Knowing that Constantine made the decision to accept and reject certain texts to be placed into The Canon sometimes based on political motivations (my understanding) how can we say that other texts are not as valid ie... The Gospel of Thomas etc...

Also how can we say that books found after The Canon was formed are not valid such as the Nag Hammadi Texts?

Sojourner, we covered some of the issues you're raising on this recent thread. Read on down a bit to the part where I describe how the Canon of the New Testament came to be. I think you're giving Constantine way too much credit for this.

See also the following:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

http://www.protomartyr.org/first.html
(A good account of the author's journey to understanding how the Bible came to be).

quote:

At this point in my studies, I felt I had to make a decision. If the Church was not just a tangent or a sidelight to the Scripture, but rather an active participant in its development and preservation, then it was time to reconcile my differences with her and abandon my prejudices. Rather than trying to judge the Church according to my modem preconceptions about what the Bible was saying, I needed to humble myself and come into union with the Church that produced the New Testament, and let her guide me into a proper understanding of Holy Scripture.

-----

Sojourner, if I could make a suggestion . . . it's pretty easy to research some of these issues yourself using google.com and other search sites. Also, we have a "search" link in the top right section of the pages on this board that can help you to discover what's already been covered here.

Thank you Phil. I found your synopsis very informative. Just one more question... You stated that even though the validity of the books is in question that there is still some good information in them to some extent (paraphrase). Which books seem the most informative?

Phil, the link you referred above on the account of Fr. James Bernstein is suberp. I have been interested on how the Canon of New Testament came to be. In search of clarity I read some books and articles on this area. However, I didn't read an article in such clarity and lucidity as Fr, Bernestien shows in his article. I found Fr. Bernstein's essay unique not only because it is based upon his expereince but also his ability to clarify such heavy issue in simple and clear way. This is the best paper I found yet in this area. Thanks Phil to provide us such precious paper.

That one really is a "keeper," Grace. Very well done indeed! Glad you enjoyed it so much.

The Canon was laid down in around the 3rd or fourth century A.D., however before that Christian bishops from various churches did begin to lay down fixed books of scripture, because groups like the Gnostics (who flourished in around the 2nd century A.D., especially with teachers like Valentinus and Basilides) produced their own 'scriptures' which they claimed were 'inspired' but said things quite contrary to what was in the four main gospels we know today.

Scholars have spent a lot of time trying to determine with the Gospels were written down and dated. The Gospel of Thomas is probably a 2nd century work, possibly by a Gnostic sect, while the works in the NHC come from around the second century, when the Gnostic movement was at its peak.

Along with Gnostic material there were also many other works which were passed off as written by the Apostles, such as '3 Corinthians', The Acts of Thomas and John, The Apocalypse of Peter, and so on. Some are quoted by the Church fathers, however the modern canon was laid down by the 4th century in most churches.

The question of the canon and how it formed is a very interesting one. Gnosticism seems to be making a strong comeback (especially with the rediscovery of the NHC and Thomas) and while there is some beautiful spirituality to be found in Gnostic books, especially the Gospel of Thomas, there is also a lot there which is quite depressing; a morbid hatred of this world and this life, a weird and fantastic mythology of 'Aeons' and Demiurges and a mysterious Father of Light, and so on. Also a lot of the excluded work is quite unpleasant; the Epistle of Barnabas is quite anti-Jewish in nature and the Apocalypse of Peter has some very nasty depictions of hell, even worse than any in the canonical bible, so their inclusion would not necessarily have been a good thing.

Another fascinating work left out of the canon are the books of Enoch. These are quite beautiful and make a lot of the apocalyptic imagery in the Bible make more sense.

I don't think however there is or was a sinister conspiracy to suppress ancient religious literature. It is true the formation of a canon meant there were works which went in and those that didn't, and there was also paranoia about 'heresy', but also the formation of a canon occured in other religions as well (Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam) and also in areas like Philosophy. A canon is not necessarily a sign of political intruigue but human judgement on what is worth preserving and what isn't.

"A canon is not necessarily a sign of political intruigue but human judgement on what is worth preserving and what isn't."


Yes. But as Phil says elsewhere, that certainly isn't the popularly entertained definition today.