Who bound the Bible Canon?
We learn from the Bible itself that the Hebrew books were defined by the '
sons of the prophets'. The New Covenant books were
written and made into a canon directly by the disciples of Christ.
'
Bind up the testimony, seal the law (teaching) among my disciples.' Isaiah 8:16. This shows how God's books are regularized for use.
A Council or Assembly of the original disciples certified and bound the teachings of the prophets and law-makers. This explains why many ancient Hebrew books including those found among the Dead Sea Scrolls are not in the Hebrew Bible. It explains why infancy gospels and fake apocalypses were long excluded from the Greek Bible. Dr
Ernest L Martin set out the facts on the canon cogently in his book:
Restoring the Original
Bible. It is available at
Askelm.com .
The idea that the books of the canon were not certain for centuries is pure fantasy. So is the idea that the Roman church defined the canon around 400 CE. At that time Romans were ignorant of both Greek and Hebrew! They persecuted and killed anyone who did. The church of Constantine and the Council of Nicea in 325 were fiercely antisemitic.
The Catholic canonization is a propaganda fairy-story coming from sectarians who wanted the ignorant world at large to believe that only their group, sect or church had these extraordinary divinely given powers.It is a fantasy full of holes. Those who believe it might consider the theory that the Nazis helped propagate the Talmud.
It takes less than a century for many other such people to forge fables and myths to confuse and corrupt the original message. Who could possibly know the truth? What qualified one person to be a judge, and another to be disqualified? Anyone's opinion was as good as another's. History shows that the centralizing church in Constantinople banned at that time the most erudite and learned people. The "Christian" Roman emperors there wanted wanted a centralized church obedient to them!
The presumption that only in the late fourth century did the Roman Catholic
Church alone define these books for ‘Christianity’ is patently absurd. By then Rome was in conflict with other patriarchal areas like Alexandria, Egypt. Egypt was pretty corrupt but was Greek-speaking.
Athenasius, a politician and orator, who was partial to Greek philosophy, and was himself banned at least four times for heresy or politics, knew enough Greek to defend the Greek scriptures. Rome however wanted to change them.
The rest of this church was already persecuting and killing any one who knew Hebrew! Jerome was forging his own translation into Latin which hid or distorted much of the meaning rather than explain the Bible. The scam lasted more than a millennium!
One book by Erasmus in 1516 exposed this fraud. Printing an accurate Latin translation of the Greek showed how badly translated Jerome's Latin Vulgate really was.
So how can we find the true canon?
One word in the NT explains the process of canonization. It consistently mistranslated.
It is mistranslated by Jerome. It is mistranslated in the King James Version. In fact I know of no accurate translation. That is a curious fact.
Correctly translated from standard references and classical lexicons, it would
have indicated who could, should and did define the canon. It would also
make clear that the Roman church could not have defined the canon!
The churches have been bamboozled after more than a thousand years of
Roman Catholic propaganda. The Vatican (which hated Jews, the Bible and any idea
that Christ held any office in the Temple) made sure that no one asked
questions about such Greek terms. They banned the Greek text from Europe
for five centuries. It eliminated all other translations but its own. Jerome mistranslated key Greek terms and replaced
them by nondescript Latin terms. And in the later period the Roman
Catholics made sure no one, not even its priests, understood Latin!
Why today have all the churches’ translators refused to translate this
word correctly? Self-interest and anti-Semitism may be some motives.
What is the word that explains canonization?
That word is
epistatēs. It occurs not once but seven times in the NT.
Its true translation undermines the false dogma instigated by the
imperial Roman ‘Mother Church’. It also exposes the difference between
word
church as used today and the original Greek word,
ekklesia. The
concept of
church today is as different as if the Romans had looked at a
pig in a trough and said that is what the Bible means by a horse! Many
today still can’t recognize the
ekklesia – it’s a war horse!
All of
the occurrences of Jesus being called
epistatēs are in the priestly
book of Luke which centers around the Temple (5:5, 8:24, 45, 9:33, 49,
17:33). It is addressed to his Excellency Theophilus, 1:3. Luke covers
many technical Temple matters such as the 24 priestly courses, the
Sabbath, the calendar and various other tough topics of Torah. Luke was
no gentile! (See
Luke the Priest: The Authority of the Author of the
Third Gospel by Dr Rick Strelan.)
Luke 1:3 implies the book is
written to the high priest, his ‘Excellency Theophilus’ specifically to
be deposited in the archives as a true, witnessed record of
resurrections and miracles. One vital reason was that the Temple was
under threat of desolation by the arrival of the arch anti-Semite,
Caligula, as emperor. Reacting to the Resurrection which had trashed
belief in the Roman pantheon, Caligula wanted to reign from Jerusalem
and have a gigantic statue of himself inside the Temple and every
synagogue in the Empire.
Why? He knew about and had probably read the Gospels where it said that Christ prophesied that someone claiming to be god would sit in the Temple. Caligula wanted to prove both Christ and the scriptures wrong by being acclaimed as Jupiter-god in the Temple in Jerusalem!
The title ‘Excellency’ relates to
Theophilus being the political leader of the nation. He was the high priest put
in power under the Romans. He was in office from 37 to 41 during all
Emperor Caligula’s near ethnocidal persecution. Theophilus was the son of Annas of the NT. Josephus lists him as High Priest -- the Roman designated ethnarch, the designated political Quisling of the Romans.
How do we know the Theophilus of Luke is this person who held the political office of High Priest during Caligula's reign? When Luke later wrote
Acts, Theophilus was no longer in office. Hence he wasn’t then addressed
as ‘
Excellency’ in Acts 1:1. This evidence identifies him
unambiguously. It explains what would otherwise be an affront by
omitting his title in Acts 1.
So when Luke has the disciples refer
to Jesus in the early ministry as ‘
epistatēs’ we should take special
note. The holder of that title is in direct opposition to the imperial Caesar, Caligula!
What is an
epistatēs? Nearly all translations render it ‘
Master’.
But in the Greek language it is a very precise term about a very high office.
To render it ‘
Master’ is the equivalent of going to a hospital and
referring to the chief brain surgeon as a health worker!
In fact,
one translation, the Concordant version, translates it as ‘
Doctor’! But
in that case it has the sense of Professor of Hebrew Law. (The NWT has
Instructor.) But at least the translators realized they were faced with a
special term of office. Schonfield has ‘
Chief’. The Weymouth
translation gives it as ‘
Commander’. That signification is far off from
the idea of ‘
Herr Doktor’!
So what does it mean? The word has in
fact two main senses as you will see if you check any normal classical Greek
lexicon as distinct from the Romanized ones.
One is in fact
Commander
of the city’s troops. In this sense it is equivalent, in the Hebrew
context of the Temple, to the
Priest for Warfare mentioned several times
in the Bible. (see
Jesus, James, Joseph p218 for the summary table.)
There is some linkage with the sense that contemporary Jewish writers
like Philo and Josephus use the term as
Superintendent.
The second
sense in normal Greek usage is President of the city’s ruling
Assembly.
What did the Greeks call their assembly? An
ekklesia! That should have
rung mighty bells for any honest translator. The word
ekklesia occurs
frequently in the NT. The same translators render it as ‘
church’, an
extremely bad choice. ‘
Church’ is a self-serving term for the
RC-Protestant community.
There was no such thing as their church in
the first century. There were no churches with steeples. There were no
stone cathedrals to terrify the population by their soaring
architecture. There were no crucifixes and there were no statues of
saints. Once people had all this under the fourth century Emperor
Constantine, a hierarchy of bishops under his central authority could
begin to control all the religion across the whole Roman Empire. Their
church meant all the local population meeting like pigs at their trough
in their buildings and subject to their lordship.
Attack the idea
of ‘
church,’ bishops and cathedrals and you attack the very foundation
of medieval autocracy. It would turn society upside down. In fact so
worried was King James that any translation would undermine the
hierarchy where the king not only ruled but defined the religion for the
people, that he laid down two very strict conditions for the
translators of the
King James Bible.
Firstly,
no marginal notes,
especially those that appeared in earlier versions denouncing Israel’s
evil kings. Secondly, all occurrences of the word
ekklesia should be
translated
church!
Why? Because Tyndale and the earlier translators had
had the audacity to translate the word correctly as ‘
Congregation’!
Even today you will find the Bibles of most of church committee
translations render Matt 16:18 (I will build my ‘
ekklesia’) as
church, a concept of Roman State religion.
Only those brave individual scholars like Robert Young’s literal
translation or Darby’s have ‘I will build
my Assembly’. The
Assembly of
Israel! In the first century
ekklesia for Jews meant a governmental
body, the Assembled Congregation of God’s people.
How can we be sure
what
ekklesia meant to Hebrews? It was the word used in the current
Greek Septuagint version to translate the Hebrew word
qahal, meaning the
Assembly of the twelve tribes. They met in ancient times in the Court
of Israel of the Temple. To reinstate it was part of Christ’s mission.
Christ is called an
epistatēs of such an
ekklesia. If modern churchman
translated it as something like ‘
President, professor, superintendent or
Commander of the church’ they would have a lot of questions put to
them! So what was Christ’s new Assembly?
Luke explains it himself.
In Luke 12 he says Christ created an
Assembly of Seventy. This clearly
relates to the Assembly created under Moses in the wilderness, Num
11:16f. It was composed of six men from each tribe, with two of them
staying in the camp. They experienced the power of God’s spirit in the
Tabernacle. It was a foretaste of the NT Pentecost.
Then after the
Resurrection, the 12 tribes had been forewarned to bring more witnesses.
In Acts 1:15 there were 120 from the 12 tribes, ten ‘named ambassadors’
per tribe. They came from far and wide, ‘
every nation under heaven,’
including Parthia, Rome’s rival superpower ruled by Israelite exiles,
Acts 2:5-11.
The Hebrew scriptures speak many times of the Assembly
of Israel, the
qahal.
Peter is recorded in around 37 CE as saying that
the Assembly of Seventy that Christ formed, composed of tried and honest
men, was the first real
qahal meeting all the criteria since the time
of Moses. This was, said Peter, a true sign that Jesus was the Prophet,
greater than Moses and foretold by Moses in Deuteronomy 18. Early
historians such as Eusebius record how important the Seventy were in
propagating worldwide the proof of the Resurrection.
So if the
qahal
is the real meaning of
ekklesia, what is the title that Jesus has as
its
epistatēs? Turn to a standard reference like the Oxford Classical
Dictionary and you will find that the
epistatēs ..
'
presided over the Council (boulé) and Assembly (ekklesia).'
A classical Greek reference like Smith’s
Dictionary of Greek and Latin
Antiquities will tell you that the
epistatēs was in charge of the city
treasury and public works. In the Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew
scriptures, the word
epistatēs occurs numerous times. It is translated
as Commander of the Army of Israel or as Superintendent of works in the
Temple. Those two functions describe the office of the
Sagan, or
Chief
Priest in the Temple.
But what has that to do with the canon?
The Oxford Classical Dictionary describes other attributes of the
epistatēs.
'
He held the State seal and keys. … In the Hellenic kingdoms the title
epistatēs is given to an agent of the king within a subject city who
exercises considerable power.'
Jesus held the powers of the kingdom
of heaven. The Temple seal was clearly necessary for the exiled tribes
of Israel to recognize the writings of Jesus, James and the Davidic
House. The canon is a
sealed book, sealed with the Temple seal of
David’s House.
Up to just before the destruction of the Temple, this
high post of Sagan was occupied by James, the brother of Jesus Christ.
He wrote to the twelve tribes, 1:1. After he died or rather was
murdered, we hear in early writings of the period that John, son of
Zebedee, wore the diadem of office. He clearly was empowered to close
the NT canon and its 27 books. He
sealed them.
What of the Key? The
Temple had a huge ‘
Key of David’ that was used to open and close the massive
door to the Temple fortress. Christ, according to John’s book of
Revelation, holds the Key of David on his shoulder, Rev 3:7, Isaiah
22:22. He is dressed in the robes of the
Sagan Chief Priest, the
cohen
ha-rosh, Rev 1:13.
No one other than the
epistatēs, and certainly not the paganized, gentile church of Rome could ever define the canon.
Case closed.
Did Jesus know John before this event? How much did they meet afterwards? Both suffered violent deaths.