Most college and seminary courses on the New Testament include discussions of the process that gave shape to the New Testament. Now David Dungan re-examines the primary source for this history, the Ecclesiastical History of the fourth-century Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, in the light of Hellenistic political thought. He reaches startling new conclusions: that we usually use the term "canon" incorrectly; that the legal imposition of a "canon" or "rule" upon scripture was a fourth- and fifth-century phenomenon enforced with the power of the Roman imperial government; that the forces shaping the New Testament canon are much earlier than the second-century crisis occasioned by Marcion, and that they are political forces. Dungan discusses how the scripture selection process worked, book-by-book, as he examines the criteria used?and not used?to make these decisions. Finally he describes the consequences of the emperor Constantine's tremendous achievement in transforming orthodox, Catholic Christianity into imperial Christianity.

"Beginning with a meticulous study of just what a canon is, Dungan offers a panoramic view of the first three centuries of Christian history and how the major players, both ecclesiastical and civil, contributed to defining the collection of writings we call the New Testament. One of the claims of the bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code is that the institution of theCatholic Church suppressed some writings that challenged its own views and agendas. Dungan, professor of religion at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, finds this view untenable and offers as evidence a long and detailed examination of the scripture selection process as documented by the fourth-century church historian Eusebius. While various schools of Christianity exerted pressure to either include or exclude certain works, he concludes that the selection process produced 'a minimalist canon, but one that is as hard as rock: all regional agendas have been intentionally ignored, all personal proclivities of prominent theologians or bishops dispensed with, every possible taint of 'politicking' avoided.' Although written for the general reader, the book's detail can be overwhelming. But while his case for an orthodox canon is not unassailable, he succeeds in providing a wealth of information to enable readers to decide for themselves." Publishers Weekly (Copyright Reed Business Information, Inc.)