Early Lies: Irenaus and early Church censorship

Saul of Tarsus (later canonized under the Roman cognomen, Paul [A]  [A] If Jesus existed, Paul never met him. Rather he appeared to be interested in things other, such as power and place in the Roman world.) founded the Christian Church through a series of Epistles. Saul was a violent man whom many scholars believe suffered form epilepsy, and its sometimes associated visions. Following one particular vision he the work of building a formal political structure with rules and observances. After his death the so-called Pauline school extended these rules into early canon law. Polycarp was a Pauline. (Here I differ from the traditional view that he was a Johanine, which I would suggest is historically inaccurate. His epistle to the Philippians, Papias’s writing, Polycarp’s church in Philippi was Pauline, and so on to me clearly indicates Pauline leanings. ) At any rate, whilst the Church considers Polycarp important as the primary apistolic link between the 1st and 2nd C CE, I feel this is incorrect. To me Polycarp’s only importance was that as the Bishop of Smyrna circa 110 CE he took on a student, Irenaus.

First, it should be said that Polycarp was what today one might term a ’hard-liner’. He believed the outer form of (i.e. the formulaic) the teachings of Christianty, teaching and proselytizing against anything other than his own interpretations of truth. In this, as a Pauline, he mimicked Saint Paul’s example. An example which he passed on, in all of its fanatical demagoguery to his student Ireneus. Ireneus hoped aboard the fanaticism train most willingly, writing that all right thinking Christians must accept the doctrinal authority of episcopal councils. Councils to which, in what must have been a coincidence, he was a leading member. All other ideas and interpretations of Christian thought were, he said, heresy. Especially - and this is the important bit - gnosticism. For the gnostics taught, as did the Gathas, the Essene (of which Jesus was purportedly a member), and more that no priests or priesthood was needed. Rather everyone could without intermediary find God within their own hearts. No tithes, no exercises, no prayers - just persistence. For gnosticism means direct knowledge.

All of this of course, was anathema to those such as Ireneus who were trying to build a political structure (with themselves at the pinnicle) based upon dogma. Their dogma. And so Irenaus used a form of historical revisionism which has worked very well for some well placed clerics ever since - he lied. He made up and/or misrepresented beliefs contrary to his own system, particular in regards to gnosticism, its beliefs, and its teaches throughout his writings and talks. For example, he persecuted Valentinus, the originator of the idea of the so-called ’holy trinity’ of the godhead and of personal redemption (in God, not a church) regardless of the ’sins’ that a person had committed. Irenaus’ crusade against Valentinus led eventually to the destruction (book burning, banning of discussion of his ideas, excommunication, etc.) of all of Valentinus’ works.

Irenaus’ greatest travesty however, was to convince the Bishops to expunge gnostic writings as well as many other works about Jesus’ and Jesus’ ideas from the Christian canon. He, along with Tatian’s Diatessaron, became prime movers in the expunging of much of early Christian writing. Instead at Irenaus’ urging, four canonical books were select for what later became the so-called ’New Testament’ of the Christian holy book - the Bible. These four canons consisted of 21 books which over time became the main parts of the so-called New Testament. Irenaus excluded Philemon, John, Peter, James, Hebrews, and Jude. And of course all of the gnostic works, all of the contrary histories, and so on. The items he did include were according to an number of modern studies, probably written/modified/abridged by several dozens of people, as well as in part likely sources from the so-called ’Q’ document, now lost. Some believe ’Q’ was in part a collection of Avestas.) At any rate, the loss was very real, resulting in a collection of mythological nonsense as well as some small modified quotations of what Jesus may have actually said. Had he existed - since sadly, there is no historical evidence whatsoever of him (Josepheus’ reference has been long know to be a poorly faked forgery.

Back to Irenaus: What was lost? All of the Nag Hammadi. All of the joy and beauty and Truth of the Gospel of Thomas, fortunately archeologically rediscovered in our own time. But the Christian Bible, written from around 100 CE to 323 CE then further censored and modified by the First Council of Nicea and subsequent Councils), incorporated none of this. All that was left was the selections of Irenaus and his pals who insisted that all must bow before doctrinal authority of episcopal councils - that is to say, be subservient to the church and the teachings of the church, rather than find god as Jesus is purported to have said, within their own hearts. That the four chosen canons should so closely resemble the Avestas is surly no accident - Polycarp, Irenaus, and others at the time knew such teachings and their popularity well. That the gnostic teachings of the Gospel of Thomas and others should have been suppressed is surely also no accident - for their teachings were not compatible with a hierarchical political system of thought which these Bishops so desired.

And so by the time of Emperor Constantine, the first Roman Emperor to accept Christianity, there was general agreement as to which major writings were accepted as part of the highly censored, editited, and abridged Church canon. These works were later to become known as the New Testament.

During Constantine’s reign, Eusebius Pamphili became Bishop of Caesarea Palaestina (near modern day Tel Aviv). Eusebius was a learned man, a respected author, and a very mediocre historian. He was part of the 325 CE debate at the Council of Nicaea (in present day Turkey). The worthies there ostensibly met to decide if Jesus was the literal or figurative ’son of God’. Apparently this was not a joke (at least to the attendees). And so after a debate Pythonesque in its hubris, the decision was made to favour the literalists. But what was really going on was decisions upon what writings and thought would, and which would not, be incorporated not merely into religious canon, but more importantly into Church teaching and orthodoxy. This new orthodoxy described Jesus in a manner strikingly similar to the Mithraic descriptions, and became known as the Nicene Creed. Translation: They deified Jesus. Before Nicea many (most?) Christians believed Jesus to be a prophet or specially gifted person. After Nicea they had to believe that Jesus was divine. Had to? Indeed - Emperor Constantine a Christian convert (of sorts - there was a lot of politics involved), declared that anyone disagreeing with the Creed would be subject to exile and all of their writings to be committed to the flames. And so for example, Arius’ many works of Christian thought were publicly burned. Many were excommunicated. Many thinkers and theologians exiled for life. And much written work lost to history. (This was an early example of what became a millennia-long happy policy of burning scholarly or other works with which the Church hierarchy disagreed. Oddly they often disagreed with writing which questioned their authority. Fortunately as the Church evolved from this rather barbaric view, they turned from burning books to burning the authors as well. Murder was a popular pastime amongst early church elders.)

At any rate Eusebius was tasked by the Emperor to deliver several (some say as many as fifty, depending upon source) Christian Bibles to Constans, the Emperor’s son. Now, there are no extant copies a New Testament prior to the full-of-errors Muratorian fragment from (perhaps) the 4th c CE. All we have therefore came after Eusebius’ task of hiring scribes to put together these Bibles for Constans. Eusebius certainly was an orthodox believer. He was a Bishop. He was present at the Nicene debates (although he may have leaned toward Arius’ views). And he was as his writings show, completely in accord with Irenaus regrading considering gnosticism to be heresy. So what an opportunity the Emperor had given him! To combine the Nicene Creed, Irenaus’ selections of ’appropriate’ works, and the expunging of all contrary ideas from Arius to gnosticism into a New Testament of his own editorial selection, cementing and perhaps even expanding upon Irenaus’ work.

Oportunity or not, his work was passed down through the centuries. Of the estimated hundreds of books and writings concerning Jesus available in Irenaus’ time, a mere 80 remained by the 17th c CE. The Protestant (ie. ’Protesting Catholic’) Reformation which began with Martin Luther (brother of Superman’s arch enemy Lex Luthor) and ended in the 18th c CE, left a mere 66 books. These became the body of the much purged and poorly translated ’King James’ Bible, sadly now the only thing the majority of those calling themselves Christians ever see. For example, the Epistle of Barnabas the beautiful book of Hermas with its discussion of direct contact with God, were removed. The final (so far) censorship of this already highly edited, revised, political work came in the 19th c CE, when the British Archbishop of Canterbury removed the Apocrypha (Deuteronical books) from the Christian Bible.

The result of all of this, which began with Irenaus has been almost 2000 years of revisionism for various political ends. What remains is a book based religion. That is to say, something from which the beauty, self-inquiry, and intelligent pursuit of ultimate Truth pointed to by say, the Gospel of Thomas, has been utterly expunged. Very sad.

Read on...