The Canon

don · 09-18-09 7:38 am

Bill has suggested that we set up a new thread to further the discussion regarding the Biblical Canon. This thread intends to do so. For some of the background discussion, see: <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=5&post=6776#POST6776" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?t pc=5&post=6776#POST6776</a> .

don · 09-18-09 8:30 am

The Hebrew Canon - The Biblical Evidence As I was reading Sundberg's <a href="http://department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/sundbergJr.htm" target="_blank">"'The Old Testament of the Early Church' Revisited "</a>, I have noted his effective use of Scripture. What do the writings of Biblical times reveal about the canon? Exhibit #1<blockquote>2 Kings 22 The Book of the Law Found 1 Josiah was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem thirty-one years. His mother's name was Jedidah daughter of Adaiah; she was from Bozkath. 2 He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD and walked in all the ways of his father David, not turning aside to the right or to the left. 3 In the eighteenth year of his reign, King Josiah sent the secretary, Shaphan son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam, to the temple of the LORD. He said: 4 "Go up to Hilkiah the high priest and have him get ready the money that has been brought into the temple of the LORD, which the doorkeepers have collected from the people. 5 Have them entrust it to the men appointed to supervise the work on the temple. And have these men pay the workers who repair the temple of the LORD - 6 the carpenters, the builders and the masons. Also have them purchase timber and dressed stone to repair the temple. 7 But they need not account for the money entrusted to them, because they are acting faithfully." 8 Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the LORD." He gave it to Shaphan, who read it. 9 Then Shaphan the secretary went to the king and reported to him: "Your officials have paid out the money that was in the temple of the LORD and have entrusted it to the workers and supervisors at the temple." 10 Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king. 11 When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. 12 He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Acbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king's attendant: 13 "Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the LORD's anger that burns against us because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us." 14 Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Acbor, Shaphan and Asaiah went to speak to the prophetess Huldah, who was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. She lived in Jerusalem, in the Second District. 15 She said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Tell the man who sent you to me, 16 'This is what the LORD says: I am going to bring disaster on this place and its people, according to everything written in the book the king of Judah has read. 17 Because they have forsaken me and burned incense to other gods and provoked me to anger by all the idols their hands have made, my anger will burn against this place and will not be quenched.' 18 Tell the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the LORD, 'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says concerning the words you heard: 19 Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the LORD when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people, that they would become accursed and laid waste, and because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I have heard you, declares the LORD. 20 Therefore I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be buried in peace. Your eyes will not see all the disaster I am going to bring on this place.' " So they took her answer back to the king. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Kings+22&version=NIV" target=_top>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Kings +22&version=NIV</a></blockquote>Notes This discovery was of the Torah, or Books of Moses. Notice that it was understood to be canonical. Everyone involved knew its status. No vote here; just tearing of one's robes. Also, Huldah's words were acknowledged as from the LORD. She commended Josiah for his attitude toward the canon, the Law. We have no indication that Huldah's words became canonical. This passage places the Law in a unique relationship with the "church". Philosophically, we could examine Huldah's role in any future record of the "church" but her concern is not with her own status. That seems already understood. There is no indication that her statements were preserved by the Huldah estate. I think if I were there, I would study her life to see how she lived, what she said, etc. I would have recorded her messages; maybe published them as Testimonies Volume 1 to ? What about the Prophets and the Writings? I think the textual critics would have had a field day. Which part of the manuscript discovered was J, E, D, or P? I wonder if any of the textual critics would have torn their robes? The Dead Sea Scrolls are still exhibited in Toronto. This discovery of the Law by Josiah's men would have been on display, perhaps. (Message edited by Don on September 18, 2009)

cadge · 09-18-09 11:17 am

Don, here's an interesting exchange concerning, when the writings were available as opposed to somes thinking that oral tradition was for a great measure of time before the transcripts were scribed. The canon, according to one individual was not really settled until the council at Hippo. It was good to see instruction, by the church fathers before popery, that the trust in the divinely inspired word was where we can firmly stand, and that, as we are told by the reference to the bereans in Acts 17, to confirm or question those who would claim authority, by the scriptures. <a href="http://home.flash.net/~thinkman/dialogue/discuss/canon1.htm" target=_top>http://home.flash.net/~thinkman/dialogue/discuss/c anon1.htm</a> (From wikipedia:" At the Synod of Hippo (393), and again at the Synod of 397 at Carthage, a list of the books of Holy Scripture was drawn up. It is the Catholic canon (i.e. including some of the books later classed by Protestants asApocrypha)". <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippo_Regius" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippo_Regius</a> Cadge

elaine · 09-18-09 4:22 pm

Cadge, the first link had a quote from Albright, an early twentieth century archeologist, whose conclusions have been overturned by much more recent excavations. His search was driven by a strong passion to "prove" that the Bible stories were correct. Since then, massive new digs have proved that there was never a town of Jericho when it should have been, and that there is little evidence for the Exodus and much of the early biblical story. The Bible Unearthed is a treasure trove of the newest information on ancient Israel and the origin of its sacred texts.

elaine · 09-18-09 4:47 pm

Re: Book of the Law: From the book review Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible by Karel van der Toorn, Harvard University Press, 2007: "Scholars have shown that the Council of Jamnia never happened. It was a fiction invented by Christians, who wanted to establish authority for their 'Old Testament.' "Even though we refer to the 'books of the Bible,' they are in fact not books at all but rather collections of material intended for oral use. The best estimates of literacy in ancient Israel are 5% aof the the population, meaning that the scrolls could be understood only by priests and Levites. The actual dissemination of the law, prophets and writings involved preaching from memory. If a mistake was made, it was checked against the scroll in the temple. Obviously, this is the only way it could have worked, because the average scroll held about 40 pages of modern text, so to roll out the whole thing every time you wanted to read three verses would have been impossible, not to mention the fact that preaching went on in all areas of the nation. To make the scroll available to every Levite teacher would have been way too much wear and tear on it. And there was only scroll for each body of material. When any scroll wore out, a new one was made and the old one destroyed. (This is why scholars of the Hebrew Bible have a much harder time than scholars of, say, the Epic of Gilgamesh, who have many variant copies to work with, from different efras of Babylonian history.) The average life of the scroll was approximately 40 years, and most additions and changes were made whenever it had to be recopied. The emendations would come under the rubric of "expansions" of scripture, not really changes; which is why there are so many duplicate passages in the Bible: the new version has been placed side by side with the old version, including the parts that use identical language so that nothing will be lost. The scribes were both the caretakers of Torah, the preachers of Torah, and its ultimate interpreters. The two monuments of scribal culture--Deuteronomy and Jermiah, show how the different layers of their construction reveal different scribal concerns at different points in Israel's history. There are actually four versions of Deuteronomy, but they don't break down into easily discernible segments. The time set for the canonization of the Bible--or at least its beginning--was around 450 B.C., when Persian authorities ordered each nation under Persia's control to submit a legal constitution. IOW, the Jews were told that there must be a written "Law of your God" for all Jewish citizens, and if they didn't have one, then they needed to create one--that law would then become Persian law. To accomplish this, Ezra the scribe was appointed the representative of Israel and sent from Babylonia to Jerusalem to reorganize Judah. The result was "the Law of Moses"--the first time the the Pentateuch was named. The fact that, as a law code, this collection was artificial redundant and often conflicting, seemed to bother neither Israel or Persia. "Without the Persians, there would not have been a Pentateuch," writes van der Toorn, President of Amsterdam University.

don · 09-18-09 5:23 pm

Elaine, do you belief these speculative ideas? I suppose one way to get a better understanding of the era is to have varying hypotheses. I am not comfortable with a rush to judgment. As I read your post, my reaction was "Show me the evidence for this conclusion." In other words, "Do a better job convincing me." <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> . (Message edited by Don on September 18, 2009)

elaine · 09-19-09 1:34 pm

"Speculative" ? It seems more speculative to believe the tradition (and it IS tradition) about who wrote the Bible and the Book of the Law than to believe the archeologists who have spent lifetimes, literally, in attempts to show that the Bible stories have a basis in fact. Have you read The Bible Unearthed ? I suggest that until you have read this, and the many other books on the latest discoveries in the Bible lands, that you have nothing more than tradition on which to believe--which is subjective. The objective evidence by those who have studied this, far more than either you or I, have made these conclusions, and if they are rejected, what opposing evidence do you have to refute them? Quoting from that book: "The Deuteronomistic History was not history writing in the modern sense. It was a composition simultaneously ideological and theological. Embellishing and elaborating the stories contained in the first four books of the Torah, they wove together regional variations of the stories of the patriarchs, placing the adventures of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in a world strangely reminiscent of the seventh century BC and emphasizing the dominance of Judah over all Israel. "In the Deuteronomistic History, they created a single epic of the conquest of Canaan, with the scenes of the fiercest battles--in the Jordan valley...precisely where their new conquest of Canaan would have to be waged. The powerful and prosperous northern kingdom, in whose shadow Judah had lived for more than two centuries, was condemned as an historical aberration--and the only rightful rulers of all Israelite territories were kings from the lineage of David. "It seems safe to conclude that the Book of the Law, rather than being an old book that was suddenly discovered, was written in the seventh century B.C., just before or during Josiah's reign." Don, is your evidence based on subjective faith, or do you have strong objective evidence for a differing opinion?

don · 09-19-09 2:09 pm

It seems more speculative to believe the tradition (and it IS tradition) about who wrote the Bible and the Book of the Law than to believe the archeologists who have spent lifetimes, literally, in attempts to show that the Bible stories have a basis in fact. My point is not that the "tradition" has more evidence supporting it. Rather, my point is that statements made in opposition to "tradition" are made with such "dogmatic" enthusiasm. I doubt that we can be very sure, scientifically, of much. .

elaine · 09-19-09 10:51 pm

There is no "certainty" about anything in ancient history. All that we can know is by studying and investigating. Dogmatism either way is equal. Because I do not have either the qualification are necessary credentials to validate all that I read, I must put some faith in those who are recognized Bible scholars and have spent years studying the subject. Tradition is only as good as it continues to be believed--what was tradition years ago, even millennia ago, has been turned upside down in many disciplines within this century. It is very difficult to listen to conflicting information when the traditions have been held for ages. One can choose the old, comfortable traditions of the past, or at least investigate the newer information without rejecting it out-of-hand.

don · 09-20-09 2:09 am

One can choose the old, comfortable traditions of the past, or at least investigate the newer information without rejecting it out-of-hand. Yes. Perhaps a bit of both. And, for this believer, God communicates through it all. .

george · 09-20-09 11:31 am

It seems to me, if we can't respect the investigations that have gone into the study of these issues, we might as well cloister ourselves in our little enclaves; dispense with all education; and trust that our concepts of the ancient past are trustworthy even as they are enshrouded in a cloud ambiguity. Personally, when I think about how the Bible got written and who the writers were, I can't make myself believe that they were these superhuman beings totally unlike people who live in those areas today, hearing God's voice thundering across the plains and mountains. Abraham was a nomad who woke up one day and decided to move. Did God speak to him - I don't know. I do know if some nomad from the Middle East were to declare that God told him this or that I would have no inclination to just believe him. These stories are obviously folk tales. North Americans do not understand the power of folk tales since there really aren't any here they can relate to. Older cultures are saturated with them; and they define their nationalities and who they are in this world, but they remain folk tales. Even Jews recognize the difference between their traditions and modern archeology and the product of investigation. The main issue for the Christian is not how much of the OT tales he can make himself believe; but rather, what do we think about Christ. And here we get into other areas of belief. Yes, Jesus spoke of the OT tales and he preached, referencing them, but he was talking to a people for whom these tales were their national identity. How could he have ignored them - especially when their OT ideologies made them reject who Jesus was. Jesus walked and talked like the Jew he was, but his message, if it was hidden somewhere within the OT paradigm, was so well hidden that nobody recognized it when He brought it out. The one,over-riding issue in the Bible is the resurrection of Christ. That's enough for me to deal with. I don't have to believe in a flat earth and talking animals (as John likes to point out) in order zero in on the main issue of the resurrection. This is something that wasn't normal then, nor is it normal now. It can't be verified by more investigation of rocks, or ancient cities, or even ancient writings. Either you can take it on faith or you can't. Having said that, tracing the development of the NT writings does give some idea of reliability, at least as far as the beliefs of these writers and the evidence they had to go on. For me there is enough evidence to suggest that something out of the ordinary happened after Jesus was put to death. The idea behind such an even makes sense to me as it's explained by Paul. so, in essence, my faith in the veracity of the NT events rests with Paul. That's somewhat reassuring since Paul had to work from faith as well, having only his Damascus Road experience to back up his unswerving faith. I can only pray for a similar experience. I had it once, a long time ago. I need another one.

don · 09-20-09 12:18 pm

Sirje, We all must meet matters of faith in our own way. Personally, when I think about how the Bible got written and who the writers were, I can't make myself believe that they were these superhuman beings totally unlike people who live in those areas today, hearing God's voice thundering across the plains and mountains. Consider the opposite assumption. They were totally like people today. I believe that divine inspiration continues, its just the canon which is closed. There are certain points, such as the Resurrection of Christ, which call for trust in the one who claims to have witnessed the risen Christ, such as Paul. Abraham was a nomad who woke up one day and decided to move. Did God speak to him - I don't know. I take my class through a simple exercise. One student is asked to think of an animal, any animal. For a minute, they are to retain their thoughts just to themselves. Then, I ask them to tell the class which animal they thought of. Then, I ask them to prove to us they thought of that particular animal. Of course, they can't. My point: If God should talk to you, or me, we could not prove it. Our school chaplain reports that God "gives" him ideas. He speaks this way in his worship talks to us. Scientifically, I could challenge with "How do you know this was God?" (Sometimes it may be necessary to do this, if the ideas conflict with Scripture.) But, if the idea he shares is useful, then I will not challenge his assertion. Did God speak to Abraham? Either we believe the record , or we don't. Where do our beliefs take us; what are their fruit? Different realms call for different thought patterns, or pathways. Science, including history and observable events, calls for one set of thought pathways. Faith in God calls for a different set. After a few years of discussing with people who no longer believe in God, I find myself examining my own life of faith; especially when I pray. Who is this God I pray to? Is He just an imaginary friend or is He the Almighty Ruler of the universe? If I decide He is the latter, it is a decision of faith. But, I need to go beyond that, I need to "stand" on that faith, to "rejoice" in that faith, to "walk" by that faith. In doing so, do I reject "science". No, my faith experience comes from a different part of my mind. There are points of intersection as I place my faith in the Written Word. These points of intersection cause conflict of thought, sometimes. I have learned to live with these "conflicts" without backing away from either "science" or "faith". Obviously, if you believe in the Resurrection, you have learned to live with "faith" as well. .

george · 09-20-09 12:52 pm

OK, Don. I appreciate your response. When, however, science and logic conflicts with belief, I have to go with the brain that God gave me. when Paul talks about faith does it apply to every little bit of information espoused in the Bible? I don't think so. We don't even need to "believe" the details of Jesus' life, necessarily - virgin birth, walking on water, etc. in order to believe in a God of grace as manifested in Jesus. That is enough of a challenge for me, given the mess in this world. If events flow as the Bible depicts (+,-, depending on interpretation), and we finally stand before God (perhaps figuratively), is my salvation going to depend on whether or not I believed some of the fantastic stories in the OT - or, how Jesus was conceived, etc? I don't believe it does. Even we, humans tainted as we are, can recognize love and justice, wouldn't relegate someone to eternal death just because they didn't understand God's workings in the universe. The post-Calvary understanding in the NT is that "God so loved, that He forgave." That's all I have to hang my hat on. The HS is going to have to lead me through the rest.

elaine · 09-20-09 4:20 pm

I believe that divine inspiration continues, its just the canon which is closed. And what was the official date of the closing of the canon? Did both inspiration and revelation cease on that date? What is so hallowed and sacrosanct about men making a decision to close the book? And, in "picking and choosing" which ones were to be included or excluded? Were they all inspired, or could there have possibly been a little political pressure involved? There usually is with such important decisions, was this "pure and undefiled"? Accepting the canon as inspired, does that also infer that it there are no contradictions are anachronisms or errors, IOW, perfect in every word? How is that determined? Who can verify the authors and the tales told similarly that reflect different theological or historical agendas? Which is chosen? It is impossible for me to picture St. Peter at the gate asking for either a membership card or a doctrinal test. However, "by their fruits" is the only fair way. That will include millions who never heard of Jesus or the Bible, and those who rejected the God as it was presented to them. All those "heretics" who have been persecuted or killed throughout the centuries merely because they refused to believe what they had been taught, were being too honest in rejecting a god who was eager to demonstrate his wrath: as amply demonstrated in the OT. Could you worship such a god? Many ancient cultures firmly believed that their god(s) demanded human, even infant sacrifices. And in the OT God asks for all the firstborn of humans and animals; and he did sacrifice all the firstborn of Egypt. Is that the god anyone wants to worship? If not, why are both He and Jesus said to be the same? The stories from the Old and New Testaments do not show much, if any resemblance. The Canaanites were not impressed with that god, either.

renie · 09-20-09 4:33 pm

I wish I had the three of you in my church. Going to church would be a great experience. Trouble is....religion uses the Bible as a sledge hammer to beat it's members over the head. I recall walking into a prison chapel some years ago and joining the women prisoners listening to a young fiery pastor preaching the gospel. He told those women they had better listen as their lives were in jeopardy if they didn't. He went on to tell a story about his coming upon three young gang members in his neighborhood and warning them that if they bothered him, God would strike them dead. One of them made a move toward him and the young guy fell over dead. Now, anyone who would believe that story would need to have his head examined, but a lot of those incarcerated women believed him and worshiped him. He always had large audiences at his meetings. God really needs to come and clear some things up.

elaine · 09-20-09 6:32 pm

Renie, when a preacher has a "captive" audience, literally, he really goes overboard, and it's sad that most of these don't have another choice, or the ability to not believe.

don · 09-21-09 12:28 am

Don said: I believe that divine inspiration continues, its just the canon which is closed. Elaine replied: And what was the official date of the closing of the canon? Did both inspiration and revelation cease on that date? I don't think it is so important to have an exact date for the closing of the canon. Most of the Christian community recognizes a closed canon. IMO, it is a practical development. I imagine a struggle with strong-minded cultists. If the church has a canonical collection by which to measure assertions, it can more easily resist the powerful megalomaniac. A closed canon should not be a denial of future inspiration. Rather, it becomes a test of the newly inspired. What is so hallowed and sacrosanct about men making a decision to close the book? The accepted actions of the whole Christian community has weight all its own. Of course, all Christians, even today, are not fully united on the Canon. The decision to honor the accepted writings of the canon is also wise. These are the acknowledged communications speaking on God's behalf. They provide common ground; a solid foundation by which the church can make disciples of all nations. And, in "picking and choosing" which ones were to be included or excluded? Were they all inspired, or could there have possibly been a little political pressure involved? There usually is with such important decisions, was this "pure and undefiled"? Perhaps they are all inspired and got included by political pressure, both. God works through very human processes. IMO, all the books included in the Canon carried with them a "canonical" regard from the moment they came of the writer's desk. The debate was the debate over all that were eligible. Perhaps "The Shepherd of Hermes" and "The Didache" were also eligible in the minds of some. But, when the gathered church leaders made a decision, the supporters of Hermes and Didache had to live with the results. Cadge has pointed out that the Council of Hippo included the Apocrypha, or Deuterocanon. I was unaware of this. It makes an interesting study. .

elaine · 09-21-09 11:37 pm

"I don't think it is so important to have an exact date for the closing of the canon." If the date is not important, are the choices made to include or exclude books also not important? Then, what is so important about a book that has so many questionable dates and compilations? How is it possible to put one's faith in a book in which so little about its origin is known?

don · 09-22-09 12:11 am

If the date is not important, are the choices made to include or exclude books also not important? I see a big difference between the date for the choice and the choice itself. Either we decide on the canon ourselves, or we trust the early Christian churches to decide for us. I am willing to trust the judgment of those early believers, with a few reservations. Then, what is so important about a book that has so many questionable dates and compilations? If the book provides practical devotional inspiration, then we don't need to know its origins and compilations, necessarily. How is it possible to put one's faith in a book in which so little about its origin is known? Is it useful? Does it "ring" true? Does it increase a sense of reliance on God? .

george · 09-22-09 4:01 am

If the book provides practical devotional inspiration, then we don't need to know its origins and compilations, necessarily. Is it useful? Does it "ring" true? Does it increase a sense of reliance on God? Don, you can't be serious. Think about what you just said. Does that go for any book? Let's admit that tradition has everything to do with this - we dare not question what has been taught. Hey, I know from personal experience. It's real scary business to realize that something that has meant so much, is so wrong. I'm not saying that everything we've ever thought about the Bible is wrong, however I do think we tend to worship the Bible and don't use our brain power fully when reading it. It's almost as if our thought patterns are on a track, (like in deep snow) and it's hard to drive out of it. We're so used to thinking about the various Bible themes in a certain way that to question what we're reading is difficult. To question where it all came from, even more so.

don · 09-22-09 7:22 am

Sirje, Give me an example to work with. Admittedly, I am trying out an idea. But, let's take Psalm 23 as an example. We don't need to know exactly when it was written or who wrote it for the comfort of the Psalm to be useful. So, for Psalm 23, I am serious. This may not work for every Biblical book. "Worship the Bible?". That's kind of extreme talk, IMO. I agree that the questioning of the miraculous of the Bible doesn't happen with the believer group. I don't see that as a civilly, or socially, disastrous mindset. All of us apply our worldview onto the Biblical concepts; eg. Death penalty advocates cite their verses differently than "no death penalty" ones do. .

don · 09-22-09 8:11 am

The History of Usage and Confirmation of the Deuterocanon I have recently learned of the role the Council of Hippo (393) in the development of the Catholic canon. Long before the Council of Trent entrenched the Deuterocanon within the Catholic Canon, there were local, or regional, councils which addressed the OT books. Note this:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:The Council of Hippo (393 AD) was one of a series of important local councils in North Africa held in the late 4th and early 5th Centuries. This series of councils was held to bring about reform and renewal in the North African Church and to deal with the Donatist and Pelagian heresies. Each council issued canons on matters of doctrine and discipline while reaffirming explicitly the canons of the other councils in the series that had preceded them. This is the actual canon from the Council of Hippo according to Archbishop Hefele’s History of the Councils of the Church (vol. II, page 400). This canon was reaffirmed at every subsequent Carthaginian council in the series:<blockquote>Canon 36. ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: THE OLD TESTAMENT Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Four books of Kings. The Two books of Parlipomena. [Chronicles] Job. The Psalms of David. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezekiel. Daniel. Tobias. Judith. Esther. The Two Books of Esdras. The Two books of Maccabees. THE NEW TESTAMENT The Four Gospels. The Acts of the Apostles. The Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul The One Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews. The Two Epistles of St. Peter, the Apostle. The Three Epistles of St. John the Apostle. The Epistles of St. James the Apostle. The Epistle of St. Jude the Apostle. The Revelation of St. John.</blockquote>Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the Transmarine Church shall be consulted. On the anniversaries of Martyrs, their acts shall also be read. (N.B., The term “Transmarine Church” means literally “the Church over the sea” and is clearly a reference to Rome, which was directly on the opposite side of the Mediterranean Sea. The four books of Kings include the two books of Samuel and the two books of Kings from the Hebrew Bible. The books of Baruch and Lamentations were considered part of Jeremiah. The five books of Solomon were the wisdom books: Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom, and Sirach.) Explicit confirmation was given to this list by Pope St. Innocent I in 405 AD and 414 AD. The ultimate conclusion of the series was the Council of Carthage held in 418 AD. This was a major synod involving 200 bishops in which the North African Church presented its brief against the Errors of Pelagius and his disciple Coelestius who had appealed their case to Rome. <a href="http://art-of-attack.blogspot.com/2008/01/dr-sippo-utterly-refutes-webster-on.html" target=_top>http://art-of-attack.blogspot.com/2008/01/dr-sippo -utterly-refutes-webster-on.html</a> (Note: this website is a blog of a Catholic apologist. I commend him for his careful use of sources.) The Council of Hippo was in Augustine's time and in his area of influence. It seems that Augustine played an important role in the development of the Catholic canon.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

george · 09-22-09 11:42 am

Don, As soothing as the psalm is, is does matter who said it and under what circumstances. It packs a whole lot more meaning if the words are coming from a death bed as opposed to someone who just inherited 1 mil. If you read the same sentiments from another religious book that pays homage to the sun god you couldn't feel the same way about its value - no matter how beautiful the words. Yes, I do believe the Bible is worshiped in some circles. It certainly is referred to as being holy, in and of itself. When taken literally, it's not the effect it has on the reader that is important, but only the "thus sayeth the Lord" (as it was read). The overall purpose of the Bible is often overlooked - that being, a vehicle that takes us to the cross; and yes, guides us on the way. If the bible can't be molded by the reader, it becomes a stiff, courtroom style transcript, rather than a personal letter. When peripheral issues that crop up in reading the Bible are made to be the focal point, then the Bible is being taken out of its intended use. How many people open it blindly to find specific personal messages... I used to do that myself when I was a kid. You can imagine my disappointment when the text was an endless list of "begets". I think there is a fine line between the worship of God and what is believed to be His Word.

don · 09-22-09 12:02 pm

As soothing as the psalm is, is does matter who said it and under what circumstances. I understand, and agree, that Biblical inspiration is author related. If I should ever find a psalm to the sun god and if it does not offend my conception of truth then I can welcome the psalm as an attempt to worship the true God. The community of faith, long before our time, accepted certain writings as the standard, or canon, for the community. Corporately, the community hands me their books. I can examine the reasons for accepting the books, but the key is that the "community" holds them sacred. Then, I choose to align my faith with the community of faith or not. I accept the Hebrew community's view of Scripture and the Christian Church's New Testament writings. I have not accepted the Roman Catholic's Deuterocanon. Though, the more I study the historical usage of these books, the more respect I gain for them. I agree that the power of Scripture is how it brings me to Jesus. I have also found contemplative power in many portions of the Bible. .

elaine · 09-22-09 10:45 pm

I accept the Hebrew community's view of Scripture and the Christian Church's New Testament writings. I have not accepted the Roman Catholic's Deuterocanon. Though, the more I study the historical usage of these books, the more respect I gain for them. Yet you accept the Roman Catholic's approval and finalization of the Scripture that you use today. It on the merits of their choices, and their preservation that we have a New Testament. IOW, you "choose" most of the books they helped preserve and transmit, while rejecting others. What omniscience does that give them, or you, to make such decisions?

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 09-18-09 7:38 am

The Canon

#2 09-18-09 8:30 am

Re: The Canon

#3 09-18-09 11:17 am

Re: The Canon

#4 09-18-09 4:22 pm

Re: The Canon

#5 09-18-09 4:47 pm

Re: The Canon

#6 09-18-09 5:23 pm

Re: The Canon

#7 09-19-09 1:34 pm

Re: The Canon

#8 09-19-09 2:09 pm

Re: The Canon

#9 09-19-09 10:51 pm

Re: The Canon

#10 09-20-09 2:09 am

Re: The Canon

#11 09-20-09 11:31 am

Re: The Canon

#12 09-20-09 12:18 pm

Re: The Canon

#13 09-20-09 12:52 pm

Re: The Canon

#14 09-20-09 4:20 pm

Re: The Canon

#15 09-20-09 4:33 pm

Re: The Canon

#16 09-20-09 6:32 pm

Re: The Canon

#17 09-21-09 12:28 am

Re: The Canon

#18 09-21-09 11:37 pm

Re: The Canon

#19 09-22-09 12:11 am

Re: The Canon

#20 09-22-09 4:01 am

Re: The Canon

#21 09-22-09 7:22 am

Re: The Canon

#22 09-22-09 8:11 am

Re: The Canon

#23 09-22-09 11:42 am

Re: The Canon

#24 09-22-09 12:02 pm

Re: The Canon

#25 09-22-09 10:45 pm

Re: The Canon

Board footer