Saturday, March 24th | 8 Nisan 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

May 21, 2013 2:17 pm

Why Christians Were Denied Access to Their Bible for 1,000 Years

avatar by Bernard Starr

Email a copy of "Why Christians Were Denied Access to Their Bible for 1,000 Years" to a friend

Max Liebermann's 'The 12-Year-Old Jesus in the Temple with the Scholars'.

The Council of Nicaea called by the Emperor Constantine met in 325 C.E. to establish a unified Catholic Church. At that point no universally sanctioned Scriptures or Christian Bible existed. Various churches and officials adopted different texts and gospels. That’s why the Council of Hippo sanctioned 27 books for the New Testament in 393 C.E. Four years later the Council of Cartage confirmed the same 27 books as the authoritative Scriptures of the Church.

Wouldn’t you assume that the newly established Church would want its devotees to immerse themselves in the sanctioned New Testament, especially since the Church went to great lengths to eliminate competing Gospels? And wouldn’t the best way of spreading the “good news” be to ensure that every Christian had direct access to the Bible?

That’s not what happened. The Church actually discouraged the populace from reading the Bible on their own — a policy that intensified through the Middle Ages and later, with the addition of a prohibition forbidding translation of the Bible into native languages.

Yet, a different model already existed in Judaism. Dating back to the Exodus, Moses ordained public readings of the Torah, according to Jewish Roman historian Flavius Josephus: “…every week men should desert their other occupations and assemble to listen to the Torah and to obtain a thorough and accurate knowledge.” That practice later became standard in synagogue services, in which the Old Testament (Torah) is read over a year in sequence, covering the entire Bible. In fact, as a practicing Jew, Jesus read the weekly parsha (section of the Torah) at the Sabbath services that he regularly attended: “And he went to Nazareth where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up for to read” (Luke 4:16).

Since the Church sequestering their sanctioned Bible from the populace makes no sense, I was not surprised that some readers bristled when I recently wrote about the historic prohibitions against Christians reading the New Testament on their own, or worse, translating the Bible into a native language. One called me a liar. That too was not surprising. A few years earlier I gave a talk at an American Psychological Association meeting and afterwards lunched with a group of young Christians, some of whom also challenged my statements about the Bible prohibitions. I later sent them references documenting my claims, but never heard back from them. I’ve always wondered how they reacted to the citations I sent, which included:

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned…”

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to “…helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence.” For this “heresy” Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council’s decree “Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River.”

Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.

While I was writing my book “Jesus Uncensored: Restoring the Authentic Jew,” it became increasingly clear to me that there was another more potent motive for keeping the New Testament out of reach for Christians: to conceal the Jewish foundation of Christianity and Jesus’ lifelong dedication to Judaism and Jewish practices.

Would the newly established Church want converts to know that Christianity began as a Jewish sect and that Jesus was a thoroughly dedicated practicing Jew who never suggested the launch of a new religion? Would the Church want it revealed that Jesus lived and died a dedicated Jew, as observed by Christian writer Jean Guitton in his book “Great Heresies and Church Councils”?

Jesus did not mean to found a new religion. In his historical humanity, Jesus was a devout Israelite, practicing the law to the full, from circumcision to Pesach, paying the half-shekel for the Temple. Jerusalem, the capital of his nation, was the city he loved: Jesus wept over it. Jesus had spiritually realized the germinal aspiration of his people, which was to raise the God of Israel…

Wouldn’t Church officials also want to conceal that the disciples, led by James, the brother of Jesus, and Peter, continued to maintain their Jewish identities but made Rabbi Jesus the centerpiece of their Jewish practices (Acts of the Apostles). Later, Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, initiated a rift between his brand of Jewish Christianity and the teachings of the Jerusalem-based disciples of Jesus. That divide eventually drifted toward increasing separation of Christianity and Judaism. But Jewish converts to the new Jewish Christianity continued to worship in synagogues, a practice that was still proliferating as late as the fourth century. The vicious “Homilies Against the Jews” by Saint John of Chrysostom (386-387 C.E.) make that clear. Why would the Bishop of Antioch, and later Archbishop of Constantinople, spend so much time and energy excoriating Christians for continuing to attend synagogues and participating in Jewish practices? The Church was clearly stepping up its attack on Judaism to enhance and expedite a total break with Judaism. To accelerate that process the charge of “Christ Killers” against Jews was stepped up as well. The “blood libels” — the accusation that Jews ritually murdered Christian children to extract blood for religious practices — is evidence of the intensification of attacks against the Jews.

But there was that pesky New Testament, a thoroughly Jewish document, as Anglican priest Bruce Chilton has noted: “It became clear to me that everything Jesus did was as a Jew, for Jews, and about Jews.”

If Christians had access to the Bible in its entirety, not only the limited editions that the clergy presented, they might have noticed what leaped out at me: The word “Jew” appears 202 times in the New Testament, with 82 of these citations in the Gospels. The term “Christian” never appears in the Gospels at all, for the obvious reason that there was no Christianity during the life of Jesus — only Judaism, in which he and his family, disciples and followers were immersed. Readers of the Gospels might also have noted that when Jesus wasn’t addressing the “multitudes” (of Jews) he was teaching in synagogues and was attending Jewish holy day celebrations. And his disciples called him rabbi. Since the Gospel writers couldn’t keep Judaism out of Jesus’ life story and ministry — without the Judaism there would be no story — they invoked the ban on the Bible while Christianizing Jesus with selective and edited stories that they conveyed to the public.

The Christianizing process, along with erasing Jesus’ Jewish identity, continued throughout the Medieval and Renaissance periods. It is dramatically illustrated in classical artworks, in which Jesus and his family show no trace of a connection to Judaism. In this ethnic cleansing of Judaism they are pictured as fair-skinned Northern Europeans living in palatial Romanesque settings surrounded by later-day Christian saints and Christian artifacts and practices — images completely alien to their actual Jewish lives in a rural village in Galilee.

But today, in a new era of reconciliation, Christians and Jews are recognizing the strong connection between the two religions. Some Christians are adopting Jewish practices like the Passover Sederand the Jewish marriage ceremony under the chuppah (canopy), and couples are signing the ancient Jewish ketuba (marriage contract). Others are visiting synagogues to relive the experience of Jesus.

Several years ago 170 Jewish scholars and leaders from all four branches of Judaism issued a statement calling on Jews “to relinquish their fear and mistrust of Christianity and to acknowledge Church efforts in the decades since the Holocaust to amend Christian teaching about Judaism.”

When Timothy Dolan returned from the Vatican after his elevation to cardinal in 2012, he appeared on the popular TV show “The View.” Barbara Walters, one of the hosts, playfully said to the affable Cardinal, “I’m crazy about you. I’m thinking of converting. Do you take Jewish girls?” Dolan responded, “My favorite girl of all time was Jewish.” “Who is that?” Walters asked with a surprised look. “Mary” Cardinal Dolan answered softly. His casual remark suggests that the celebration of common ground can trump doctrinal differences.

Bernard Starr is a psychologist, college professor, and journalist. He is author of Jesus Uncensored: Restoring the Authentic Jew, which is available at Amazon (grayscale and color edition), Barnes and Noble, and other major outlets.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Jews are not the people of the Bible. They are not Israelites. History and archaeological artefacts prove this.

    Jews are miscegenated Canaanite/Edomite/Turko mongrels. They are the premier bastards of the plant behind all the mass immigration into White European countries. Look up Barbara Specter

    They admitted to Yahshua Christ in John 8 that they were never held in bondage to no man.

    ” Edom is in modern Jewry.” – The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1925 edition, Vol. 5, Page 41.

    “Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a ‘Jew’ or to call a contemporary Jew an ‘Israelite’ or a ‘Hebrew.'”

    (The Jewish Almanac, Compiled and Edited by Richard Siegel and Carl Rheins (New York: Bantam Books, 1980) p. 3.)

    “… the large majority of surviving Jews in the world of Eastern European, and thus perhaps mainly of Khazar origin. If so, this would mean that their ancestors came not from the Jordan but from the Volga, not from Canaan, but from the Caucasus…and that genetically they are more closely related to the Hun, Uigur and Magyar tribes than to the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”

    (Arthur Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe, Random House, 1967, p. 17).

    • LArryB

      Anyone who converts is jewish for life and all their children. If your mother is jewish then your jewish. But if your father is jewish and your mother is not, then you are not jewish. Forget DNA and everything else.

  • jerry hersch

    A literate society is a mobile society..

    It was the power of the elites..the nobility and the wealthiest merchants that wished for a society of classes/ immovable feudal structure.
    They did all they could to foster the illiteracy that could keep the masses in bondage.

    • jerry hersch

      Can you have a minyan without literacy ???
      At the very least it means a bare minimum of 10% literacy.
      Literacy and the love of learning are hallmarks of the Jewish people-A mobile society that could never for long be held in bondage.
      What are the roots of the Freedoms we cherish ?…Could the roots be found in the very literacy of the People as well as the writings themselves.

  • Grace

    So I’d just like to say that re Paul and the rift with some of the other apostles, one of the reasons if not the main reason why that happened was because they were teaching that God’s grace alone couldn’t save them. That persons still need to be circumcised and follow Jewish practices in order to be saved.

    In Galations 2 from about verse 11 to 21 (which can be read from here to save you the trouble of finding it it says that Peter was being double-minded which caused the leading astray of others. I think its a pretty good explanation as to the rift.

    With regards to a SECTION of the church (and I say section deliberately because even though the Catholics were the major organized (and as far as I know) only legal church which existed at the time in the region, their actions does not reflect all Christianity. Yes, they hid several things from the public’s view, their motives were less than pure (the most neutral term I could probably use is misguided); however, even though Jesus came PRIMARILY for the Jews, He came for ALL. Both Jews and Gentiles alike. There is a reason why we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. Gentiles, some who may never even have heard of Jews (so yes I’m speaking about all the Gentiles who have ever lived) much less their practices, may not even know about the Jewish law which was to be practiced by JEWS.

    Yes, Jesus was a Jew. Yes He practiced their customs. But that was BEFORE He died. When He died, He became the FULFILLMENT of the Jewish law. That’s why its called the NEW Testament. The old one “is finished”. The law before could not save persons. Which is why they still had to offer up sin and purification offerings to God. Jesus became the one COMPLETELY BLAMELESSLY PURE sacrifice that God accepted for ALL people for all time afterwards. Accept His sacrifice and be saved through faith. We are made righteous and holy through Him alone. Which is why we can’t boast except of His works in us.

    To then teach that cicumcision is still required would then strongly imply (yes i know, its “political correctness”) that Jesus came for naught. His sacrifice is enough. His grace sufficient. We were never justified under the law. It was even called a slavery system (paraphrased). If the law was what saved, then Abraham was damned. But it i said that he was counted righteous by his faith in God. His grace, with faith. Is the ONLY thing which can save us. the ONLY sacrifice God will now accept.

    But let me also say that faith without works is dead. (and when i say work, i don’t mean the law). God gave us commands to feed the sick etc. Tell of His redemptive love. His one-time offering for all. But that doesn’t mean we can’t follow what some of the Jews did and still do (some of them, seeing that there are sects). However, we must not do the ones which would be offensive to God, such as sacrificing animals. He did that for us, once, and it is the only one which will be accepted. things like that. Just make sure that the PRINCIPLES of the new covenant with God and His people are not broken.

    The reason that the Phars and Sads (couldn’t bother to spell it out) couldn’t recognize Jesus was because they didn’t see the PRINCIPLE of the law. Nor that Jesus did not change the principle of the law, but was the fulfillment and a ushered in a new manifestation of God’s principles.

  • Jesus went to Jews first..He said a prophet was not welcome in his own home. Then he said go to vgentiles because they freely accepted who Jesus is…Sos Jesus went on a mission with Paul for the gentils to be taught. He also teaches that we are a branch that is grafted in. Ido keep some of the Jewish customs and wonder about others.I let God lead me.

  • Daniel Paul K

    Th statement “New Testament,is a thoroughly Jewish document,that everything Jesus did was as a Jew, for Jews, and about Jews.” is certainly right. Jesus came to warn the Jews that their kingdom and temple are going to be destroyed and Jews are going to be scattered all over earth as prophesied by all other prophets. By saying ” Son of man is going to be handed over to gentiles and he will be killed and on the third day he will resurrect ” Jesus predicted the death and resurrection of Israel and not his own death and resurrection.To prove my argument I have written a book “Truths hidden in the gospels revealed “(not yet published). I handed over copy of my to a Rabbi whom I respect and love most for his examination but he refuse to examine my book for his own reasons. Would you please show magnanimity to examine my views? Then please contact me in my email address:

    • Grace

      And to “Daniel Paul K” (didn’t want to mess up the name) it wasn’t ONLY for Jews. Yes He came for them, but salvation is also for all. One reason I say this is the vision that Paul had of all the animals which were deemed unclean in the old testament by the Lord. The result, call no man unclean. Also, with Jesus and the lady at the well. He spoke of giving her water that would make her never thirst again. Of worshipping freely in one place (if I remember correctly). And darling, He was speaking of His death. Where in the Bible do you see where Israel will DIE and then be RESURRECTED in three days? Please point me to it so that I can see it. I’ve seen where Israel will be scattered and put to shame. And then eventually they will be redeemed. -But not of their DEATH and RESURRECTION. He was speaking of himself. -As happened shortly after.

  • The only beef I have with this is it blames the apostle Paul, himself a Jew, for starting this rift. Christ appeared to Paul, after the temporary setting aside of Israel’s prophetic program, with the revelation of the mystery. Paul was an apostle and bearer of revelation as much as the 12 were. The twelve confined their ministry to Israel and agreed that God had given to Paul a special ministry and message to the Gentiles.