 'every name that was named', and with whom he generally would by certain ritual, be joined to in a 'covenant' relationship. ('I will do thus, if you will do thus')
Respect between individuals and between nations required a mutual respect for the rights of others to their lands and their posssesions, and a measure of respect towards these other peoples and nations elohim by whose powers they (as they believed) had obtained and did retain such things.

By the evidence then, it is quite clear that at least to -non-Yahwhists- that 'Yahweh Elohim' was just one among the many elohim, all being more less equal as sons of the great EL, with Yahweh being no more than the particular patron elohim of Israel.
To devout Yahwhists however, given the mystical significance of The Name (derived from the root 'causing to be',) such a limitation was untenable, as Yahweh was percieved and acknowledged to be the ONE causitive and sustaining force of ALL things in the heavens, and the earth, and in the seas_ including all of these other (and therefore 'lesser') elohim.
And from the Yahwistic position, His Name 'being' from everlasting to everlasting, eternal, preceeded, exceeded, and suceeded any and all other names that were named, or ever would be named; The causitive 'Name' to which (eventually) every knee will bow, and every mouth confess'.

As to my personal position, based on all of this, and much more, not easy to convey, I acknowledge Yahweh as being the source and maker of all 'other' elohim' or 'gods', as YHWH is the one 'bringing into being' all that is, the very existent definition of 'REALITY' as it proceeds through all ages. Therefore these other deities were, and yet are, important facets of my life, and living, although being in fact only el'lee'leem. (null-deities, non-entities, things of naught, sans any power either to do good or evil)
In this sense the 'churches' 'synagogues' and 'mosques' and the religious leaders of this age exist for the very purpose that men such as I be warned and warn others against them.

Beyond this, I do not accept the Jewish or Christian 'Scriptures' as being factual historical accounts, or 'authorative', yet being brought into being through the agency of the workings of this Reality, 'in which we all live, and move, and have our being.....' the ancient writings are not without value and of significance, in actively affecting of the course of human affairs.

Shalom,
Sheshbazzar the Hebrew

mountainman

Eusebius thought it was true. In his "Vita Constantini" he compares Constantine to Moses on five occassions, and to the Thrice Blessed Hermes on six occassions. But then we all know that Eusebius was just a propagandist, don't we?

Chili

The difference here is that John's Jeus would destroy the temple and rebuilt it in 3 days and he did this right aftert eh Cana event that was missing in Matthew but in fact was the massacre that got the best of Joseph's newborn son here now replaced by his brother James.

In Matthew the 'house was clensed to make it a pure house of prayer and so Matthew's Jesus confirmed that he sought to remain a 'saved sinner' while John was going to have his sin nature crucified and raise the temple in 3 days. Big difference!!!!!!!

Doug Shaver

No, we don't all know it. I know that he could have been. I do not know that he was.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephan,

I think the reigns of Commodus and Septimus Severan are in fact the likeliest time of the publication of the Fourfold Gospel/New Testament

I think of Christianity as a key that turned the Roman lock of power, opening the gates of the kingdom (the Roman empire). How did this key, which undoubtedly was first fashioned by Jews to gain control of the Jewish religion get to fit the Roman door?

Judaism had spread to a number of cities in provinces outside Jerusalem in the First century. The fight to control Israel/Jerusalem/Palestine, had to be fought in those cities. The gospels of Mark, Matthew and John represent indigenous efforts to control Judaism.

The publication of the gospel of Luke and the Publication of the Four-fold gospel (which I believe happens nearly simultaneously) represents something quite different. It is much more an effort to make the new religion acceptable to the Roman Empire.

The publication of the Fourfold Gospel is a refashioning of the religion to fit into Roman society.

Christianity represented an extreme Jewish movement that wanted to unite the Jews to fight against Rome. At a certain point, it abandons the war of liberation (certainly after the loss of two major wars) and it becomes a movement to reform Rome along certain religious/cultural lines. This allows it to change enough to fit into Roman society as savior/mystery religion cult.

It does seem to me that during the reigns of Commodus and at least the first ten years of Septimus Severus, we should look for this radical refashioning of Christianity. As long as Rome mantained its traditional religious views, Christianity could only have an oppositional relationship. When the Roman emperors in struggle with the Roman Senate started to incorporate more of the new Mystery Religions into their Religion, the opportunity opened up for Christianity to become an officially recognized and protected culture.

The only thing that Christianity needed to do was get rid of its more extreme cults that practiced everything from incestuous sex orgies to castration and present a single coherent foundation document. This was the reason for the attack on Heresies and the publication of the Fourfold gospel/the New Testament. Christian leaders were exercising control over the multiform Christian communities.This is exactly what the Romans wanted to see in order for it to be considered part of Roman society, another legal and endorsed mystery cult. Commodus and Septimus were both open to Mystery Cults. Once reformed as an acceptable Mystery Cult, perhaps the Christian leaders hoped, even the Emperors could be persuaded. Septimus' attack on Christianity in 203 probably ended the realistic hopes for an immediate takeover of the Roman empire by Christians at that time. But the hope never went away and in the Fourth century, with just a few more tweaks, courtesy of the Nicene Council, it was realized in fact.

An analogy to this can be seen in the Bankers take-over in Hollywood in the 1930's. The movie moguls were in control in the 1920's and early 1930's and movies reflected their tastes and desires. Women in silk negligees or naked abounded in films of the period. By the early 1930's, with the Depression, the moguls had to seed control to the Eastern Bankers. The movies were toned down and formularized to meet the bourgeois standards and morals of the Bankers. The Hays Moral Code, published in 1934, was the equivalent of the publication of the fourfold gospel/New Testament. It was the sign that the Eastern Bankers now controlled the powerful but quirky Western movies moguls. The publication of the Fourfold gospel/New Testament was a sign that the Traditional Western Romans now controlled the diverse, quirky Eastern Christian movement.

For an idea of just how powerful and quirky the Movie moguls were in the 1920's, note this quote from Richard Schikel's "Harold Lloyd: The Shape of Laughter" (pg. 68):

Mack was producer Mack Sennet known as the "King of Comedy" in the Silent Film days. He was most famous for his Keystone Kop comedies which involved wild, reckless car chases and anarchistic pie-fights.


Warmly,

Jay Raskin

mountainman

Not without controversy, it was made to fit by imperial decree. I cannot think of any other realistic way that Christianity could have succeeded if Constantine had not supported it with legislation and military might.

Sheshbazzar

Yep, stuff Christian decrees, creeds, and doctrines down the throats of the citizenry with the point of the Imperial swords. And lop off the heads of any who would dare question or dissent.
Nice group of peaceful neighbor loving Christians that was unleashed upon the world.
No?