Vatican hid the early gospel. Why?

*** Earliest New Testament was from Edessa ***
When was the New Testament (NT) first written? Although some NT fragments date from the 2nd century, the first complete texts only date from the 4th century. The Greek Codex Sinaticus is regarded as the oldest New Testament, and that was written circa AD 370 in Greek. But what if I told you, that the earliest complete NT actually dates from AD 78? That it was written in Edessa by Achaeus-Aggai, in the Edessene-Syraic language and script? And that it still resides in the Vatican even today?
Could that be possible?
There is a mention of this very early NT by Bishop Machicha of Gesluna in Mespotamia (AD 1096-1110). The following quote comes from the 1721 Bibliotheca Orientalis by Vatican librarian Joseph Assemani. The Bibliotheca Orientalis is an index of eastern manuscripts held in the Vatican Library. Please see an image of this manuscript and quote below.
Machicha, Bishop of Gesluna. … There was a very old Gospel which once resided in the sacred household of the Roman Church in the city of Baghdad. It was from the Church at Edessa – that is Aramaic Edessa as noted down before. It is ancient but still legible, not a single iota was erased, and it could be more easily read than many modern books, but by reason of its great age ten leaves were lost. At the end was the following subscription:
Syriac Estrangelo text here..…
This sacred book was finished on Wednesday the eighteenth day of the first month of Conun (December), in the year 389 of the Greeks, in the year of Christ 78, by the hand of the Apostle Achæus, a fellow-laborer of Mar Maris and a disciple of the Apostle Mar Adaeus, whom we entreat to pray for us. Amen
Achaeus is Aggaeus or Aggai.
Mar Maris is Paulut.
Mar Adaeus is Addai-Thaddaeus-Judas-Thomas, the twin brother of Jesus.
The above are all characters mentioned in the Doctrine of Addai.
This ancient NT manuscript was placed in the Vatican Library between 1721 and 1724.
The quote indicates that this very early NT was written in Edessa by Achaeus-Aggai in AD 78, in the Edessan Syriac-Aramaic language and Estrangela script, and it consisted of 140 pages. According to theologian Andrew Roth, when the Romans took control of Edessa in the early 2nd century, the manuscript was moved to Ctesiphon in Parthia, and later to the Christian quarter of Baghdad. The manuscript was in the hands of the Rassam family who moved to Rome in 1630, converted to the Catholic Christianity, and donated the Edessan NT to the Vatican during the reign of Pope Innocent VIII. There is further mention of this Edessan NT being in the Vatican Library by Charles Richard in 1760, and by Pietro Pianton in 1858, who was working for Pope Pius IX.
Apparently, the Edessan New Testament is still in the Vatican Library. And it was written in AD 78, just eight years after the events it detailed.
This is interesting.
It places Edessa at the center of gospel history once more, for the earliest known New Testament was written in Edessa – a fact that the many Christian Churches studiously ignore. Why Edessa? Well, as I have demonstrated previously, Saul (Josephus) was an ambassador of Edessa (see Acts 11:28); Judas-Thomas came from Edessa and was buried in Edessa; while Jesus was highly likely to have been a king of Edessa. In which case, the first NT was bound to have been written in Edessa.
The composition of this manuscript supports my later chronology. When Judas-Thomas-Addai went to Edessa in the (supposed) classical date of the late AD 20s, his Edessan disciples were Achaeus-Aggai and Mari-Palut. But Achaeus-Aggai then delayed a further 50 years, before writing the first New Testament in AD 78. Why was that?
The answer from my Edessan Gospel Theory is obvious. The visit of Thomas-Addai to Edessa actually took place in the AD 50s, during the Council of Jerusalem, and the NT gospels actually detailed the Jewish Revolt of the late AD 60s. So the most reasonable decade for the compilation of these texts was in the AD 70s.
Just as Josephus (Saul) was scribbling away in Roman Judaea in the AD 70s, so Achaeus-Aggai was similarly scribbling away in Nazarene Edessa in the AD 70s. Once again, the novel Edessa Gospel Theory explains the previously inexplicable.
The problem for the Catholic Church that this very early NT represents, is that it was written in Edessa before Catholic censorship had been invented, so it could have said anything. It could have detailed many Christian heresies. Remember that the Edessan Old Syriac Sinaiticus New Testament mentioned in a previous post, was from the 4th or 5th century, while the earlier Greek Codex Sinaticus was from the mid 4th century. And this was an era when much of Christianity had been brought much closer to the Catholic canon.
But a New Testament written just eight years after the revolutionary events that it detailed, could have said anything. Remember that the 4th century Codex Sinaticus contained thousands of textural variations, in comparison with the King James Version which was regarded as authoritative at that time, including the Gospel of Mark ending on verse 16:8 instead of verse 16:20. So what might a 1st century NT have said, that had been written in the city that had known the secular Jesus? That understood that Jesus had been a king of their very city?
What might the Edessan NT have said?
Does the Vatican Library still have a copy?
See the Bibliotheca Orientalis Vaticana page 486.
A section of this page is reproduced below.
See also the extensive investigations by Andrew Roth in his ‘The Lost Gospels of Edessa’, published by Miltha House.
a. Bibliotheca Orientalis Vaticana title page.
b. Bibliotheca Orientalis Vaticana page 486. I have placed rings around mention of ‘Edessa’.
Get the latest Tap posts emailed to you daily

3 Responses to “Vatican hid the early gospel. Why?”

  1. newensign says:

    A good find Tap. I agree that the KJV has a vast number of translational errors, not least of which, was to replace the creator’s name with titles such as GOD (giver of Domain also dog spelt backwards) and Lord from the Greek BAAL. This is because the KJV translation overseen by Francis Bacon was taken from the corrupt Masoretes’ text about AD400 not long after Constantine set up the corrupt antichrist church that was to become the Catholic Church (ante-church) a corrupt church built alongside the true Culdee Church. It was probably no coincidence that one of Constantine’s names was Jesus! The word “Jew” does not exist in the original scriptures until the Edomites wrote themselves into the Bible. The word Jew was hardly used until the early 1800’s. Most of the W European bibles were translated from the corrupt text, enabling the Jews to corrupt the Western church. The Eastern church for this reason is more Jew savvy even Christ’s quotes of the OT in the NT agree more with the Septuagint. than KJV! If its ok with you Tap, I would like to put a copy of your post in the NE?