The codification of the New Testament was a process that took three centuries and during which the inclusion or exclusion of multiple books was debated and even today there is controversy about some of the books in it, so I would like to ask if you could choose the books that were accepted and rejected in the new testament, what would they be?
AHQ: alternate new testament
- Thread starter Yeiro
- Start date
twovultures
Donor
Interesting question! I'd probably reject the canon Johanine literature-i.e. the Gospel of John and Revelations, which I think fit only very awkwardly into the canon alongside the synoptic gospels and Acts. I know some modern writers have (incorrectly, most likely) associated the Gospel of John with proto-gnosticism, 2nd-century Christians coming to a similar conclusion could reasonably result in an ATL where the Gospel of John is rejected from Canon. The Revelations of John would then be rejected due to its association with the now discredited gospel combined with the existing controversies that came from some early thinkers believing that the author of Revelations was not a very spiritually advanced person.
Agree. These could easily not be included to the New Testament. Speciality Revelations is so confusing that no one can't be really sure what it even means. And many have too associated that with emperor Nero's persecutions.
Most of the New Testamet was quoted by the Apostolic Fathers (Clement, Igatius). The whole thing is quoted by Irenaeus, who allegedly learned under another Apostolic Father (Polycarp). So, the reality is that the New Testament was pretty much well formed right off the bat (and this includes much of its fuzzy fringes, such as 2 Peter which is quoted in 1 and 2 Clement).
The larger question would be whether based upon later reflection certain books would be excluded, such as Luke or Mark (as they don't claim Apostolic pedigree). The Catholic Epistles (such as 1-3 John) could have easily been left out. Same with Book of Revelation. Anything with some doubt as to Apostolic authorship could have been left out.
Further, there is the question of great inclusiveness. 1 Clement could have easily found its way into being considered Scripture (it's technically in one biblical canon which has canonical support from the Council of Trullo). The Dionysian Corpus could have been added later (I also think arguments against authorship will be disproven in the next few years), so that adds a huge source to the New Testament. I'd see there being almost a "Deutero-New Testament Canon" of Apostolic Fathers such as Clement, Ignatius, Dionysius, Papias' quotations of Jesus, perhaps Luke and Mark who have writings used liturgically but otherwise are not the actual Apostles. This opens the door for the writings of their successors being added and even that of apocryphal works, like the Protoevangelicum of James, which was read liturgically in some quarters. This would make Christianity develop similar to Judaism, which had a constantly expanding corpus of canonical writings.
The larger question would be whether based upon later reflection certain books would be excluded, such as Luke or Mark (as they don't claim Apostolic pedigree). The Catholic Epistles (such as 1-3 John) could have easily been left out. Same with Book of Revelation. Anything with some doubt as to Apostolic authorship could have been left out.
Further, there is the question of great inclusiveness. 1 Clement could have easily found its way into being considered Scripture (it's technically in one biblical canon which has canonical support from the Council of Trullo). The Dionysian Corpus could have been added later (I also think arguments against authorship will be disproven in the next few years), so that adds a huge source to the New Testament. I'd see there being almost a "Deutero-New Testament Canon" of Apostolic Fathers such as Clement, Ignatius, Dionysius, Papias' quotations of Jesus, perhaps Luke and Mark who have writings used liturgically but otherwise are not the actual Apostles. This opens the door for the writings of their successors being added and even that of apocryphal works, like the Protoevangelicum of James, which was read liturgically in some quarters. This would make Christianity develop similar to Judaism, which had a constantly expanding corpus of canonical writings.
Sorry in advance for the ramble.
For exclusion, the New Testament book that came closest to being left out of the canon is undoubtedly the Apocalypse of John, aka the Book of Revelation. Getting it excluded from the canon certainly would have interesting effects on Christian eschatology, but not much else-- Revelation was never especially popular or well-read before the 1800s. Though of course this could still cause all sorts of crazy butterflies. Fewer Christian doomsday cults would be nice, I guess.
For other exclusions, let's use the Muratorian fragment's canon c. 170, Codex Vaticanus's canon c. 310 and Eusebius's list of disputed letters c. 325.
Here's a list of disputed NT books, in order of likelihood of exclusion. No spacing between two lines means about equally likely.
-James (listed by Eusebius as disputed c. 325, excluded by the Muratorian fragment's canon c. 170)
-2 Peter (Same as James, Eusebius disputed list and excluded by Muratorian)
-Jude (Eusebius lists, Muratorian includes)
-2+3 John (Eusebius disputed list, maybe in Muratorian)
-Hebrews (Muratorian excludes)
-1-2 Timothy (Vaticanus excludes, generally accepted otherwise)
-Titus (Vaticanus excludes, generally accepted otherwise)
-Philemon (Vaticanus excludes, generally accepted otherwise)
-1 Peter (Muratorian excludes, generally accepted otherwise)
-1 John (Probably but not definitely included by Muratorian, generally accepted otherwise)
Also, the heretic Marcion wrote the earliest known canon c. 130, only including Romans, Galatians, 1-2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, possibly Ephesians, 1-2 Thess, Philemon, and a different revised(?) version of Luke. Take of that what you will.
Now for the consequences.
Excluding James could have big effects on soteriology-- it was an essential prooftext for Catholic apologists arguing against sola fide during the Reformation.
Jude and 2 Peter don't matter much, besides being the only place in the NT that explicitly set out that Satan and his angels are imprisoned in Tartarus.
2 John and 3 John similarly don't really matter-- they're very short and don't say much unique.
Hebrews, opposite to James, was part of the core of the Protestant argument in favor of sola fide. Otherwise unimportant.
1-2 Timothy have the only explanation of divine inspiration in the Bible, plus THE key verse excluding women from preaching or holding authority over men. Big implications.
Titus is not very important. Very short, mostly just about church governance.
Philemon has potential implications for debates over slavery, but it's unclear which side it's exclusion would help.
1 Peter contains the only explicit reference to the Harrowing of Hell, where Jesus preached to the dead after his death. It also says women should submit to their husbands.
1 John isn't very important, except for a later pro-Trinity addition. Might help non-Trinitarianism, but that sort of addition could happen to another book of the NT just as easily.
For adding a book to the NT, I'm less sure. But here's a list of what you could probably get in, listed in no particular order. Not sure about which of these would be the easiest to get in.
-Shepherd of Hermas: A story about a former slave who converts to Christianity, plus lots of weird stuff. Possibly adoptionist, possibly binatarian, though not definitively. Also pro-Law of Moses, but so are Matthew and James and they got in, so whatever. Synergist (works and faith) soteriology, says you only have one chance for pennance if you fall into sin post-baptism(?????). Could have some strange consequences if added.
-Apocalypse of Peter: Early Dante's Inferno where Peter is given a guided tour of heaven and hell. Mostly focuses on hell, and graphically describes tortures there. Add if you want Christians to be more sadistic and hell-focused, I guess?
-Epistle of Barnabas: Anti-Jewish polemic, allegedly written by the apostle Barnabas. Heavily allegorizes and reinterprets laws of the Old Testament, could lead to Christians taking the Old Testament less seriously. Also could make Christianity more anti-Jewish, obviously.
-The Didache: Basically a short statement about what Christianity is and some rituals. Jesus called the servant of the father, kinda Arian christology (technically subordinationist but whatever). Also potentially supports a less centralized Church structure.
-Acts of Paul: All about the acts of Paul, self-explantatory. Encourages women to preach and baptize, would be a Big Deal for Christian views on women. Also says Paul was beheaded but milk instead of blood came out, which is pretty funny.
-Gospel of the Hebrews: A Jewish Christian gospel that unfortunately didn't survive in full to the present day. Apparently thought the Holy Spirit was the mother of Jesus(?). Also kinda Gnostic despite being Jewish-Christian?
-1+2 Clement: Written by the apostle Clement. Long and rambly but not clear exactly what it would add doctrine-wise. I don't know too much about these so would appreciate if anyone knows more.
For exclusion, the New Testament book that came closest to being left out of the canon is undoubtedly the Apocalypse of John, aka the Book of Revelation. Getting it excluded from the canon certainly would have interesting effects on Christian eschatology, but not much else-- Revelation was never especially popular or well-read before the 1800s. Though of course this could still cause all sorts of crazy butterflies. Fewer Christian doomsday cults would be nice, I guess.
For other exclusions, let's use the Muratorian fragment's canon c. 170, Codex Vaticanus's canon c. 310 and Eusebius's list of disputed letters c. 325.
Here's a list of disputed NT books, in order of likelihood of exclusion. No spacing between two lines means about equally likely.
-James (listed by Eusebius as disputed c. 325, excluded by the Muratorian fragment's canon c. 170)
-2 Peter (Same as James, Eusebius disputed list and excluded by Muratorian)
-Jude (Eusebius lists, Muratorian includes)
-2+3 John (Eusebius disputed list, maybe in Muratorian)
-Hebrews (Muratorian excludes)
-1-2 Timothy (Vaticanus excludes, generally accepted otherwise)
-Titus (Vaticanus excludes, generally accepted otherwise)
-Philemon (Vaticanus excludes, generally accepted otherwise)
-1 Peter (Muratorian excludes, generally accepted otherwise)
-1 John (Probably but not definitely included by Muratorian, generally accepted otherwise)
Also, the heretic Marcion wrote the earliest known canon c. 130, only including Romans, Galatians, 1-2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, possibly Ephesians, 1-2 Thess, Philemon, and a different revised(?) version of Luke. Take of that what you will.
Now for the consequences.
Excluding James could have big effects on soteriology-- it was an essential prooftext for Catholic apologists arguing against sola fide during the Reformation.
Jude and 2 Peter don't matter much, besides being the only place in the NT that explicitly set out that Satan and his angels are imprisoned in Tartarus.
2 John and 3 John similarly don't really matter-- they're very short and don't say much unique.
Hebrews, opposite to James, was part of the core of the Protestant argument in favor of sola fide. Otherwise unimportant.
1-2 Timothy have the only explanation of divine inspiration in the Bible, plus THE key verse excluding women from preaching or holding authority over men. Big implications.
Titus is not very important. Very short, mostly just about church governance.
Philemon has potential implications for debates over slavery, but it's unclear which side it's exclusion would help.
1 Peter contains the only explicit reference to the Harrowing of Hell, where Jesus preached to the dead after his death. It also says women should submit to their husbands.
1 John isn't very important, except for a later pro-Trinity addition. Might help non-Trinitarianism, but that sort of addition could happen to another book of the NT just as easily.
For adding a book to the NT, I'm less sure. But here's a list of what you could probably get in, listed in no particular order. Not sure about which of these would be the easiest to get in.
-Shepherd of Hermas: A story about a former slave who converts to Christianity, plus lots of weird stuff. Possibly adoptionist, possibly binatarian, though not definitively. Also pro-Law of Moses, but so are Matthew and James and they got in, so whatever. Synergist (works and faith) soteriology, says you only have one chance for pennance if you fall into sin post-baptism(?????). Could have some strange consequences if added.
-Apocalypse of Peter: Early Dante's Inferno where Peter is given a guided tour of heaven and hell. Mostly focuses on hell, and graphically describes tortures there. Add if you want Christians to be more sadistic and hell-focused, I guess?
-Epistle of Barnabas: Anti-Jewish polemic, allegedly written by the apostle Barnabas. Heavily allegorizes and reinterprets laws of the Old Testament, could lead to Christians taking the Old Testament less seriously. Also could make Christianity more anti-Jewish, obviously.
-The Didache: Basically a short statement about what Christianity is and some rituals. Jesus called the servant of the father, kinda Arian christology (technically subordinationist but whatever). Also potentially supports a less centralized Church structure.
-Acts of Paul: All about the acts of Paul, self-explantatory. Encourages women to preach and baptize, would be a Big Deal for Christian views on women. Also says Paul was beheaded but milk instead of blood came out, which is pretty funny.
-Gospel of the Hebrews: A Jewish Christian gospel that unfortunately didn't survive in full to the present day. Apparently thought the Holy Spirit was the mother of Jesus(?). Also kinda Gnostic despite being Jewish-Christian?
-1+2 Clement: Written by the apostle Clement. Long and rambly but not clear exactly what it would add doctrine-wise. I don't know too much about these so would appreciate if anyone knows more.
That surely would create an intersting new testament, this also could result in differents schisms over people arguing about the inclusión or not of new scriptures
Last edited:
The ecclesiology of 1 clem probably butterflies away reformed theology if its canonicity is non negotiable. 2 clem may make beliefs in purgatory not take hold, it teaches there is no repentance after death.
Thats not what anyone thinks purgatory is anyway, its not repentance but a purging process enroute to heaven; i dont think anyone otl thought 2 clem was canonical, it seems to have been a well regarded sermon as opposed to an actual letter.
The big problem with Apocolypse of peter and Acts of Paul is the technical problem that they are forgeries, they were written by some one other than the claimed author, which is something of a problem for a group claiming to follow the "way, the truth, and the life."