Please note, I noticed a couple of small mistakes and edited this note 10:26 to correct it.
I don't care to enter the debate as the points have all been debated multiple times before without ever confirming any definitive canon, but I simply wanted to comment on the various adoptions of the many, somewhat arbitrary “canons” of scripture various religious movements have adopted for themselves during the various religious eras.
Just as the Muratorian canon represented one suggestion of one provincial groups' text seen as sacred by one group and not by other groups, I don’t feel any obligation to accept the modern Western Roman Canon as better than the modern eastern canon (which is significantly larger and has different books), or either of these canons over any protestant canon.
It feels as though the various arguments regarding what books should be read and which should be ignored is motivated more by personal feelings rather than by rational or historical thought. The arguments themselves are often peppered with historical inaccuracies used to justify a position. For example, often one sees the erroneous claim that the current books are chosen because of confirmed authorship. In truth, They are all “pseudographic” to the extent that no one knows nor can anyone prove who wrote any book in the old or new testament. Moses obviously did not write about his own death in the 1st book of Moses (“Genesis”) . Authorship was simply attributed by tradition.
I like the concept in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “all writing inspired by God [is/are] profitable for teaching, etc” rather than just one groups pet writings. Limitations as to what writing one can use to gain spiritual understanding are personal and somewhat arbitrary.
The discussions also do not often recognize the concept of “personal” canon. That is, that one person or group may find inspiration and spiritual enlightenment in a text that another person rejects outright. This itself is often an arbitrary and fickle thing.
For example, Billiardball (in the "perfection thread") firmly rejected historical references to the texts known as the Apostolic Fathers until he thought he found references in them that supported his point of view. At that point, he quotes them. Then, once it was shown the text did not support that theory, his sudden appreciation of their historical authority, seemed to evaporate. Similarly, all of us tend to like and use texts that seem to confirm our point of view.
This “personal” nature of a “personal” canon seems to go unrecognized in these discussions as well as the degree that the New Testament is dependent upon other texts. For examples, the writer of Jude quotes from the Book of enoch as scripture : “ And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints (New Testament Jude 1:14) The New Testament is quoting Enoch.
It is not just New Testament Jude who quotes from Enoch in the New Testament Text, The Apostles and Jesus allude to Enochian Literature. When we are reading the New Testament Text, we are reading from Enoch. Most of us simply were unaware of this.
For example : R.H. Charles pointed out over 127 quotes or allusions TO Enoch in the New Testament Text alone. Though it may not be sacred, inspired text to a modern individual who uses a modern western canon, Enoch still remains firmly inside the modern eastern Old Testament Christian Canon (having 81 books). Their Enoch IS, for example, still scripture to the 45 million Christians in the Ethiopian Church (and others who use the eastern Old Testament). We cannot allow ourselves insular and parochial thinking if we are to consider ancient history with any accuracy..
The Book of Enoch was extremely popular sacred text among BOTH Jews and Christians.
For example : The Dead Sea Scroll library of approx 1200 texts contained more copies of Enoch than almost any other non psalm/non pentatuch texts and such texts WERE certainly authoritative to them since they quote them so often as scripture and since they have become part of the New Testament.
Actually, we are not speaking merely of the “Ancients” who used such books as sacred texts, nor are we speaking merely of Enoch. For examples : When Erasmus debates Luther in the famous tischreden, he quotes from SIRACH, (AND, Erasmus specifically argues that it is “authoritative”).
I thought Jaybird was astute in his recent observation that rabbinic Judaism accepted and used parts of apocrypha as authoritative in the Talmud. For example, Sirach is quoted by Rabbis and it is cited authoritatively in the Talmud. For example, R. Eleazar quotes Sirach in attempting to justify the prohibition against Jews inquiring into pre-creation found in the Talmud.
A study of various books singly reveals some were very, very popular. A quick look at 4th Ezra demonstrates some historical context we are dealing with. For example, 4th Ezra was wildly popular and had an extremely wide theological influence even beyond the reformers.
Bishop Latimer was about to be burned at the Stake (I think in 1555), he refers to Ezra 14:25. When individuals quote him ("We shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace in England, as I trust shall never be put out.") they simply are unaware of that he (and they) are quoting 4th Ezra.
Christopher Columbus quotes scripture to the Sovereigns of Spain to encourage them to lend financial support for his voyages : “On the third day you commanded the waters to be gathered together in the seventh part of the earth; six parts you dried up and kept so that some of them might be planted and cultivated and be of service before you”
Columbus is using this scripture to support his planned voyage, the potential length of which is partly estimated by use of this scripture. Columbus is quoting 4th Ezra. In fact, Columbus calculates his voyage and it’s expected length based on this scripture. He placed his life in jeopardy based on his belief in the texts accuracy.
The Great William Whiston (Isaac Newton’s successor) issued 90 scriptural proofs that the end of the age was near. One third of these come from 4th Ezra alone.
Milton, the great writer who “knew all things hebrew”, repeatedly references Ezra in his writings. The examples can go on and on. The point is, that such people believed such texts were sacred; they put their faith in such texts as sacred; and they used such text to create, support and to discuss their personal theologies.
We, as individuals might not use the same texts as they did, but historically, one cannot argue that the earlier Jews and Christians did not use multiple texts as religious authority in trying to make sense of what God was intending and how mortality fit into those plans and they used them to teach their theology to others.
Clear
δρτζτωδρω
