While little is known of the history of the Jewish Canon, of the Christian, fortunately, considerable has been preserved, and the progress of its formation can be traced, step by step, down the centuries. Sadly few Christians know this history and few ever inquire into the development and canonization of the document they stake their Eternal Life upon. Growing up as a Christian, and after attending Southwestern Seminary in Ft.Worth, Texas, where I received an M.Div. I must admit to you I accepted pretty much what was told to me for the most part. Usually I was on two tracks at once; fulfilling my Seminary responsibilities as well as my Pastorate responsibilities. This left little time to study out things in-depth when questions begged answering. Usually I was consumed with preparing for tomorrow's classes and tests as well as the ministry in which I had an active part. It would be a couple years into full-time pastoring following Seminary before I could find the time to investigate the Canon of the New Testament for myself. Up to that time I like most Christians accepted "by faith" what I had been told. Upon researching the Canon in-depth I was startled to discover what was omitted in my Seminary training; and I understand today why it was omitted! Such facts as I will share with you was either not known, or the consequences of such knowledge being made public would impugn the integrity of the Christian Faith!
Most preaching involves homiletical sermons based on this passage or that passage. Seldom is one confronted with the "big picture;" such seldom is recognized unless conscientious in-depth study is undertaken for some time. Some people possess the ability to see the "forest" in spite of the "trees." In other words, some people, sadly the minority, can read a document like the New Testament and see things that are obvious which the vast majority of people overlook. This is not accomplished by intellect alone for the Holy Spirit certainly illuminated past revelation. Some see it; some do not. I find this the case almost all the time. Two people can look at the same passage or passages at the same time and one can see something the other cannot; even after excessive explanation the "blinded" one sometimes cannot see no matter what is done. Such is the revelation of God. Understand because one has not seen or does not know of a "truth" does not invalidate such truth; truth is truth no matter if it is recognized by one or by all. Truth is primary and must the goal of our study of the Word of God.
In what follows I will share and hopefully show you that within the New Testament are two competing and conflicting "gospel." Understand that this fact is not of my creation just I say that this exists, but competent scholars dating back centuries have discussed this issue in detail. So this is not my "personal interpretation" for volumes of books have been written upon this. The problem is that your Church book store or corner Christian book store has not carried such informative literature.
After the death of Jesus, his followers increased in numbers for a quarter of a century before having any literature. Sects formed, and antagonisms arose. Then Paul wrote his Epistles to strengthen his adherents against the assault of other Christian fractions. This is nothing more than "in-house in-fighting." The most violent altercations occurred, each sect endeavoring to prevail over others. East side was determined to best the other.
Answer for yourself: What avenue was chosen to win the debate?
Epistles and gospels and revelations were manufactured and in almost all instances fictitious names of supposed writers would be later fixed upon them to give them greater credibility. The names of Apostles or other persons high in Christian piracy were not looked upon in those days as they are now. Writings were being falsified consistently by fraction after fraction; all trying to promote their particular point of view. Unity was out of the question.
Dionysius of Corinth (170 A.D.) complained that his writings were falsified, but consoled himself by saying that the same thing (falsification) was done with the "Scriptures of the Lord" (Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv. 23).
Answer for yourself: Did you hear that? The Christian historian Eusebius records for us that the New Testament Scriptures "were falsified"? Which ones? Can you tell when you read the New Testament?
There is a way, but that is not our discussion at present.
Mosheim, the Christian historian, says:
"There were a number of commentaries filled with impositions and fables on our Savior's life and sentiments, composed soon after his ascent into heaven, by men who, without being bad, perhaps, were superstitious, simple, and piously deceitful. To these were afterwards added other writings, falsely ascribed to the most holy apostles by fraudulent individuals" (Euseb., Eccl. Hist., Book i, century I., pt. ii., ch. ii.).
"This vice early spread among the Christians. Of this no one will doubt who calls to mind the numerous forgeries of books under the names of eminent men, the Sibylline verses, and I know not what besides, a large mass of which appeared in this age (the second century) and subsequently. I would not say that the orthodox Christians forged all the books of this character: on the contrary, it is probable that the greater part of them originated from the founders of the Gnostic sects. Yet that the Christians who were free from heterodox views were not wholly free from this fault is too clear to be denied" (Ibid., Book i., century II., pt. ii., ch. iii.,).
We should understand that "eye witnesses" to this forgery and falsification of New Testament documents, many in the first and even the second century, attest to such being done long before the canonization of the New Testament. We have first hand evidence that forgeries were being written promoting this and that fraction's views in the names of the Apostles, who in reality, had nothing to do with such writings. That means they did not believe such things quite often; neither did Jesus. Yet these are passed off in Apostolic names as if these teachings were accepted and espoused by Jesus and his Apostles. Sadly, many of these forgeries exist in the Canon of the New Testament today and you never knew it. That is one reason why there are conflicting "gospels" in the New Testament along with many doctrines which the historical Jesus and the Apostles never believed or taught. Non-orthodoxy becomes orthodoxy and you never knew it!
Answer for yourself: Is such falsification of documents in the Apostle's names along with other attested forgeries that ended up in the New Testament the work of the Holy Spirit? Can these teachings be trusted? Is there "truth" mixed up within them and how can one discern the difference? Do you even want to?
Besides the current Gospels bearing the Apostle's names in the New Testament at present, the following is a partial list of the books fabricated and in circulation in that age, in addition to the ones now in the New Testament. Many listed are presented in The Apocryphal New Testament (contains all the existing Gospels and Epistles of the early Christian Church), and many are no longer in existence but referenced in early Church documents. The Gospel of Paul, The Gospel of Peter, the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans, his Epistle to the Ephesians, his Epistle to the Ephesians, his Epistle to Polycarp, the Gospel according to the Egyptians, the Epistle of Polycarp to the Phillipians, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Sibylline Oracles, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel of Perfection, the Gospel of Philip, another Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of Basilides, the Gospel of Thaddaeus, the First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ, the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, the Gospel of Scythianus, the Gospel of Tatian, the Gospel of Life, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Andrew, the Gospel of Bartholomew, the Gospel of Eve, the Gospel of the Encratites, the false Gospels of Hesychius, the Gospel of Jude, the false Gospels published by Lucianus, the Gospel of Barnabas, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul. the Acts of Peter and Andrew, the Acts of John, the Acts of Mary, the Acts of Andrew, the Acts of the Apostles made use of by the Ebionites, the Acts of the Apostles by Leucius, the Acts of the Apostles used by the Manichaeans, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, the Preaching of Paul, the Preaching of Peter, the Doctrine of Peter, the Acts of Philip, the Acts of Thomas, the Acts of Barnabas, the Judgment of Peter, an Epistle of Christ to Peter and Paul, and Epistle of Christ produced by the Manichaeans, the Epistle of Themison, the Epistles of Paul to Seneca, the Epistles of Seneca to Paul, the Revelation of Peter, the Revelation of Paul, the Revelation of Bartholomew, the Revelation of Cerinthus, the Revelation of Stephen, the Revelation of Thomas, the Revelation of Moses, the Revelation of Esdras, the Protevangelion or Gospel of James, Thomas' Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ, the Acts of Pilate or the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle to the Magnesians, the Epistle to the Trallians, the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, the Epistle to the Philadelphians (forgeries under the name of Ignatius), the Epistle to the Laodiceans (a forgery under the name of Paul), the Pastor of Hermas, the Gospel of Cerinthus, the Gospel of Marcion, the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Apelles, the Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, the Gospel of Longinus, and Epistle of Jesus Christ to Abgarus, King of Edessa, and an Epistle of Abgarus to Jesus Christ.
Understand that the above is not all of the books of that time. Of many we have not even the names. I have mentioned, for examples, but thirteen books of Acts, whereas Fabricius made a collection of thirty-six (McClintock and Strong, Acts of the Apostles, "spurious"). It was from such forgery and falsification as this, with its Gospel of Judas Iscariot, Gospel of Eve, and Epistles ascribed to Jesus, that our Four Gospels (which are themselves forgeries and but a part of the common stream) came. Most of the books of that age were written to uphold or oppose particular doctrines, as when our Gospel of John is said to have been written to refute the views of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., iii. 11. 1). Paul had to warn the Thessalonians not to be troubled or misled by letters falsely purporting to be from him (2 Thess. 2:2), and cautioned them that every genuine letter would bear his signature. Those that do not carry his signature most likely are not his.
Answer for yourself: Did you know before now that the collection of writings called the New Testament contains conflicting views from three theological camps that existed in the first century; each of which denied the other? The sad fact is without this knowledge one reads the New Testament and tries to fit each "puzzle part" into the big picture so to speak. The result is a distortion of the picture and of truth as some of the "pieces" of theology simply don't fit into the truth about Jesus of Nazareth or his followers or what they both believed to be "truth." But without a prior and substantial knowledge of Second Temple Judaism one reads the New Testament as if everything in it belongs to the story of Jesus. Simply said Jesus and his Apostles could not believe much that is taught in the New Testament and would consider it blasphemous.
As stated before just because something might be "new" to you and that you have never heard it taught before in your church, or never read of such, does not invalidate it as "truth." Before one says "I don't agree" one needs to evaluate what is being said and give such a fair hearing. That means you have to read and study yourself to see beyond your comfortable experience. To do otherwise makes one an authority based only upon his experience, and I dare say our experiences are often quite lacking as a validator of truth. To admit that a man or woman has 1% percent of all knowledge is ambitious to say the least. Quite often in that 99% of knowledge unknown to such a one can be opportunities unlimited to learn truth he at present does not possess. Humility is a vital part of learning and helps balance the natural instinct to defend what we currently know. We may think we have the "truth" because we have emotions tied to beliefs, but these beliefs can and often be shown to be erroneous. We must have faith in "truth" not our experience. Emotional validation is a poor substitute for "truth."
Not to the point at hand. While there was a great number of sects dueling for authority in the first century among "believers", three principal ones command the attention of the student, the Pauline, the Petrines, and the Johannines, or the followers of Paul, of Peter, and of John; a division which is maintained, in a measure, to this day. The Eastern or Greek Church preferred John (Soxomen, Eccl. Hist., vii. 19), and the Western, Peter. The later divided at the time of the Reformation, and the Roman Catholic body maintained the authority of Peter as the only lawful head, while the Protestants now follow Paul. The doctrines which Protestant clerymen preach so much (predestination, foreordination, sanctification, and similar ones) are Paulisms, Jesus never having taught them. The contrast between Peter and Paul raged fiercely in the early days immediately following Jesus, and each was vigorously supported by factions. Paul was the apostle of uncircumcision, and of the Gentiles; Peter, of circumcision and of the Jews. Paul wished to "carry Christ" to the Gentiles and still allow them them to be Gentiles. Peter said if they become Christians they must also become Jews, be circumcised, and do as the Jews did in the ceremonial. In those days Paul was not recognized as a lawful teacher of Christianity, nor was he for more than a hundred years (Bronson C. Keeler, A Short History of the Bible, Kessinger Pub. Co, Montana, USA., p. 40). In those days, if Peter should come back to earth and advocate circumcision, baptism before every Sabbath and Festival, continuance of Temple sacrifice, and the strict observance of the Jewish ceremonial, he would not be permitted to preach in any Christian church, Catholic or Protestant. People do not realize how far from primitive Christianity and the real beliefs and teachings of Jesus and the Apostles they have gone.
Paul said, if any one, even an angel from heaven, preached any other gospel than he did, that person should be accursed (Gal. 1:8). You may not know this but Paul, in writing this verse, was writing against the Apostles and the Jerusalem Church! He claimed authority as an apostle equal to that of the apostles at Jerusalem. But they had been appointed by Yeshua in person, or, eleven of them had been, and they had elected a twelfth to fill the place of Judas (Acts 1:15-26). Peter superintending the process; while Paul had appointed himself; and for him to claim to be their equal was something to which they could not submit. That is why Paul defends his self-appointed Apostleship continually in his Epistles. Paul asked, "Am I not an apostle?" (I Cor. 9:1). And James and the other Apostles said he was not. Revelation (a Johannine and therefore an anti-Pauline work) says, referring to Paul, "And thou has tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and has found them liars" (Rev. 2:2). Paul claimed that he and his followers were still Jews, even if they did not practice circumcision (2 Cor. 11:22 ff.), but Peter and his friends denied it, and Revelation, again thrusting at Paul, says, "I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but the synagogue of Satan (Rev. 2:9); and "them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews and are not, but do lie" (Rev. 3:9).
Answer for yourself: Hard to believe? Well you need to study something other than the biased and forged New Testament if you want the truth about the Early Church.
Paul conceded that he had caught some of his followers by being crafty and using guile (2 Cor. 12:16):
The Strong's Number for guile is #1388 dolos- craft, deceit, guile
In an Epistle generally acknowledged of Pauline authorship we find his self-admission of being deceitful in teaching Christ.
Answer for yourself: In Paul spreading "his gospel" do you think the Holy Spirit approved of his "deceit"?
Paul though that if he had misrepresented as to his apostolic authority, since good had come of it, no harm had been done. I wonder if God believes the end justifies the means?
Paul's early spirit as a persecutor appears when he wishes that those anti-Paulines who troubles the Galatians were cut off (Gal. 5:12). He once met Peter in Antioch, and an open conflict occurred (Gal. 2:11-21). Contrary to redactions history in the New Testament Peter was right and Paul wrong! Paul was teaching against the Covenant stipulations for non-Jews and when the men from James appeared the Church disbanded and left Paul alone.
The Ebionites, one of the most powerful of the early sects, rejected Paul, and said he was an apostate from the law (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., i. 26). The Clementine Homiles attach him bitterly under the name of Simon Magus. They reject his Epistles entirely. Justin Martyr rejected him, and scarcely made notice of his writings. Hegesippus would not use his Epistles, and said, substantially, that he had falsified Scripture (Davidson, Canon, 115). Whether you know it or not Paul consistently misquotes the Old Testament for his advantage. Those not well versed in the Jewish Scriptures seldom notice this since the Septuagint is a purposeful mistranslation of the Jewish Masoretic Text by the Greek-Jewish Phythagorean and Buddhists of Alexandria, Egypt, and the Septuagint served as the base for Paul's quotes. Rather strange that Paul would misquote the Jewish Scriptures that Jesus used as taken from the Hebrew don't you think? The Paulines, on the other hand, rejected the Epistles to the Hebrews, which Christians now attribute to Paul, and they also rejected Revelation (Ibid., 118).
The followers of Valentinus were Paulines (Clem. Al., Strom., viii. 17), as were those of Marcion; those of Basilides were Petrines (Ibid., ). The Cerinthians opposed St. John (Westcott, On The Canon Of The New Testament, p. 273) as well as Peter and Paul (Epiph., Haer., xxviii. 2-4).; the Simonians opposed Peter (Westcott, On The Canon Of The New Testament, p. 273), the Ophites rejected St. John and St. Paul (Ibid., p. 282). They were snake worshippers (Webster's Unabridged Dict., "Ophite"), and claimed to have derived their doctrines from James the brother of Jesus (Hipp. Haer., v. 7). Another sect, the Donatists, held that there were no virtuous people in the Christian church except such as belonged to their sect, and required all who joined them to be re-baptized (Webster's Unabr. Dict., "Donatism"). Jerome was bitterly hostile to Origen's views, even accusing the latter, substantially, of heresy (Ency. Brit., "Rufinus"). Rufinus adopted Origen's theories, and Jerome, who had been Rufinus' dearest friend, loaded him with the most terrible reproaches, until the quarrel became the scandal of the Church in that time (Ency. Brit., "Rufinus").
It sounds strangely to hear persons in these days express a desire to "return to primitive Christianity, when all was peace and love." There never was such a time. Therefore, understanding the above, one must understand that within the New Testament are competing and conflicting sect's beliefs all rolled into one and the average Christian reads the "whole" of the New Testament as if this was given by God and tries to fit the conflicting pieces in one whole theological system. Thus many current beliefs held by Christians are simply wrong and unfortunately one's conduct is often determined by such false beliefs and forgeries and you never know unless you study. We have fallen that far from the faith of the early Jewish believers who knew Yeshua personally and what he truly taught.