***As for the early Church ‘canon’ the only thing that is sure is that every one quoted whatever they felt was true.***
Nice essay. A little more extended than the ones I hurriedly googled up.
***The oldest Bible (Codex Sinaiticus, c. 350 AD) has Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas as part of the canon.
It is clear, then, that canon fluctuated form person to person, and that even those who recognized pretty much the same books as we have today, still considered many others as either of value or outright canonical (inspired).***
Exactly. Where are the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Judas, etc.? All of them floated around to one degree or another. I remember a conversation I had with a CofC preacher who in a fit of apoplexia (debating Scripture with a lowly Catholic - me) told me that if the KJV was good enough for Jesus it was good enough for me. I think that he was just angry enough to have believed it.
It is amazing the folks that believe that Jesus and the Apostles walked around with a KJV tucked in their pouches.
The pieces of the Church puzzle, Mark, are so minuscule, and so numerous, a quick Google check will do the Church and the seeker injustice. I spend hours, days, weeks, researching this stuff. It's fascinating and yet it's also very revealing that the mental image we have is not what it was all about way back then, even if the terms used were the same.
Where are the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Judas, etc.? All of them floated around to one degree or another
Spot on, Mark. The Acts of Peter were at one time read in Rome. Early Christianity, even the orthodox party that eventually prevailed, was profoundly heterodox in some aspects.
It is amazing the folks that believe that Jesus and the Apostles walked around with a KJV tucked in their pouches.
Pretty much. Some seem to believe the Bible fell down from the sky like the manna. Scary.