THE CANON WAS CLOSED WITH CHAINS

Written by Aremuorin / Contact / Mailing List / Linktree / Latest Post  – Let’s keep the conversation going !!!

An African-Centred Examination of Power, Alteration, and the Politics of the 66-Book Bible

Introduction: Nothing That Passed Through Empire Is Innocent

Any sacred text that passed through empire, slavery, colonial administration, and racial hierarchy cannot be treated as untouched. To insist otherwise is not faith — it is historical denial. Just like denying Mary Magdalene started Christianity so much that she was edited out and down played. We know the Ethiopian bible predates White Jesus.

This essay does not argue that the Bible was invented by Europe. That claim is too simplistic and too easily dismissed. Instead, it advances a more accurate and more challenging truth:

Sacred texts were altered in function, meaning, emphasis, access, and authority through systems of power — and the Bible, as delivered to Africans through colonial Christianity, was no exception.

From an African-centred theological perspective, nothing that justified enslavement, hierarchy, and domination is exempt from scrutiny — including canon formation, translation, and closure.

I. African Theology Begins with Power Analysis

African-centred theology does not begin with institutional trust. It begins with memory, experience, and discernment shaped by survival.

Africans encountered Christianity not as a neutral spiritual invitation, but as:

A companion to conquest A justification for enslavement A moral framework imposed through force

This reality demands a different starting point:

If a version of Scripture functioned comfortably within slavery, then its formation, transmission, and interpretation must be interrogated.

This is not rebellion against God.

It is refusal to sanctify domination.

II. Alteration Does Not Require Fabrication

Power rarely invents sacred tradition from nothing. It curates.

The Hebrew Scriptures and early Christian writings predate European empire. Yet:

Translation authority Manuscript preference Canon enforcement Theological emphasis

were controlled within political and ecclesial systems aligned with power.

Alteration therefore occurred not only at the level of wording, but at the level that shapes lived reality:

Meaning Silence Emphasis Authority

A text can survive materially while being functionally transformed.

III. Early Christianity Was African, Female, and Plural

Before Christianity was European, it was:

African and Middle Eastern Colonised, not imperial Diverse and contested

Africa was foundational to early Christianity:

Alexandria (Egypt) was one of the greatest early Christian intellectual centres (Origen, Clement, Athanasius) Ethiopia embraced Christianity earlier than most of Europe and preserved a broader canon North Africa produced some of Christianity’s most influential theologians

Women were central, not marginal:

Mary Magdalene is named in all four Gospels as the first witness of the resurrection Jesus explicitly commissions her to announce the good news (John 20:17) Resurrection proclamation is the birth of Christian witness

Later institutional Christianity preserved her presence but neutralised her authority — a pattern that repeats throughout church history.

IV. Canon Formation as Political Curation

Canon formation was not merely spiritual discernment; it was also political selection.

As Christianity aligned with empire (4th century onward), texts and traditions that:

Challenged hierarchy Elevated women’s authority Emphasised inner spiritual knowledge Threatened institutional control

were marginalised or excluded.

The Gospel of Mary is a clear example. It presents Mary Magdalene as a spiritual authority whose insight is contested by male disciples — mirroring real historical struggles over leadership. Its exclusion reflects power dynamics, not an absence of spiritual meaning.

African-centred theology recognises this plainly:

Canon closure mirrors colonial logic — fixed borders, central authority, and punished dissent.

V. Translation as a Technology of Control

Most believers do not read Hebrew or Greek. They read translations.

Translation is never neutral. It involves:

Choosing manuscripts Selecting culturally loaded words Clarifying, softening, or narrowing meaning

European-controlled translations often:

Reinforced obedience to authority (Romans 13 emphasised without resistance context) Normalised patriarchy Muted liberation themes (Exodus, Jubilee, prophetic justice)

In colonial settings, Africans received:

A translated Bible Through foreign theology Enforced by law, punishment, and violence

Even without changing ancient manuscripts, this altered Scripture’s function.

VI. Missionary Christianity and Functional Textual Alteration

Missionaries did not need to destroy Scripture. They reshaped it by:

Teaching selective verses Suppressing Exodus and Jubilee theology Emphasising submission over justice Criminalising indigenous spiritual systems Controlling literacy and interpretation

Africans were not invited into theological dialogue.

They were disciplined into doctrine.

Functionally, the Bible became:

A manual for obedience A justification for hierarchy A theological shield for slavery

That is alteration in practice — and practice matters more than parchment.

VII. Sacred Number and the Question of 66

From an African-centred theological lens, the question of why 66 books is not superstition. It is symbolic and moral interrogation.

Across African cosmologies and biblical symbolism:

7 signifies divine completeness 70 signifies restoration of nations 77 signifies boundless mercy and reconciliation

Yet the canon delivered through colonial Christianity:

Reflected discipline rather than mercy Obedience rather than restoration Control rather than abundance

African theology therefore asks:

Why did the canon that accompanied enslavement stabilise in a form that functioned seamlessly within domination rather than Jubilee?

The issue is not arithmetic.

It is trajectory.

VIII. The Problem Is Not Scripture — It Is Custody

African-centred theology does not reject Scripture.

It rejects Scriptural innocence claims.

The problem is:

Who controlled interpretation Who enforced meaning Who benefited Who was enslaved while this canon was preached

The dominant canon was not necessarily the earliest or most liberative — it was the one most compatible with power.

Conclusion: African Theology Reopens What Power Closed

To admit alteration, suppression, and narrative control is not to abandon faith. It is to refuse captivity.

Sacred texts survived. Sacred meaning was managed.

Authority was centralised. Voices were silenced.

African theology reopens what empire closed — not to destroy Scripture, but to rescue it from domination.

A faith that cannot face its history is fragile.

A God who requires unquestioned power structures is too small.

And a people whose spiritual memory was shaped under chains have every right — and responsibility — to question how God was mediated to them.

Final MercyfulGrace Declaration

Anything that justified slavery must be interrogated.

Anything that silenced African authority must be reopened.

Anything that claims divine finality while serving power must face discernment.

This is not rebellion against God.

It is fidelity to liberation.