AHC: Largest Possible Biblical Canon

[water123]

With a POD after the death of Christ, make the cannon of the Bible to include as many works as possible. My thought is to have it determined that the Holy Spirit inspires the text as you read it, thus what may seem like heresies might just not be inspired portions. Thus, you can throw in the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepard of Hermas, the Book of Enoch, several apocryphal acts and works by the church fathers, or even ancient Rabbinical commentaries or Papal or saintly contributions. T

Also, how big could this cannon get? My thought is that with enough word bending, there could be a theoretically unending cannon, with anyone who writes something that they feel is inspired and is not direct heresy could be put on some sort of catalog for the educated to be able to arrange for a copy to be distributed to, while having a central cannon of a kind that is much more widely distributed.

 

[Tom Colton]

[GNOSTIC GOSPELS INTENSIFY]

 

[Red Orm]

*canon*

I had to.

 

[water123]

[GNOSTIC GOSPELS INTENSIFY]

Which ones would go in, though? James? Thomas? Infant Thomas? Judas? Even Mani?

 

[Tom Colton]

Which ones would go in, though? James? Thomas? Infant Thomas? Judas? Even Mani?

I'd say Thomas probably given its closeness to the Gnostic Gospels, and maybe Mary Magdalene if women become more prominent.

 

[water123]

I'd say Thomas probably given its closeness to the Gnostic Gospels, and maybe Mary Magdalene if women become more prominent.

I could see the Book of Judas being set apart as an example of what can't be put into cannon, and thus most new additions are judged based on it.

 

[DanMcCollum]

Well, it wouldn't exactly make it larger, but I could see the Gospel of Thomas being included instead of John. I think its also possible to get the Gospel of Peter included into of the Book of Revelations. After that it gets a bit difficult; most of the 'Gnostic' Gospels were associated with Christian sects that were already being argued against by the proto-Orthodox bishops. There are, of course, also the Childhood gospels, but those weren't taken serious by church scholars at the time. I could see some other books being included in the Old Testament, mind you; Enoch was popular at the time and was actually included in the Manichaen canon, so that's possible. Maybe Macabees, or the expanded Book of Daniel? An expanded New Testament canon, though, is going to take some changes in the early church (such as, make a few different books popular in Rome, which is where the bare basics of the canon appear to have been formulated initially).

 

[water123]

Well, it wouldn't exactly make it larger, but I could see the Gospel of Thomas being included instead of John. I think its also possible to get the Gospel of Peter included into of the Book of Revelations. After that it gets a bit difficult; most of the 'Gnostic' Gospels were associated with Christian sects that were already being argued against by the proto-Orthodox bishops. There are, of course, also the Childhood gospels, but those weren't taken serious by church scholars at the time. I could see some other books being included in the Old Testament, mind you; Enoch was popular at the time and was actually included in the Manichaen canon, so that's possible. Maybe Macabees, or the expanded Book of Daniel? An expanded New Testament canon, though, is going to take some changes in the early church (such as, make a few different books popular in Rome, which is where the bare basics of the canon appear to have been formulated initially).

Could some of the works by the Church Fathers (1&2 Clement and etc) be allowed into cannon?

 

[edvardas]

Could you ave some sections of the doctrine and covenants accepted into mainstream
Christianity. The Book of Mormon to me is the appetizer, but the D&C is the main course.

 

[water123]

Could you ave some sections of the doctrine and covenants accepted into mainstream
Christianity. The Book of Mormon to me is the appetizer, but the D&C is the main course.

The thing about LDS is that 1., it was too late to the party to even gain Protestant-sized standing, and 2., it denies several things (such as the Trinity) that people had been fighting for for centuries. You would need a POD in 500 to have a lot of LDS concepts gain acceptance. Or, you could set up a permanent open cannon and the LDS books (though they'd probably be butterflied away) would just kind of be put off in a corner, so they are still cannon but not widespread.

 

[Armot]

Could some of the works by the Church Fathers (1&2 Clement and etc) be allowed into cannon?

Those, the Didache, the Book of Enoch (because it's quoted in Judas and 2 Peter)... the Protestant Bible may include the Old Testament's deuterocanonicals too.

 

[Oceano]

My memories are bad, but weren't there other works by the Apostles that are referenced in the Bible yet they were lost and never included in the canon?

 

[water123]

My memories are bad, but weren't there other works by the Apostles that are referenced in the Bible yet they were lost and never included in the canon?

I'm not sure... I know there are some lost epistles, plus there were some secular works quoted. I don't know about anything having to do with lost Apostolic works, like a third Luke book or something.

Maybe the Book of Jubilees could be added to the bible alongside Enoch? And what about all like 6 Maccabees?

 

[Tom Colton]

I'm not sure... I know there are some lost epistles, plus there were some secular works quoted. I don't know about anything having to do with lost Apostolic works, like a third Luke book or something.

Maybe the Book of Jubilees could be added to the bible alongside Enoch? And what about all like 6 Maccabees?

There is the Secret Gospel of Mark but that's rather iffy.

 

[water123]

There is the Secret Gospel of Mark but that's rather iffy.

From what I've heard, the Secret Book of Mark is nearly certainty pseudepigraphical, and while that isn't going to stop some of the other books discussed from getting in, it would still be... questioned.

What about Papal works?

 

[606jae]

different christian traditions have different canons I have a book called the universal bible of the protestant catholic orthodox ethiopic syriac and samaritan church. in addition to the 66 books of the protestant tradition it also includes Laodiceans, Acts of Paul and Thecla, III Corinthians, I Esdras, II Esdras, I Maccabees, II Maccabees, III Maccabees, IV Maccabees, Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Azariah (song of the three children), Baruch, Prayer of Manasseh, Bel and the Dragon, Wisdom of Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, Additions to Ester, Tobit, Judith, Susana, Enoch, Jubilees, I Clement, the Ascention of Isaiah, Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, Apocalyspe of Baruch, Josephus Jewish war VI, and IV Baurch. Sinodos, book of the covenant, and disascalia are mentioned but not included.
not mentioned in this bible but accepted by some groups are 3 books of meqabyan, testament of abraham, testament of issac, testament of jacob, the testaments of the 12 patraichs, joseph and asenath, psams 151-155, Ethopic lamantions.
II clement and barnabas were of some consideration.
many books are mentioned in the bible which are not available but many of them would likely have been included. The list is jasher,book of the wars of the lord, a book of songs, chronicles of the kings of Israel, chronicles of the kings of Judah, Shemiah, Iddo the seer, manner of the kingdom, Acts of Solomon, Annals of king david, book of samuel the seer, nathan, gad, ahijah, book of king of israel and judah, jehu, story of the book of kings, acts of uziah, vision of isiah, acts of the kings of israel, sayings of the seers, laments of josiah. Paul also in I Corinthians references a previous letter to the corinthian church

 

[Mongo]

I wrote this post relevant to this thread a couple of years ago:

Another question would be if in the absence of the Pauline epistles, other documents would make it into the Biblical canon instead. I can think of a number that just missed making it OTL, that could make it TTL: 1 and 2 Clement are certainly worthy of inclusion, as are Philippi and Diognetus, all being the type of text called Catholic Epistles. The Odes of Solomon is a Jewish-Christian text that would complement James and Hebrews, which did make it in. Several "wisdom teachings" that are strong candidates are The Sentences of Sextus, and The Teachings of Sylvanus. Gnostic texts I would include (were it up to me) are The Gospel of Thomas, The Acts of Thomas, The Apocryphon of James and The Gospel of Truth. Other texts I would include are the allegorical stories The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles and The Shepherd of Hermas, as well as The Questions of Bartholomew and the Didach, a very old early Christian document.

I admit that if all of these texts were included, the resulting Bible would be much more diverse than it is at present, but it would allow a glimpse of just how diverse early Christian practice actually was.

A bit earlier than the above, I wrote the following post on a different thread:

Some of my favorite Apocalypses that failed to become canon:

The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter -- contains a famous denunciation of mainstream Christianity with the words: "They will cause many to cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking that through death alone (and not life) they have become pure."

The Second Apocalypse of James -- contains a kiss on the lips between Jesus and James.

And a third, more comprehensive post from 2013:

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

 

[Zireael]

Does anyone know why Apocalypse of John was preferred to the other apocalypses? And where did the Christians get the idea that they needed an apocalyptic book at all?

 

[JonasResende]

Does anyone know why Apocalypse of John was preferred to the other apocalypses? And where did the Christians get the idea that they needed an apocalyptic book at all?

Wasn't that due to the Jewish influence - or am I confusing why Revelations was written with why it was included?

 

[Tom Colton]

Wasn't that due to the Jewish influence - or am I confusing why Revelations was written with why it was included?

I read somewhere that it was to appease the Carthaginians but I can't remember if that's true or not.