Alternative canons and it's effect on history

Lets say that a different biblical canon was chosen... how would history be different?

Some of the early church fathers had different ideas on inclusion.

Amount of books range from Justin Martyr's proposed 4 books included to the 32 accepted by Clement of Alexandria. The canon that is accepted is the one of Athanasius of Alexandria.

A link can be found here
 
I've always wondered how things would be different had the Gospel of Judas been canonized. Would treason be less heinous of a crime? Would Jews be less likely to become Christianity's all-purpose scapegoats?
 
I've always wondered how things would be different had the Gospel of Judas been canonized. Would treason be less heinous of a crime? Would Jews be less likely to become Christianity's all-purpose scapegoats?

The gospel of Judas is a brand new forgery. It wasn't even around at the council of trent to be debated.

One interesting one is the gospel of thomas replacing the gospel of john.

WI St. Peter did not declare St. Paul's works on par with the gospels.

What if the other propositions wade it rather than the one we know today.
 
For comparison (according to Wiki, so you know it's right! ;)):

The "Big 4":
Mathew: estimated c 100 AD
Mark: disputed, but c.62-70 AD
Luke: highly disputed, as early as 37 to as late as 80-90 AD
John: c90-100 AD, some est. as early as 60 AD

Some "Gnostic texts":
Thomas: disputed, "early": 50-100 AD, or "late": 2nd century
Phillip: c. 180-350 AD
Judas: "before 180", assuming it's not a "modern forgery", though there's no evidence I've seen to indicate this. The "rediscovered" codex dates to "2nd century" according to Nat'l Geographic.


Council of Trent: 1545 AD

so perhaps you meant:

Council of Nicaea 325 AD.
 

Philip

Donor
Ahhhhh!!! Where do you guys get this stuff? You might as well take Dan Brown as an expert on the history of the Catholic Church.
Just allowing the Gnostics to survive would fling the whole thing out of control.

I fail to see how their survival would affect the canon of the Catholic Church. Would you care to explain?

I've always wondered how things would be different had the Gospel of Judas been canonized.

Before you can wonder this, you must first wonder how it could be canonized. It was never accepted by the Catholic Church. Having it accepted would require an earliar PoD that the its canonization.

The gospel of Judas is a brand new forgery. It wasn't even around at the council of trent to be debated.

Incorrect. St Irenaeus of Lyons denounced it as a forgery in the 2nd Century:
They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no other did, accomplished the mystery of betrayal; by him all things were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.
~Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies I 31.1
One interesting one is the gospel of thomas replacing the gospel of john.
Again, how and why?

WI St. Peter did not declare St. Paul's works on par with the gospels.
Can you point out when he did declare such? Given that all four gospels were probably written after Peter's death, it seems unlikely that he declared such.
 
Last edited:
May I suggest a little sidestep? What if the Apocalypse, also known as the Book of Revelation, is NOT considered canon? IRRC it was quite a close thing and several fathers of the church considered it spurious...
 
Ahhhhh!!! Where do you guys get this stuff? You might as well take Dan Brown as an expert on the history of the Catholic Church.

But his books are all true! It says so on his title page.

Before you can wonder this, you must first wonder how it could be canonized. It was never accepted by the Catholic Church. Having it accepted would require an earliar PoD that the its canonization.

Gospel of Thomas was a "sayings" book with very little narrative, correct? I believe that when it was first found everyone thought it was the long-postulated "Q" document.

It also portrays Jesus in a way totally irreconcilable with that of the "Big Four." For any council to accept both would require a great act of doublethink. And that's possible, I suppose. But it would need a good explanation. Maybe a strong and vibrant gnostic element that insisted that the Church remain neutral on whether its views were correct or not. It's possible, I suppose, that the early fathers would have sought unity as one church with 2 opposing elements. But it would be out of the ordinary, and would need further explanation.

May I suggest a little sidestep? What if the Apocalypse, also known as the Book of Revelation, is NOT considered canon? IRRC it was quite a close thing and several fathers of the church considered it spurious...

@Cornelius - rejecting Revelation would be a very plausible POD, more so anyway than one involving accepting the gnostics. Each of the Antilegomena books (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilegomena) had its detractors, and I could see a Council scrapping one here or there in the name of Church unity.
 

Philip

Donor
Gospel of Thomas was a "sayings" book with very little narrative, correct?

Correct -- Almost no narrative. You could go so far as to say no real narrative. To me, at least, this holds some indications as to the author's intent.

I believe that when it was first found everyone thought it was the long-postulated "Q" document.

Be some, certainly, but not by all -- not even all those who who accept the postulation of 'Q'. I tend to believe such conclusions were wishful thinking.

It also portrays Jesus in a way totally irreconcilable with that of the "Big Four."

Not quite totally, but with some great difficulties. Many of the sayings in Thomas are identical or parallel to those in the Synoptics. There are others that are in complete contrast.

For any council to accept both would require a great act of doublethink. And that's possible, I suppose. But it would need a good explanation.

I feel I should interject here a little about councils 'accepting' a book. There seems to be an image (not necessarily held by you) that a council sat down with a stack of books, and proceeded to decide if each one was in or out. This simply is not the case. The canon of the NT (and, IMBANSHO, the OT as well) is largely a received canon. The Church used ('accepted') the books that they used. It may seem circular, but it is consistent with Christian (or at least Catholic/Orthodox) theology (If you want me to explain how, I will).

Of course, there were times when councils did speak on the canon. However, this was usually to confirm that what the Church was already doing was correct in the eyes of the council.

Maybe a strong and vibrant gnostic element that insisted that the Church remain neutral on whether its views were correct or not.It's possible, I suppose, that the early fathers would have sought unity as one church with 2 opposing elements. But it would be out of the ordinary, and would need further explanation.

I simply do not see this as possible. Disputes such as whether or not Christ had a physical body is just not something that can be glossed over.

@Cornelius - rejecting Revelation would be a very plausible POD, more so anyway than one involving accepting the gnostics. Each of the Antilegomena books (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilegomena) had its detractors, and I could see a Council scrapping one here or there in the name of Church unity.

I would agree that not having the Revelation universally accepted is far more likely than having one/some of the gnostic writings accepted.

If you are looking for books to add to the canon, I would suggest (as I did in some other thread I can't seem to find) the following:


  1. Didache
  2. Protoevangelion
  3. I Clement
  4. Epistle of Barnabas
  5. Shepherd of Hermas
  6. Epistles of Ignatius
 

Philip

Donor
May I suggest a little sidestep? What if the Apocalypse, also known as the Book of Revelation, is NOT considered canon? IRRC it was quite a close thing and several fathers of the church considered it spurious...

It wasn't really that close. Most of those who questioned it did so rather late. Many of those argued against it not because they found error in it or questioned its authorship. Rather, they were concerned about the difficulties involved in reading and interpreting the text. Note that these concerns still exist in the Orthodox Church -- while it is considered fully Scripture, it can not be read as part of the liturgy.
 
I feel I should interject here a little about councils 'accepting' a book. There seems to be an image (not necessarily held by you) that a council sat down with a stack of books, and proceeded to decide if each one was in or out. This simply is not the case. The canon of the NT (and, IMBANSHO, the OT as well) is largely a received canon. The Church used ('accepted') the books that they used. It may seem circular, but it is consistent with Christian (or at least Catholic/Orthodox) theology (If you want me to explain how, I will).

Of course, there were times when councils did speak on the canon. However, this was usually to confirm that what the Church was already doing was correct in the eyes of the council.


You're clearly more of an expert than I am, but ISTR that the 4 canonical gospels had widespread provenance, whereas the gnostic and apocryphal gospels were much more localized, fringe sorts of documents, and that was one of the reasons for their rejection.
 
If a different Christian canon is adopted, different sects will pick and choose from that different canon to form sects that are equally as wacky as those of OTL, just from a different basis. Imagine a Christian sect that arises based on the Gospel of the Hebrews, for instance.
 

Philip

Donor
You're clearly more of an expert than I am, but ISTR that the 4 canonical gospels had widespread provenance, whereas the gnostic and apocryphal gospels were much more localized, fringe sorts of documents, and that was one of the reasons for their rejection.

This is correct and what I was trying to get at. The books that were accepted were widespread as opposed to the ones not accepted. Some seem to have the idea that all the books were on equal footing, but that is just not the case.

To the early Christians, the fact that the four[1] Canonical Gospels were (nearly) universally used was proof that they were Scripture. In general, they had four qualifications for a book to be considered Scripture[2]. The text had to be


  1. Apostolic - It had to be written by an Apostle or under the authority of an Apostle.
  2. Catholic - It had to be used everywhere (or at least everywhere it was known).
  3. Orthodox - It had to agree with what the Church taught.
Notice that 2 and 3 are reversed in much of modern Christian thought, especially among Protestants. Today the thought is often "It is Scripture, therefore the Church should use it." were in the past is was just as often "The Church uses it, therefore it is Scripture."



[1] This is especially true of the Synoptics. John had a bit more trouble, mostly because it wasn't as widespread.
[2] This should be thought of as a checklist they stepped through. Rather, it is a summary of the thought process.
 
Top