The Canon

jag · 10-02-09 11:07 pm

Hello Don, As an ex-Catholic I feel I can correct you somewhat - Roman Catholics do not really consider tradition to be of equal authority to the Bible; they see the books Bible as an integral part of the evergrowing tradition, and equal to its other parts - writings of the saints, revelations of Mary, popes' ex cathedra teachings etc. And indeed, like Elaine says, it's hard to isolate the Bible from the rest of tradition. In fact the books of the NT were written over about half a century and became part of the tradition gradually. At the some time, other writings were equally becoming part of broad church tradition. Just as there were many churches, there were many traditions. It was the hierarchy's authority that finally decided which tradition was to be followed and which to be discarded. Rome issued the final seal of approval. You are right that the (Catholic!) NT Canon became the generally accepted tradition, though even now it is not the only one. Do you know that the Coptic, Ethiopian and Syrian churches have their own canons that differ from that of Rome, if only very slighlty? I can easily imagine that if the Protestant tradition arose not in Europe but in Ethiopia or Syria, Protestants nowadays would not be using a Catholic canon. And you are right again - Luther had problems with James and the Revelation. Some Lutheran Bibles still have those books published as NT apocrypha. Does the book of Acts describe a "one" primitive church? It rather describes many local churches, and it doesn't say much about the doctrine. Where it does describe practices, however, they vary widely from most modern denominations. Does your own church, for instance, practise communism? Is everyone expected to sell their possessions and bring the proceeds to church? I didn't think so...

don · 10-03-09 12:07 am

Jag, thanks for the correction. It is useful to have a first hand report on how Catholics, or any others, view things. Does the book of Acts describe a "one" primitive church? There are elements of unity. For example, Acts 6 and 15 describe decisions made. These decisions seem to be that of the ONE church. Paul looked to the leadership in Jerusalem for endorsement. This indicates a unity of the whole. I imagine that this unity was not too hard to maintain up to the destruction of Jerusalem. Further to Acts 15: The debate was a doctrinal one, i.e. Circumcision and the Mosaic Law's place in the church. This included the core doctrine of how salvation comes to people. Regarding the Coptic, Ethiopian and Syrian churches: I was somewhat aware that they recognize a different canon list. Can you share how they differ? (Message edited by Don on October 03, 2009)

jag · 10-03-09 8:11 am

Don, Here's a quote from Wikipedia: "A line from the Book of Enoch is quoted in the Epistle of Jude (Jude 14–15) almost verbatim. The work is believed by most scholars to be pseudepigraphal but the author of Jude cites them as if they are Enoch's own words. The book of Enoch is in the Ethiopian Bible. Other references to the Book of Enoch are 1 Peter 3:19-20, Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4." Indeed, many non-canonical writings are quoted, or referred to, in what we have included in our "canon". Which tells me, that we are perhaps to rigid when it comes to what we include and exclude. I also recommend the brief article on development of NT canon (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Ne w_Testament_canon</a>), which also list the different canons recognised by different churches, and is quite well referenced. If you are familiar with Bart Ehrman's "Christianities we Never Knew", you will know that he presents a powerful case for the view that there never was a uniform Christianity - not even before the fall of Jerusalem. Many scholars do not accept the description of Acts as accurate, but rather as an apologetic idealisation. Please note, for instance, that while Jerusalem Christians were "protocommunists" (according to Acts), Paul's gentile Christians were of a different kinds - they not only held possessions, some even held slaves!

don · 10-03-09 9:25 am

I am interested in comparing the various canonical lists. There seems to be unity on the NT Canon but not before that. Many scholars do not accept the description of Acts as accurate Thus, it comes down to a scholarly debate about the canon and its accepted accuracy. For example, those who accept the accuracy of Acts and of Paul's writings will seek to harmonize the various lifestyles described in the NT. Those who don't accept Acts will use the differences to bolster their view. What if the communal lifestyle was an accommodation of the festive travellers from the realm. Pentecost, again according to Acts, came upon Jews from many places of the Roman Empire. If they extended their stay, the rich Jewish converts, such as Barnabas, would help maintain the group while they were far away from home. If other Christians did not practice communal living, then obviously such private ownership did not offend the basic principles of Christianity. Our view of the history of the Early Christian Church depends heavily on which sources we accept as authentic. .

elaine · 10-03-09 12:15 pm

Our view of the history of the Early Christian Church depends heavily on which sources we accept as authentic. . How is that choice made? Even within the canon that we now have, there are many discrepancies, contradictions, and it is impossible to correlate them. So, how can we ever ascertain what is the "true" story? Some things are possible to harmonize; others are impossible. I have a number of Ehrman's, Luke Timothy Johnson and Karen Armstrong's books. Both are recognized as excellent sources. Ehrman and Johnson for NT history, and Armstrong for religious history. There are many others in my library, most I have read: some completely; chapters in others. Both the canon and doctrines have a tumultous, argumentative history; which is why we should be somewhat humbled in stating something which is always tentative rather than definitive.

don · 10-03-09 1:35 pm

we should be somewhat humbled in stating something which is always tentative rather than definitive. This is true for all history, isn't it? The benefit of having four gospels is that we have more than just one view. Much of history depends on "just one view" such as offered by Josephus, Tacitus, Herodotus, etc. The Book of Acts similarly offers a "one view" history, though certain passages from Paul's writings provide comparisons to the Acts story. .

elaine · 10-03-09 4:18 pm

Don, yes, it is preferable to have more than one history of any time or event and we are often left to depend to only one, which we should recognize that because it is the only one, it is not necessarily the true story. Herodotus comes to mind: he was somewhat biased and uninformed as was Eusebeius. If there are two or more different reports of the same time or situation, comparing them will be more rewarding. Which is why the Hebrew Bible is suspect: there is a paucity of information with which it can be compared. Actually, for much of their earlier history, there is nothing written covering the time of their record, which makes it a most biased view. It is comparable to other writers of that same era who, like the Hebrews, believed in gods who decided world events and gave orders to humans that they followed. The ease of believing the Hebrew story should cause us to question why is it all true, when we reject in totality, most of the contemporary writings. The Hebrews' claim that their God ordered things is similar to the cultures around them who believed the same of their gods. Why do we accept one and reject the others?

don · 10-03-09 4:51 pm

Why do we accept one and reject the others? Recall, that for all Christians, the Biblical canon is one result of tradition which is acceptable and workable. Our forebears seemed content with it. Why not accept it? What others are there to reject? Do they really offer an effective competition? I have not found another ancient history which pulls together like the Hebrew Bible does. I teach the stories of that Bible and find them quite useful in matters of faith and living. Even the strange wording of 3000 + or - years ago provides education material. "What does this mean?" "How would you express this today?" "Put this in your own words." Examples that come to mind include Samson's obsession with the girl from Timnah and the writer explaining that God was using Samson's obsession to rescue his people. Saul's anger described as "an evil spirit from the LORD". Chronicles describing Saul's death as suicide and from God opens a discussion of Biblical meaning and intent. Are the other ancient histories as practical, written in such a way to be instructive to a new generation? (Message edited by Don on October 03, 2009)

elaine · 10-03-09 9:46 pm

The Hebrew Bible is very limited. It covers only their history and either ignores, or doesn't agree with the other nations' stories: Egypt, Greece, and the other Mesopotamian countries. They also have origins' stories, and who is to declare which is the correct or only one? Do you also study the history of other cultures, some that long predate the Hebrews' known stories? There are no reliable sources, including the Bible, that write much about the world before the biblical flood. They profess that people lived nearly a millennia, but since the Hebrews definitely used hyperbole (where it cannot be refuted by other historical data) how much faith can we rely on only one story, which is biased in many areas? Their numbers in the Exodus, that all the firstborn were killed in Egypt, and a duplicate order at Christ's birth. There is no other record but that of the Hebrew Bible, which surely would have been recorded by major historians. The latter story was a symbol of the Exodus story and was typologically used to give authenticity to Jesus' birth long after his birth. Archaeology has failed, repeatedly, to unearth any evidence of millions crossing the reed sea or living in the Sinai desert for 40 years. One can find morals in Aesop's fables, even many fairy tales, as well as personal stories. These are no different than the Bible, but because the Bible stories are held in such reverence, they are is both used an (ab)used. Good morals in stories are left for the reader to deduct and when explained, insults the reader who should do thinking on his own. Surely, the strengh of Samson is great hyperbole, just as Jack and the Beanstalk and the powerful giants in fairy tales. Would you believe those stories as true if they happened today? Why does ancient stories hold more truth than comparable modern stories?

don · 10-03-09 10:17 pm

Why does ancient stories hold more truth than comparable modern stories? Actually, we have our near gods today. Ever watch an olympic runner? Or, attend a town hall meeting with Bill Clinton? Or, sit in conversation with Barak Obama? Or, Winston Churchill? Kennedy? etc. etc. etc. Samson wasn't so different than some of these modern greats. Aesop's fables are helpful. The ancient stories of Egypt, Greece, China, etc. intrigue me. But, I have seen nothing like the Bible for the development of faith, at least not among the ancient writings. Those who preserved this amazing collection of "faith" writings are to be commended. Even with all the difficult and incredible stories, the usefulness of the Bible in man's quest for the metaphysical and God's quest for man is unique in all of ancient literature. .

bob_2 · 10-04-09 2:09 am

I'd like to weigh in on The Book of Enoch being quoted in Jude. Note this quote: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Jude he quotes from a prophecy of Enoch; Jude 1:14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints.” Jude’s reference the Book of Enoch is not exact, which does seem to be contrary to the conclusion he quoted from the book of Enoch. ... Jude was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21), we know that what he quoted from Enoch was true. This is confirmed by the fact that the same idea about the Lord returning with His holy ones to render judgment found elsewhere in the Bible, Zechariah 14:5, Isaiah 66:15, and Psalm 96:13, Deut. 33:2. ... <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp118.htm" target=_top>http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp118.htm</a>

bob_2 · 10-04-09 2:25 am

Here's another opinion: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:The Ethiopic Book of Enoch (also referred to as Enoch I), as we have it, was probably assembled in present form *after* Jude wrote his letter. As far as we have been able to determine, no Septuagint Version of the Bible has the "Book of Enoch". Evidently, Much of this book reflects later apostate Jewish teachings adopted and adapted from Hellenistic mythology, and not the Bible. Obviously, the Book of Enoch was not written by the real Enoch who lived and died before the flood. The book tells of Enoch's allegedly speaking with God and angels, and of events related to the days of Noah and the flood, etc. Evidently, the writer of the book allegedly received these messages from Enoch, who, according to this tradition, instead of being actually dead, was taken by God to heaven (the scriptures never say anything about Enoch going to heaven.). In reality, -- God took Enoch, translated him into the realm of death without his seeing, experiencing, the process of dying (Hebrews 11:5,13) -- and, thus having died (Hebrews 11:13), he was not able to say anything to anyone.** (Ecclesiastes 9:10) Therefore, Enoch could not have possibly revealed to anyone anything from the oblivious realm of death in which condition one cannot praise or give thanks to Yahweh. (Psalm 6:5; Isaiah 38:18) Rather than seeking messages from the dead, we should go to the Law (The Old Testament) and the Testimony (of the New Testament), that which God has revealed through his holy spirit. (Isaiah 8:19,20; see also Leviticus 20:6; 1 Chronicles 10:13) While Jude was evidently quoting Enoch from some source, it does not follow that he necessarily quoted from the "Book of Enoch" as we now have it. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://reslight.net/jude1-14.html" target=_top>http://reslight.net/jude1-14.html</a>

don · 10-04-09 4:32 am

Jude and the Book of Enoch <table border=1><tr><td>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>. </TD></TR><TR><TD>Jude 1:14–15, And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these [men], saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>Enoch 1:9, And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.</TD><TD>. </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>. </TD></TR><TR><TD></td></tr></table>

don · 10-04-09 5:30 am

In reality, -- God took Enoch, translated him into the realm of death without his seeing, experiencing, the process of dying (Hebrews 11:5,13) Bob, the author of this quote and of that in your post seems to speak more conclusively than warranted. For example, he insists that Enoch died because vs 13 says "these people were still living by faith when they died," even though verse five indicates Enoch as an exception, "5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away." The author tries too hard, IMO, to distance the reader from the writings of Enoch and in doing so reveals a bias which interferes with his ability to be objective about the Book. The Ethiopic Book of Enoch (also referred to as Enoch I), as we have it, was probably assembled in present form *after* Jude wrote his letter. We are not experts on the Book of Enoch (neither, might I suggest, is the author of the the quote given). However, even though the final form of 1 Enoch dates after Jude, this does not mean that 1 Enoch, as a book, was created after Jude. If Jude quotes from 1 Enoch, it seems obvious that some form of the "Book" existed for Jude to quote. (Message edited by Don on October 04, 2009)

don · 10-04-09 12:54 pm

The Muratorian Fragment<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:The Muratorian Fragment, (about A.D. 170) The Muratorian Fragment is the oldest known list of New Testament books. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/1768/1959.jpg" alt=""> It was discovered by Ludovico Antonio Muratori in a manuscript in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, and published by him in 1740. It is called a fragment because the beginning of it is missing. Although the manuscript in which it appears was copied during the seventh century, the list itself is dated to about 170 because its author refers to the episcopate of Pius I of Rome (died 157) as recent. He mentions only two epistles of John, without describing them. The Apocalypse of Peter is mentioned as a book which "some of us will not allow to be read in church." A very helpful and detailed discussion of this document is to be found in Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 191-201. Below is Metzger's English translation of a critically amended text of the Fragment, from Appendix IV of the same book (pp. 305-7). I include Metzger's footnotes, with their original enumeration, and add some supplementary footnotes of my own. —M.D.M. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>______________________________________________ <table border=1><tr><td>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>Quote: The following translation usually follows the amended text edited by Hans Lietzmann, Das Muratorische Fragment und die Monarchianischen Prologue zu den Evangelien (Kleine Texte, i; Bonn, 1902; 2nd ed., Berlin, 1933). Owing to the wretched state of the Latin text, it is sometimes difficult to know what the writer intended; several phrases, therefore, are provided with alternative renderings (enclosed within parentheses). Translational expansions are enclosed within square brackets. The numerals indicate the lines of the original text. For a discussion, see chap. VIII.1 above, where freer renderings are sometimes given in place of the following literalistic translation. </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>. . . at which nevertheless he was present, and so he placed [them in his narrative]. </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>[1] </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>Luke</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(2) The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(3) Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(4-5) when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>[2] (6) composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>[3] Yet he himself had not </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(7) seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(8) so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>John</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(9) The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(10) To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(11) he said, 'Fast with me from today to three days, and what </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(12) will be revealed to each one </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(13) let us tell it to one another.' In the same night it was revealed </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(14) to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(15-16) that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it. And so, though various </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(17) elements </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>[3a] may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels, </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(18) nevertheless this makes no difference to the faith of believers, since by the one sovereign </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>[3b] Spirit all things </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(20) have been declared in all [the Gospels]: concerning the </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(21) nativity, concerning the passion, concerning the resurrection, </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(22) concerning life with his disciples, </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(23) and concerning his twofold coming; </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(24) the first in lowliness when he was despised, which has taken place, </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(25) the second glorious in royal power, </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(26) which is still in the future. What </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(27) marvel is it then, if John so consistently </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(28) mentions these particular points also in his Epistles, </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(29) saying about himself, 'What we have seen with our eyes </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(30) and heard with our ears and our hands </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(31) have handled, these things we have written to you? </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>[4] </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(32) For in this way he professes [himself] to be not only an eye-witness and hearer, </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(33) but also a writer of all the marvelous deeds of the Lord, in their order. </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>Acts of the Apostles</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(34) Moreover, the acts of all the apostles </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(35) were written in one book. For 'most excellent Theophilus' </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>[5] Luke compiled </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(36) the individual events that took place in his presence — </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(37) as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(38) as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>[5a] </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(39) when he journeyed to Spain. As for the Epistles of </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(40-1) Paul, they themselves make clear to those desiring to understand, which ones [they are], from what place, or for what reason they were sent. </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>1 Corinthians</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(42) First of all, to the Corinthians, prohibiting their heretical schisms; </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(43) next, </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>Galatians</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>[6] to the Galatians, against circumcision; </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>Romans</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(44-6) then to the Romans he wrote at length, explaining the order (or, plan) of the Scriptures, and also that Christ is their principle (or, main theme). </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>[6a] It is necessary </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(47) for us to discuss these one by one, since the blessed </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(48) apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(49-50) John, writes by name to only seven churches in the following sequence: To the Corinthians </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>Ephesians</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(51) first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, </TD></TR><TR><TD>Philippians</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>Colossians</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(52) to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>Thessalonians</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(53) to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(54-5) seventh. It is true that he writes once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians for the sake of admonition, </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(56-7) yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth. For John also in the </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>Apocalypse</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(58) Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>Philemon</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(59-60) nevertheless speaks to all. [Paul also wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy; and these are held sacred </TD></TR><TR><TD>Titus</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>1 and 2 Timothy</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(62-3) in the esteem of the Church catholic for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There is current also [an epistle] to </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD><strike>Laodiceans</strike></TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(64) the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul's </TD></TR><TR><TD><strike>Alexandrians</strike></TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(65) name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>[6b] and several others </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(66) which cannot be received into the catholic Church </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(67)— for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>Jude</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(68) Moreover, the epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John are counted (or, used) in the catholic [Church]; </TD></TR><TR><TD>Two epistles of John</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>Wisdom</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>[7] and [the book of] Wisdom, </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(70) written by the friends </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>[7a] of Solomon in his honour. </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>Apocalypse of John</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(71) We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, </TD></TR><TR><TD>Apocalypse of Peter</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>-72 </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>[7b] though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>[Hermas]</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(73) But Hermas wrote the Shepherd </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(74) very recently, </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>[7c] in our times, in the city of Rome, </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(75) while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(76) of the church of the city of Rome. </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>[7d] </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(77) And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(78) it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(79) the Prophets, whose number is complete, </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>[8] or among </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(80) the Apostles, for it is after [their] time. </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(81) But we accept nothing whatever of Arsinous or Valentinus or Miltiades, </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(82) who also composed </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(83) a new book of psalms for Marcion, </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>(84-5) together with Basilides, the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>[8a] . . . </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD><a href="http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html" target="_blank">http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html</a> </TD></TR><TR><TD>.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD></td></tr></table> Comments<ol><li>As a fragment, the listing is not complete. <LI>Note the account of why John wrote his Gospel. <LI>The number of churches addressed, seven, is considered significant both for Paul and John. <LI>Forgeries are known, identified and rejected. <LI>The Apocalypse of Peter enjoyed favor but not consensus. <LI>The Shepherd of Hermas was highly regarded but ineligible because it was not written in the Apostolic time; his status as brother to the bishop of Rome notwithstanding. <LI>Note the author's use of "we". <LI>The accepted writings were allowed to be read in the churches. With no printing presses, the reading was very important. <LI>The author reports acceptable and unacceptable writings.</li></ol>

don · 10-04-09 6:22 pm

The historical record of accepted writings should influence our thinking. For example, the Muratorian Fragment lends influence to the Apocalypse of Peter, Wisdom, and the Shepherd of Hermas. It also offers a principle for acceptance: accepted writings were to be written during the time of the apostles. The Shepherd of Hermas was not included because it was not written in the time of the apostles. On the other hand, after glancing over the Apocalypse of Peter, I am rather pleased that it got left out.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Then shall men and women come unto the place prepared for them. By their tongues wherewith they have blasphemed the way of righteousness shall they be hanged up. There is spread under them unquenchable fire, that they escape it not. Behold, another place: therein is a pit, great and full (of . . ) In it are they that have denied righteousness: and angels of punishment chastise them and there do they kindle upon them the fire of their torment. And again behold [two: corrupt] women: they hang them up by their neck and by their hair; they shall cast them into the pit. These are they which plaited their hair, not for good (or, not to make them beautiful) but to turn them to fornication, that they might ensnare the souls of men unto perdition. And the men that lay with them in fornication shall be hung by their loins in that place of fire; and they shall say one to another: We knew not that we should come unto everlasting punishment. And the murderers and them that have made common cause with them shall they cast into the fire, in a place full of venomous beasts, and they shall be tormented without rest, feeling their pains; and their worms shall be as many in number as a dark cloud. And the angel Ezrael shall bring forth the souls of them that have been slain, and they shall behold the torment of them that slew them, and say one to another: Righteousness and justice is the judgement of God. For we heard, but we believed not, that we should come into this place of eternal judgement. And near by this flame shall be a pit, great and very deep, and into it floweth from above all manner of torment, foulness, and issue. And women are swallowed up therein up to their necks and tormented with great pain. These are they that have caused their children to be born untimely, and have corrupted the work of God that created them. Over against them shall be another place where sit their children [both] alive, and they cry unto God. And flashes (lightnings) go forth from those children and pierce the eyes of them that for fornication's sake have caused their destruction. ... And when they have dealt out many torments unto all whose heart was evil, thereafter out of the great river shall a wheel of fire encompass them, because they devised wicked works. And then shall they lament apart every one from another in miserable fate, fathers and infant children, mothers and sucklings weeping, nor shall they be sated with tears nor shall the voice of them that mourn piteously apart be heard (?); but far under dark and squalid Tartarus shall they cry in torment, and in no holy place shall they abide and expiate threefold every evil deed that they have done, burning in a great flame; and shall gnash their teeth, all of them worn out with fierce thirst and hunger (al. force violence), and shall call death lovely and it shall flee from them: for no more shall death nor night give them rest, and oft-times shall they beseech in vain the Almighty God, and then shall he openly turn away his face from them. <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/apocalypsepeter-mrjames.html" target="_blank">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/apocalypsepeter-mrjames.html</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> (Message edited by Don on October 04, 2009)

elaine · 10-04-09 7:56 pm

it was not written in the time of the apostles. Do you know the date when all the other NT writings were first written? How can there be such certainty that they were written "in the time of the apostles"? And exactly who are identified as "apostles"? Those living while Jesus was here and walked and talked with him? If so, then who, if any of the NT writers can we be certain that it applies to them? The earliest writer may be James, traditionally, the brother of the Lord, ca. 49 A.D. Paul wrote his letters about the same date, but never saw or knew Jesus personally. Mark, the earliest gospel writer, wrote between 64 A.D.; Marrhew and Luke ca. 70-80 A.D. John's gospel was written after the destruction of the temple, and most likely 85-90 A.D., similar to the Revelation. There is much unknown about exact dates to be specific.

don · 10-04-09 9:20 pm

Do you know the date when all the other NT writings were first written? How can there be such certainty that they were written "in the time of the apostles"? Of course, I don't. But, the author of the Muratorian Fragment writing probably within a hundred years of the original authors cites the late date of Hermas' work as reason for it not to be canonical. If Hermas can be discounted because it was not in the time of the apostles, then there were others which were accepted because they were from that older time. One hundred years is not very long in the science of paleography. "Recent" and "times of the apostles" would seem to be the only two choices, almost. If Hermas was a contemporary of the the Muratorian author just two generations earlier marked the end of the apostolic era. Notice the writings which were already accepted. We cannot tell which were written in the time of the apostles, but the author of the Muratorian Fragment reported such a standard used in his day. (Message edited by Don on October 04, 2009)

elaine · 10-05-09 12:07 pm

The Muratorian texts are called "fragments" because they are so sparse. Because it also contains writings not now in our NT, and some that were then accepted, what meaning does it have for us today? Marcion (ca 145 A.D.) also made the first list of NT books, and neither the Muratorian or Marcion's list is exactly as our NT is today.

don · 10-05-09 5:17 pm

what meaning does it (the Muratorian texts) have for us today? If everyone accepted the Bible as it has come down to us, then the Muratorian texts would not have much relevance. But, with so many people doubting things, the Muratorian texts help. I find the list quite useful. It helps us understand which texts were accepted by the middle of the second century. General acceptance must have taken time. Also, the guideline which the Shepherd of Hermas failed is described. "In the time of the apostles". So, for a study of the canon history, the Muratorian canon is quite valuable. It doesn't solve all the problems. Historical studies call for putting together a piece here and a piece there; here a little, there a little. Marcion (ca 145 A.D.) also made the first list of NT books Where can a person find Marcion's list? Is it available online? . (Message edited by Don on October 05, 2009)

elaine · 10-05-09 6:05 pm

"Google" Marcion and NT canon for this information--many sites but no distinct lists. Athanasius had a list which also included a few books widely used and in circulation at that time. The first church councils to approve the New Testament canon met in A.D. 393 at the Synod of Hippo Regius and in A.D. 397 at Carthage, in North Africa, some 30 years after Athanasius published his list. The councils merely endorsed what had already become the consensus in the churches of the West and most of the East about the extent of the canonical books of Scripture

don · 10-06-09 6:25 am

For Reference This link provides some excellent reference material on the development of the Christian canon. Author, Glenn Davis. <a href="http://www.ntcanon.org/" target=_top>http://www.ntcanon.org/</a> .

don · 10-06-09 7:35 am

Constantine Orders 50 Copies of the Scriptures Notes<ol><li>The Fourth Century saw the transformation of Christianity from persecuted group to favoured institution. Constantine led the way in this transformation. <LI>One feature not often mentioned is that he ordered the production of fifty copies of Holy Scriptures. <LI>Church historian Eusebius chronicles the occasion and apparently led in the production effort. <LI>Eusebius does not say what writings were included. <LI>It is obvious that Eusebius knew what should be in the Bibles. <LI>Some have suggested that Sinaiticus was one of the fifty; others raise doubts. <LI>Since the emporer put his stamp of approval on fifty complete Holy Scriptures, this group of fifty would have significant influence in the Christian world. <LI>It is assumed that by Constantine's day "Holy Scriptures" meant more than the Hebrew Scriptures. <LI>Did Eusebius include any of the Deuterocanon in his production? Probably.</li></ol> CHAPTER XXXVI: Constantine' s Letter to Eusebius on the Preparation of Copies of the Holy Scriptures.<blockquote>"VICTOR CONSTANTINUS, MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, to Eusebius. "It happens, through the favoring providence of God our Saviour, that great numbers have united themselves to the most holy church in the city which is called by my name. It seems, therefore, highly requisite, since that city is rapidly advancing in prosperity in all other respects, that the number of churches should also he increased. Do you, therefore, receive with all readiness my determination on this behalf. I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures, the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church, to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art. (1) The catholicus (2) of the diocese has also received instructions by letter from our Clemency to be careful to furnish all things necessary for the preparation of such copies; and it will be for you to take special care that they be completed with as little delay as possible. (3) You have authority also, in virtue of this letter, to use two of the public carriages for their conveyance, by which arrangement the copies when fairly written will most easily be forwarded for my personal inspection; and one of the deacons of your church may be intrusted with this service, who, on his arrival here, shall experience my liberality. God preserve you, beloved brother!" </blockquote>CHAPTER XXXVII: How the Copies were provided.<blockquote>SUCH were the emperor's commands, which were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself, which we sent him in magnificent and elaborately bound volumes of a threefold and fourfold form. (1) This fact is attested by another letter, which the emperor wrote in acknowledgment, in which, having heard that the city Constantia in our country, the inhabitants of which had been more than commonly devoted to superstition, had been impelled by a sense of religion to abandon their past idolatry, he testified his joy, and approval of their conduct. <a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/vita-constantine.html" target=_top>http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/vita-constant ine.html</a></blockquote>

don · 10-06-09 10:54 am

St. Athanasius. The Festal Letter (Or Chronicon Athanasianum). (This is the first official list of the Christian Canon, I think. It dates some time before 364 A.D.)<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Of the particular books and their number, which are accepted by the Church. From the thirty-ninth Letter of Holy Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, on the Paschal festival; wherein he defines canonically what are the divine books which are accepted by the Church. <blockquote>1. They have fabricated books which they call books of tables, in which they shew stars, to which they give the names of Saints. And therein of a truth they have inflicted on themselves a double reproach: those who have written such books, because they have perfected themselves in a lying and contemptible science; and as to the ignorant and simple, they have led them astray by evil thoughts concerning the right faith established in all truth and upright in the presence of God. 2. But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtility of certain men, and should henceforth read other books--those called apocryphal--led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. 3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued stedfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance 4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is<blockquote>Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the <blockquote>first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the</blockquote>first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second [Nehemiah] are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with<blockquote>Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, </blockquote>Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.</blockquote>5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to<blockquote>Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John. </blockquote></blockquote>6. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, 'Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.' And He reproved the Jews, saying, 'Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.' 7. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. <blockquote><blockquote>The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd.</blockquote></blockquote> But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple. (FROM LETTER XXXIX) <a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.xxv.html" target="_blank">http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.ii i.xxv.html</a> Comments<ol><li>Notice that Esther is not included in the Canon. What is the history of Esther re: the Canon? <LI>Baruch is included in the OT Canon. <LI>"The epistle" (of Jeremiah?) is included, as well. <LI>Athanasius leaves most of the Deuterocanon out of his canon list. <LI>The last list is included because these books were "appointed by the Fathers to be read." <LI>This list was presented because apocryphal books were being included in the lists of Scripture. This list by Athanasius intended to clarify which writings were considered of Divine origin.</li></ol><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> .

elaine · 10-06-09 12:46 pm

In the Jerusalem Bible, which contains many of the books not in the ASB or KJV, are Tobit, Judith, Esther and The Maccabees, categorized as "Historical Books." The Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are under "The Wisdom Books." Baruch and Daniel are called "The Prophets." Footnote: "Some editions of the Bible have not admitted these deuterocanonical books (or parts of books: the incase of Esther the passages 1:1a-1r; 3-13a-13g; 4-17a-17z; 5:1a-1f, 2a, 2b; 8-12a-12v; 10:3a-31, which are printed initalic type, and in Daniel the passages 3:24-90 and ch. 13-14); or have included them only as Apocrypha."

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#51 10-02-09 11:07 pm

Re: The Canon

#52 10-03-09 12:07 am

Re: The Canon

#53 10-03-09 8:11 am

Re: The Canon

#54 10-03-09 9:25 am

Re: The Canon

#55 10-03-09 12:15 pm

Re: The Canon

#56 10-03-09 1:35 pm

Re: The Canon

#57 10-03-09 4:18 pm

Re: The Canon

#58 10-03-09 4:51 pm

Re: The Canon

#59 10-03-09 9:46 pm

Re: The Canon

#60 10-03-09 10:17 pm

Re: The Canon

#61 10-04-09 2:09 am

Re: The Canon

#62 10-04-09 2:25 am

Re: The Canon

#63 10-04-09 4:32 am

Re: The Canon

#64 10-04-09 5:30 am

Re: The Canon

#65 10-04-09 12:54 pm

Re: The Canon

#66 10-04-09 6:22 pm

Re: The Canon

#67 10-04-09 7:56 pm

Re: The Canon

#68 10-04-09 9:20 pm

Re: The Canon

#69 10-05-09 12:07 pm

Re: The Canon

#70 10-05-09 5:17 pm

Re: The Canon

#71 10-05-09 6:05 pm

Re: The Canon

#72 10-06-09 6:25 am

Re: The Canon

#73 10-06-09 7:35 am

Re: The Canon

#74 10-06-09 10:54 am

Re: The Canon

#75 10-06-09 12:46 pm

Re: The Canon

Board footer