A different Biblical canon.

Ari Bellerose

Ari Bellerose

As a non-religious Christian, I find it awesome to speculate the possibilities of an alternate Church from the one we know today. Obviously, the formation of the canon of the Bible is a very important part of Church history, but what if the canon we know today was so very different (larger or smaller, doesn't matter) that the entire scope and scale of Christianity in an alternate 2017 was changed? I'm gonna post my thoughts on this here, and anyone interested can do the same.

Questions I'm looking for to be answered are:

1. What books might have been added to the canon?

2. Do the two Testaments as we know them even exist?

3. What would the criteria for adding to the canon be in this ALT?

4. How would the alternate New Testament affect the Old, and vice versa?

Keep in mind that the earliest POD I'd like to use here would be 240-370 A.D. Thanks for any and all replies.

m 2.png
 
Last edited:
Basileus444

Basileus444

By 400 the canon was established so having a different canon with that late of a POD would be difficult. However even then one easy change would be for Revelation to not make it into the Bible. It only got in by the skin of its teeth and only with serious reservations. If Augustine of Hippo came down against it altogether (IOTL he only approved of it on the grounds that it not be taken literally but metaphorically) I can see it not making it in. I believe it only became part of the Eastern Orthodox canon after 1000. Furthermore if you want a later development, Martin Luther was extremely skeptical of Revelation and in his earlier years was inclined to throw it out. Later he changed his mind but a POD where he doesn't could be arranged.

Now for effect on Christianity, I personally think the removal of Revelation is a net boost, but then my description of it is a 'genocidal, revenge-crazed acid trip', so I freely admit I'm biased.

It removes a lot of apocalyptic ammunition for religious wackos (Branch Davidians, I'm looking at you) and a lot of inspiration for anti-Semitism (a Christian tradition has it that the antichrist will be Jewish). I'm pretty sure, but not certain, that the imagery of Hell as eternal burning torment is exclusive to Revelation.
 
The Professor

The Professor

I believe the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches have the widest net on canon. Essentially Old Testament (the Prophets) Canon, New Testament (the Apostles) Canon, the Apocrypha, and Catechism (Doctrinal Commentary/Interpretation). The Apocrypha being books that are close to either Testament but whose provenance is difficult.
To create a new Christianity you need a particular dogma and then prune the texts accordingly.
 
Ari Bellerose

Ari Bellerose

I've edited the original post to make divergences easier. ^see above^

What would the likelihood of the Shepherd of Hermas being placed in the canon before, say, the Book of Revelation? I've heard that even though it was relatively popular in its day, by the time of the canon's formation, few (at list in the bishopry and presbyterium) considered it an inspired work. It was, however, in one edition of the Vulgate; what was the reasoning for that?

Another text of interest to me at least is the Didache. If I gave it an early date of the late 1st century, would it be canonized on merit or popularity, or left out like in OTL?
 
LSCatilina

LSCatilina

The Epistle of Barnabas could have been without major troubles, be included in the Canon, if it wasn't that borrowing on other apocrypha.
As for the Shepherd of Hermas, its popularity strikes me as relatively short and mostly in some regions as Italy, when not so much in Alexandria or Carthage that had a more important role for what matter defining canonicity : it was part of the Vulgata partially because, while an apocrypha, it was seen as a good text akin to a scripture.

Incidentally, I wonder about the possibilities of a "semi-Canon" definition : all the texts you can't really put into the core Canon, but that you can't throw away without second toughts (including Revelations, Barnabas, Shepherd, ...)
 
JonasResende

JonasResende

Basileus444 said:
Furthermore if you want a later development, Martin Luther was extremely skeptical of Revelation and in his earlier years was inclined to throw it out. Later he changed his mind but a POD where he doesn't could be arranged.
Click to expand...

It wasn't JUST Revelation (although the Petrine version would be more fun IMHO - it would be like putting the Divine Comedy in the Bible), tack the books of Esther, James and Jude (i.e. anything with a remotely pro-Jewish gist that seems to not conform with the Pauline letters and the Gospels).

That said, Marcion was the cause of why they drew up the Canon in the first place. A stronger Marcionite movement could see several books being discarded because they're regarded as tainted.

The cut-off date OTL for whether to regard texts as gospel or apocryphal was the mid-2e century IIRC. So anything dating AFTER that needs a Hell of a reason to make it into the canon. Alternatively, if the cut-off date can be set later or earlier, we might see a different canon forming. If NO official canon exists, it could even be regarded as fluid (for a time).
 

Mongo

I wrote a post years ago on this board that sounds applicable to this thread:

This may be slightly off-topic, but several years ago I put together a list of texts that I would personally include in my version of the New Testament canon. Most of the existing books are included, but the list included 15 additional books, and excluded 8 of the currently-included books. The books I had excluded were:

2 Thessalonians
2 Peter
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Jude
Philemon
Apocalypse of John

The first six epistles on the list are very probably forgeries, and include the so-called Pastoral Epistles, which hold an attitude toward women that is very different from, and much harsher than, that held in the genuine Pauline epistles.

Philemon is a genuine Pauline epistle, but was regularly used as a justification for slavery.

The Apocalypse of John is a pure abomination, included in the canon for political reasons. I believe that it has done more damage by far than any other book in the canon. It's nothing but an extended spewing forth of hatred and twisted revenge fantasies, and is utterly foreign to the actual Christian message.

On the other hand, here are the 15 additional books I would prefer to see in my version of NT canon:

1 Clement
2 Clement
Philippi
Diognetus
Odes of Solomon
Gospel of Thomas
Acts of Thomas
Apocryphon of James
Gospel of Truth
Sentences of Sextus
Teaching of Silvanus
Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
Shepherd of Hermas
Questions of Bartholomew
Didache

The full canon I imagined is this:

PART ONE : (GENUINE) PAULINE EPISTLES
1 Thessalonians
Galatians
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Romans
Ephesians
Phillipians
Colossians

PART TWO : CATHOLIC EPISTLES
1 Peter
1 Clement
2 Clement
Philippi
Diognetus

PART THREE : SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
Gospel of Mark
Gospel of Matthew
Gospel of Luke
Acts of the Apostles

PART FOUR : (GENUINE) WRITINGS OF JOHN
Gospel of John
1 John
2 John
3 John

PART FIVE : JEWISH-CHRISTIAN TEXTS
Odes of Solomon
James
Hebrews

PART SIX : GNOSTIC TEXTS
Gospel of Thomas
Acts of Thomas
Apocryphon of James
Gospel of Truth

PART SEVEN : WISDOM TEACHINGS
Sentences of Sextus
Teaching of Silvanus

PART EIGHT : ALLEGORICAL TEXTS
Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
Shepherd of Hermas

PART NINE : MISCELLANEOUS TEXTS
Questions of Bartholomew
Didache
Click to expand...
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

Note that the Roman, Orthodox, and Ethiopian canons all differ slightly from each other (in which minor Old Testament books are included). And, of course, Protestants throw out the bits of the Old Testament that are only attested in Greek.
(Anglicans, of course, split the difference... :) )

And Mormons add a third testament, the Book of Mormon.

There were movements to dump the Old Testament from canonical status in the early Church, so that's certainly possible.

A few other books were seriously considered for inclusion in the NT, and Revelation was seriously considered for exclusion (both in the early church and by Martin Luther).
 

Brady Kj

I can imagine how different Christianity would be without Revelations. Some churches focus heavily on Revelations. But what are all these books that almost made it into the Bible?
 

Galba Otho Vitelius

"It removes a lot of apocalyptic ammunition for religious wackos (Branch Davidians, I'm looking at you) and a lot of inspiration for anti-Semitism (a Christian tradition has it that the antichrist will be Jewish). I'm pretty sure, but not certain, that the imagery of Hell as eternal burning torment is exclusive to Revelation."

Would the sort of people inspired by Revelation really stop if it wasn't an official part of the canon? They could argue that it was supposed to be part of the canon but was suppressed by the evil church hierarchy, which is done today with books that didn't make it by all sorts of people with axes to grind.
 

desmirelle

I've not heard the one about the Anti-Christ being Jewish. He's always a politician/world leader in our neck of the woods.......
 

Arkenfolm

Galba Otho Vitelius said:
Would the sort of people inspired by Revelation really stop if it wasn't an official part of the canon? They could argue that it was supposed to be part of the canon but was suppressed by the evil church hierarchy, which is done today with books that didn't make it by all sorts of people with axes to grind.
Click to expand...

They'd be inspired by other eschatology in the Bible, yes. But their doctrines would be very different. And we'd lose such brilliant literature like Left Behind too...
 
Ari Bellerose

Ari Bellerose

It couldn't be that simple to throw off eschatology with the removal of Revelation, could it? I mean, Jewish apocalyptic literature was a past time for many at the time of Jesus, it appears. That, and you can't remove the early Church's fascination with Jesus' 'coming soon' statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top