Why was the apocropha excluded?

[MysticSang'ha]

So much information.........but I'd love to learn more.




Thanks for the link, Jay. I wasn't so much interested in narrowing the focus to the Gospel of Thomas, but I was interested in the "chaos" reported between so-called Christian factions during the first few centuries. I only assume - I admittedly can't make an educated guess - that Ehrman's definition of the "proto-orthodox" Christians that eventually won the religion's establishment made up the majority of Christianity, and that groups like the Ebionites, the Marconites, and the Gnostics all collectively made up a small minority.




I'm not familiar with Ehrman's writings at all. I am also very ignorant when it comes to early Christian history. But how chaotic was it during the first few centuries? Was the gradual process of canonical establishment (deutero-canon BTW) due to varying groups coming together amicably through debate and discussion, and then slowly coming to an agreement?



How much were politics involved? Money? Were there any battles fought over the issue? Is Bart Ehrman making a case that power was the main influence over establishing the canon?



I thank everyone for their patience over my lack of knowledge and understanding.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[James the Persian]

Was the gradual process of canonical establishment (deutero-canon BTW) due to varying groups coming together amicably through debate and discussion, and then slowly coming to an agreement?

Could you explain what you mean by this? The Deuterocanon was not slowly established by the early Church. They are Old Testament books that were contained in the Septuagint(LXX) and inherited by the Church from the Jewish diaspora, where the LXX was the predominant version of the Scriptures. The LXX was a pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek (completed by the 1st century BC) and was always the OT version of the Church. I don't recall there ever being any question as to their place in the canon of the early Church, not even by the heretical and schismatic groups. St. Jerome did not seem to be much in their favour but clearly the majority of the Church disagreed with him on this as even the See of Rome retained them.

James

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm sorry, my mistake. I didn't mean the OT (if that's the deutero-canon, then?), I meant the canon that was generally accepted.............I realize I'm stepping into hot water here...........before the big schism occured.





Peace,
Mystic

 

[James the Persian]

I'm sorry, my mistake. I didn't mean the OT (if that's the deutero-canon, then?), I meant the canon that was generally accepted.............I realize I'm stepping into hot water here...........before the big schism occured.





Peace,
Mystic

The Deuterocanonical texts are that subset of the Old Testament that Protestants generally call the apocrypha and ignore. They have nothing to do with the New Testament, which all main stream churches share (with the exception of the Ethiopian broad canon, which has additional books).

I suspect that by 'big schism' you mean the Great Schism of 1054 when we and Rome parted company (though you may have something else in mind as this was far from the first major schism). If you do, then the canon was long settled by then, but there was no one canon in use by all churches. The Latin speaking churches of the west used the slightly reduced Old Testament that the RCC currently uses, the rest of the Church and the Non-Chalcedonians (Oriental Orthodox) used the same Old Testament we still use, with the exception of the aforementioned Ethiopian Church. All the variant canons were considered legitimate.

James

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Yes, James. I was thinking of the Great Schism of 1054. Thank you for clarifying. So the canon was settled mostly before 1054, then?




I can further understand, now, why discussing what is canoncial and "truly scriptual" can induce such heated debates.



OK, so was the establishment mostly peaceful? Meaning, that groups that espoused apocryphal texts failed to attract as many converts as proto-orthodox groups because..............hmmmmm, how do I put this?...............of power? Numbers? Money? Time? It seems that the storyline is so complex that there really isn't an easy answer.




Am I wrong?




Peace,
Mystic

 

[angellous_evangellous]

OK, so was the establishment mostly peaceful? Meaning, that groups that espoused apocryphal texts failed to attract as many converts as proto-orthodox groups because..............hmmmmm, how do I put this?...............of power? Numbers? Money? Time? It seems that the storyline is so complex that there really isn't an easy answer.

I don't know of any violence concerning the canon or Bible until the Roman Catholic church started killing folks for translating the Bible into profane languages in the Middle Ages.

But there is an easy answer: the canonized books are those used in worship. It's as simple as that.

 

[James the Persian]

I don't know of any violence concerning the canon or Bible until the Roman Catholic church started killing folks for translating the Bible into profane languages in the Middle Ages.

Actually, there was a little. It was nowhere near the scale of some of the later persecutions (often being a matter of exile rather than death, and I've never heard of burning heretics anywhere outside the west) but some of the Emperors did ban or suppress certain texts after the canon was settled. This appears to be why the Nag Hammadi library was buried as it's age corresponds roughly to a prohibition of the texts. Interestingly, there is speculation that the texts may have belonged to the orthodox monastic community in the Thebaid, in which case getting rid may not have been so traumatic as neo-gnostics sometimes suppose.

But there is an easy answer: the canonized books are those used in worship. It's as simple as that.

Unfortunately, that's too simple. Used in worship by whom? I'm sure the gnostic texts would have been used in worship by some groups, but they aren't canonical. In addition, there's the perfectly canonical Apocalypse (Revelation) which was never used in worship by the Church (still isn't in the Orthodox Church). You're generally correct, and their common use in worship was certainly a major factor in compiling the core of the canon, but not all texts can be so simply described.

James

 

[Snowbear]

This site http://watch.pair.com/apocrypha.html is an interesting read on when, and why.

Thanks for this link - it was an 'easy' read, though and left me wondering about it's bias...