mountainman

The Rightful Emperor and Pontifex Maximus had certain rights and one of these was to select any divinity within the Roman Empire for imperial sponsorship. The name of the new god was physically encoded in a codex with the nomina sacra "JS" (for Jesus and/or Joshua) and "CT" (for Chrestos or Christos). The entire populace had to acknowledge this selection by the rightful Pontifex Maximus.

We therefore find the gnostics using the same nomina sacra (in the Coptic) for the name of the "JS" character in their gnostic acts and gospels. However they created their own Hellenistic romance stories about this new god figure, and authored and popularised and preserved what were known as the UNCANONICAL or NON CANONICAL books of the NT.

But they were viewed by the CANON followers as the blasphemous writings of heretics, and these writings were prohibited, sought out and burnt. The Gnostic Acts are the equivalent of Pulp Fiction, and a reaction to the new god of the Emperor Constantine, rightful Pontifex Maximus.

I think the only thing the gnostics took seriously was to make sure their books made explicit mention of the name of the emperor's new god "JS", which they did. The orthodox canon followers and the emperor did their best to eradicate and destroy these oppositional and seditious writings about this "JS" figure, therefore it would seem that they had no control over the gnostic literature and sought to contain the heresy.

That's my take anyway. When the chronology of the earliest NT non canonical books is critically examined, a date of authorship in the years between 325 and 336 CE is just as feasible as the conventional unexamined dogma that some of these were authored in the earlier centuries.

The same applies btw to some of what is known as the Old Testament non canonical books. See recent thread on "The Life of Adam".

That the canonical books were the result of an imperial scam, were the fictions of men created by wickedness, neatly explains the Emperor Julian's invectives against what Ammianus called "the plain and simple religion of the Chrestians/Christians".

sotto voce

Rightful because he protected filth.

Filth wants him back.

mountainman

The full name of "Jesus" is not present in the earliest Greek NT codices, only the coded name "JS". Ditto the fullname of "Joshua" is not present in the earliest LXX codices only the same encoded name "JS". Hence the name of god was technologically hidden or encrypted, and could be expanded to the people by those who possessed the books and Greek readers in the new Christian basilicas throughout the many dioceses of the 4th century Roman empire.

After investigating the evidence for many years I believe Jesus was a fictional character featured in a 4th century imperially sponsored codex. The purpose of the fabrication of the chrestians/Christians was to unite the Roman Empire under an Emperor centric monotheistic state religion and get rid of the scattered mass of pagan cults at the same time. The Greek intellectual tradition was at this time suppressed, because it had been associated with these pagan cults and the traditional "Sacred Assembly of Priests" who used to provide the emperors with wise counsel.

Duvduv

Mountainman, do you mean that gnostics believed they could only transmit their own teachings behind the veil of references to JC, and how is it possible to distinguish between parodies of the imperial religion and actual teachings hiding behind references to JC?

sotto voce

So nobody believes it. Not one recognised academic, and these days, that is really saying something. Not half.

You can't even demonstrate that you believe it.

Why don't you try to explain how it is that probably the most scandalous elite in history (except maybe the Borgias!) came up with a religion of which it was said:

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult, and left untried." G. K. Chesterton

It's perfect nonsense. And that's being polite.

mountainman

It seems to me that the Manichaeans believed in this necessary restriction and the reason for this is that religions were being very savagely restricted by the sudden and unexpected appearance of the JC Codex Cult. The large corporation (with the army) had started up operations and all the smaller operators were being systematically shut down.

The Gnostic authors of the non canonical acts and gospels and letters and revelations and apocalypses mimicked the Large Corporation's codex. The sword had failed. They fled the cities of Antioch and Alexandria and set up scriptoriums in remote locations. The end was nigh for the Greek intellectual tradition for over one thousand years.



Political context alone makes it possible to distinguish these.

We do not yet have a political history of the 4th century.

At present we are using the "Church Histories" of 5th century heresiologists.

These people concealed the political turmoil and controversy over the appearance of the JC Story Book, and they concealed what was effectively the genocide of the Greek intellectual tradition, including imperial inquisitions of the civilians.

Duvduv

Might this make conceivable that the differing canonical stories themselves reflect competing ideologies behind the veil of an original boilerplate JC, but which were adopted because their publics were to be integrated and could not explicitly be accused of either lampooning or gnosticism?

sotto voce

Probably. But remember that you knew every book of the NT the first time you read them.

mountainman

Rightful simply because it was he who was the military victor.




Back to the OP: Who decided on a NT Christian Canon.

We need to ask who decided what should go into and what should not go into the bible codices that Constantine appears to have lavishly published during the final decade of his rule over the Roman Empire. This of course involves asking questions about the role of Eusebius.

In this line of enquiry explicit references to the earliest Greek NT codices such as Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Sinaticus need to be made, because these things represent the ancient historical evidence that needs to be explained. Many commentators make the comment that these earliest Greek codices are either exemplars of Constantine's Bible, or are copies thereof. They are generally not dated earlier that the mid 4th century.

mountainman

Yes it is possible IMO. The legend that the so-called 318 Nicaean Fathers paid Constantine lip-service only is also possibly true. I mean supposing your land (analogous to the Eastern Roman Empire of c.324 CE) was overrun by a hostile military force which commenced to destroy the cultural heritage of your country. The so called attendees at the Council of Nicaea are not going to be too happy about too many conditions - they knew they were dealing with a DESTROYER of OLD TRADITIONS.

Usually a destroyer of old traditions creates a new traditions. Its the same time and time again with various warlords creating centralised state monotheisms based on a new testament of tradition.

Someone decided to axe "The Shepherd of Hermas" from the NT Canon after Constantine published it for example, and someone appears to have added the long ending of Mark.

The controversy of what was to become written into the NT Canon after the death of Bullneck must have had players who knew the real history of the books of the NT. That history may have been genuine. OTOH that history may have been fabricated. We must decide which option is the correct and historically true option on the basis of all the evidence in our possession.

As far as I am concerned the earliest Christians operated a forgery mill, and may have known themselves as "Chrestians". They may have been followers of Good Jesus (or Jesus the Good = Jesus Chrestos)