In recent years I have felt increasingly dissatisfied with the evangelical acceptance of the Protestant canon. I have canvassed the opinions of many evangelicals (as well as Roman Catholics, liberal Protestants, and even some Eastern Orthodox) about this and I detect a tendency among evangelicals to just accept the traditional Protestant canon and to assume that God invisibly supervised its collation to ensure that the right books got included/excluded.
I have a very high view of Scripture. I read it avidly every day. But I have secret doubts about the canonical status of Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, the letter to the Hebrews, and one or two others. But I dare not say that to my evangelical acquaintances for fear of being branded a heretic.
Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Cyprian of Carthage, Tertullian, and Augustine of Hippo cited the OT apocryphal books as scripture without distinguishing them from the rest of the Old Testament. On the other hand Origen, Melito of Sardis, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Hilary of Poitiers, Epiphanius, and Basil the Great rejected them from the canon. One or other of these groups of church fathers was mistaken. If so many church fathers could be wrong about the OT canon, why should it be supposed that the opinion which prevailed among them about the NT canon was correct?
In the 2nd & 3rd centuries Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, and Cyprian of Carthage believed that the Shepherd of Hermas was inspired Scripture. In 405 AD Pope Innocent I wrote a letter which affirmed a 26 book canon that excluded Hebrews. Paul’s epistle to the Laodiceans is found in more than one hundred Latin Vulgate manuscripts, including the oldest one (the codex Fuldensis, 546 AD.) In the 8th century John of Damascus (the first Christian theologian to attempt a complete systematic theology) added the Apostolic Constitutions and 1 & 2 Clement to the New Testament.
Evangelicals often point out that these eccentric views were never actually adopted by the church as a whole, thus showing that the selection process was moderated by the opinion of the majority to prevent it from going awry. But was that effective in every instance? How do we know that some subjective opinions did not actually gain acceptance because of an accident of history or political manipulation? For example, the book of Hebrews was originally accepted as canonical only in Egypt. Almost single-handedly Origen influenced the eastern church to accept it too. Eventually its acceptance by the eastern church contributed to its acceptance by the western church. It was probably the persuasiveness of Athanasius during his stay in Rome (he fled there in 339) which convinced many influential western churchmen to accept Hebrews as canonical. In this instance just two men exerted a powerful influence over the destiny of one New Testament book.
“Wherever the epistle [to the Hebrews] was accepted as canonical it was accepted into the canon only in those places … where it was considered to be a genuine work of Paul. Appeal was not made to its antiquity nor to the testimony of the Holy Spirit, nor to any other auxiliary reason. Authorship was what was decisive.” (R. Laird Harris, The Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978, page 268)
Any thoughts please?
Dismantling the canon
This is a beautifully constructed question and very pertinent. But how should we attempt to answer it? At one level it requires a careful historical and theological examination of the process of canonization and the content of the texts. That is probably beyond the scope of this website, though people are welcome to express their views. At another level it is a question about the principle of canonicity, which leads in various directions: What do we understand by biblical authority? What effect does canonicity have on truth and plausibility? What is the place of an authoritative collection of documents in the life of the people of God? What is the relation between biblical and non-biblical texts?
These latter questions seem more manageable and more interesting. I am probably still too much under the spell of deconstruction, but I am inclined to think that we should dismantle the canon, if only in our imaginations, if only temporarily - untie the rope of sacredness that binds these books together and let them slip back into the flow of history, rip off the gold-embossed leather covers and let the pages be carried away by the winds of antiquity (see ‘Strange but true: the irrelevance of Scripture for the church today’).
I certainly think we would understand the Bible better if we allowed ourselves to read it as a collection of historical documents among others, if we worried less about precisely determining its boundaries or demonstrating internal coherence and gained a sense instead of how it is part of a much larger thought-world. By isolating a body of texts like this we are bound to misread them to some degree - just as we misread an artistic movement when we isolate its exemplars in a gallery, cut off from their social and cultural environment, cut off from the history of art.
So, for example, we need to read the Old Testament in part as an implicit dialogue with the cultures of the ancient near-east. We need to read the works of the intertestamental period and Jewish apocalypticism in order to understand where John the Baptist and Jesus were coming from. We need to read Josephus. We need to read beyond the New Testament into the period of the early fathers.
We don’t at this point in time need to defend the canonicity of the Bible. We need to understand it, recover a sense of its powerful historicality - then perhaps having understood it better, we might come back to the problem of canon.
meaning of canon
Phil,
I understand your questions about the canon and I understand it is difficult to talk about those legitimate questions in an evangelical surrounding without becoming marginalized.
I think one way to answer your question is to raise the question of what the canon ment for those who ‘finalized’the count or however you want to call it. I think evangelicals might hold quite a different view of the Bible as those ‘scriptural fathers’. Evangelicalism in its reaction against and tradition of enlightment view the Bible and its text more like a lawyer reads it: word by word, very literally. All statements must be ‘true’. In my understanding the canon was composed to say something like: this is the books the church should stand on. It was a reaction agains spreading heresies. it didn’t say: the books we chose are ‘word by word inspired’, or ‘in harmony with each other’, or ‘infallible’ or ‘all other books have no authority at all when it comes to Christ’ or something like that. It did state: those books are the ones we consider as most relevant for the church.
With this in mind, i think, there might be a way or path towards answering your question. If the Bible not anymore is ‘just true and all other books are just wrong’, but the Bible as Andrew very well pointed out is read in its context of other literature of its time and the evangelical understanding of Bible of the 19 th and 20 th century is put aside, then the borderline between the books that are in and out doesn’t become too big but is reduced to the original intention of the canon and not of what is ‘inspired’ and what not.
I hope I could contribute some to your question.
The Human Canon
i think you have every right to question the canon, since it was determined by fallible humans, using the best of thier intellect, and guided along by their subconscious biases, to determine the true canon. i personally use the NRSV with the apocrypha and enjoy reading all the books. Also, i’ve enjoyed reading some of the various other books that were read by the earliest Christians, and even some of the psuedo literature. There’s a link on my blog site to an old website i developed which is still up and running. It’s called Lord Adonai. You can download a free bible program (theophilos) along with various books and a collection of extra-biblical texts. It’s all free, and this is not a spam. My blog is www.exploretherabbithole.blogspot.com. Though i enjoy reading this literature, i do not consider it scripture, though there is some very inspiring and godly words within the texts. If you’re serious about this, i think you would need to explore the background of each text you read and determine for yourself whether you think it to be scripture. Look into the qualities that were used to determine the texts we do consider scripture, such as inspiring to holiness, close connection to an apostle (which you may not agree with), reliable in content, etc. Also, you would need to make sure there aren’t blatant contradictions. i believe texts like the Maccabees were discarded because they had some illusions to the idea of purgatory and praying to angels. Is there anything that contradicts clear statements in other letters that you DO consider scripture? There certainly isn’t anything saying that we can’t question the canon, but we certainly must do our homework if we do.
Concept of canon
Thank you everyone for your stimulating replies. You have all made me stop and think. At the moment I have a jumble of isolated thoughts going through my mind but I don’t seem able to integrate them and move forwards. So any further feedback would be appreciated!
Did Jesus endorse the idea of fixed canon of Scripture? Did he sharply differentiate between, say, the book of Deuteronomy and the Book of Jashar (mentioned in Joshua 10:13)? … and between the book of Kings and the Annals of Solomon (mentioned in 1 Kings 11:41)? … and the scroll of Isaiah and the prophecies of Enoch (mentioned in Jude 1:14-15)? Did he regard some writings as divinely-inspired and authoritative while other religious books were simply useful and edifying?
From the Gospels I get the feeling that he did have a concept of a rigid canon that distinguished the written Word of God from other edifying literature. In John 10:35 Jesus said that Scripture cannot be broken, and in Luke 24:44 he said “Everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” I don’t know the exact list of books that Jesus included in Scripture, but I think he did have a sharp dividing line between those books that were in and those that were out.
However, I have read that the Jews did not officially define their canon of Scripture until the end of the 1st century AD, several decades after Jesus walked the earth.
In contrast to Evangelical Christianity, Jesus and his contemporaries were very free and easy about quoting Scripture imprecisely. Some of their quotations do not match exactly with any known Old Testament manuscript, either Hebrew or Septuagint. It seems they were content to give the gist of the original text rather than the exact words. In John 7:38 Jesus quoted something from the Old Testament so imprecisely that no-one is sure where he was quoting from. And in 2 Corinthians 6:16-18 Paul conflates several Old Testament texts to bring out a nuance that is not present in any one of the component texts.
Did God intend to create a New Testament with an equally rigid canon? Or is the New Testament merely a collection of writings that the early church found most relevant but which should not be greatly elevated above books that narrowly missed the cut, such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas?
I get the feeling that the early church did come to regard the New Testament canon as consisting of books that were uniquely divinely-inspired and in harmony with each. The following is a quotation from Justin Martyr’s “Dialogue with Trypho”, chapter 65. It was written sometime between 139 and 161 AD.
“If you spoke these words, Trypho, and then kept silence in simplicity and with no ill intent, neither repeating what goes before nor adding what comes after, you must be forgiven; but if[you have done so] because you imagined that you could throw doubt on the passage, in order that I might say the Scriptures contradicted each other, you have erred. But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and if there be a pretext[for saying] that it is contrary[to some other], since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself.”
However, tempering this ‘Evangelical’ viewpoint, it seems that some scribes in the early church had no qualms about doctoring the New Testament text to suit their own prejudices. Some of the variants in Bible texts appear to have arisen due to deliberate changes by copyists with sincere religious motives. So they did not seem to regard the text as the sacred and inerrant written Word of God.
Muslim apologists are keen to point out textual discrepancies between parallel passages in different manuscripts, and they attack the Bible as being so corrupted as to be unreliable. I once put this problem to several ex-Muslims who had converted to Christianity from an Arab/Middle East culture. The gist of their reply was that any imprecision in the text is not important because we don’t worship a book but rather we worship the living Word, who is Jesus Christ, and that our relationship with him is not restricted by errors in the Biblical text. (Although they were talking primarily about textual corruptions, I suppose you could extend their answer to cope with the possibility of an erroneous canon.)
I would agree with what they say, but where does that leave Christians today who are looking for definite answers to ethical questions such as abortion, homosexuality, divorce & remarriage, and pacifism? The answers to those ethical questions may change if you start treating some of the extra-canonical books as equally authoritative as the canonical books, so surely we do need to have a clearly-defined canon if we are to determine God’s will for our lives.
pragmatic canon
“The answers to those ethical questions may change if you start treating some of the extra-canonical books as equally authoritative as the canonical books, so surely we do need to have a clearly-defined canon if we are to determine God’s will for our lives.”
Your approach here seems very pragmatic. It is also, I think, somewhat problematic. You seem to assume that having a clear-cut canon provides the Christian with guidance in life. Protestants have operated with the same settled canon for a fair few centuries now, and they differ wildly on what they feel God’s will for their life is. It would seem as though settling the canon settles nothing about the determination of God’s will for one’s life.
So then where are we left for the sticky issues you raise (abortion, homosexuality, divorce & remarriage, and pacifism)? To our own best judgment. No canon can ever take our responsibility away (I realize you aren’t claiming that it does), and so we must discern the heart of God. Like the ex-Muslims you describe, Christians must, through Scripture, discern the heart of God, and align themselves thereto. Can God’s heart be discerned from places outside of the Protestant canon? Probably.
I believe, as has been said elsewhere, that the Word became flesh, not that the Word became paper. Christians can therefore allow themselves to have a ‘bendy’ canon.
Peace,
-Daniel-
who judges who
First: I am not a theologian but an active user of the Bible with groups for 30 years. I have one very practical comment to make to the idea that the canon of the Bible is not a very useful concept.
On the contrary, it is very useful. If you start questioning which bits of Scripture are more true than others, you start judging the Bible. The only way the Bible can build up your faith in God and correct you, is to let it judge your ideas and practice.
You may not like everything you find in the Bible, but it often turns out that the hardest bits are the bits that God uses to teach you something surprisingly good. That’s why I keep returning to this Book. It is really God’s Book, and it is no accident that the last four verses say what they say.
Henriet
Dear Henriet, I agree with
Dear Henriet, I agree with you that we have to let the Bible speak to us and that we should not choose and pick. However, I think the line of thought of previous comments went more in the direction of looking beyond the Bible to other books that might help us to understand God and the Bible better. One thought I think wasn’t given yet enough attention is the fact that there was (actually very good and very active) christianity taken place before there was something like a NT canon. Basically, the christians in the first four centuries or so followed Christ without ‘a Bible’.
Something else worth considering is that even today there are different versions of ‘the Bible’. Catholics have more books than protestants - some coptic churches have even less books than the protestants. I think this is worth mentioning here.
In regards to your comment, Henriet, concerning the last four verses of the Bible - I think I take those verses more literal than you do. I don’t think John is talking here about the NT or the OT or about someting like a Bible that combines both of them - this concept was not know to him and it wasn’t until a few centuries later that this was formed. I suggest he was talking about the visions he saw and the writings he has composed. He didn’t talk about which books are in the canon and which not. What do others think?
judging Scripture
First, I echo what Paulchen says about John and his visions recorded in Revelation—those have nothing to do with canon. I also echo his thoughts about being submitted to Scripture in the sense that we can’t include or exclude books from the canon simply because they rub us the wrong way. However, though our preferences shouldn’t guide how we think of the biblical material, our critical minds should. “If you start questioning which bits of Scripture are more true than others, you start judging the Bible.”
I’m not sure about your use of the word ‘judging’ here, but if you mean ‘thinking critically about’, then I would argue that’s a good thing. There is a an important difference between treating biblical writings frivolously (which is, I think, what you’re afraid we might do if we disregard the canon), and treating them well by thinking critically about their content. What I’m saying is that there might be cases in which a disciple of Christ is called to wonder about, and investigate, which of two parts of Scripture is ‘truer’ than the other.
Am I making sense?
The Gift of Scripture
Yes, that makes sense. I think we have to restrict John’s words of warning to the ‘book’ of Revelation, though i) the allusion to Deut. 4:2 and Deut. 12:32 at least creates a wider resonance with Jewish ideas about the law and scriptures; and ii) someone at some point decided to put Revelation at the end of the New Testament and may have felt that these verses provided an apt conclusion to the canon as a whole.
On a related point, the Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland have just issued a document called The Gift of Scripture, which argues that we should not expect to find total historical and scientific accuracy in the Bible. See this article in the Times.
scripture, canon and forebearance
I’m glad you’ve drawn attention, Andrew, to the Jewish ideas about Torah, scripture. Whilst an official canon may only have been drawn up by the Rabbi’s around 100 AD, I believe that an historical and popular attachment to the authoratitiveness of Scripture was well established, long before then. I also like’d Phil’s comments about Jesus’ attitude to Scripture. I think that these two things - Jewish view of Scripture, Jesus own view - provide vital touchstones in understanding from where our own orthodox / protestant / evangelical attitudes to Scripture have been derived.
With respect to the Bishops, it’s hard to know what to make of their position, from the article cited, given that a secular newspaper has predictably picked out the parts that make the most sensational points. I was interested that, in sympathy with post-modern culture, they are so happy to be fundamentally intolerant towards fundamentalism and wondered whether this wasn’t a clue suggesting a general discomfort within the Bishops with their own place in a post-modern culture. Perhaps that is a text taken out of context, but to readily compare broad evangelical fundamentalism… (without definding who they are really talking about: a few anti-abortion extremeists and their supporters? or everyone who holds to the creation story / inspired view of scripture, which they are now abandoning with some apparent relief?)… with the excesses of, for exammple, the apartheid system etc. is I think a (fundamental) error.
In the context of the wider debate about canon… I would like to argue for a basic defense of canon on, among other things, the basis of missionary tradition. Shining brightly during periods of the last two thousand years when the Christian communities have gotten to grips with the call to share the story of Jesus with ‘every creature, every nation’, Scripture has provided a bedrock of inspiration for the spreading of the gospel, including it’s coming to the shores of the UK and the establishment of the US - two communities where emergent conversation is, perhaps, strongest (aplogies to NZ). In that sense, our spiritual ancestors, would, I think, be turning in their graves, not in horror, but in angst to warn us to use our energies towards the transformation of lives and communities which the gospel can bring, a process in which Scripture has a vital part to fulfil. Where debate over the value and place of scripture overtakes practical gospel living, Christian communities tend to fall away into sectarianism and ghettoism (?), two things emergent followers would, I should have thought, be keen to avoid? All of which is not intended to stifle debate amongst theologians who may have a genuine calling to investigate these things, but to keep the debate attached to a broader purpose, which is probably of more appropriate concern to the majority of us within the Christian community.
Re: The canon of the Bible
First, let me say how good it is to find that others have questions concerning the canon of scripture as well. I appreciate not only the faith demonstrated by those who have responded and/or commented on this, but also the diligence of each to not just settle with what we have been taught but rather be prepared to give an answer in all things. That being said, I think that although the supposed inspiriation of some books has come up (ie. the Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabus, etc.), the MAIN POINT is enevitably being lost.
In all of my studies on the canon of scripture, the main question that I keep coming back to, and have not yet found a concrete answer to is this: What are the criteria for determining whether any book set infront of us is, or is not, inspired of God ?
Why does this continue to be what I end up coming back to? Because if you start whipping out scriptures such as 2 Tim 3:16, the last few verses of Revelation, prophecy guidelines in Deut. 18, etc…you have caught yourself in the most circular argument ever - you are USING a canon (or book thereof) to DETERMINE a canon. As mentioned by someone else on this post, the early church didn’t have the "New Testament" as we know it today, neatly compiled in one volume. Each congregation would have been extremely fortunate to even KNOW of all of the books that are currently accepted as canon. And again, as was mentioned previously, the "Old Testament" canon wasn’t officially compiled until late 1st century AD. And again, different churches around the world use entirely different canons - Catholics (Bible + Apocrypha); Ethiopian Orthodox (NT + 4, OT + 2); Protestant (Bible only); and all call themselves by the name of Christ. So which is right?
What kind of difference does it make? Take out the book of John, what does that do to your theology? Take out the book of Revelation, what does that do to your "end-time" beliefs? Take out Genesis, and what does that do to "the beginning" as we know it? Point being - what we read as scripture is a HUGE factor in determining what we believe. So our focus, in my humble opinion, should be to establish a set of criteria (if possible) by which to measure all writings. Then, and only then, could we use it as a guideline to determining which books are and are not inspired. But, this set of criteria would have to be determined WITHOUT the use of circular reasoning (ie. an already established canon).
I have thought, "How could a person with absolutely NO knowledge of any god at all, not only come to the conclusion that there is a God, but also find the ONE TRUE GOD - YHWH Almighty?" This led me to look at creation - which to VERY quickly sum up - leads one to belief in a Creator outside the boundaries of this universe. So the next step is determining which god, of all those I hear about, is the true one.
I have found the Law to be the almost only solid ground from which to build upon. Not only did it set the standard of what sin is and is not amongst the people of the earth, but it was was used in determining whether something spoken by another was of God (Isa. 8:20). Is the answer as simple as that? If it speaks against the Law and the Testimony, it is not of God? Is that the ONLY criteria? How did godly men and women of the past determine this? What criteria did Yahshua have in his mind when reading scripture?
In short, what is the standard?
(NOTE: I believe whole-heartedly in the inspiration of all of the books currently included in our Bibles. Due, not only to the factual and historical reliability of them, but also to the personal changes they have brought to my life. Yet, all of the above questions are very prominent and powerful strongholds of the enemy in keeping lots from accepting Yahshua. Strongholds which we should be prepared to destroy, and give an answer for when asked.)
The Gospel of Thomas & the Canon
i’m not sure how many of you have read the Gospel of Thomas. from my first reading of it, i was struck by a feeling of it’s authenticity and congruence with the the saying of Christ recorded in the gospels. while it may not have been included in the official canon of scripture way back when, i gain much from reading and meditating on it. while i believe it would be wise to give precedence to the 66 books of the established canon, i feel we can faithfully and confidently gain much from reading the many great pieces of inspired writing that exist outside of this. i love reading the teachings of the ancient rabbi’s such as Isaac Luria and others.
Re: The Gospel of Thomas & the Canon
Simply put, anyone who would choose to accept the Gospel of Thomas must be prepared to give an answer for ALL of the following verses contained therein, and their inconsistency with the other texts.
7 Jesus said, “Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human.”
11 Jesus said, “This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away. The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. During the days when you ate what is dead, you made it come alive. When you are in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?”
12 The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."
14 Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits.
15 Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father."
19 Jesus said, "Congratulations to the one who came into being before coming into being. If you become my disciples and pay attention to my sayings, these stones will serve you. For there are five trees in Paradise for you; they do not change, summer or winter, and their leaves do not fall. Whoever knows them will not taste death."
22 Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, "These nursing babies are like those who enter the kingdom." They said to him, "Then shall we enter the kingdom as babies?" Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."
27 "If you do not fast from the world, you will not find the kingdom. If you do not observe the sabbath as a sabbath you will not see the Father."—-I agree with this, because to not observe the Sabbath is breaking the fourth commandment. But, the vast majority of modern Christianity wouldn’t be “edified” by this; they would see it as bondage and legalism.
30 Jesus said, "Where there are three deities, they are divine. Where there are two or one, I am with that one."
37 His disciples said, "When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?" Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid."
42 Jesus said, "Be passersby."
50 Jesus said, "If they say to you, ‘Where have you come from?’ say to them, ‘We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.’ If they say to you, ‘Is it you?’ say, ‘We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.’ If they ask you, ‘What is the evidence of your Father in you?’ say to them, ‘It is motion and rest.’"
51 His disciples said to him, "When will the rest for the dead take place, and when will the new world come?" He said to them, "What you are looking forward to has come, but you don’t know it."
53 His disciples said to him, "is circumcision useful or not?" He said to them, "If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect."
77 Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
84 Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you are happy. But when you see your images that came into being before you and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will have to bear!"
98 Jesus said, The Father’s kingdom is like a person who wanted to kill someone powerful. While still at home he drew his sword and thrust it into the wall to find out whether his hand would go in. Then he killed the powerful one.
105 Jesus said, "Whoever knows the father and the mother will be called the child of a whore."
107 Jesus said, The kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep. One of them, the largest, went astray. He left the ninety- nine and looked for the one until he found it. After he had toiled, he said to the sheep, ‘I love you more than the ninety- nine.’
113 His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?" "It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, ‘Look, here!’ or ‘Look, there!’ Rather, the Father’s kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don’t see it."
114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."
Whoever sees this book as acceptable, please be prepared to give an answer for the inconsistencies.
Re: The Gospel of Thomas & the Canon
knight4yshua,
As it happens, I placed my mail order for a copy of Thomas just the other day. I assume your careful selection gives me a preview of what I might find most extreme and difficult to understand in it.
I heard a lecture by Dr. Pagels where she offered her very convincing argument for how and why Thomas was set aside in favor of John for some arbitrary reasons, including imposing a limit on the gospels to four.
Surely you can find a host of contradictions in the canon’s texts? Or does divine inspiration for the Bishop of Alexandria’s selectivity of the first canon cover all sins? As Constantine’s might has made right the decisions at Nicea?
I’ll stand with Thomas the doubter (even though that attribution is now recognized as John’s maligning a competitor).
Re: The Gospel of Thomas & the Canon
I find Pagel’s title, The Secret Gospel of Thomas, to be interesting. It’s no longer a secret, it’s not really a gospel at all (but a collection of sayings), and it’s probably not written by Thomas.
As for it’s content, all of the "good stuff" that people feel was pushed to the side by the councils you will often find in other parts of the NT. For example, the movie Stigmata, tries to say that "the kingdom of God is within you" is why these collected sayings were pushed under a rock.
Look no further than the gospel of Luke and you’ll find "the kingdom of God is among you." Of course, "among" can also be translated "within."
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not for a top-down proclamation of what goes and where we can find God (e.g. Constantine). However, the so-called gnostic writings don’t seem to me to contain any good and true "knowledge" of God that we can’t already find in the 66 writings the Bible contains.
I would offer here what I offered at another thread. The Bible itself is not the Word of God, but only a witness to the Word, Jesus Christ (see Barth). It is by far the best witness we have, but not the only witness. The Bible is the pair of glasses (Calvin says spectacles) that help us to "see" God. Where the Spirit of Christ shines through the pages of the Bible we have encountered the Word of God. Many of the concerns in the arguments about the Bible find their root in some kind of idolatry or Bibliolatry.
Jesus, the word of God, the bible and authority
PastorPete: I was trying to find that other thread you referred to (in Re: the gospel of Thomas and the Canon - The Canon of the Bible). Only to add that Jesus and ‘word of God’ cannot be identified with each other; in the OT ‘the word’ is the spoken word by which the world was created, the torah, or the prophetic word of the prophets; in the NT it is the proclaimed ‘word of faith’ or the ‘word of Christ’ - Romans 10:8, 10:17; it is also ‘the word of their testimony’ by which the saints overcame the accuser - Revelation 12:11.
Barth’s argument that there is a distinction between the written and the revealed word of God always seemed to me to raise a question about the bible’s authority, and to open up a gap between the bible as authoritative in itself, and authoritative when illuminated by the Spirit. (What about 2 Timothy 3:16 - "all scripture is God-breathed/inspired by God" - and therefore, presumably, in some sense ‘revelation’, and also authoritative!).
Maybe it becomes something of a semantical argument when pursued at this level. But the ‘telescope’ idea of scripture seemed, for this reason, to contain some flaws for me.
I like the way in which Tom Wright reframed the whole ‘authority’ argument around a narrative understanding of the bible. Instead of the tension between the bible’s ‘literal’ (word by word) authority or its ‘inspired’ (revelatory) authority, he proposes a narrative authority. He offers a model of the bible as being like a five act play - Creation, Fall, Israel, Jesus, Church. The final act (like Acts) is incomplete, although we know something about the conclusion of the play, and a great deal about where it was tending, in view of the previous four acts, and the parts of act five available to us. The bible’s ‘authority’ over us is therefore to do with us writing our own role into the missing material in the light of all the material available elsewhere, in order to propel the drama to its prescribed conclusion.
This approach to the bible (from The New Testament and the People of God - pp140-143) avoids the ‘bibliolatrous’, and very static tendencies which you rightly criticise, but it does uphold the bible’s authority, and more importantly leads to an active response (perhaps unlike the telescope metaphor).
Re: Jesus, the word of God, the bible and authority
The other thread is in "The Marks of a Renewed Theology."
Isn’t through Jesus that the world was created, by Jesus that the Torah was fulfilled, and in Jesus that the prophecies came to pass? I understand that "logos" is not necessarily a Jewish idea, but couldn’t it be used that way?
Of course, "all Scripture is inspired by God," but that verse would refer to the Hebrew writings, not the gospels or letters of Paul of the time, correct?
I have no problem with Tom Wright. In fact, I like him a lot. I appreciate most everything he shares. The narrative approach you described is helpful for me. Still, within that narrative we find actions and ideas that are not in accordance with the will of God. When reading through the pages of Scripture, how do we know if we’ve witnessed God’s presence or absence (eg. war, salvery). The final rule is Jesus, right?
I do believe the Bible is authoritative in itself, just not every word. I wonder if all Biblical writers "see in a mirror dimly" just less dimly than we do because they were less separated from a more direct revelation, namely Jesus. It seems that it is God’s Spirit witnessing in the Christian community that helps us discern what is truly God’s Word in the Bible. Or, in your words, how to write our own scenes in the play. The Word was most fully and clearly present in Jesus, but not absent from creation, Israel, Torah, etc.
I do agree that responding in action is very important. If the narrative approach better facilitates that then I certainly want to give it a prominent place in the discussion. I don’t think Barth and Wright have to be exclusive on this one.
Re: Jesus, the word of God, the bible and authority
richard and pastor pete,
The topic I had under consideration for my MA thesis was related to Aristotle’s "Nicomachean Ethics" and for which I splurged and purchased a reprint-on-demand of Stewart’s 1892 commentary. With sections and illustrations in English, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc. was enough for me to look for a different topic, being monolingual, or nearly.
Yet I did notice in skimming Stewart that his translation of "logos" seemed to offer an endless list of English terms. Having previously bought into Heidegger’s insistence that its most ‘authentic’ Greek meaning was "setting/laying before by gathering together," Stewart led me to speculate that if "logos" for the Greeks gathers, it does a most comprehensive job.
So if it is to be translated as ‘word,’ to pretend we know what ‘word’ means is self-defeating. The so-called "linguistic turn" in contemporary philosophy illustrates that we have barely begun to understand what ‘word’ means.
To begin with, the growing consensus is that words have a meaning only in a context and that the minimal meaningful context is the sentence or proposition. Quine goes so far as to insist (although his reference here is science) that the minimal context is the whole of science.
I am not qualified to compare religion and science to see if Quine is of any help in religion. He makes clear, however, that philosophy’s traditional (and his ideal for philosophy, like Kant’s, is physics) reliance on "meaning" is up for grabs.
In philosophy, we do not know what "meaning" means. Likewise, unless Heidegger proves right, we do not know what "logos" means to mean. And if H’s critique of absolutes in traditional metaphysics holds up, the neo-platonic early church creeds are toast.
Re: Jesus, the word of God, the bible and authority
I think I understood what you said, I’m not sure what you’re "meaning" behind it was. Not in terms of value, but intention. I guess, what did you want me to think about?
In regard to logos I have first in mind is the gospel of John. I would consider minimal meaningful context to be the gospel of John if not just the first chapter. "In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God and the logos was God (or a god)…And the logos became flesh and lived among us." John 1:1, 14
Whatever logos means, the minimal meaningful context says that it (for lack of a better term) was in the beginning, was with God, and was God. It became flesh in Jesus Christ and, through it, came grace and truth.
If the minimal meaningful context is the gospel as a whole, I would imagine that the rest of the gospel provides "evidence" of this opening claim: that Jesus is the Word in the flesh.
Biblically, John 1 is often linked to Genesis 1 as if to signal a new creation. As God spoke and God’s Word became incarnate in creation, so God’s Word became incarnate in Jesus Christ to renew creation. Now the minimal meaningufl context is the whole Bible.
I guess I understood the Greek word logos to have something to do with pure forms or the One or eternal wisdom. These meanings fit even if they’re not the authentic one (which doesn’t mean the only one).
I think I babbled because I didn’t really understand what you are trying to get me to see.
Re: Jesus, the word of God, the bible and authority
Pastor Pete,
In part, I’m writing to myself, to see what I’ve learned recently looks like in a religio-theological context. The only one in the philosophy department from whom I have learned a great deal and who is aware of New Testament references is staunch RC and finds my suggestions uninteresting.
When last I paid attention, there was much disagreement about the date of John — some said very early, others very late. I recall John’s image of "logos" taken simply as evidence of the early church’s move (as is evident in Paul’s epistles) toward Hellenism.
An issue for me now is the extent to which Platonism can be credited to the popularity of the Greek mystery religions, and the post-scientific revolution’s struggle to free itself from that form of Greek metaphysics. One consequence of the struggle has been the linguistic turn.
To the degree that Christian theology still includes its primitive version of natural science, it’s going nowhere. "Logos" as John understood it is primitive science. To refer to Jesus as "the Logos" no longer justifies John; rather John must explain his interpretation of Jesus as leading to rather than coming from "the Logos."
So, John cannot be understood only on his own terms. To what extent that then raises interest in Thomas depends on the possible role it played for the early church. Was it Iraeneus who offered the first NT canon? If so, his preference for John over Thomas shut down a dialogue that still needs to happen, don’t you think?
In part I also have in mind the recent declaration of the UK RC bishops about the Bible, which suggests their readiness to welcome historical textual criticism of the records. That is also part of the linguistic turn. I do not have my hopes up that it will soon lead to a re-evaluation of the RC’s dependence on platonism, whose usefulness grows more problematic by the minute.
I cannot imagine the luxury of centuries to correct past mistakes.
PS. At least since Kant, the distinction between religion and philosophy, for philosophy, is the difference between knowledge and a way of life. I can be a philosopher without seeking salvation. I cannot be religious without that search, and my liberalism tells me it is never once and for all. Despite all the flaws and failures of our western civilization, it is the Christian church’s service to humanity that keeps us civilized. The rest is all midrash.
Re: the word of God and Meaning
Although much of modern philosophy struggles to give meaning to religious writings in the way that they were once interpreted, I do not think that even the creeds (which may be the most problematic writings because of their lack of narrative) are ‘toast’.
I would take most religious writing as a striving to express something that goes beyond our normal forms of expression. This can be seen in the Bible’s reliance on history, parables, and metaphors to express this elusive Truth. I believe that the creeds and modern statements of faith make the mistake of placing religious Truth in the same categories as either mathematical truth or truth about the human-scale physical world. I find it interesting that as science has progressed out of the human scale, it has reverted to expressions of truth that selfconsciously rely on models and metaphors, and I do think that these scientific statements have meaning regardless of the arguments in modern philosophy.
I am attracted to pragmatic philosophy as a way to guarantee at least some minimal meaning to religious statements. If one of these statements has implications for what will happen to us, I don’t think any linguistic games will get you out of it.
For instance, I used to think that transsubstantiation was the most rediculous doctrine, but when I interpreted it from a pragmatic perspective it made some sense. If you eat and drink the very flesh and blood of Jesus, then that act is presumed to have the effect of making you more like God. The truth of this outcome can be tested in a pragmatic sense by how much the ‘fruit of the Spirit’ is increasingly displayed in your life. Even a reductionist Baptist would believe that the ‘act of obedience’ (displayed by eating and drinking the symbols of Jesus death as he commanded we do) is supposed to increase the influence of the Holy Spirit in your life. Hence the two traditions have different ways of talking about the same thing, and both have meaning even from a reduced pragmatic perspective.
Allthough doctrines such as transsubstantiation may be stripped of ‘substantial’/dualistic meaning in the way that they were once interpreted, I don’t think philosophy comes close to making these doctrines meaningless. If these most problematic doctrines still retain some meaning, then certainly the contextualised narratives in the Bible retain significant meaning.
The preceding argument is just an example, and I’m sure some of the real philosophers on this site could do a much better job, but I hope it is sufficient to make my point.
Maybe if the creeds were reinterpreted from a pragmatic or other philosophical perspective we would actually have a new way of doing creeds that could provide the basis of an emergent church.
Re: the word of God and Meaning
richard,
Your comments remind me of the critic who penned the line to the effect, “A poem doesn’t mean. It is.” Interpretation, as a verbal expression, is of less consequence than the original. But the line between honest and dishonest fiction leads through a narrow gate.
One enemy of religion is superstition, and not because it is powerless but because it is a lie. I still struggle with superstition, as I am in great pain when I feel helpless. I find it very hard to keep my prayers honest, as “Thy will not my will.” So, I need the church.
At the same time I cannot express strongly enough the revolution going on with our understanding of the role of language. The correspondence theory of truth, where nouns get meaning from what they refer to, is “toast.” (Please forgive my crudity, but it expresses my sincerest and best informed conviction as well as my sense of urgency.) The same holds for the other classic theories of truth. The positive results of science are usually explained as proof of verification theory, but that too is vacuous when pushed even so slightly. (I can only offer my assurance that such assertions are based on the current discussion, largely in academia, to be sure.) I agree, the pragmatic theory of truth remains promising, and that’s from one of its biggest critics for many years.
Kant claimed an intellectual revolution in thought comparable to Copernicus in science. We are now in the midst of an intellectual paradigm shift of equal consequence. Whether it will eliminate metaphysics or reform it is not yet clear to me. Whether our biggest worry should be people failing the church or the church failing people is also not clear. Secularists will disagree, of course, but I believe we are in danger of losing something irreplaceable with the growing apostasy. The question whether God is dead or absent is an inquiry into ultimacy and demands a response other than “Never mind.”.
The cannon of councils and creeds
For those of you who have not read The Secret Gospel of Thomas, it is actually more about the cannonisation of John as the first step in creating orthodoxy than about cannonising Thomas. Pagels suggests that a linguistic analysis of Thomas and John is suggestive that John was actually based on Thomas, but that it encourages a slightly different emphasis in interpretation: Thomas emphasised that we are all the children of God and therefore have divinity within us, while John emphasised that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, and hints at a unique divinity for Jesus. This is similar to the generally accepted theory that Matthew and Luke are both based on Mark and ‘Q’, while each emphasises different things about Jesus.
Beyond this, it appears that the author of John was aware of the existence of the Gospel of Thomas as a pre-existing competitor, denigrating Thomas three times, the most famous example inspiring the epithet ‘doubting Thomas’. No other source disparages Thomas.
Pagels claims that John was not even mentioned by most important figures immediately preceding Irenaeus until he began the battle for the cannon, identified the four Gospels, and made John the principle Gospel and lens through which the others should be read. This primacy for John was necessary as the synoptics did not suggest that Jesus was God in the way that John does.
Pagels then uses this as the prototype for two subsequent entrenchings of orthodoxy. First, a prototype creed was placed above the Gospels to control their interpretation, and then this creed was refined to only allow a very narrow orthodoxy at the (in?)famous council of Nicea.
The following are conclusions are my own and are not presented in the book.
Amputating errant belief disfugures the whole church
The first thing I learnt was that although a restrictive orthodoxy may have been useful at the time, a significant price was paid. Pagels presents the target of some of the procscriptions as mystics and pentecostals. If this is accurate, it has taken the better part of 2000 years for that aspect of Christianity to begin to be reintegrated into the Christian main stream. Even if there were errors in Gnosticism, maybe the best solution was not to kill the Holy Spirit for 2000 years! Although Iraneaus did not have the benefit of hindsite, we do, so maybe we can take this lesson for how define our faith and deal with ‘heretics’.
The cannon is irrelevant!
The second thing I found was that although control of the cannon went some way towards creating orthodoxy, it was ultimately ineffective. New texts needed to be written to control belief, and these new texts were actually placed above the cannon. They provide the only lens through which we are permitted to read the cannon. Questions over which text was written when and by whom pale into insignificance. This second dominant cannon of councils and creeds was written hundreds of years after Jesus lived, sometimes in a highly charged atmosphere not conducive to true consensus. The power of this second cannon is magnified by the fact that its influence is mostly concealed: people read the creeds into the text and then attribute the result to the text itself.
What is the role for the emergent church?
If we are to undo the damage of overly proscriptive definitions of belief, maybe the first thing we need to do is change not the content but the very nature of our creeds. Given the highly charged and divisive religious atmosphere in many parts of the world, how can the emergent church begin to bring about this healing?
Re: The Gospel of Thomas & the Canon
Sojourner,
In response to your earlier post on the Gospel of Thomas — Yes, as it would have been fruitless for me to include the texts that the vast majority of us are all familiar with, those also included in the four canonical gospels, I limited my post to include the highly questionable ones. NOTE: At no time did I say that this book cannot be accepted as inspired - I said the one who sees this book as acceptable had better be prepared to give an answer for the discrepancies.
I am greatly interested in seeing a list of specific contradictions in the canonical texts, if you have one available or are willing to compile one. For my own growth and knowledge I would like to be able to address any such contradictions (if any), if any inquirer were to bring them up.
For reference, in case you did not already know of it, there is a website (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com) where you can go and view over 10 different versions of the Gospel of Thomas, as well as many of the various manuscripts used in/by members of the early church community. You can preview most documents there before buying a hard copy.
Although I do question the stated grounds on which many of the books were considered canonical or non-canonical, I do NOT question my belief that Yahweh is in control of His Word. I disagree with many of the creeds and decisions established by the many ecumenical councils, but not with the fact that the truth was lost and/or sacrifices in the process. Any who have faith in Yahweh must believe that He is in control, and that He desires those who would seek Him to be able to find Him.
As a note, I highly doubt, nor have I seen or heard any reputable proof, that "the doubter" was an APPELLATION which John chose to use to compete with Thomas. If John’s purpose was competition, why not affix negative appellations to each person mentioned within his own gospel? Peter is the perfect example. Not only is there a "Gospel of Peter", but John’s gospel contains the longest narrative of the three denials Peter made of knowing Yahshua. John could have called him "Peter the Hipocrite", or "Peter the Weak", or "Peter the Fearful", if his motive was to discredit all other gospels out there other than his.
So as to not draw this too far beyond the scope of this post, let’s focus on the subject presented before us. Let’s imagine we had the resources only available to a believer of the first century…scrolls of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, although not necessarily in one compliation. From what is already known, or can be learned from what is within these pages, can we accept the statements of the Gospel of Thomas above as coming from (or being inspired by) the same God? And, let us not forget to define the term "gospel". To the best of my current understanding, I define the gospel as such:
"Believe upon the free gift of grace from Yahweh through the sacrifice of Yahshua, and repent (turn away from) your sins for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
Repentance is essential to the gospel. It is a constant thread not only in the canonical books of the New Testament, but also those of the Old. Unfortunately the Gospel of Thomas, although having inferences and a few citations pointing one to believe upon Yahshua, is almost completely devoid of a message of repentance. In my humble opinion, any gospel that does not state the need for repentance, does not preach the whole gospel. Even though John’s gospel contains only one definite instruction to turn from sin (5:14), John’s first epistle is very clear on the matter (1 John 1:5-10, 2:1-6, 3:4-10, 5:13-18).
Even the simple, although not completely relevant fact that it is called the "Secret" Gospel of Thomas should raise the ears of those who would look into it. In my understanding, Yahshua didn’t come to conceal, but to reveal and fulfil. He came to disclose things that HAD BEEN hidden, not speak more secrets.
Re: The Gospel of Thomas & the Canon
knight4yshua,
Many thanks, for the link and for your broader interests and concerns.
However, it is Pagels’ point that one can argue for evidence of competition with the book of Thomas in the Gospel of John. Whether that is best attributed to a later redactor or the originator of the gospel she leaves unsettled. I believe that she answers your hypotheses of likely alternatives simply by citing John’s muted tone as an indication of the respect in which Thomas was held at the time.
I do not have a list of biblical contradictions. But my OT and NT study (and I only got as far as the basics and in the 1950s) used scholarly works that required extensive pages to explain the likely (because inconsistent) multiple sources of our current texts. In view of the fact that one might well find contradictions in what I’ve written here so far, I do not experience such as a necessary problem.
However, I’m not a helpful resource for biblical studies. Now, should you care to understand Heidegger’s argument for the identity of Being and nothingness, I could give that a go. (But please don’t take that offer seriously!)
Re: The canon of the Bible
knight4yshua,
Western philosophy has entered a period identified by the phrase “the linguistic turn.” No universal consensus exists yet on criteria for the interpretation of texts, but major advances have taken place. I do not yet know the details of this development, but I am certain that it traces back to Biblical scholarship. Not only have the disciplines of translation benefited from Bible study, the openness of conflicting interpretation has cleared a workspace. In secular studies, the wider field is already so lush with an abundance of product growth that areas of specialization have formed.
On the question of the Biblical canon, an important issue is whether faith is a form of knowledge. In philosophy the goal is knowledge. But it would be a mistake to reduce philosophy’s knowledge to mere information. Belief plays a necessary role in interpretation of any text.
An illustration of one recent philosophical problem can be found in the work of the late Donald Davidson. His analysis of meaning confronts a dilemma. He shows how on the one hand we cannot understand what another’s words mean unless we understand what that person believes. Simultaneously, we cannot understand that person’s beliefs unless we understand the meaning of the words used.
My suggestion is that from philosophy’s struggle with such questions (and there’s enough work to keep us all busy for a long, long time) the appreciation and understanding of Biblical texts can benefit. There’s a great gettin’ up mornin’ comin’ if we can avoid worldwide social chaos. (Christianity’s job is to warn against the immanentization of the eschaton. We know that return to Eden is not an option.) But we need those who can hold things together so the work of communion through communcation can continue. It is what I pray for every day. As the psalmists sang, "Establish, Thou, the work of our hands. Yea, the work of our hands, establish, Thou, it."
Re: The canon of the Bible
Sojourner,
First of all thanks for the very active dialogue, it is hard to find people, especially believers, who are willing to even THINK about the origins of the canon. Most prefer (and to some degree I wish I still had) ignorance. They would rather believe that the Bible just always was, and it didn’t have any stages of development. I must say, when I first started researching into the canonization of the NT, it became very…disheartening…to say the least. Suddenly, with the minute amount of new knowledge I had, my "solid rock" had been shaken, knowing the great struggles, battles, and councils the went into the development of the canon we now have. And the same people who decided on any particular book are also the same people who "solidified", or rather "creed-ified" many beliefs into the church on which I disagree. But, my comfort in all of this is my faith that Yahweh is in control, and he desires that I know Him and will provide the means by which I can do that.
Next, let me re-emphasize, in a much clearer way, where I have come to at this point. In the same way that I believe that Yahweh is static, unchanging, I also believe the truth is the same. I believe Yahweh’s standard of righteousness is also unchanging, although grace is now offered for transgression through Yahshua’s blood. I therefore have come to the belief that Yahweh’s Law is absolute, unchanging, so long as this world remains at least. To clarify furthur, I cannot say that the Torah, the entire first five books, is absolute, but that the "book of the law" mentioned numerous times within the Torah is. These, I believe, are the very words of Yahweh, simply spoken by Him, and written down by Moses. And "for the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart (Matt. 12:34)", so Yahweh’s Law is the expression of His heart.
Contained within this Law (Heb. - torah; teaching) are commandments on how to live holy before Yahweh, and to do the things pleasing to Him. There are also instructions on how to distinguish false prophets (Deut. 18), types and shadows of the Messiah, blessings for obedience, and curses for disobedience and rebellion. This Torah was held as the standard to judge whether or not anything spoken was or was not from Yahweh (Isa. 8:20) - "To the Law(Torah) and the Testimony, if they do not speak according to this word it is because they have no dawn."
I believe the Law stands as the first stepping stone, or the first criterion for establishing (or edifying) our canon. I also believe that contained within is so much more that would shed light on whether or not any word (written or spoken) is inspired of Yahweh. If from the Law, the spoken words of Yahweh, we can establish a list of criteria by which to judge all other words, we are then standing on ground that the Father Himself laid, and not the standard "criteria for canonicity" as established by the people.
I am also well aware that there is no "universal consensus" when it comes to criteria. But I would go as far to question whether or not WE, as flesh and blood humans, even have the power to establish what is, and what is not the word of Yahweh. Yahweh knows very well the need we have had, and still have, to be able to distinguish His Word, and His commands from all the other "voices" out there. I don’t think that he left us alone to determine this on our own criteria. I also believe that due to the common belief that the early church stopped obeying the Law of Yahweh, referred to as "not being under the law", has set limitations on where people are willing to look to find Yahweh’s criteria. If we are not willing to look into the Law, believing that we are no longer to obey it, and that stands to be the only place where the criteria of Yahweh can be found, we have willingly cut off our arms, legs, head, everything. The very thing by which the patriarchs and prophets of the past measured any word has been closed to us, and this by our own doing!
I also believe that Yahweh, knowing how likely we are to come up with our own "philosophy", would have established a concrete standard so that each person can’t say, "Well, my way is right, and your way is wrong!" Although my belief, even though it is being more established the more I study and pray, could be called "my own philosophy" as I have not yet had the time or opportunity to complete my research and come up with a conclusion. My intention is to read very carefully through the Law, and search prayerfully for these criteria.
If Yahshua could be judged by this Law (being found blameless) which shows us clearly Yahweh’s stand on (and standard of) righteousness, why can’t any written or spoken word be judged by it as well? If it stands up to all that is instructed in the Law, not contradicting or maligning it, can we feel confident Yahweh spoke (or inspired) it?
It is also very interesting to note that the other standard we are to adhere to, that being the very life and example of Yahshua, is paralleled in very amazing ways with the Torah. For example, both He and the Law are called the Way (John 14:6; Ps. 119:1), the Truth (John 14:6; Ps. 119:142), and the Life (John 14:6; Prov. 6:23). Both are referred to as lights (John 8:12; Prov. 6:23). Yahshua is the living, breathing, walking, Torah, as well as the fulfillment of numerous things contained therein. And so much more!! But I could go on and on about that…for now, canon and criteria. Thanks again!
Re: The canon of the Bible
knight4yshua,
Again, thank you. I will not critique your ‘philosophy’ because I cannot provide as informed and coherent an argument as you have offered.
Let me only mention that in philosophy Heidegger’s contribution relies on his ability to use the concept of Being itself without a claim to identification of Being itself as an absolute. Instead, he is closer to the existentialist by offering "Being being beings" as a provisional summary. Later, he bemoaned the inadequacy of that but not as a reason to return to the Aristotelianism he spent 14 years studying before he wrote "Sein und Zeit."
Elsewhere on this site I exchanged a few comments about process theology’s concept of a limited God. Clearly that is not your understanding of Yahweh.
As I’m sure you’re aware, the first objection to your total faith in an absolute divinity is that in view of the existence of evil, such faith might be accounted "blind." I expect that is not an issue for you, and I think I can see the smile on your lips as you anticipate a reply.
Re: The canon of the Bible
Sojourner,
How well you seem to know me so far! Indeed my face lit up while simultaneously formulating a response. I can see where people might question the "limits" of Yahweh based on the mere existence of evil…but where they see limits, I see predestination and absolutely perfect knowledge.
Yahweh, in His infintely perfect knowledge, knew that creating a family (which He clearly desired-not out of necessity, but out of love and desire) would involve a few things:
(Note: although we, as humans, have to process and arrange these thoughts in order for them to make sense, Yahweh is not bound by this. Somehow He KNEW it, without time as we know it having to pass.)
1) If He created beings with no choice but to love and worship Him, He would have succeded in creating only robots!
2) Knowing that He would be creating beings that COULD choose against Him, even if it would only be .01%, He would have created a way by which the rebellious could come back to Him - Yahshua - who, although he wasn’t manifested until later in time, was foreknown (Gr. prognosis) before the foundation of the world (1 Pet. 1:20)
So, it would definitely be against what I believe about Yahweh to say that the mere presence of evil lessens His "absoluteness". Yahweh, knowing those whom He created to love and adore Him would choose not to, made a way for us to still be with Him! Anybody can create something that has an "on-off" to worship. But, as a parent myself, I can strenuously say that if the love of your child is freely given, by their choice, if greatly surpasses any form of forced obedience or love.
I will concede to one thing though, there are things I feel, and scripture repeats, that Yahweh CANNOT do. Simply - He CANNOT sin!
In regards to the canon…I am seeking an answer that I haven’t seen anyone else do focused research on. Almost every scholar authored book out there on the subject of the canon (mostly NT canon) focuses on a few things: 1)The disputes in the early church on the canon; 2) the five main "criteria" for canonicity; and 3) how are canon was shaped and who it was shaped by. All of these books are written verifying a canon by using a canon. THEY DETERMINE WHAT IS CANONICAL BY READING A CERTAIN CANON! Back to my original post, this all becomes circular. Paul states in Romans 1 that "His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Those who do not believe in God, have no escuse not to. Look around you, and creation itself screams God created it. What is the next step?
Re: Dismissing Pagels
Sojourner,
I tried to reply to your note, however, something is wrong in my inbox. I’ll have to do it here. Forgive my flippant remark concerning Pagels. I have to say I found the book quite stimulating. Though, I’m not sure how much the consensus has changed. Or, perhaps I’m confused as to what consensus you’re referring to. Regardless, I imagine it depends on what circles I run in.
I do consider them to be quite liberal in the grand scheme of things. I too would be in favor of an unsealed revelation. In fact, I would hope that the words of my sermon would reveal something of the Word. I would only say that everything we "need" is already found in the canonical writings.
I tend to be a bit of a cynic so if you asked me if the canon was driven by power plays, I would probably answer yes. But God uses sinful people all the time to accomplish God’s purposes. I’m glad we found the gnostic gospels, I’m glad we have the apochrypha and church fathers and saints and mystics and pastors and open source theology. So, I guess I’m for a closed canon in the sense that if we opened it again we wouldn’t really be able to stop. But that is not to say that we can’t find God’s revelation in other writings (or movies, dramas, paintings, people, creation, etc.)
The book of Thomas
Pastor Pete,
Thanks for the reply. That was my first private message and the move from mini to max to write, and back to mini screen again to send left me wondering if it came across.
I read Pagels on the gnostics. I have not yet read her on Thomas, but I did hear a good long lecture by her. When my copy of Thomas gets here, I’ll be able to draw my own conclusions.
The consensus I referred to was about the likely place of Thomas among the pre-canonical New Testament documents. Following its discovery, I heard it was nothing more than another of the pseudo’s characteristic of the period. I believe it has been taken more seriously, at least by scholars of the period, since then. At least that’s what Pagels said, but of course she had her own work to defend and promote.
I expect you may be right that rather than it adding anything new or different to what we already know about the historical life of Jesus, at most it may give us one more perspective on early church politics.
If you saw knight4yshua’s extract above, it may also add problems, rather than insights, to the discussion. So it does need to be handled with some care.