Defining the canon of Scripture

[Haruo]

[KeithE]

The problem is the all-or-nothing attitude of conservatives when it comes to assessing the value of a given piece of religiously-themed literature. Certainly the Gospels should be ranked high and have a revered place in the Christian “library” (as Brian McLaren suggested is a better way to look a the Bible - in place of the “Constitutional” model or worse the unamendable Council-based model prevalent now - read Chapter 8 of for more discussion). Likewise the Pentateuch tells much of God’s dealing with the Jewish people (but which portion should be more revered J,E,P, D). Some of the prophets (Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Micah) and Paul and James and John are other high points, imo. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha contain value as well. But none of these writings reach the level of God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit. But because the 66 book Bible is subject to referencing (aka proof texting), much of Christendom have attached supreme authority and perfectness to them (many leaders do so for the power it bestows).

The problem has been exasperated in modern day America’s evangelical scene in that too much is made of “seeking certainty”. Greg Boyd calls this nothing short of idolatry in .

Perhaps what we need is a larger collection of religiously-themed writings throughout human history (no ) and an Amazon style rating system ( ).

Bottom line in any set of writings is how it affects and motivates the listener and that is mediated by the Holy Spirit which Jesus said has the power to lead us into all truth (John 16:12-13).

Welcome Jason Wolfe.

[Sandy]

The verbal, plenary inspiration of the scripture, and the designation of the King James Version as the "preserved word of God in the English language" is a distinguishing factor between Baptists of the "Fundamentalist" brand, and the conservatives of the SBC and most other Baptist groups. Verbal inspiration generally indicates a belief that the very words of scripture were inspired, though not necessarily verbally dictated, which is a different perspective. Plenary simply means that the whole of the accepted canon is inspired. There's a definite distinction between the Fundamentalist definition of verbal, plenary and a conservative view of the same, including the latter's rejection of the idea that the KJV is the only preserved word of God in English.

Generally, the view that the King James Version is the preserved word of God in the English language is unsupportable by the historical and manuscript evidence that supports the accuracy of the Biblical text. There were several "King James Versions" as time passed, and the manuscript evidence increased. Translators of manuscripts that were incorporated into the KJV actually took more liberties with the text in rendering an interpretation than modern English translators would allow, even among those translations with readability as a high priority weighted against a tighter translation in terms of following the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts. And with earlier versions of the KJV, sections of the text were translated from the Vulgate and the Bishop's Bible, since some of the manuscripts, held by Catholics, were withheld from the "rebellious apostates" of the Church of England.

The mountain of manuscript and historical evidence now available to translators, with the earliest available copies of much of the gospel narrative dating back as early as 125AD, make modern translations like the RSV, NRSV, NASB, ESV and even those with readability high on the priority list like the NIV, much more accurate and true to the original than the KJV or the NKJV. Lifeway's Holman Christian Standard Bible falls in that same category and is equally recognized for its accuracy.

Theories of inspiration, the historical information regarding the accuracy of transmission of the text, the formation of the canon prior to any church council's proclamation, the variants in the manuscripts, the continued discovery of, and inclusion of manuscripts dating further and further back to the period in which the text was written, these things were all part of the seminary instruction I received at an SBC school long before the faculty and trustee board came under the control of the conservative resurgence. And that perspective hasn't changed with the turnover in trustees, nor with the very minimal faculty turnover. Non-SBC authors like Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell have produced a mountain of documented facts regarding the canon's formation and transmission. Dallas Theological Seminary has also produces a mountain of work on the subject, and both SWBTS and DTS have done extensive archaeological work in the Holy Land.

[Haruo]

Thanks, Sandy, but I was (and still am) hopeful of learning how Jason Wolfe views these matters, in a bit more detail and nuance than the bare "Statement of Faith" type summation he posted in the Welcome Forum.

[Tim Bonney]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

That's fine Ed. I think the problem is that multiple canons is a big issue if you are an inerrantist. If you aren't it isn't nearly as big a deal. And BTW, while I defend my own views, I don't believe in proselytizing either.

[Bruce Gourley]

Sandy, I am afraid this whole canon thing is a bit messier than you seem to want to believe. The Protestant Reformers Luther and Calvin rejected the authority of some of the current 66 books, and Protestants did not wholly accept the 66 book canon until the Assembly at Westminster in 1647.

Even so, the King James Bible from its inception in 1611 until 1885 included the Apocrypha.

[Haruo]

The huge KJV Bible on the communion table at Fremont Baptist, which long predates my arrival, contains the Apocrypha. And although it's pretty old, I'm pretty sure it was printed after 1885. Bruce makes it sound like that was the year in which the KJV lost its Apocrypha, when in fact it was merely the year in which (a) a new Revised Version of the Apocrypha became the current Authorized Version, and (b) the British & Foreign Bible Society stopped printing the Apocrypha in its KJV editions. The KJV Apocrypha continued to exist, and continued to be printed by some publishers. The Revised Standard Version (1946-52) and the New Revised Standard Version both have Apocryphas (though nowadays it's more common to see them printed under the Catholic-friendly label "Deuterocanonical Books").

I don't know where Sandy gets his information on the canonization process, but he is describing a history quite different from that I have gleaned from my reading over the past 50 years. It seems clear to me that in most of the churches from the time of the early Church Fathers to the time of the Reformation, a particular strict canon list was not adhered to, but most churches used a canon that was closer to the 80-book canon of the KJVwA than to the 66-book canon of the KJVwoA. I am not sure what Calvin thought would be the best canon, but I know that Luther advocated removing at least James and Revelation, and some national Lutheran churches in Scandinavia relegated those books to an appendix until maybe the 1800s. Ecclesiasticus (Sirach, or Jesus), Tobit, and the additions to Daniel (especially the Song of the Three Young Jewish Males) were widely viewed as authoritative full-blown Scripture. I'm speaking mainly of the Western Church, because I've read more about it, but my impression is the situation wasn't that different in the Eastern Churches, though a few works unknown in the West like Third Maccabees or Psalm 151 had some degree of canonical acceptance. And of course the Ethiopian Orthodox accept a number of books unknown or at least little known elsewhere (see ).

And what is this about the entire canon having been determined and available in 120? That's earlier than the Muratorian Fragment, the Marcionite movement, etc. My impression is that it was the challenge of Marcion's very limited, Paul-centered NT canon that spurred the orthodox to be a bit more specific about what was and wasn't scripture.

[Ed Pettibone]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

I would suggest that you open minded progressives need to get out of reading lists loaded with the revisionist perspective of textual critics, and read some solid, factual analysis of the formation of the Biblical text. You need to pick up Josh McDowell's A Ready Defense, which is a compilation of his original works, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, and then read some of the attempts at refuting his mountain of facts. Then I'd suggest reading Lee Strobel. If you're really as open minded as you profess, then consider the evidence they present. There's a lot more to it than the slanted gobbelty-gook taught at Southern and Southeastern during the pre-resurgence days.

It's really not a matter of what certain reformers decided or didn't decide about the canon in the 1500's. The canon was, by all manuscript evidence, and by the works of the early church fathers, established, copied and distributed as early as 125 A.D., with indications that the church had developed a solid system, under apostolic leadership, of discerning what was authoritative, and what wasn't. And in an entire New Testament full of Old Testament quotes and citations, there's only one obscure reference, perhaps but not confirmed, to the apocrypha, and it's too vague to be conclusive. The early church fathers rejected all but the Hebrew canon of the OT, and pretty well established the 27 NT works.

It's kind of like some of you saying that since Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality, it's OK. Well, the writers of the New Testament never cite the apocrypha or any deuterocanonical work, so they are meaningless. The early church rejected them. The idea of multiple, contradictory canons is liberal seminary rhetoric, and revisionist history from the enlightenment, and from the textual critics. It's a bunch of baloney cheese, if I may borrow David's expression. University gas.

The revisionist canons of the 1500's were using an ecclesiastical authority that neither Jesus nor the New Testament writers accord to the church, and in fact, what they warned against.

[Bruce Gourley]

[Haruo]

[Haruo]

I went ahead and put a hold on two books by McDowell and one by Strobel:

The Best of Josh McDowell
A Ready Defense
By McDowell, Josh
(Book - 1990 )
Position: 1 on 1 copy
Placed: Sep 24, 2014
location:
Status: Not ready for pickup
Expires: Sep 23, 2016 [Edit]

The Case for the Real Jesus
The Case for the Real Jesus
A Journalist Investigates Current Attacks on the Identity of Christ
By Strobel, Lee, 1952-
(Book - 2007 )
Position: 1 on 6 copies
Placed: Sep 24, 2014
location:
Status: Not ready for pickup
Expires: Sep 23, 2016 [Edit]

The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict
The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict
By McDowell, Josh
(Book - 1999 )
Position: 6 on 5 copies
Placed: Sep 24, 2014

but the local library system doesn't have the Old evidence that demanded a verdict. Will check with Seattle. Nope, only the New one there too.

[Tim Bonney]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Dave Roberts]