Interesting 90 documentary last night on the "Lost Gospels" – asking the question why, if there were some 20 gospels circulating among the 80-odd writings passing among the churches, did the orthodox Canon result in only 4 gospels and 27 books in total?
What emerges is the philosophical reflection upon the meaning Revelation.
Marcion, for example, perhaps the greatest 'threat' to orthodoxy, insisted that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of whom Jesus spoke, and that there were two Gods, one vengeful, one forgiving, and he cited his chosen texts, line by line, to make his point. Marcion accepted only 1 gospel (Luke) and the Pauline letters as 'orthodox', but only after he had edited any pro-Jewish element from them. If he had been accepted, there would be no Old Testament...
The Ebionites had their gospel, in which Jesus was just a man, a prophet, upon whom the Spirit descended, and who was abandoned to the Cross in death when the Spirit withdrew ...
Arius was another, who insisted 'there was a time when Christ was not' ...
+++
All the early disputes are essentially Christological.
One of the primary motives towards Orthodoxy were the persecutions. If people were expected to die for their belief, they wanted a clear and unambiguous idea of what it was they were actually called to believe, what they were dying for. The Ebionites, for example, could offer no promise of resurrection, nor salvation. The 'all-inclusiveness' of today's outlook would be frankly unacceptable. It is unlikely to find anyone prepared to face the lions, or be a candle in one of Nero's entertainments, if Jesus might be this, might be that, whatever you want, really ...
... so Orthodoxy was determined by the essential message – was it a belief in the One True God, maker of Heaven and Earth? Was it one of justice and mercy? Of faith and forgiveness? One of salvation for all, in Christ? 'for whom, by whom and in whom all things are made' If yes, it is Canonical, if no (like the gnostic texts which are inarguably elitist) then that will not suffice.
+++
The final comments were, perhaps, the most telling.
If Christianity had been more inclusive, more allowing, more accepting – (all metaphysical and philosophical contradiction aside) – then Christianity would possibly be a more acceptable religion, perceived today as less dogmatic and less authoritarian.
However, had it done so, the author concludes, all the evidence suggests it would not have survived much more than three centuries. It would not have been Constantine's choice, for example, an astute political move to bind together a crumbling empire. Without an alternative (Mithraism was too limited) Rome would have crumbled sooner than it eventually did, and Christianity would have passed with it.
The documents we have today survive because they have been copied down through the ages. This process would not have happened, the texts of the Christians would have been lost, or secreted perhaps, like the Qmran documents, in an unknown cave.
Thomas
What emerges is the philosophical reflection upon the meaning Revelation.
Marcion, for example, perhaps the greatest 'threat' to orthodoxy, insisted that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of whom Jesus spoke, and that there were two Gods, one vengeful, one forgiving, and he cited his chosen texts, line by line, to make his point. Marcion accepted only 1 gospel (Luke) and the Pauline letters as 'orthodox', but only after he had edited any pro-Jewish element from them. If he had been accepted, there would be no Old Testament...
The Ebionites had their gospel, in which Jesus was just a man, a prophet, upon whom the Spirit descended, and who was abandoned to the Cross in death when the Spirit withdrew ...
Arius was another, who insisted 'there was a time when Christ was not' ...
+++
All the early disputes are essentially Christological.
One of the primary motives towards Orthodoxy were the persecutions. If people were expected to die for their belief, they wanted a clear and unambiguous idea of what it was they were actually called to believe, what they were dying for. The Ebionites, for example, could offer no promise of resurrection, nor salvation. The 'all-inclusiveness' of today's outlook would be frankly unacceptable. It is unlikely to find anyone prepared to face the lions, or be a candle in one of Nero's entertainments, if Jesus might be this, might be that, whatever you want, really ...
... so Orthodoxy was determined by the essential message – was it a belief in the One True God, maker of Heaven and Earth? Was it one of justice and mercy? Of faith and forgiveness? One of salvation for all, in Christ? 'for whom, by whom and in whom all things are made' If yes, it is Canonical, if no (like the gnostic texts which are inarguably elitist) then that will not suffice.
+++
The final comments were, perhaps, the most telling.
If Christianity had been more inclusive, more allowing, more accepting – (all metaphysical and philosophical contradiction aside) – then Christianity would possibly be a more acceptable religion, perceived today as less dogmatic and less authoritarian.
However, had it done so, the author concludes, all the evidence suggests it would not have survived much more than three centuries. It would not have been Constantine's choice, for example, an astute political move to bind together a crumbling empire. Without an alternative (Mithraism was too limited) Rome would have crumbled sooner than it eventually did, and Christianity would have passed with it.
The documents we have today survive because they have been copied down through the ages. This process would not have happened, the texts of the Christians would have been lost, or secreted perhaps, like the Qmran documents, in an unknown cave.
Thomas
