The Bible, translation, different versions, etc, or, A brief history of the evolution of the Word of God
In 1535, Myles Coverdale printed the first complete English language Bible. One year later, his friend and mentor William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating, printing, and distributing an English language version of the New Testament. Like his mentor Tyndale (and their mutual friend Martin Luther), Coverdale had embarked on a career of defying the Roman Catholic Church and the secular authorities who enforced its will in order to supply his countrymen with the words of the scripture in their own comprehensible tongue.
Coverdale based his Bible's New Testament on the very work for which Tyndale had been executed, and its Old Testament on the translational work of Martin Luther. Significantly, Coverdale's Bible included the 7 (deutercanonical) books that Luther had rejected as inauthentic scripture and the basis of bogus Catholic doctrines. Here Coverdale set a precedent that would be imitated by English Bibles until the late 19th century. While initially his work was considered the heresy of an outlaw fringe element, its very antiquity (vis-Ã -vis much later generations) would eventually come to lend it a certain authority. Thus it was followed or imitated by Protestants who wanted nothing to do with Catholic doctrines -- even though Coverdale's work retained the texts that supported them.
Meanwhile, in his role as the outlaw fringe, Coverdale must have expected to spend the rest of his days dodging Tyndale's fiery fate. And yet a mere 3 years after Tyndale's execution, Coverdale received a royal invitation from King Henry VIII -- the same King who had allowed Tyndale to burn -- to help create the very first official English language Bible.
Ironically, although this new English language Bible, called The Great Bible, would draw most of its New Testament from the outlawed work of William Tyndale, Tyndale himself would continue to receive public condemnation. In 1543 Parliament officially banned his New Testament version as a "crafty, false and untrue translation".
King Henry's new Great Bible and his break with the Roman Catholic Church did not put a permanent end to Protestant persecution in England. Catholicism made a brief comeback during the reign of Henry's daughter, Bloody Mary (who had at least 275 Protestants burned at the stake, including the Archbishop of Canterbury himself). In response, Coverdale fled to Switzerland where he would meet another group of highly influential Protestant scholars, among them John Calvin, John Knox, William Whittingham, and John Foxe. Together they pooled their skills to produce the Geneva Bible, the Bible eventually carried to America by the Puritans and the Pilgrims. Mary's attempts to destroy the Protestant faith ultimately birthed the book that would later aide its spread.
During the subsequent reign of Queen Elizabeth I, this Geneva Bible was widely printed and became so vastly popular that even William Shakespeare relied upon it. All scriptural quotes used by the Bard were drawn from the pages of the Geneva Bible. Despite its popularity, it was not destined to become the official Bible of the Anglican Church. Until 1611, this role was filled by The Bishop's Bible, a revision of the Great Bible created by Coverdale for King Henry.
By 1545 the Roman Catholic Church had accepted the reality that the new Protestant faith could not simply be stamped out through burnings and threats of eternal damnation. As powerful kings and princes sided with (and protected) the Protestant heretics, the Catholic hierarchy was forced to add new tactics, attempting to compete rather than simply condemn. Via the Council of Trent (1545-1563) the Church proposed reforms designed to trim back the excesses of corruption that had fueled the Protestant Reformation in the first place. However they refused to make any concessions on doctrine and in fact made a large show of threatening excommunication to those mouthing Protestant ideas.
In 1582, they finally responded to the desire for an English language version of the Bible -- a need that Protestantism had been filling for nearly 50 years -- by publishing the Rheims New Testament. The Douay Old Testament followed it in 1609. Protestant scholars rejected their efforts, claiming that the "new" version was riddled with the same old inaccuracies as the Latin Vulgate.
Not wooed back into the flock by these changes, the Anglican Church instead commissioned its own new and "authoritative" English language Bible. The joint work of 50 different scholars, this King James Authorized version (so called because it was done at the request and approval of King James) was heavily influenced by the earlier English versions as well as by the old Latin Vulgate version and by the politics of the day. That is, while the King James Bible was (and sometimes still is) hyped as a definitive work, the result of fresh, original and expert translation, it was actually engineered to retain much of the content and feel of earlier English Bibles. It was shrewdly understood that this would lend it a sense of authenticity and authority, in the eyes of readers already familiar with these earlier versions.
Thus, although the King James Bible would eventually become the darling of Protestants of many nations, it still contained many of the errors that Protestant scholars had derided in the Latin Vulgate. Some of these errors were of course more significant than others, being deliberate doctorings carried out by the Catholic Church in earlier centuries, while others were simple slips in translation.
However, the King James Bible also retained errors from other versions of the scriptures, such as the New Testament version translated by Erasmus. For example, the authorized KJV version of Acts 8:37 reads, "And Phillip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God". This passage can only be found in the margins of a particular manuscript of Erasmus' translations, and not in any earlier translations of this same scripture -- whether done by Erasmus or anyone else. Even translations passed down through other early branches of the Christian Church (such as the Coptic, the Syrian, etc.) show no sign of it. More importantly, this error would continue to haunt later versions of the Bible and be accepted as an authentic part of the scripture.
Such errors only serve to highlight the fact that when we speak of "The Bible", especially when invoking it to justify moral conventions or legal rulings, we must at the very least qualify our statements by noting which Bible we are referring to. The entire history of the Bible cautions us against treating any single volume or edition of scripture as unbiased holy writ, the direct and literal word of God.
Meanwhile, there remain those groups and individuals who would like us to believe that their favorite version of the Bible is the Bible, the one true Bible. Some Christian Fundamentalists, for example, would like us to believe that the old authorized King James Version is the Christian Bible. They imagine that the so-called errors which it contains are not errors at all but rather incidents of divine intervention, corrections made by God himself through human agents. The fact that the text of the King James authorized version differs from earlier text fragments transcribed closer to the actual time of Christ troubles them not at all.
On the other hand, the idea that the Bible can continue to evolve, continue to be updated and presented in newer, even allegedly more accurate versions, troubles them deeply. Perhaps because they sense that such revisionism takes the Bible toward a "slippery slope" where fag hate and sexism and the compassionless slaying of the enemy (yea, even their women and their children and their beasts) all becomes but an ugly memory. Heaven forbid Christians should start loving their neighbors and recalling that, as Clement of Alexandria put it, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is... there is liberty, for All things are pure to the pure."
While some American religious conservatives continue to champion the authorized KJV, the KJV was not the Bible of America's spiritual forefathers. In fact, when the Pilgrims arrived in the New World, what they bore with them in 1620 was the Geneva Bible. The KJV had not yet gained wide popularity in England at the time of their departure, and in addition, the Geneva Bible contained copious marginal notes (300,000 words, or 1/3 of the total text). These notes of explanation and spiritual instruction seemed ideally suited to families planning to raise their children in a distant wilderness.
But due to the strong Calvinist leaning of these same marginal notes (Calvin did help construct the Geneva Bible after all), the Geneva Bible was deemed seditious by King James. In fact, ownership of the Geneva Bible, which had been so popular during the reign of Elizabeth, was made a felony. In the face of such intolerance (for their preferred brand of Christianity), the Puritans and Pilgrims set off to the New World to construct their own community of worship, free of Catholic "impurities".
Ironically, John Adams, second president of the United States, wrote: "Let not Geneva be forgotten or despised. Religious liberty owes it most respect." Anyone who's ever read the Scarlet Letter or other works (historic or literary) regarding America's early spiritual communities knows that "religious freedom" was less about tolerance and diversity than about finding the elbow room to set up your own religious community in order to practice the "correct faith" and persecute anyone who tried to disagree with you within earshot.
Nonetheless, nothing unifies a people like a common enemy. And Americans found a common enemy (and became Americans) during the Revolutionary War. Religious bickering and bloodshed was forced to take a back seat to patriotic bickering and bloodshed. Significantly, during the war's embargo on goods imported from England, many Americans ended up switching Bible brands, from the Calvinist Geneva Bible to the Anglican King James Bible which was suddenly the only version available for purchase. During the embargo Americans were forced to buy Bibles printed in the colonies, and at the time, there were none. So Robert Aitken stepped up to the plate and began printing up scores and scores of the King James bible, making it the very first (English language) Bible to be printed in America (an act for which a grateful nation, via George Washington, later commended him).
Eventually, thanks in part to Aitken's timely provisioning, the KJV grew very popular in the U.S. Supposedly, improvements in typesetting within Isaac Collins' 1791 edition of the KJV further fueled popularity. But although the King James Bible is now in wide usage in the United States (and abroad, as carried by missionaries), the KJV we know today is not the same book that was authorized by King James himself. As a matter of fact, in 1769 the KJV was radically revised. It was not only given updated spelling, typography, and more modern language usage, but it was also philosophically revised. Word choices which de-emphasized the role of mankind's free will were replaced, shifting the emphasis back to a more Catholic emphasis on the feasibility and importance of redeeming works.
As people continued to clamor to understand just what the heck the Bible said (and meant), even more "new and improved" Bibles began to dot the religious landscape:
1885 Revised Version published.
1901 American Standard Version published.
1945 Knox Bible published.
1946 Revised Standard Version published.
1966 Jerusalem Bible published.
1970 The New American Bible and The New English Bible published.
1978 New International Version published.
1982 New King James Version published.
1988 New Revised Standard Version published.
1989 Revised English Bible published.
2002 English Standard Version (ESV) published.
Naturally these Bibles varied as to the extent and purpose of their defining improvements. Outwardly, the goal of each new version was to make the "real meaning" of the Bible more available to modern readers (seemingly a much simpler goal now that no one was being beaten or burned at the stake for it). But it would seem there is often a hidden agenda -- namely to revamp an old version of the Bible and pass it off as something "new". The purpose is to win over new adherents to the old religious agendas and points of view.
So, for example, although the English Standard Version (ESV) is sometimes touted as a wholly new and authoritatively accurate translation -- the preface even claims that "the ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible" -- some feel it should be viewed as the old King James Bible dressed up in new clothes. Critics charge that far from being a new translation of the Masoretic Hebrew Bible (i.e. the pre-Catholic version of the Old Testament), it in fact trots out the same old Septuagint material that has been with us through all the Catholic versions of the Bible into the authorized King James Bible.
Given that the hype for the ESV may sucker in casual Christians and curious spiritual seekers shopping for a new, unbiased, and more linguistically correct text of the Bible, one cannot help but speculate whether this whole misrepresentation was not a deliberate attempt to lure moderates and liberals over to the KJV-thumping radical conservative camp. (In point of fact, it might have been more honest to bill the ESV as the "Fundy Bible for the New Millennium".)
It is also worth noting that ESV is not the only Bible trying to con this same demographic group (young educated moderates, etc.). In fact, Fundamentalists themselves point out (quite gleefully) that the NIV (New International Version) Bible is trying to dupe spiritual seekers into swallowing the legitimacy of Catholic dogma by dressing up the old Catholic Latin Vulgate as a fresh, scholarly and unbiased translation when in reality it is not.
Regardless of what one thinks of such claims, there have always been political motives for publishing "new and improved" versions of the Bible (and claiming that they are more authentic that past versions). But at the same time, language is always evolving: the translation that delights one generation will utterly perplex their descendents 400 years later. Newly updated translations really can clarify content and meaning.
However slavish devotion to old versions can hamper such revision. For example, compare the following passages:
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. ... Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
(New International Version. I Corinthian 13:8)
with...
Love will never come to an end. Prophecies will cease; tongues of ecstasy will fall silent; knowledge will vanish. For our knowledge and our prophecy alike are partial, and the partial vanishes when wholeness comes. ... At present we see only puzzling reflections in a mirror, but one day we shall see face to face. My knowledge now is partial; then it will be whole, like God's knowledge of me. There are three things that last for ever: faith, hope, and love; and the greatest of the three is love.
(Revised English Bible. I Corinthian 13:8)
The first passage is obviously murkier, more difficult to decipher. Though it was generated quite recently, this version of the Bible (The NIV version) still retains some of the riddle-like quality that led readers to seek a new edition in the first place.
Still, as much as we might prefer the smooth flowing text of the REB version (the second passage), it is important to remember that all modern attempts to represent the Bible via shining new translations from "the originals" really cannot do so -- no matter how honest their intentions. The texts of the Old and New Testament simply no longer exist in their original forms. All anyone has to translate from are copies of copies of copies. Furthermore, we know unequivocally that these texts have been tampered with and altered over time. And we know that alterations and errors were introduced both accidentally, through scribal errors, and intentionally for political or ideological reasons.
Therefore, no amount of retranslating the remaining fragments of those antique copies will allow us to view the original texts as they were written and intended to be read. Nor should we mistakenly confer on them some kind of false authority and accuracy simply because they are so old. In short, they are not old enough! By Christian reckoning, the longest-lived Apostle died about 19 centuries ago. Therefore, texts which are only 16 centuries old should not be assumed to be accurate records of his thoughts and deeds, nor those of Jesus.
And even less legitimacy should be accorded to the Latin Vulgate (created 500 years after Jesus' time) or the King James Bible (created 1600 years after) -- especially when each has been shown to contain glaring discrepancies of significant doctrinal importance.
How then are Christians to know the true message of Christ? For some the answer has simply been to fall back on tradition -- to trust that what was passed down for generations must have some authority (despite the folly of this approach, as discussed above). But for others, there have been some exciting developments in the last century that give hope that we may be able to piece together Christianity's earlier (and more authentic) message through comparing current and historic versions of the Bible with newly discovered fragments, such as the Gospel of Thomas and other works from Nag Hammadi, the Secret Gospel of Mark, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other similar finds.
Additionally, current methods of literary analysis may allow religious scholars to read more deeply between the lines to draw out messages implied or suppressed, but never stated. For example, some scholars believe that by comparing various New Testament texts they can discover subtle clues to unlock various mysteries and uncertainties present within existing fragments and versions of the Gospels. Material that was once deleted (to discard or cover up various points of doctrine) may be restored in this way, further illuminating the original Christian scriptures. Of course, barring this, one could just wait for Armageddon and the attendant Second Coming of Christ. Given the way things are going, we might not have very long to wait for the big guy to come and set the record straight.
He who begins by loving Christianity better than Truth will proceed by loving his own sect or church better than Christianity, and end by loving himself better than all. -- Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834)
* * * *
A New Testament
The Rise of the Christian Church
With the rise of the Christian Church as an entity unto itself, a new era in the formation of the Bible had arrived. There were once numerous texts in circulation among the various Christian communities, including various Letters, Gospels, and Acts of the Apostles that are not included in modern Bibles. Naturally the party line parroted by the Roman Catholic Church and various Protestant sects is that all these texts were simply silly, worthless drivel (or worthless yet harmful heresy), correctly removed from the Bible by right-minded religious leaders acting on divine inspiration.
Originally there were roughly 25 or 30 variations of the Gospels alone, but by the time of the Muratorian Canon (180 AD), only four of these were included among the scriptures of the Bible -- Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. The criteria for inclusion were:
* The text must not contain heresy. Heresy included anything that the dominant factions within the church disagreed with or saw as a threat to their own ideology.
* The text should uphold the authority of the Apostles. By extension, any text which contradicts the alleged views of the Apostles must be discarded.
* Texts should validate and even encourage the Christian zeal for martyrdom.
While the last criterion may seem a bit arbitrary and bizarre to some, it actually does make a certain sense, considering that Christianity was an underdog evangelical religion. If people shunned Christianity because it might get them killed, the religion would wither and die out. If people saw dying for the cause as exhilarating (and a ticket to Heaven), they might be more willing to sign on -- regardless of the consequences.
The Martyrdom of Saint LawrenceTexts that didn’t make the cut included the Acts of Peter, Paul, John, Andrew, and Thomas, the Letters of Clement, Barnabas, and The Shepherd, as well as many, many others. Certainly some of the texts have been deservedly shunned. Riddled with impossible anachronisms, absurd contradictions, and other easily detected inaccuracies, they were obvious forgeries.
One famous example to fall in this category is the Gospel of Barnabas. Although Church records do note an early Gospel of Barnabas having existed in the 6th century, the famous Gospel of Barnabas was an 14th-century Muslim apologetic forgery. That is, it was written to explain away those aspects of Jesus and his works that were offensive to Muslims, and to bring Jesus into line as a minor prophet in contrast to the later Mohammed. (In the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus refers to Mohammed as the greater of the two whose shoelaces he is not worthy enough to untie.)
On the other hand, some of the deleted books were written with great authenticity and contained no actual heresy, but they made the Church look bad by mixing honest doctrine with ideas that might appear foolish or shocking. For example, the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians was originally included as part of official Church scripture but was later deleted -- the objection being that Clement likens Christ's resurrection to the rising of the Phoenix from its own ashes. This might have been fine had he referenced the Phoenix as a mythological being, but instead he refers to it as a real bird that existed in the physical world. Readers might draw the conclusion that Christ and his miracles, also referenced by Clement, had no more reality than the imaginary Phoenix.
Scroll from Qumran Additionally, some books were proved to be pseudepigrapha, meaning they pretended to be an additional account of some well-known biblical character, or they were written in imitation of a pre-established biblical author. Examples include The Assumption of Moses, The Books of Adam and Eve, and The Testament of Abraham. Many such texts had once been treated as authentic scripture handed down from antiquity, when in fact they were of relatively recent origin. Such books are generally given away by their anachronisms, referencing events or cultures that had not yet occured or come into existence at the time when the book allegedly written.
It is worth noting that not all scholars agree as to what is and is not pseudepigrapha. For example, there are still some who argue in favor of including The Assumption of Moses as authentic scripture. At the same time, there are books of the Bible that are currently counted as authentic scripture even though they are filled with suspicious discrepancies and anachronisms. Clearly, the basis of selection is less than rational and objective.
The early Church was an institution rife with dissent and political factionalism. Different groups sought to put forth their own vision of Christ as officially vetted Church teaching. Later, the political and ideological entity that emerged as the official Church (and the official state religion of Rome) sought to suppress rival viewpoints and alternative perspectives. Thus many books were removed from the Bible simply for the sake of political maneuvering or spiritual small-mindedness.
The Gospel of Peter, for example, was struck for the following heretical passage: "And they brought two criminals and crucified the Lord between them. But he himself remained silent, as if in no pain." In the minds of Church leaders, the assertion that Jesus showed no sign of pain could have been used to back up Docetae assertions that the body of Jesus was not material (i.e. of flesh and blood), but rather a mere phantom or spiritual projection. The text was therefore excluded from scripture. Meanwhile modern scholars protest that the passage actually aligns with references in Isaiah 53:7 about the silence of the "suffering servant". Hence, Christ's supposed silence during the crucifixion could more rightly be viewed as a testament to his forebearance and his obedience to his "heavenly father".
Ironically, as much as Church leaders (and followers) would like to believe that they were guided by the hand of God in all such decisions, one cannot help but wonder if, in reality, it is the "hand of God" that is redressing their deletions as more and more chance discoveries lead to the recovery of suppressed scriptures. Thus the Gospel of Peter finally re-entered public awareness after a portion of it was discovered in a codex buried with a monk in Akhmîm, Egypt in 1886. This serendipitous find would foreshadow the later discovery of the Gospel of Thomas in Egypt in 1897. Fragmented, the Gospel of Thomas would not be more fully known until 1945 when a complete version in Coptic (an Egyptian language written in Greek derived alphabet) was discovered at Nag Hammadi. (Note that later, in 1958, the caves of Qumran yielded up the oldest Old Testament scrolls ever found, as well as other writings which date to the same era as New Testament works.)
Gospel of Thomas, Greek ManuscriptWhen it was discovered, The Gospel of Thomas greatly intrigued religious scholars as it differed markedly from the canonical gospels handed down by the Church. Unlike the Gospels of Luke, Matthew, Mark, and John, it does not attempt to tell the story of Jesus' life, but rather shares a collection of his sayings. These aphorisms were apparently collected by the apostle Thomas during his time with Jesus and in some instances represent "inner teachings" which Jesus shared -- perhaps exclusively -- with him. The Gospel of Thomas presents a mystical, one might even say metaphysical, side to the teachings of Jesus, placing an emphasis on inner knowing (i.e. through direct attunement to God via the spirit self). No doubt this encouragement to seek spiritual guidance within the self was threatening to Church leaders, who naturally wanted to be in control of spiritual doctrine and, through it, the way in which people acted.
Jesus said, "The Pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge (gnosis) and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed entering those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."
It would appear that the situation Jesus described was little changed by the advent of a new religion and a new religious hierarchy. Fear and the lust for power were as much a part of the gentile world as the Jewish world. The new (Christian) set of priests and scribes simply took the new set of scriptures as well as the old ones, blurring the very knowledge they were supposed to pass along.
Unfortunately it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss all of the deleted or excluded texts. In point of fact, there are enough suppressed gospels, lost books, and hidden letters for their discussion to fill several books and websites. But we would be remiss if we did not give mention to the one text that surely gave early Church fathers fits, or at least those of them that knew about it -- the Secret Gospel of Mark.
Much maligned since its translation, the work has been vilified not for any explicit doctrine but for what might be implied and inferred from the little that is included in its remnant pages. To begin with, the fragments of the Secret Gospel -- and the letter in which it is contained -- point to the teachings of Jesus being two-fold. That is, that the public teachings, only vaguely described in the Bible, were accompanied by private teaching, available only to select individuals through private initiation.
More specifically, it is possible that some of these inner teachings involved a more "sexual Jesus", and that the man who inspired millions to a life of chastity may have incorporated sex into his initiatory techniques. Whether or not this is so, the Secret Gospel of Mark certainly echoed the anti-authoritarian Gospel of Thomas, in that it undermined adherence to religious tradition and encouraged living outside the box. By contrast, the later Christian Church (first Catholic and later Orthodox and Protestant) would emphasize -- upon pain of death -- the absolute necessity of conforming to "tradition" and to the will of those with the power of safeguarding and defining it (whether Pope, Presbyter, or Anglican King).
Additionally, the official teaching of the Church emphasized that the Kingdom of Heaven was either a) far off in another dimension (a place where the souls of the worthy would go upon bodily death) and/or b) that the Kingdom of Heaven would become present on Earth only at the End Times -- that is, after a great Apocalypse (as portrayed in Revelations) and the Judgment Day.
By contrast, both suppressed Gospels, as well as tidbits from within the sanctioned Gospels, imply that according to Jesus, the Kingdom of Heaven is here now. However, to access it -- to experience it -- would require a change of perception, a shift in the beliefs that would allow an ensuing shift in perception (and thus in daily life experience).
Jesus' actual words, "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" are cited by Modern scholars as a key example of how the teachings of Jesus could be, and were, taken in different ways by different people. St. Clement, from whose letter the scrap of Secret Mark was lifted, comments that there were secret, inner teachings, intended only for those being "perfected"; meaning those who were sufficiently advanced to receive them.
With the passing of Jesus, or perhaps with the passing of the original Apostles (though the Gospel of Thomas implies that most of them had been too dense to comprehend the inner teachings anyway), the possibility for individuals to be initiated into these teachings directly appears to be lost. If there continued to be those among the Church able to conduct such teachings, we as members of the public at large don't hear about it. And certainly, the teachings of most Christian leaders don't betray a philosophy such as is pointed at by the Gospels of Thomas and Mark.
Writings treating this matter exist only in recovered fragments (such as Clement's letter, the Thomas materials from Nag Hammadi, etc.) that hint at the Church's suppression of such doctrines.
With the death of the Apostles, the power of the Church became more and more centered in the Church in Rome. Official doctrine was solidifying; at the same time heresies sprang up as Christian communities sought a more meaningful understanding of their faith. It is as if a vacuum existed, as if they themselves found the mainstream remnants of Jesus' teachings to be insubstantial and insufficient -- as if something more, some further explanation or doctrine were held back from them.
But as each community added on its own additional practices and explanations, it put the Church as a whole in danger of fragmentation. Additionally, in the eyes of Church leaders, commissioned by the Apostles, to add such "filler" is to deviate from what was directly handed down from Jesus and to lose the genuine legacy. Even to emphasize the fragments of teaching captured in the written Gospels, they claimed, is to deny this legacy. Precious little of what was handed down orally from Master to Apostles to community had been transcribed.
Finally, in response to these threats to Church stability and legacy, Clement wrote, "Let us cease to make vain searches, let us come to the glorious and venerable fixed rule (canona) that has been handed down to us." In other words, even if what they've got seems sketchy or dubious, they must stick with it because it's all they've got -- or at least all that is fit to be shared with the mob. To add anything not directly handed down through official channels, from Jesus to the Apostles to the Bishops, is to risk going terribly astray. Meanwhile, Church leaders like himself deliberately withheld the fullness of Jesus' teachings, as unfit for the masses.
Martyrdom of ClementAs the power of the Roman Church became centered in the person of Clement, and later in his successors, this attitude and approach to doctrine (emphasis on orthodoxy and conformity, suppression of inner teachings) formed the foundation of what would eventually become the Roman Catholic Church. It is this body which would eventually wield astonishing power over the dissemination and distortion of both the Old and New Testament. In addition, through its eventual reign of bloody terror (both before and after the Inquisition), it would profoundly shape and delimit the minds of the Christians regarding the content of the Bible, it's inherent message, and appropriate reaction and conformity to that message.
Interestingly enough, another factor that may have helped shape this outcome of secrecy and suppression was the violent effort of the (pagan) Roman Empire to stamp out the Christian movement. This effort, which escalated after Nero scapegoated the Christians for a devastating fire in 64 A.D., may have effectively wiped out many who were familiar with the earliest doctrines of Jesus and the Apostles, leaving interpretation of the teachings more profoundly to the martyrdom/doomsday cult of Clement and his Catholic successors.
* * * * *
Etc.