Procrastination man - Part 2

The Bible is made up of two parts – the Old and the New Testament. Whilst there is little doubt as to the authority of the Old Testament’s books (as that was pretty much fixed by the time of Jesus – the only possible exception being the book of Esther, which is not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls), the New Testament can be the object of quite some debate.
It would seem, from the extant literature on the matter, that people debating the issue put forward arguments of disputed authorship or date of writing. To check whether it was indeed Paul who wrote the Epistles or John the book of Revelation is indeed something of quite some matter; however, I am no specialist, and I am willing to trust both the authorship and the date of writing. Historical arguments are of little interest to me.

What is much more interesting is why some books are canon, some are apocryphal, and some are deemed unworthy to be included in Scripture. Again, I am taking it at face value that the “other Gospels”, including the famous gospel of Judas, have very much debatable authorship and am willing to trust scholars on this. And I can see why the four authenticated Gospels and the Acts are included in the Bible. My problem starts with the Epistles and with the book of Revelation.
If the former are very much theology essays, inspired though they are, the fact remains that, by declaring that no book should be added to the Bible (Revelation 22:18-19, though this can be taken as only relating to that specific book – anyway, we have a de facto lack of addition), there seems to be a clear impossibility for anyone to be inspired in the same way Paul was.
Further, taking the Epistles as authoritative goes one step beyond believing in the Holy Spirit’s work and in other tenets of Christianity: it is believing that Paul was inspired. And as far as I know, there is no reason to believe Paul can be more inspired than anyone else. Similarly, whilst I can believe in the Holy Spirit’s guidance as a general principle, I cannot accept at face value that the Council of Trent in particular was inspired. The issue arises very specifically when different authorities disagree on canon.
Rationally, however, it makes sense to include in the Bible issues concerning every Christian’s life rather than issues regarding Church matters, e.g. the letter of Clement of Rome. It makes sense to give a special place to the apostles when it comes to giving an account of Jesus’ life. AND it makes sense to include visions that are accepted as such (i.e. Revelation). BUT it makes little sense to say that John’s vision was more likely to be a proper vision than other laymen’s: The Shepherd of Hermas should, in my view, be given as much attention as Revelation and cannot be dismissed simply on grounds of its non-apostolic origin. The same holds, to a lesser extent, for the Didache, though apostles are more likely to have received the teachings of Jesus in a non-distorted way, and the Didache may well not be inspired.
Why not include non-apostolic writings in the Bible? Politically, it makes sense indeed, if one wants to create an authority and have a clear cut-off. Considering the number of “heretic” sects around (Gnostics) during the first few centuries, this attitude makes sense and probably provided the early Church with more unity than it would otherwise have had. It was, then, a good decision. It doesn’t mean that the writings that were rejected were not inspired and worth reading.
Conversely, some canon books seem to have been disputed – in effect, that Paul actually wrote Hebrews took some time to be recognised, and the following do not appear to be referenced by several of the early church leaders: James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John. The reason advanced for doubts about 2 Peter are stylistic differences between it and 1 Peter, and as these can be rationally explained, I am more than willing to accept it; I am not learned enough to come to a decision with regards to the other four, so will adopt extra caution with them.
And here comes one of the major issues: all I have read up on canon went from the principle of defending an established canon. Whilst Edwards’s book, Why 27? is very interesting and made me discover, amongst other things, the Shepherd of Hermas, suffers from that exactly, as can be seen when it dismisses evidence in this: “The writer is equally unhelpful in quoting from the Wisdom of Solomon and 2 Baruch as if they are Scripture.” (p. 93), which appears in a chapter identifying writings referencing canon books as a proof they were well circulated and considered Scripture by the early church fathers. Still, such books are useful to point out issues and the history of the early church, as well as the gathering of different books.

So here we are, with a body of texts with a different level of “canon”. The temptation is big to make the link with spin-off fiction in Doctor Who, and indeed Paul Cornell (of Human Nature fame) wrote a very interesting entry on the matter of Who canon on his blog. There is a body of works that is pretty much accepted by everyone (The TV Series). Some oldies refuse to consider the New Series as canon (in a very farfetched manner, the Jews), some refuse to accept the Old Series (Gnostics?), even though the New Series draws heavily upon it. And then there’s works of debatable canonicity: the Big Finish Audios, the Virgin New Adventures, the Virgin Missing Adventures, all the wealth of BBC Books (EDA and PDA), and going even further, all the fanfiction lying around on the Interweb. Some decide they are canon, some that they are a good read but not canon (and in fairness, calling The Island of Death a good read is very generous).
Paul Cornell makes a very valid point regarding those: that what is canon, ultimately, depends on what individuals are willing to accept as such. In the case of Doctor Who, there is no ultimate authority, universally recognised, to say “this is canon, this is not”. As far as I am aware, this reflects pretty much the situation of the Early Church (before the Catholic Church got the organisation we know it has, and papal primacy was widely recognised), and to an extent the situation we have today. Little wonder, then, that different churches had different texts.
But, much like the New Series is appreciated by most Whovians, and is the closest thing Who has to a centrepiece, so the books that were used in most churches, including the Epistles, are to be considered central to Christian faith and practice. The other books, whether included in canon or not, are interesting reads, but not to be taken at face value as much as the other ones.

In a Doctor Who gap year (where there is still a lot of activity for Tennant, from an animated series to cameos and specials), the news that Torchwood's third series would be limited to five episodes over one week received mixed receptions.
Whilst John Barrowman reportedly considered this reduction unfair, some (including myself) considered it a bold move which should pay off if the story was strong enough. And considering how strong a brand Doctor Who is, the production team probably would not have chosen this format if they were not sure about it.

And by Jove they were right. Torchwood: Children of Earth is new, darker, harrowing and the tension that is maintained throughout would have suffered from a multi-week format. The choice of one single story pays off as well, as every character is developed with utmost care - Frobisher and his aide most specifically. (Careful, spoilers start here!)
But more importantly, choosing a new format also meant pushing boundaries back. Not quite a clean slate, but after the death of Owen and Toshiko at the end of series 2, there were quite a few degrees of freedom for the writers. In the same way that, in Doctor Who, the only constant is (pretty much) the TARDIS, in Torchwood, the only constants became the Hub and Jack Harkness at the start of this third series.
Not quite. Day One sees the Hub being blown to smithereens, along with Jack. Nothing can ever be the same again. The mechanisms that we saw used to recruit new members of Torchwood turn out (very sadly) to end up quite badly. The action is not centered in Cardiff anymore at the end of Day One, but in London. This is the first indication that, in this series, everything changes.

We were promised an epic - and we are deceived. Tricked. The story is of epic proportions, as are the production values (hats off to Euros Lyn for a really great direction. A great shame that Torchwood seems like it's over, as he seems very much more suited to adult material than kids TV), but it is not an epic as much as it is an overblown modern drama/tragedy. Jack is portrayed in the first two series of the show as some weird kind of hero, but a hero nonetheless. The end of Day Three proves otherwise, and the end of Day Five puts the last nail to the coffin of the idea of Jack as a hero.
Children of Earth is grim. Harrowing. Shocking. In that respect, it fits in the continuity of Torchwood's second series (remember that episode where a mother says she'd rather not have found her son again), but blows it hundredfold. That the ones who could help are chased for politicians' reasons, that there is no consideration at any moment amongst the powers that be to refuse giving over the children is chilling enough, but when the hero follows the same path and kills on-screen and knowingly a child, all the rules of television are broken. It does not help that it is made worriyingly realistic by going to take kids from various schools but also various anonymous homes, or through the passing reference to league tables (one of the most chilling quotes ever). And through a very delicately crafted background for Frobisher, we see how it is possible that governments would decide this way.
So yeah, the 456 might not look much (but the reason they want children is quite nicely planted from Day Three), there might be minor plot holes (e.g. why does the army stop, or the end of Day Two) but the season grows from strength to strength. Even Day Four's big shock gets topped in Day Five. And Russel T Davies manages to write a conclusion without a deus ex machina (well... at least it was planted before the climax). For all these reasons, Torchwood: Children of Earth is great - better even than quite a lot of Doctor Who episodes. Iplayer it as soon as you can!