The Convenient Canon

In previous weeks, we have examined the different notions of a scriptural canon in early Christian times and before, but in this week’s reading from Frans van Liere, our perspective on the biblical canon is expanded to include traditions during the Middle Ages. Although other readings, such as Constantine’s Bible, discussed the creation of a canon in these early years, “The Medieval Canon” suggests that the idea of a closed canon held very little sway until after the Middle Ages.

The early discussions about which texts should be considered canonical did influence later views on the authority of different texts, but despite this movement toward canonization, apocryphal texts were not forbidden or removed from circulation even through the Middle Ages. Van Liere notes that though some religious theologians such as Jerome attempted to warn against the dubiousness of certain scriptural texts, they “could not (and probably did not intend to) stop their circulation; they were too much a part of the Christian scriptural tradition” (73). The integration of these texts into the widely read grouping of scripture and the mention of the futility of trying to prevent the reading of such texts demonstrates the relative openness of the canon in Medieval times. In fact, even these questionable apocryphal texts could have been considered authoritative in the Middle Ages, depending on the group who was using them. According to van Liere, the authority of different texts was ultimately decided by “the Church or Synagogue, not authorship” (75). The flexibility of what was considered authoritative scripture at this time shows how little influence the Church as a whole had on the canon in the Middle Ages, but the chapter also specifically points out “the absence of Church regulation” on what was considered canon (78). Thus, even through the thirteenth century, the Christian canon remained fairly flexible, with texts considered apocryphal still being widely read.

However, van Liere’s brief mention of the changes brought about by the printing press brings up a significant question to me. According to the chapter, “the canon of Scripture became permanently fixed by an ecclesiastical decision only after the Middle Ages ended” and the printing press was invented (78). This conclusion gave me the impression that the Church only finally committed to a canon because it was finally easy to enforce. It seems that the solidification of the canon led to the perception of the Apocrypha being “forbidden,” so was this change really only out of convenience? What caused the Church to view the closing of the canon as an important issue only after the adoption of the printing press?

Today's Apocrypha

Frans van Liere’s “The Medieval Canon” chapter discusses the treatment of apocryphal books in the Middle Ages, especially in relation to canonical scripture. Reading this chapter has caused me to reflect on modern day apocrypha. Last week Annette Yoshiko Reed spoke to us about apocryphal books, and particularly how some are being reimagined in different ways. Some anime series borrow characters and themes from apocryphal books, placing them in a completely different context. This is an instance of ideas being borrowed from apocrypha to create something new, yet it is just as interesting when people today take ideas from canonical texts to create something new. This seems to be similar to what apocrypha like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was trying to do - fill in the gaps and expound on the narrative of Christ.

We can see this through many different mediums, but film is always a compelling one to explore. A new movie came out last Friday titled Risen (dramatic trailer here), that approaches the resurrection narrative from a different perspective. This film is from the perspective of a non-believing soldier, who (spoiler alert) discovers Jesus resurrected and converts. I have not seen the movie, but it seems to uphold the basic idea of Jesus being crucified and rising after three days. It maintains the integrity of how Christians understand Jesus, while telling a different and new story.

This faith-based story that Risen tells reminds me of how Jerome seemed to view the apocrypha books during the medieval time period. He referred to apocrypha saying, “And if she wants to read them not for the truth of doctrines but out of reverence for its signs...it requires great prudence to find some gold in the mud” (73). I find that Christians today hold a similar view toward biblical films. From a quick google search, I found an article titled “3 Ways Risen Can Make You Spiritually Aware”. Similar to Jerome’s opinion on apocryphal literature in medieval times, Christians today can view interpretations of canonical literature as beneficial to one’s understanding of religion, but not equal to the canonical books of the Bible. 

Does Majority Equal Authority?

An Introduction to the Medieval Bible by Frans van Liere has opened my eyes further to the age-old debate: Is the Bible authoritative? By reading the selection that was assigned, it is evident that what is considered the Bible in modern cultural discourse was not the same collection of books a few centuries ago. If more people knew this, would they still find the Bible equally authoritative? Even within specific religions and their different qualifications for their authoritative texts, such as Judaism and the Old Testament, the collection has changed over the centuries and depended largely on where the books were being collected! For instance, the current Hebrew Bible consists of three collections: the five books of the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim. Over the centuries, many followers have regarded these three collections as authoritative as a whole, though comparatively, different sects of Judaism considered only one of the collections canonical over the others (Saducees believed only the Torah was canonical, etc). Similarly, the Ketuvim seems to be a set in stone collection of writings by most, but Frans Van Liere has made it clear that those writings were up for discussion throughout the ages and regions.
Frans van Liere has completely perplexed me about the authority of the Bible. Though my thoughts were shaken by Michael Satlow and his dismemberment of how the Bible was used in antiquity, how out of context we often use Biblical references today, and an overall disregard to everything I thought I knew, Frans Van Liere has showed me that there is even more to question. Frans Van Liere and Michael Satlow are similar by how they both use historical evidence in a manner that shows discrepancies with common thoughts concerning the Bible. By highlighting the discrepancies, like Van Liere's notion of an unfixed group of texts that is now considered the Bible or Satlow's usage of the Bible in antiquity versus how the Bible is used today, the authors are able to activate the part of every religious scholar's mind that asks "What makes this text authoritative and why do large sums of people follow it?" The answer to this question gets more complicated with each reading we are assigned, but for now I can sum up what I've learned thus far: "Believe what you like, but don't believe everything you read without questioning it."

Scripture outside of Canon

Since the beginning of the semester, we have considered what constitutes canonical scripture—and we still are. Dr. Frans Van Liere gives us an introduction to how the Medieval Bible was different to the Modern Bible. Dr. Liere states “these differences, however, pale in comparison to the bewilderment that can confront a modern student who opens a medieval bible” (53). The differences he talks about were about the order of the books, the different names and numbering. Then, Dr. Liere digs into the influence of “non-canonical” scripture and how they were disputed until the sixteenth century when Catholics listened to Augustine and decided to include the Apocrypha and Protestants took it out and listened to Jerome—but, people continue to read the influential texts that are not in the canon to explain the books within the canon. Therefore, I wanted to focus on what canonical means because if the texts outside of the canon are influencing how people think about the books in the canon, aren’t they somewhat canonical as well?

Liere writes about instrumental texts outside of the Bible and then states, “Although these latter books were never really regarded as canonical, some continued to have considerable influence of the interpretation of the canonical books” (78). Because people use books outside of the Bible to interpret the Canon, I argue that some people draw a thin line if any between the books in the Canon and the books outside of the Canon. The more we read and go more in depth, the more one can argue that the Scripture can be found outside of the Canon as well as inside of the Canon. So does the word Canon merely mean: a book included in the Bible?

 Apocrypha

In the Medieval Canon by Frans van Liere, I felt like I learnt more about the Old Testament Apocrypha, as we have done more of the NT apocrypha. The Hebrew Bible which is dived into three groups of books, the five books of Torah, the Prophets and the Writings. All the scholars agree that there five books of the Torah but they come to disagree on volumes of the Prophets and the Writings. I thought the Christian church father Jerome was interesting the way he made the number of books as twenty two, and made it similar to the alphabets letters in the Hebrew bible. However he excluded/ refused to include the “apocrypha books”.

Later on Jerome Hebrew Bible Canon did become the Catholic Hebrew bible, however later on the catholic church did accept/consider these apocrypha books as scripture and so leads me to question whether these OT apocrypha were inspired or not.

This is what brings about division among the different Christians religion- Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. Apocrypha that Catholic OT canon includes are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, I and II Maccabees plus sections of Esther and Daniel which are absent from the other Christian OT. Whereas the Jews and the Protestant don’t believe apocrypha are not inspired as they were not fund in the Aleppo Codex.

Furthermore the fact that in the NT Jesus does not mention any of the OT apocrypha provides proof to some scholars and Christian religion that Apocrypha were not inspired. Now again, these books were written by God-fearing Jews—not Catholics nor Protestants. And they were written before Christ, so its authors did not have a chance to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

The Apocryphal books do not share many of the characteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers' works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them.

I also think that one thing that is influencing other Christian and Jewish religions from acknowledging the OT Apocrypha is because they think it’s Catholic, they don’t want to taint their theology with the view of Rome. However these “apocrypha” were not written by Catholics, for Catholics nor did the authors set to expand the Catholic doctrine.

Apocrypha provides us with books like Books like 1 Maccabees acquaint us with the history that branded the idea of the kingdom of God on the hearts and minds of first century Jews. 4 Ezra, which is in some versions of the Apocrypha) helps us to interpret the book of Revelation. It too talks about weird creatures coming out of the sea. In short, these books help us to situate the NT in its own context.

Adaptability and Influence in Medieval Judaism

Early medieval Judaism faced the problem of the Bible becoming a “closed book” for most European Jews due to the spread of Jews through Europe and therefore the loss of Hebrew as a spoken language, as well as the fact that some biblical doctrine did not coincide with rabbinic teachings. However, this problem did not last due to the increasing popularity of biblical exegesis during that time and the ability of medieval Judaism to absorb aspects of contemporary culture. In fact, Judaism's response to the cultural changes around it demonstrate an enduring adaptability.

We see both extensive commentary on the books of the Hebrew Bible from this period as well as Christian, Muslim, and secular influence in the preservation and evolution of the text. Among the medieval Jewish exegetes, figures like Rashi (Rabbi Solomon b. Isaac), whose work is still valued by today’s Orthodox Jews, and Abraham Ibn ‘Ezra, a wielder of healthy skepticism and rationalism, stand out prominently for their long and nuanced commentaries. Commentary and understanding, alongside the needs of women and the uneducated to understand scripture, prompted the beginnings of translation into vernacular languages. We see outside influence here also as in the case of the Bible of the Duke of Alba, a Spanish Jewish Bible which was translated from the Vulgate but with preference for the Hebrew text when differences were noted. The nature of the work and the rabbi's willingness to do it show the harmony which existed between Jews and Christians of the period in Spain. Codices containing the Bible and other texts like the Haggadah also began to be decorated, some with sacred objects and symbols, others with knights or animals, and still others with script and illuminations inspired by Muslim art.

These developments mark the adaptability of Judaism and, indeed, religion itself in medieval Europe. Not only was this a time during which scholars were exploring questions about faith and scripture, but it was also a time in which ideas from secular life and competing traditions could be integrated into part of one’s religion. While the Middle Ages were certainly no bastion of religious tolerance, this idea does stand in opposition to thoughts of medieval religion as completely intolerant of outside ideas.

Questionable Decisions

In this week’s readings, we had to read a chapter from the book An Introduction to the Medieval Bible by Frans van Liere. In reading chapter 3 The Medieval Canon, Liere addresses how the medieval bible differs from the Christian bible. One of the interesting points that Liere brings up is that the medieval bible contains Old Testament apocrypha which are were never canonized. It’s interesting that some of these texts are non canonical, yet in the Greek translation called Septuagint (which is grouped with the Old Testament apocrypha), it has raised some debates because of the legend of its origin. This "legend eventually became a Christian argument for the superiority of the Greek biblical traditions over the Hebrew ones." (The Medieval Canon 62). However, the true origins of this scripture was that it was written for the diasporic Jews.  

Looking at the differences on the origin of how the Septuagint came into existence, why would Christians have these debates over Greek traditions and Hebrew ones. If the argument is being formulated based on the legend of how this scripture came into being, wouldn’t their argument collapse on itself because the legend in based on Jewish beliefs? Augustine was one who thought the Greeks traditions were better because of the Septuagint translation. I’m also having difficulty understanding why these texts were rejected by the Jewish communities. These scriptures were written for them. Liere states that “the canonicity of these texts among Christians in this ancient world may even have been a factor in the rejection of these texts from the Jewish canon” (Liere 63). Why would you reject a text that was made for you just because someone you don’t like likes it too? That’s like saying you don’t want to eat a hamburger because a person you hate wants a hamburger as well. The rejection of these texts, in my opinion, was immature of the Jewish community of that time.

Did Symbolism Significantly Change the Bible?

The Bible relies heavily on symbolism, frequently seen in the usage of numbers. Among the many, 40 is a commonly seen number in both the Old and New Testament. Either God just has a certain affinity for a handful of numbers and any reference to "40" should be taken literally, or this is a part of the Bible that represents something else -- was there actually 40 day's and nights of flooding in Genesis, and did Jesus really spend 40 days in the desert? Probably not exactly.

Clearly symbolism was important in antiquity. But what happens when symbolism results in edits to these biblical stories in a significant way? The story of Noah and the flood told in Genesis is seen in places other than the Bible -- specifically here in the Epic of Gilgamesh, an epic poem from Mesopotamia. The flood story in Gilgamesh parallels Genesis, almost to a "t". It is not too much of a stretch to claim that the flood story recounted in Genesis was modeled to some extent on the older, very similar Mesopotamian story. However, one of the few noticeable changes in Genesis's account of the flood is its length. Why? The easy answer is that the change from 6 days worth of flooding (as told in Gilgamesh) to a much longer and symbolic 40 days seems to suggest that writers had no qualms about editing their story for a greater purpose -- in this case, promoting the importance of symbolism through numbers which they do frequently in both the Old and New Testament.

When reading Van Liere's "An Introduction to the Medieval Bible", the idea of symbolism reared its head again. Van Liere states that the Codex Amiatinus has 70 books -- 70 another symbolic number. This didn't just happen by chance, as "two letters of Peter are taken as one, and the book of Lamentations was regarded as a part of Jeremiah"(54). This got me thinking, did this emphasis on symbolism have a grander effect on the canon as we know it today than just the changing of some stories as seen in Genesis? For example, the Hebrew Bible has 24 books in total, another symbolic number seen frequently in the Old Testament. If the writers in antiquity were willing to edit, blend, and cut stories in order to reach the number 70, did this occur in other cases still seen today such as the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible (similar to where Van Liere discusses the 22 books put together by Jerome, and the symbolism of the number 22)? It certainly seems that Van Liere is suggesting this importance of symbolism had a much greater affect on the Bible than we previously may have given credit.

Interpretation and Illumination

            Interpreting the bible is not an easy job; the numerous translations, languages, fragmented manuscripts, and expectations that people have for the text all contribute to the difficulty. Sometimes, the difficulty does not come from the many complexities present in the history and content of the text, but trouble occurs when a line is taken out of its context. In the case of the second commandment, often cited as a prohibition of art, the misinterpretation is a result of not reading quite far enough.

            As is clear by the numerous medieval illuminated Bible manuscripts as well as records of mosaics and of Jews painting murals on the walls of their homes, this interpretation was not how the passage was understood in the medieval period.  Instead, the next line was included as well, specifying that sculptures and images were not to be bowed to or worshipped (37).  This issue also comes up in reference to Muslim art, where it has been asserted that Islam strictly prohibits the depiction of humans, at the very least.  In fact, animal and human forms were often depicted in art (38).  There have been some arguments made that part of the commandment was added on, though which part was the original is unclear.  Even in this case, the artists clearly did not care if part was a later addition or not, and just took the commandment as a whole.

            This sort of interpretation is fascinating to me.  The misunderstanding is so very easily cleared up: by just reading the next line, the thought that the second commandment prohibits art is dismissed. If not by the text itself, the artifacts and evidence that the readers and followers of the text made art and accepted it (even within the pages of the holy book itself!) are plenty to prove that art and the human form were not prohibited.  It is not a difficult mistake, but it is also not difficult to remedy, and that it has maintained a foothold as an interpretation of the text is indicative of how important context and careful reading are to interpretation. 

Change Outside the Canon: How Views of the Apocrypha Have Transformed Over Time

The initial part of Annette Yoshiko Reed’s essay “The Afterlives of the New Testament Apocrypha” introduces some of the afterlife paths of parabiblical texts, and it also provides general background on the separation and collections of apocryphal writings. By following this history, readers gain a better understanding of different views of the New Testament Apocrypha over its years of existence.

According to Reed, concern over false apocryphal writing has existed since the second century. Philosophers and theologians have worked to define Christian scripture and identify texts as authoritative scripture or parabiblical. Examples from this essay include Irenaeus’s concern with “apocryphal and spurious writings” and Athanasius’s defining of scripture, other books to read, and works to be dismissed (407-408). These strategies, along with the approaches of figures such as Eusebius, whose methods for determining the value of different scriptural texts were discussed during our last meeting, demonstrate the “rise of more systematic attempts to list the contents of Christian Scripture” into the fourth and fifth centuries. In Athanasius’s model, apocryphal texts were those outside of the most authoritative canon but that were still valuable and worth reading in some circumstances (408). However, throughout time this view of the Apocrypha changed. Today, it is popularly assumed that apocryphal texts are contrary to scripture, or countercanon, and according to Reed, this view largely arose from “anxieties about apocrypha…in the period of canon formation” (410). Interest in the Apocrypha has returned in a few different settings, such as the eighteenth century scholarly interest in England, but curiosity about these texts today are largely shaped by the presentation by popular media—and the fictional spinoffs and conspiracy theories that exist in today’s culture are still strongly influenced by the view of apocryphal texts as countercanon.

Growing up going to a Protestant church, I never encountered these parabiblical writings, so it is interesting to see how people’s perceptions of these texts have changed over time. Despite what I would have assumed from the portrayal of such texts today, apocryphal texts have not necessarily been considered as going against canonized scripture, implying that texts that are widely rejected may have had significant influence in the past and could still have an impact today.

Considering Apocryphal Writings

Who was Jesus really? The drive to answer this question was present in medieval times and is still present today. It’s a loaded question. Some seek to validate their Christian faith, while others seek to find flaws in the figure so many hold in high esteem. Either way, it is a challenging question that relates to the treatment of apocryphal writings such as the Gospel of Thomas.

In the Gospel of Thomas, full attention is given to Jesus’ childhood. In canonical scripture, the only insight given regarding Jesus’ early life is his interaction with teachers in the temple at age twelve (Luke 2:41-52). The Gospel of Thomas includes this anecdote, but also tells of his younger more immature years. This text portrays Jesus as a child prone to tantrums and petulance, yet having godly powers and superiority. Apocryphal writings like the Gospel of Thomas are often seen as being in contention with the canonical books of the Bible. Focusing in on this issue, people want to know what apocryphal writings can tell us about Jesus.

Annette Yoshiko Reed looks beyond this traditional conversation surrounding the New Testament apocrypha, and instead turns to how apocryphal writings influence people and their perspectives. I find this take on apocrypha refreshing, as it focuses more on the impact of apocrypha instead of strictly engaging and evaluating the content. Browsing Reed’s tumblr, it is fascinating to see how apocrypha has captured the imagination of animé artists. This re-purposing of apocryphal writings shows how texts are continuously being re-imagined and used in different ways today in different cultures and communities. It is important to consider not only how biblical stories are “reinvented”, but also how apocryphal texts experience this reinvention too.

NT Apocrypha as Counter Canon

This article by Annette Yoshiko explores the topic of  Para biblical literature in biblical studies through focus on New Testament Apocrypha. What I though was interesting about this article was the idea that the NT Apocrypha is a counter canon. That is defined by Hennecke and Schnemmelcher as writings that have not been received into the canon (but should be part of the Canon) and which form the point of view of Form Criticism further develop and mould the kinds of style created and received in the NT.

                As I said from my previous blog post I do think that these NT apocrypha (e.g. The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Thomas, Infancy Gospel of Thomas etc.) should be considered in the Bible or at least by Christian leaders of different churches. Furthermore if these books don’t get the chance to get in the Bible, because “the canon is closed”, if it is possible for the Christian leaders to accept these (some) books as part of the Christianity apostolicity or historicity. That would give opportunity for Christians to read/learn other different stories of Jesus and tales of what his apostles did after he died.

                In the article Annette states in page 415 that the scholars (Whiston, Toland and Hone) operate under the shared assumption that such Para biblical writings are either “late” forgeries……or potential sources for exposing he suppressed truth……” I still don’t think there is anything wrong by considering some of these Apocrypha, as some of the books that are in the NT  Bible are also considered as fraudulent. Additionally let’s say if we consider to put the infancy Gospel of Thomas, even though it claims not to be written by Thomas, there a bunch of letters from Paul in the NT that are considered as Pseudography.

 This Gospel also gives us an inside story of Jesus’s childhood. Something that is not talked about in most of the Gospels found in the NT Bible. Even though Jesus is not portrayed as the best child, (you would think he would be) he comes off as obnoxious, selfish seems to do miraculous or dangerous acts out of impulse. In the bible, the Jesus we read about does not act impulsively or on a whim, he has reasoning behind his actions. This could be the reason the church would not consider it as part of the Canon. However as Jesus is growing he changes for the better. The Gospel also shows that Jesus could read, good argument for scholars who say he could not read.

Overall, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas does show Jesus as full of knowledge and power, but also shows him as immature and mischievous. Jesus did have childish aspects in him that made him seem very imperfect, however, there are signs and miracles that Jesus performed that shows that he would most likely mature and evolve into the Jesus that is in the ancient scriptures.

This Gospel is just an example of the many other parable writings, which even though are claimed to be written by the authors, are very interesting, and “could result in the recovery of dynamic trajectories and connection that shaped the worlds of late antiquity and the Middle Ages” (425)

Talk About Baby Jesus

Why are people so afraid to personify Jesus the child? We are aware through readings in today’s New Testament that Jesus is the son of God just as well as he is the son of man. We also have a widely accepted notion that Jesus was carried and born to Mary as a BABY. Therefore why is it so difficult to assume Jesus in the form of a child? Much less believable notions exist and are accepted today. In the Infancy Gospel on Thomas, we are introduced to a wise, yet emotionally immature Jesus with extraordinary divine power. But as one can imagine, as wise and knowing as Jesus is, there is still cases of him having to learn to control and master his emotional outbursts, as any adolescent does. At one point the people of the town come and threaten Joseph, saying, “Because you have this boy you cannot live with us in this village. If you wish to be here, teach him to bless and not to curse” (Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Chapter 11). Can you imagine? Learning one day that the boy you threatened to kick out of town would grow to become the savior messiah? However it is the other part of the threat I would like to focus in on; the people wish for Joseph to TEACH Jesus something apparently unfamiliar to him within his vast understanding of all- how to be human.

But why is this concept not accepted? Infancy scriptures of Jesus are accepted among Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. We see this in art work across the ages. Yet, somehow the text itself was deemed unworthy to become a part of the New Testament as it is known today. Annette Yoshiko Reed illustrates the many times throughout history where scripture has been reviewed, rewritten, and debated as to whether or not that particular piece was worthy or correct enough to be invited into the world of canonization. Different established religious groups of people over time have reviewed scripture, defying the term and limitations of what each believes supports their own ideals of Christianity. However, this is greatly affected by the views and values of each time period. Unfortunately, that also means that as time goes by, less and less scripture survives due to ‘unworthy’ texts being destroyed after each successive meeting. Therefore, at one point, it seems that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, as well as other Infancy apocrypha floating around, were rejected and never made it into the actual canonized New Testament that we accept today. 

Divine Child Acts Like a Real Baby

    One major lesson I've taken away from Religion classes I've taken is that each depiction of Jesus uses his figure in a different way, centering on specific aspects of his character in order to present him in a certain light: teacher, martyr, prophet, etc. So, when reading the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, one of the questions I asked myself was 'how are they portraying their Jesus?' And overall, the answer is not great. It's confusing to me, actually- the entire gospel is Jesus repeatedly enacting miracles, which speaks to a culture trying to assert the divinity of Jesus as a figure. Yet all of these miracles are spurred by extremely childish reactions to other children, which to me is asserting his human nature. 

    The image of a being with divine powers acting like a baby is highly contradictory to me; I can understand a society's writings depicting Jesus as a child performing miracles to perform a purpose, and I can understand a society's writings depicting Jesus as a child being short-tempered to perform a purpose, but the two together seem to be images of Jesus from two different cultural understandings of Jesus' figure. I struggle to understand how they understood Jesus as divinity when all of his miracles were so malicious, able to act as God yet behaving like a child. To me, even a child with divine powers would be expected to behave with the wisdom of God; that Jesus lacks this in IGT leads me to believe they saw Jesus as somewhat separate from God, otherwise they would have depicted the Christ Child behaving in a more gracious way. 

Unclosed Canon

In our course so far, we have studied parabiblical texts and have questioned their purpose and why they were not included in the Canon. We have read texts like the Book of Jubilees and the Protoevangelium of James. After reading Dr. Reed’s text, The Afterlives of New Testament Apocrypha, I wonder even more why these texts were lost, newly found and not included in the Bible. These texts are clearly important because “recent research has emphasized their potential both to shed light on the origins of Christianity and to add to our knowledge of the history of biblical interpretation” (Reed 401). So why were these texts lost or not included in the Canon? I was really intrigued when Dr. Reed mentioned, Bart Ehrman’s 2003 Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It into the New Testament— so I followed up with more research.

After watching several videos, I came across a video (posted below) that was not merely about lost scripture, but about “Lost Christianities”.  The first religion that was mentioned was the Ebionites—and they were Jewish-Christians who followed Jewish customs but believed that Jesus was the Messiah.  When Bart was speaking about the Ebionites and their “scripture”, he said that they retained the Old Testament as their scripture but had other scriptures that did not later make it in to the canon that were authoritative and inspired. Here we have a devout religion that has a set book of Scripture, but looks to outside authoritative sources as well. So since the time of the Ebionites—thought to be around the description of the Second Temple (70 AD)—people were already reading outside of their Scripture. Therefore, just like Dr. Reed was saying, the Ebionites found beneficial knowledge in these texts or gospels outside of their Scripture.

Watching the video helped me understand that people have been looking outside their Scripture or Canon for a long time and still saw them as authoritative. Because of the research that Dr. Reed points out, we can come to the conclusion that there are more texts outside of the Bible that are or could be authoritative for certain religions. This makes me wonder, has the Canon ever been closed?