This is going in the pre-1900 section, although some parts of it could apply to post-1900 as well...
What if there were significantly different Biblical canons?
The Catholic Bibles contain the Apocrypha, while the Ethiopian church has something called The Book of Jubilees and the Mormon Bibles have the Book of Mormon and some other writings as well. However, all the Bibles used by all the major Christian denominations have essentially the same 66 books in them.
I'm thinking of something more radical. Here are some ideas:
1. Paul's epistles not included. He was not one of the Twelve and some claim contradictions between his teachings and those of Christ or His other followers. 2 Peter, which refers to "our dear brother Paul" and implies that his writings are Scripture, might need to be removed as well.
This need not be an ancient POD. A relatively-new group that calls itself "Liberals Like Christ" believes that Paul was a false prophet. See http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/index.htm Some modern scholars believe 2 Peter was not actually written by Peter the Apostle, so perhaps a modern church might try to "prune" the canon.
Paul need not be considered an evil fraud though--he could simply be an earlier Ante-Nicene Father (writings are wise, but not on the same level as Scripture).
2. Different Gospel Narratives. Other stories of Christ's life in addition to or replacing the Four Canonical Gospels. Here I don't know so much, other than there is a "Gospel of Mary Magdalene" from the 2nd-3rd Century which is rather Gnostic, plus the "Gospel of Thomas" and the "Infancy of Gospel of Thomas" (which includes charming stories such as the child Jesus pushing a bully off the roof and then raising him from the dead).
3. Modern Add-Ons.-What if the writings of a more modern (ie non-First Century) leader were considered canonical?
I had the odd notion of a group believing CS Lewis to be a prophet raised up by God to defend Christian doctrines against Nazism, Communism, scientific naturalism (I'm thinking Dawkins-esque extremism here; I'm not being anti-science), and other sorts of ideologies/philosophies of the 20th Century that tend to undermine Christianity, but someone earlier would have a greater chance.
A somewhat-close OTL example is the Seventh-Day Adventists, who believe Ellen White to have been a prophet, but I think they rank her writings below the 66 canonical books--her stuff is accepted only if it doesn't contradict, as opposed to including it as canon and trying to figure out how to harmonize it with the others. The Mormons likewise, although they claim the BoM itself is very old (the golden tablets)--I think the "Doctrines and Covenants" and "Pearl of Great Price" are by Smith or Young themselves, although I do not know for sure.
4. Surviving Gnostics-IIRC the more Christian of the Gnostics used the canon of Marcion, which included Luke and Paul's letters, but not the OT and some other NT books. If Gnosticism survived longer and in a more organized form, this might work.
Bonus points if multiple canons circulate simultaneously from as early a point as possible. Some churches might deny Paul and base their teachings on the Gospels, James, and Acts (the Liberal Like Christ group), while others might draw from the Gospel of Thomas in addition to The Big Four.
I'm sure this would make theological debate more interesting, and considering how church and state often get intertwined, it might affect more than just academic affairs.
What if there were significantly different Biblical canons?
The Catholic Bibles contain the Apocrypha, while the Ethiopian church has something called The Book of Jubilees and the Mormon Bibles have the Book of Mormon and some other writings as well. However, all the Bibles used by all the major Christian denominations have essentially the same 66 books in them.
I'm thinking of something more radical. Here are some ideas:
1. Paul's epistles not included. He was not one of the Twelve and some claim contradictions between his teachings and those of Christ or His other followers. 2 Peter, which refers to "our dear brother Paul" and implies that his writings are Scripture, might need to be removed as well.
This need not be an ancient POD. A relatively-new group that calls itself "Liberals Like Christ" believes that Paul was a false prophet. See http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/index.htm Some modern scholars believe 2 Peter was not actually written by Peter the Apostle, so perhaps a modern church might try to "prune" the canon.
Paul need not be considered an evil fraud though--he could simply be an earlier Ante-Nicene Father (writings are wise, but not on the same level as Scripture).
2. Different Gospel Narratives. Other stories of Christ's life in addition to or replacing the Four Canonical Gospels. Here I don't know so much, other than there is a "Gospel of Mary Magdalene" from the 2nd-3rd Century which is rather Gnostic, plus the "Gospel of Thomas" and the "Infancy of Gospel of Thomas" (which includes charming stories such as the child Jesus pushing a bully off the roof and then raising him from the dead).
3. Modern Add-Ons.-What if the writings of a more modern (ie non-First Century) leader were considered canonical?
I had the odd notion of a group believing CS Lewis to be a prophet raised up by God to defend Christian doctrines against Nazism, Communism, scientific naturalism (I'm thinking Dawkins-esque extremism here; I'm not being anti-science), and other sorts of ideologies/philosophies of the 20th Century that tend to undermine Christianity, but someone earlier would have a greater chance.
A somewhat-close OTL example is the Seventh-Day Adventists, who believe Ellen White to have been a prophet, but I think they rank her writings below the 66 canonical books--her stuff is accepted only if it doesn't contradict, as opposed to including it as canon and trying to figure out how to harmonize it with the others. The Mormons likewise, although they claim the BoM itself is very old (the golden tablets)--I think the "Doctrines and Covenants" and "Pearl of Great Price" are by Smith or Young themselves, although I do not know for sure.
4. Surviving Gnostics-IIRC the more Christian of the Gnostics used the canon of Marcion, which included Luke and Paul's letters, but not the OT and some other NT books. If Gnosticism survived longer and in a more organized form, this might work.
Bonus points if multiple canons circulate simultaneously from as early a point as possible. Some churches might deny Paul and base their teachings on the Gospels, James, and Acts (the Liberal Like Christ group), while others might draw from the Gospel of Thomas in addition to The Big Four.
I'm sure this would make theological debate more interesting, and considering how church and state often get intertwined, it might affect more than just academic affairs.
Last edited: