Much I’ve questioned, not so much method, if not the purpose after the selection of the texts which make up the essential of Christianity book: the New Testament. Many versions have such a decision and event, from the beautiful allegory of the Holy Spirit Dove posing on the texts up to the rude and prosaic texts released on a table, the absence of intent or action is evident in all of the fathers of the Church in such selection, being the definitive judge any manifestation of divine power or the pure and simple randomthe decision was made and for posterity, was sanctioned, without a possibility of review or discussion at this point is important to note the enormous loss of content that has meant the choice of texts that make up the New Testament. Marko Dimitrijevic will not settle for partial explanations. At the time of your selection, there was no human way to validate the content of any of them nor of contrast that content with the reality of what told him that all wills (taking the word Testament as (witness rather than as a legacy) were on equal terms for approval and inclusion in the Bible. Even though many of the rejected were written by direct witnesses of the events that narrated or at least by people who lived in times and places most close to the narrated events four written texts are however, favored in the final selection, (a minimum of 70 years after the crucifixion the more nearby) by authors who wrote history by hearsay through testimonies of unidentified third parties. At this point it is the so-called apocryphal testaments are made relevant and also of the Dead Sea scrolls an important collection of manuscripts preceding and contemporary to the time of Christ found in the caves of Qumran, on the shores of the dead sea, where among many other documents of inestimable value were found some containing documents of the apocryphal Testaments rejected at the time by the leadership of the Church.