THE CANON--II
(Notes for the Part I of this exciting lecture aren't available yet. Sorry.)

    Last time, I made the generalization that it was the job of early church to decide what writings would and would not be accepted as authoritative scripture, i.e. canonical.  What I perhaps did not make clear is how this decision was made.  Not by holding a great conference and taking a vote of the assembled leaders.  No such conference or council could exist until after the time of Constantine.  First council Nicaea in 325 A.D.--and even at Nicaea, NT canon didn't come up.  Not until a council at Hippo around 380 A.D. was their any attempt to impose on all the churches a uniform canon.

    Now this idea a bit upsetting to some students, particularly Protestant students.  Hard to conceive the church without our Bible exactly as it stands, and the idea that there was no fixed canon as late as 380 A.D. seems to cast at least some doubt on Biblical authority.  What guarantee is there that conference at Hippo didn't make some mistakes?  Should all the books we currently have in our Bibles be there?  Were there equally important books left out?

    The scholarly community has often enough said yes to both these questions.  F.C. Bauer and the Tubingen types, for instance, get rid of all but a few of Paul's letters.  On opposite side, writers like Elaine Pagels who think that the gnostic scriptures are unfairly neglected by the church.  And then there's the extreme view that all sorts of books were left out that ought to have been included.  "Forgotten Books of Bible/Lost Books of Eden,"  "The Other Bible."  See these things all the time in book stores, Barnes and Noble catalogue, etc.  Must be fairly popular, and it's easy enough to understand why.

    It's exciting to think that one is discovering a great treasure of a book that everybody ought to read for its great spiritual insights, a book that will tell you everything you wanted to know about Jesus, or heaven, or angels, but that the canonical gospels don't tell you.

    But is there anything to all this?  To answer that question, necessary to look at how and why early church came to include books they did.

    Said a second ago that not until synod at Hippo did church decide on definitive canon.  That's a bit misleading, however.  In the case of most books of the Bible, the decisions were made much earlier.  Basically, when the books were written.  Paul's letters: authoritive immediately in the churches he sent them to, because the authority of Paul himself recognized.  Same true of Peter, Matthew, and John.  No need to wait for a council!  Authoritative right away.  Questions only arise later, as problem is complicated by forgeries/pseudepigraph and the fact that not all churches had all the books.  (Revelation: sent to seven churches--no guarantee there would be a copy at Rome.  Letter to Romans: no guarantee would be a copy at Ephesus).

    Now, what did church do?  As far as OT concerned, right from beginning our OT.  You see this in NT--NT writers quote every OT book except Esther and nothing else.  Makes it pretty clear that NT writers regarded those books and only those books as authoritative.  This general practice of later Christian writers as well.  Justin Martyr, Origen, Clement, etc. quote almost exclusively from what we call OT today, only occasionally from other books: then rather hesitantly (e.g. I Enoch: because of angels).

    But the early church also preserved other Jewish books (many of which were eventually included in Deuterocanonicals).  Not cited as authoritative sources, but used as historical sources (I and II Maccabees) or as edifying/inspirational literature.  My opinion pretty much the right thing to do.   Good church chose to preserve books.  One particularly important: Judith.  (Holofernes).

     Now, what about NT canon?  
     
(For discussion, we look at Eusebius' divisions in reverse order, addressing the basic questions of whether any of the *really spurious* books should have been included and whether any of the accepted books should have been left out).

"Really spurious" books:

    Infancy Gospel: events in Christ's life up to 30 years--p. 38, p. 39, p. 57 (ch. 19:22-24), p. 55 (18:14-19)

    Best: Gospel of Thomas (p. 529); See also The Gospel of Philip.

Read these through and then try to argue church made a mistake in leaving these books out!

Spurious books:

    Didache (c. 130 or earlier) Good summary of Christian teaching
        Way of life/way of darkness:
        Love, Golden Rule, forgiveness
        Murder, adultery, covetousness, lying
        To this added lots of stuff on liturgical questions: baptism, fasting, eucarist, etc.

        Much a paraphrase of Gospel of Matthew
        
    Not apostolic: teaching of 12 only in sense that this was in accord with their teaching.
    
    Barnabas (also early 2nd century), also focuses on two ways.  (rd. p. 163)  Good, but not apostolic

    Hermas: Another "two ways" book.         
        Author doesn't claim to be an apostle, but claims divine messenger sent to him with series of visions and warnings.  His sons not living the gospel: trusting to God's grace, just go out and live lives anyway they choose.

        *Can you sin and still be a Christian?
        *How much can you sin and still be a Christian
        
          Hermas compares church to a building: sin, and your not fit.  Perhaps stone not too far away--but sin enough and no chance of restoring you.  "Two ways" supplemented by belief in angelic forces: good angel/bad angel...

    Apocalypse of Peter: vision of heaven and hell/rewards to just, punishements of unjust:

    Blasphemers hung by tongues ove fire
    Women who enticed men to sleep with them hung by hair
    Men hung by thighs
    Women who have committed infanticide have breats that emit a foul-smelling milk turns to creepy crawlers that torture the women and their accomplise husbands.
       
    Acts of Paul and Thecla
      
 Thecla, a beautiful young virgin, hears Paul: determines to devote herself to God+perpetual virginity: angers fiance and mother, ends up on trial, burned: but God sends earthquake/rain to deliver her.  Later: stripped naked offered to lion: lion licks her feet.  Later offered to lioness this one also becomes tame: and defends Thecla against first a bear and then a male lion, dying in the process.  Thecla preaches gospel for years, age of 90 one more trial.  Healings wherever she goes: enemies think it's because of her virginity.  So send a band of thugs to rape her.  Thecla delivered by stepping into a rock...
    A presbyter admitted wrote this up "in honor of Paul" he lost his position in church: Acts of Paul and Thecla disregarded.

Disputed books:

    *Why disputed?
        James
        II Peter
        II and III John
        Jude
    
    *Revelation: Why in two categories?

    *What criteria does church seem to be using?