Originally posted by xpoferens
Hi Kelly,
Yes, God is in charge not men, so how did anyone know according to
the argument that nothing was or could be added to the Bible, until
the Bible was put together?
It is strange that someone is willing to go to extremes to defend modern day supernatural gifts, but is at odds with the fact that the books that constitute the Bib ...[text shortened]... ural gift. Prayer is important, and God listens, but that is not a supernatural gift.
Regards[/b]
The cite does provide some good scholarly work. I was particularly impressed by the recognition that the Talmuds (1) record rabbinical discussions and commentary in the Gemara (though it should be added that these discussions are really arguments, that do no presume a closed conclusion); and (2) that the Talmuds do retain legitimate references to pre-Christian-era oral tradition (the “Oral Torah” ).
However, I do not agree with all of it, for example:
While these early men, early versions, and the Roman Catholic councils show the progression of the canon’s acceptance, they did not establish the canon. God established the canon for the New Testament through the inspired writers of the New Testament.
First of all, to call councils prior to the schism of 1054 “Roman” Catholic is something of a misnomer. Later in the article, the author recognizes Orthodoxy, but treats it as a “divergence,” whereas the Orthodox look at it the other way around. Prior to 1054, there were churches, and those within the Nicean/Chalcedonian framework considered themselves orthodox and catholic.
As early as the second and third centuries, there was a known canon of Pauline literature that usually included Romans through Philemon, although some placed Hebrews with them. This is evidenced by frequent allusions to Paul’s letters in the early Christian writings, showing that there was a commonly accepted set. The early Christian writers also referred to the gospels, again meaning that there was an accepted group of books (Matthew through John). As the other epistles spread, they became part of these sets of New Testament writings.
One could say “as late as the second and third centuries” as well as “as early.” There is no evidence that all the churches had all the gospels, even into the second century. The author notes, for example, that Justin Martyr mentioned “gospels,” but did not mention titles or authors; how do we know he had all four canonical gospels (do any of the non-canonical gospel writings mention the supper?).
From the wikipedia article on John’s Gospel, for example:
“The text itself states only that the Gospel was written by a follower of Jesus referred to as the Beloved Disciple, traditionally identified with John the Apostle, believed to have lived at the end of his life at Ephesus. Attestation of Johannine authorship can be found as early as Irenaeus. Eusebius wrote that Irenaeus received his information from Polycarp, who is said to have received it from the apostles directly. The dating is important since John is agreed to be the last of the canonical Gospels to have been written down and thus marks the end-date of their composition.
“Critical scholarship starting in the 19th century questioned the apostle John's authorship, arguing that the work was written decades after the events it describes. The differences in the composition of the Greek within the Gospel, such as breaks and inconsistencies in sequence, repetitions in the discourse, as well as passages that clearly do not belong to their context, suggest redaction.
“Raymond E. Brown, a biblical scholar who specialized in studying the Johannine community, summarizes a prevelent theory regarding the development of this gospel. He identifies three layers of text in the Fourth Gospel (a situation that is paralleled by the synoptic gospels): 1) an initial version Brown considers based on personal experience of Jesus; 2) a structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources; and 3) the edited version that readers know today (Brown 1979).” [See my comment below on pseudononymous authroship.]
And, with regard to dating:
“Though some conservative scholars date the gospel somewhere between 65 and 85, most traditional scholars place it towards the end of the first century, 90 or later.
“The traditional view is supported by reference to the statement of Clement of Alexandria that John wrote to supplement the accounts found in the other gospels (Eusibius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14.7). This would place the writing of John's gospel sufficiently after the writing of the synoptics.”
Basically, the early church existed for some 300 years without a universally recognized canon (using the council of Hippo in 393, and recognizing progressive development). The RCC and the Orthodox are right: the canon rests on the church, not the other way around.
All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16)
I have shown elsewhere that the Greek text does not support the extension of this statement to NT writings (the word we translate as “scripture” (
graphe) just means “writing” ). 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the writings mentioned in 3:15, which “Timothy” allegedly knew “from childhood” (and there is no verb at all in the Greek in 3:16). [This is the only occurrence of the phrase “God-breathed” in the Bible.]
The writers of the New Testament obviously considered each other’s writings as inspired work, and the majority of the New Testament writings were canonized internally.
They did? Which writers, which writings? There is evidence, for example, that both Matthew and Luke drew on Mark (without attribution), and that Peter read at least something of Paul’s—but what evidence that Paul read Luke and Acts?
As Geisler and Nix said, “Canonicity is determined or established authoritatively by God; it is merely discovered by man” (1986, p. 221, emp. in orig.).
This is a pure dogmatic statement, though the church “fathers” who determined the canon surely prayed, hoped and trusted that they were led by the spirit. (Note: lucifershammer recently corrected me by pointing out that, for the RCC, the canon is not necessarily closed, but under certain circumstances could be revisited.)
Why are these books not included in the canon? The first, and most obvious, answer is that they contain false information about their respective authors. If a book lies about its origin, then its contents most likely contain falsehoods. If a book requires a false attribution in order to be canonical, then it must have characteristics that make its inspiration and canonicity suspect.
Absolute claptrap. The ancient authors did not view pseudonymous authorship as deceitful; nor did their readers. We are simply not sure that all the NT writings were written by the presumed authors..
_______________________________
Once again: the canon rests on the church, not the other way around. Martin Luther opened a real can of worms with his
sola scriptura—even if the writings are “inspired.” It’s curious that someone would trust the attestations of Eusebius and Irenaeus, through Polycarp, about the authorship of the Gospel of John (that is wiki, not you, I know), but reject the apostolic tradition generally—or cite Athanasius on the canonicity of the 27 books, but ignore his soteriology—or cite any of them and ignore the fact that they did not read the Hebrew scriptures literally.
As late as the fourth century, Basil of Caesarea could write, "Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us 'in a mystery' by the tradition of the Apostles."
Protestants have forgotten the traditions of the apostles (though Luther knew them), and all too many of them come dangerously close to an idolatrous treatment of the written canon (as the self-interpreting “Word [and words] of God” ) as a result, with a severe and questionable doctrine of inspiration. Treating the canonical writings with respect, even reverence (as KellyJay surely does), is not the same as elevating them to the level of
logos tou theou (recognizing that not everyone means that by the phrase “word of God” )*.
sola scriptura was not a doctrine of the early church, and never became a doctrine until the 16th century, and then only among Protestants. To question Kelly’s (of all people!) Christianity—or anyone else’s, including Roman Catholics and Orthodox—on that score is both unfair and founded on questionable and late doctrine.
________________________________
* The phrase
logos tou Theou, generally translated as “word of God,” in the NT hardly ever refers to a written word, but is used in reference to verbal teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Exceptions are Matthew 15:6 and Mark 7:13, where the phrase refers to statements in the Torah. (In Luke 3:2, it refers to John the Baptist.) The same holds for the phrase
logos tou kyriou, “word of the lord.” To be sure, these teachings are recorded in the NT.
Further,
logos does not simply mean “word” (whether written or spoken), but is a much broader term that can mean pattern, principle, reason, thought, reckoning, meaning... In Chinese bibles, it is translated as Tao: the Way, the way things are manifest. The Greek word that simply means word, or speech, or saying, is
rema.
In John 1:1 and 1:14,
logos refers to an aspect of God—perhaps wisdom (e.g., Proverbs 3:19) or the Christ (
ho Christos) as
logos incarnate or manifest in human form (without pursuing the theology here)—not scripture.
What is salvation?
15 Oct '06 18:032 edits
Back to Top