Matthew 4:11

KJV
[11] Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

The more I think about this verse, the more inconvenient it seems to most theology. Angels drifting down to minister to Josh's wounds? Wasn't Josh supposed to face the world alone, fully human, and suffer with us?

I personally think that's exactly what Josh did. I don't think Satan or angels were thrown at Josh until long after he was dead. I have a feeling these angels have more to do with this particular story than with any biography. This was probably a legend ascribed to Josh or to some other Rabbi. The angels make for an ending to the story. Josh resists satan and is rewarded, an arc complete in itself, only later applied to this thing called a "gospel."

Matthew 4:5-10

KJV
5Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

From my Jesus to some fake Jesus. I don't like this part. These words were clearly put into the Devil's mouth, and put into Josh's mouth... the Devil making the argument for prophecy, and Jesus implying that he is God. All this makes for a completely unrealistic dialogue... it's like those awkward expository conversations in bad movies.

8Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.


Yawn, where's the poet? The Devil is being more poetic at this point. Sheesh. It's really a travesty to see this boringness put into Josh's mouth just to support some ancient orthodoxy.

Matthew 4:3-4

KJV
[3] And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
[4] But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Not counting the unfortunate John the Baptist incident, this is the first time we hear Josh speaking. This is the Jesus I'm after, a zen poet deconstructionist. Imagine that, defeating the devil with wordplay. Instead of literally changing something to bread, as requested, he figuratively transforms bread into something more spiritual. He is the lyrical gangsta.

Note also that Josh is not calling himself God at this point. Only humans can be tempted. God is the source of his sustenance. Many Christians are pushing the formula:

JESUS = GOD

as the single most important belief, the core of their religion. For me, this formulation is precisely where Christianity went off track.

Matthew 4:2

KJV
[2] And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

I believe this is kind of a template for the hermit, not that this necessarily came first. In fact, I think the hermit happened first, whether it started with Judaism or another North African religion, I don't know. I don't think anybody knows. But this meme started around 0AD of people going into the desert to get wisdom from isolation, or to seek God or gods that way.

BTW, do NOT try this at home. Forty days without food is death, and not a pleasant one.

Matthew 4:1

KJV
1Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

There's something so formulaic about this, to say what's going to happen before it happened. I suppose it adds a fatalistic tone, which in turn adds to the notion that all of this was prophesied, but I also wonder if this is copying some other form. There's some question about the [i]genre[/i] of the gospels. Is it an entirely new genre? I suppose it is, but one wonders on what genres it is based. As I've said before, they didn't know they were "gospels" when they were written. The "gospel" was probably an oral formulation, a few statements of creed, the "good news" in headline form.

Helmut Koester in his book [i]Ancient Christian Gospels[/i], supports the idea that gosepls are a new genre, especially since they have oral sources, like the formulation mentioned above and sayings sources, which distinguish them from "higher" literary traditions. But this cobbling would require literary elements as well, one of which he mentions is the prophet's biography, as we see in the Old Testament.

To me a line like verse one above clearly harkens to an older literary tradition. One just doesn't write like that unless one is trying to sound like something... something authoritative.

I think it's the strange cobbled-together nature of the gospels and the New Testament in general, that fascinates me so much, particularly since it's proffered as a document directly inspired by God.

God is a collagist! Abba is Dada!

p.s. "led up of the Spirit" is awkward. RSV and other translations have it as "led up by the Spirit." Notice another mention of the Spirit which could easily have been an idiom and have nothing to do with being one third of a trinity.

Matthew 3:11-17

KJV
11I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

12Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

13Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

14But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

15And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

16And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.


The sole purpose of this passage, imho, is to rewrite history and cast John the Baptist into a subordinate role to Josh. Instead of Josh's competitor, John is made into yet another herald of his greatness. Stuff like this can be a real turn off. Notice the overbearing nature of the dove flying down and God saying YES THIS GUY IS LEGIT. YOU WILL WORSHIP HIM NOW. Notice also how this makes no sense with Josh's behavior later, telling people to be quiet and not make a fuss over him. This, in fact, is so lame I wonder if "Matthew" even wrote it, or if it was stuck in later to settle some argument.

Is the "Spirit of God" the Holy Ghost? I looked at several translations and they all say "Spirit of God," which makes me think that this was written before any concept of the Trinity. I have a suspicion the entire Bible was written without any concept of the Trinity, but I'll reserve judgement on that as I read...

Matthew 3:1-10

KJV
1In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,

2And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

3For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

4And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.

5Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,

6And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

7But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

9And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

10And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

I am fascinated by John the Baptist. From what I've read, this guy was actually Josh's biggest competitor. Unfortunately, because he didn't get his own religion, we only have this biased account. But in these 10 verses, I wonder if we get a hint of this man. If so, it's a vivid hint.

The man must have had his followers, for the gospels do much to bring these two men together. Medieval painters would go even further, with images of them as babies together... kissing cousins.

I even wonder if John was Josh's mentor, Socrates to his Plato.

Nah... I think they never met. I think they were both rabbis with some wild stuff to say. John might even have been a trendsetter in the burgeoning monk industry, which actually started a bit before Christianity.

And if you're counting prophecies, we're up to... a lot.

Matthew 2:19-23

KJV
19But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,

20Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.

21And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.

22But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:

23And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Do you see what I see? In this gospel, Jesus isn't really from Nazareth. In fact, he seems to be from Bethlehem. The whole census thing, the whole looking for a place to stay thing, it's all missing from Matthew. In this gospel, Nazareth is an afterthought, a place he ended up due to Joseph's avoidance behavior.

But but but ... there seems to be a lot of agreement among scholars that there really was this guy Josh and he really was from Nazareth. Not total agreement, but a lot of agreement.

Matthew 2:16-18

KJV
16Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.

17Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying,

18In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.


The slaughter of the innocents, one of the few tremendous events documented in the New Testament, none of which were documented anywhere else. No accounts of a strange star, no accounts of babies being killed.

There's something disturbing, something moving, about the fact that someone would make this up. To fulfill a prophecy, to cast a shadow upon Christmas.

The source of so many paintings.

Look at verse 18 in the New International Version (NIV):

18"A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more."

This is why I use the King James. There's just no comparison.

Matthew 2:13-15

KJV
13And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

14When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

15And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

The flight into Egypt, another fantasy to connect Jesus to Moses and fulfill another prophecy retroactively, but I think people are fascinated by it... the thought of Jesus as a traveler. How long was he in Egypt? We know so little about him before he was 30.

For the greatest story ever told, it sure uses a lot of deus ex machina. Always with the angels showing up and giving everything away. Oy.

Still nothing to convince me that some actual somebody's actual life is being told here, but it's early yet. I'm still expecting/hoping to see traces of an historical man, or barring that, a literary figure.

Matthew 2:12

KJV
12And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

The wise men wisely vanish, never to be heard from again. What is this connection between Jesus and the East? There are legends about Jesus going to India, but I think the actual traveling here was not done by Jesus or by the wise men. This is about the travel of ideas. Christianity is an interesting merger of Levantine religion with Greek philosophy. Interesting that the idea of an eternal soul came from the Greeks, not the Jews.

But the East? How do those ideas come into play? I don't know.

I'm also curious what the "East" signifies to Matthew.

This is going to get more fun when we move on to other gospels and I start comparing and contrasting. :) I've forced myself into the constraint of the canonical order, and I will obey it.

Matthew 2:7-11

KJV
7Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

8And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

Good storytelling. Clearly, Herod is lying here. This is the part where you're supposed to yell at the screen and say "No! Don't listen to him!"

Did I say screen?

9When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

10When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

11And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

Here's where we get some Christmas action. But notice it's a house, not a manger. Every version I looked at said house. Notice also that it's "the house" without any antecedent to tell us what house or whose house it might be. This is a familiar feeling I get from the Bible, like I'm only getting part of the story.

But we got the gold, frankincense and myrrh! And we got that strange, traveling star, an image from a people who weren't up on their astronomy.

Matthew 2:3-6

KJV
3When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

All of Jerusalem was troubled. Why?

I like that image: troubled Jerusalem. I could imagine writing a poem called Troubled Jerusalem.

Troubled Jerusalem

The roads turn into clouds
through which
the corners of homes
are nervous elbows.

4And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

5And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

6And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

Very clever. Have the smart people tell you where the Messiah will be born before he has become the Messiah. Create a false sense of consensus. In reality, consensus is the hardest thing to find or to build.

I'll never forget when Asimov showed me how Daniel's prophecies are more vivid than the descriptions of his own period (Asimov's Guide to the Bible). Why? Because of course they wrote of Daniel's prophecies after they had already occurred. What better way to make sure they're correct?

There's something more going on here than just prophecy-making, though. It's also history-making. The writer of this gospel is picking a ruler who reigned at about the time he wants or believes his Jesus to have been born. This sort of wishful approximation leads to difficulties for historians later, when they try to think about who ruled what when and then tie it to other events. The gospel writers were not as sophisticated as the historians who would come after them, at least, not as historically sophisticated. Of course, they did create a compelling story. I mean, here we have the powerful king getting nervous about the birth of a little baby. It's like a male version of Snow White.

Matthew 2:1-2

KJV
1Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

2Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.


Here come the wise men, not "three kings" but x number of wise men from the East. We're already done with the birth, so you can start to see that a lot of the Christmas story is missing: no full inn, no manger, no December 25th. We'll see what the other gospels have to say about this.

But we do have the wise men, perfectly vague, some sort of strange endorsement. I do find it comforting to think that the opinion of the "east" is given such weight here. Eventually, disagreements between "east" and "west" would split the church in two.

This brings to mind the History Channel and whatnot trying to date a comet to this era, or some astronomical phenomenon to correspond to the "star in the east." That's crazy on so many levels. Clearly, these wise men are just an invention. Once again, what "eyewitness," what "apostle" could possibly have seen these events at Jesus's birth? Does Jesus seem the type to talk about such things? And why didn't anybody bother to catch their names? With that in mind, do you really think someone writing a gospel in 90CE knew that their was a slightly irregular astronomical event 90 years earlier? No, you make up the wise men and you make up the star that they follow.

Matthew 1:24-25

KJV
24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

In case you don't know, his name was Josh. "Jesus" is just some untranslated Greek.

So here he is, Josh. I feel for the kid. So much has been said about him before he was even born, or should I say, after he was even dead. How much did he weigh? How tall was he? What were his first words? In fact... what were any of his words?

There is someone in this Book, someone important to me, but who is he? And where is he? Is he simply the author of a few parables with a biography constructed around his words? Or is he a character, like Hamlet, sign of another great mind, like Shakespeare or God?

I don't know the answer to these questions. That's why I'm here, reading.

Matthew 1:19-23

KJV
19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

RSV
[19] and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.
[20] But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit;
[21] she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

There's poor Joseph, always so worried about what people will think of him, trying to make everybody happy... it's so easy to read so much into these words... I feel like a preacher. But Joseph is consoled by an angel. I can't help but think of the angel as representing historical revisionism. "Fear not..." they say, "for we will rewrite history and make everything shiny."

But it's not as simple as that. I feel like there's this moderate path many people take of believing Jesus's life, just without the supernatural bits. But why would only the supernatural bits be false? That's like believing that Persephone really did eat 6 pomegranate seeds, but she did it in the cellar, not in Hell.

I don't believe in any of the birth narrative. None of it. Not the place of birth, not the flight to Egypt, not Mary, not Joseph. For me, this is the easiest part of the story to dismiss. As I've said before, it is well beyond the purview of any eyewitness to relate. Instead, it's all reverse engineered from the verses that follow:

KJV
22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.


In fact, it's even stranger than that, because I don't think there was an expectation among Jews for a virgin-born Messiah. I actually think this notion was coming from somewhere else, like Egyptian cults and/or the Greeks with their randy gods inseminating maidens left and right.

And btw, what's with the Emmanuel? I don't see them calling him Emmanuel. What's up with that?

Matthew 1:18

KJV
18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.


Okay, 18 verses in and we have our first contradiction. Why describe a bloodline and then declare that Jesus didn't come from that bloodline? Weren't they worried it might impact Dan Brown's sales?

I think it's a clue to the nature of this gospel (and all the gospels). As I said before, it is not an eyewitness account, in fact it can't be called an account at all, not a single account. This gospel is an amalgam of different trends and traditions. One tradition wanted to establish a bloodline and lend authority to a Jewish audience. Another tradition wanted to take Jesus beyond Judaism and to put him above all other prophets. What we have here is a confusing compromise, containing both mutually exclusive ideas, but also a sort of textual sedimentation, a rich field for textual archaeologists.

Holy Ghost, Batman!

Right away we have a mention of the Holy Ghost, but the Bible does not define its terms, and therefore this mention alone cannot be considered evidence of a Trinity, which I will be looking for as I read, along with all the other stuff that constitutes Christian belief. Just how much of the religion is in the Bible? We'll see.

Matthew 1:1-17

KJV
1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

This is a book of Jesus Christ's generation? Other translations say "record." I'll take them at their word that this opening statement is just about the next 16 or so verses. I'm confident that "book" doesn't mean the same thing to you and me that it did to them: a large, bound collection of pages. If someone wants to explore the meaning of whatever ancient Greek word was used to mean "book," please leave a comment.

2Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

3And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

4And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

5And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

6And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

7And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

8And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

9And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;

10And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;

11And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

12And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

13And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

14And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

15And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

16And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.


The New Testament begins with the begats. The structure is a sound one. If you're going to promote someone, you start by legitimizing him, demonstrating his authority. Here, it is done with bloodlines. Of course, the only people to whom such a bloodline would matter, would be Jews. Notice what becomes obvious right away: this is no eyewitness account. Eyewitnesses see events, not pedigrees. And I'm sure whoever wrote this would be quite embarrassed to be accused of witnessing all that begatting.

But we're not just talking about a pedigree here. It's also about the fulfillment of prophecy. I find this fulfillment to be absurdly tautological, however. Not only does the author seem to be simply making up a genealogy to fill the prophecy, he's also kind of making up the prophecy, too. The early Christians picked and chose from the scriptures (eventually pinned down to the "Old Testament") to find the verses that could work as prophecies. On my to-do list is to find a book that explores what sort of Messiah the Jews of the time were actually expecting (if you know of such a book leave a comment!). We'll see later that even in the New Testament itself, the expectations were not met by Jesus.

17So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Notice the numbers game here. As with many religions, numerology is very important to the Bible. I don't have anything intelligent to say about the number 14 and numerology for its own sake holds no interest for me. It is interesting to see the Jewish milestones here: Abraham, David, Babylon. Note that the third milestone involved the destruction of the Temple, something that occurred again around the year 70 CE.

This traumatic event, and its date, are crucial to studying the New Testament and when and how it was written. The fact that this writer would make this connection to Bablyon suggests that he was writing *after* the fall. We will see other references as well, and most (not all) scholars would date this book after 70CE. Burton Mack dates it to about 90 CE. In fact, in all likelihood, the only parts of the New Testament that were written before the Fall were the original, authentic letters of Paul.

Tune in for Matthew 1:18, when we see our first contradiction. It didn't take long!

The Gospel According to Matthew

The Gospel According to Matthew is neither a gospel nor Matthew's... discuss...

Okay I'm not being entirely fair. It *is* a gospel, because... well, because we say it is. But it wasn't when it was written. The "gospel" was more likely referring to a creed, an oral formula of belief... the "good news" itself and not "a book about the good news."

The Gospels all had to be attributed to apostles to give them authority. Nobody knows who wrote this gospel, or any of the gospels. This particular one is known to be targeted for Jews, as opposed to Gentiles. Though positioned first it was most likely written after Mark, probably in the 90's, about 60 years after the events it portrays.

Together, Matthew and Luke give us the notorious "Q," a document that may or may not have ever existed. Q stands for the German word Quelle, meaning source. It is purported to be a "sayings source" documenting the words of Jesus with no story, just the dialogue, or rather, monologue. It may have been a document, or it may have been an oral tradition, or maybe there is some other explanation for the similar passages in Matthew and Luke.

You could say, "of course there are similar passages, since this is a TRUE STORY told by PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE," but it's not that kind of similarity. It appears in a hodgepodge fashion, and when it does appear, it is verbatim, not the kind of similarity that two eyewitness accounts would share.

And btw, as we go through these gospels, you'll see that they're not "eyewitness accounts" at all. Something very different is going on, something much more structured and deliberate.

The New Testament

Let's start with the title. According to Burton Mack in Who Wrote the New Testament?, the first evidence of the term comes from the second century. "Testament" is a mistranslation of diatheke, which was used in the sense of covenant (qv. etymonline). The new testament is a new promise that God makes to His people. However, it will take another couple of hundred years before it becomes the title of a book. Why? Because there was no "book" until Constantine started asking for one in the 4th century.

You see, Constantine is the first Christian Emperor, though it is disputed whether or not he was a Christian. He certainly made nice with the Christians. In fact, he turned Christianity into a unified, global religion. He called councils of bishops to codify beliefs and settle disputes (Remember the Nicene Creed? It came from the Nicene council.) and he asked his bishop buddy Eusebius to make a Bible for him, a definitive book of what's what in Christianity. The key word then was less "canonical" and more "apostolic." In other words, show me the documents that can be traced back to the apostles. One glaring leftover of this strategy is the rather absurd claim that the apostle Peter was the first Pope. Anyway, eventually Constantine got his canon, with its Old and New Testaments compiled around the same time.

Why include the Old Testament with the New one? The most important reason for this is that the New Testament wasn't "sacred" at first, it wasn't "scripture," just really cool stuff that helped define what Christianity was. The "scripture" was what is now called the Old Testament. When did the New Testament become sacred? I don't know exactly. Maybe it was a gradual process, and certainly it required that they make some decisions and finally say exactly what was in the New Testament... which is starting to bring us into the 5th century.