Okay, I am potentially about to open up a can of worms that may be well beyond the scope of the people on this forum’s desire to study. I have read and searched through the other pertinent threads on OST, and have not found any of them to be sufficient in answering my direct questions. The best category is "The Canon of the Bible" & possibly "Truth" in general. So here is the gist:
Most people will start threads talking about the "verity" or "validity" of certain New Testament books and/or early church writings. These would include topics such as "Is the Gospel of Thomas inspired", "The people/situations that influenced the development of the canon", and "The various differing canons of the different congregations of the early church". Most scholars, in doing research on this subject, end up developing what they believe to be the "criteria for canonicity" that the early church used to determine whether a book was inspired of God or not. But, most often times they establish these criteria by using the Old Testament, without spending any time discussing the "how’s" "when’s" and "why’s" of how the OT itself was established. So, inevitably their NT canon was based off of an already established canon. So we take the next step back:
Who established the OT canon, and under what criteria was IT established? After following this process to the very end you end up getting to the question of whether or not MAN should have ANY influence at all in determining the CRITERIA for canonicity. I mean, if God wants us to be able to distinguish His true voice from all of the others out there, HE should be the one that provides (or provided) the criteria, not man. We, as humans, are EXTREMELY likely to decide what should and should not be included in our canon based on what we already believe or wish to make others believe. This should NOT be the case. In other words, our personal beliefs or agenda should have NO influence on what IS and IS NOT the Word of God. The Word of God is just that, the Word of God. Other criteria, established by God alone, should be the standard to which we compare all other writings (in my current opinion).
Establishing the above leads us to look for criteria-determining factors WITHOUT using a previously established canon. One argument has been made for the "ancientness" of the texts of the old testament as proof for their verity, but any devout scripture studier will know that the Biblical manuscripts are by no means the oldest religious manuscripts in existence. Now, I say this knowing that there are NO originals of the Biblical manuscripts, and if there were, maybe they would be the oldest. Heck, maybe the very fact that there are no originals is even more proof that the Biblical manuscripts are the oldest religious documents. But, knowing all of that, TODAY we have ancient Egyptian documents and paintings which speak of religious worship habits which FAR outdate the oldest Biblical manuscript we have. So, the scientifically established "date of origin" of any particular religious writing should not stand as a valid criterion for the "Word of God". At least since there is evidence (even if not in the form of actual documents) of very ancient belief systems. Otherwise, if we all just followed the PROVEABLY oldest religious documents, shouldn’t we all be following the ways of the ancient Egyptians or ancient Mesopotamians right now?
To me, the very order and diversity present in creation is enough to prove there is a Creator outside the boundaries/limitations of this universe. Knowing this, what is the next step in learning which, out of all the so-called "gods" out there to choose from, is the TRUE ONE? Is there a means by which to establish, or rather discover, God’s criteria for what is and is not inspired of Him (WITHOUT using an already established canon)?
The question may come up: why does all of this really matter? Well, when you have so many different religious groups out there (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.), all with their own sacred writings that they follow, how is one to minister to the other? The argument/discussion most often stops between them when which book they each follow is brought up. One says, "The Bible says this…," the other answers, "Well, the Quran says this…!" The battle is being fought on uneven, unequal ground. What first needs to be established, which would pretty much end any argument by bringing in the truth, is which is the actual Word of God. And in order to establish this, a set of criteria by which to compare/examine all writings must first be established. Otherwise, it is just "He said, she said".
As a side note, let me just say that I would call myself a "Messianic Israelite". I believe Yahweh is the one True God, and the Yahshua, His Son, is the Messiah. I believe in the active power of God, worked in visible signs and wonders, as being a very real and possible criterion for establishing from nothing which god is the True God. In other words, if one person can speak "Stand up and walk in the name of Yahshua," and the person gets up and walks, and another person can say "Get up and walk in the name of Allah," and they don’t, the True God is revealed in His working through the truth. So, I am not setting aside the "power of God" aspect of determining the criteria, just probing for the others.
And remember, try not to come with arguments that are rooted in or come directly from an already established canon. Thanks for any and all input! All constructive and guiding comments are welcome! Yahweh Bless!
Re: The "Non-Canon-Based" Canon
knght4yshua - thank you for your new post. At the risk of rushing in where angels fear to tread, I supply the following comment, starting with something you said:
"I mean, if God wants us to be able to distinguish His true voice from all of the others out there, HE should be the one that provides (or provided) the criteria, not man. We, as humans, are EXTREMELY likely to decide what should and should not be included in our canon based on what we already believe or wish to make others believe. This should NOT be the case. In other words, our personal beliefs or agenda should have NO influence on what IS and IS NOT the Word of God. The Word of God is just that, the Word of God. Other criteria, established by God alone, should be the standard to which we compare all other writings (in my current opinion)."
What if the standard has already been established? What if the traditions which led to the formation of an OT canon, and the usage, traditions, councils etc which led to a recognition of a NT canon were actually God’s way of saying ‘these texts, but not the others’? Isn’t it odd that despite the questionings which have been going on now for the best part of 1700 years, and not least those of critical scholarship from the 18th century onwards to this day and continuing, we still have a biblical canon. Odder still that the last 200 years, the period of greatest questioning of a concept like a canon, have seen the greatest stability in the content of the canon. It remains, questionably but perplexingly unaltered (give or take oddities at the margins in different traditions).
It’s also a very modernist idea - to seek some position outside of the thing itself from which to provide more certain verification. This is the essence of foundationalism, which has run into trouble as an approach for establishing truth. Another approach is to undertake a ‘critique from within’, allowing one interpretetion to be subjected to the critique of alternative standpoints and positions. But this is probably frustrating the point of the kind of pursuit which you are calling for.
As for comparing canons across different religions - it’s not just a case of comparing which said what, but looking carefully at their different assumptions. The biblical canon has some quite unique features. It does not claim to be a compilation of timeless religious truth. It is not said to be an earthly copy of a heavenly original or the direct words of God spoken to man. It is a compilation of many different literary forms around a central narrative in which the one God is said to have devised an extraordinary way of developing His plans for the earth through a historical process, which nobody left to themselves would ever have dreamed up, and which at times is highly embarrassing to those who believe in it.
Through the biblical narrative, a unique slant on who God is and how He operates in history is provided. The canon is perhaps a secondary phenomenon in which the narrative is contained and carried forward, and is no doubt at times equally embarrassing and difficult to explain. Maybe a better method would be to identify the assumptions on which other religious writings are based, and to compare them with the assumptions underlying the biblical writings.
Would we have the canon today, especially the NT canon, without the invention of the printing press - as a way of stabilising and ‘freezing’ the content of the bible? Until Gutenberg and his successors, things seem to have been somewhat fluid. It was OK for Luther to question the value of James, and Calvin to have problems with Revelation.
These are all hypothetical questions. The one remaining constant is the infuriating canon. It just won’t go away, and we keep coming back to its texts as a basis for discussion and belief - even the postmodern variety. I say ‘infuriating’, but of course it isn’t for me. On a practical level it works - as an a priori and optic for viewing God and living out my life. I leave the soul-searching for others. Well, I suppose I do take responsibility for this contribution, and don’t question the value of discussing things.
Re: The "Non-Canon-Based" Canon
I think the ‘messy’ way the canon was formed mirrors the way the Bible was inspired in the first place. Certain passages are prima facie man-written and bear no sign that the author was conscious of being under divine inspiration, for example, 1 Corinthians 7:12 and Luke 1:1-3. If you can accept that God led the Apostles and their associates correctly in what they wrote in the original documents, it seems natural that God must also have controlled the process of assembling those documents into a clearly-defined volume.
I do not find it hard to suppose that all the apparently arbitrary factors that have shaped the New Testament (Greek philosophy, the political machinations of Emperor Constantine, Roman culture, the invention of the printing press, etc.) are not merely accidents of history, but that God was masterminding events and working behind these secondary causes to produce his desired result.
I guess it would be reassuring to have a sign from heaven to confirm to us that the canon we have ended up with is what God intended. But even if it turns out that Hebrews or Jude should not have been included, or that the Shepherd of Hermas should have been included, I don’t think those tweakings would make any practical difference to us as individuals or to the church as a whole.
The canon we have inherited is a fact of history. Even if we formulated a new canon today, the existing canon would remain significant as being what the historical church has acknowledged and used, and also implicitly, what God has used to build and sustain his church during that period.
The truth is out there..and in there
knght4yshua,A long time ago in a galaxy far far a way I started a thread here discussing my concerns about the validity of the whole book. It was an interesting discussion.
This thread looks at the same issue from a slightly different angle but I predict it will come to very similar conclusions in the end. The issue here and previously is belief or faith and a personal and generational cultural, political and community investment in it. This is likely to result in a curious kind of objectivity, with the constant circular reference arguments you refer to, but that is not what this site is for.
It is interesting to compare a secular academic work(WHO WROTE THE NEW TESTAMENT? The Making of the Christian Mythby Burton L. Mack, for example) on the history of either testament where the author has no Christian belief with the works of any Christian writer( N.T. Wright bats for the good guys).
This site seeks from a Christian perspective to define a theology for the Emergent movement. The only source of ‘truth’ available as a basis for this project is the Bible, and at least 1750ish years of religion founded on some version or other of it.
Whenever I walk amongst the immense pillars of a 1000 year old English cathedral I feel the power of that belief and it is awe inspiring, yet I do not share that belief. My strength to defend my beliefs have to be founded on something. I believe, for example, in my own and your existence but I cannot prove anything but my thoughts exist. I also can not begin to imagine how anybody can prove God exists never mind prove what is or is not his word.
Re: The "Non-Canon-Based" Canon
"I am speaking the truth in Christ - I am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit…"
I find these words of Paul in his letter to the Romans quite intriguing (Rom. 9:1). Contextually, he is beginning his discussion of the fate of Israel within the larger historical narrative. I would say Paul is pursuing the truth of the matter. In his words, he is seeking the "truth in Christ."
It seems to me that we’re seeking the same thing with regard to the canon. So, then, how do we discovered the truth in Christ regarding the canon? The same way Paul knew he had found the truth in Christ regarding Israel: our consciences will confirm it by the Holy Spirit.
That same Spirit works within the communal gathering of Christians so that the truth in Christ can come out. I imagine this is what happened at the councils when the canon was formed. It sounds subjective, I know, but some books didn’t feel right when layed against certain criteria (which did feel right, seem true).
We shouldn’t be so naive as to think that the Spirit’s voice was heard without distortion. But, neither should we be so cynical that we view the whole procedure as corrupt. It is likely that some books which should not have been included were and others which should have were not. However, for the most part, we have a collection of writings that include as complete a message as we can handle at this point.
That being said, the Spirit’s role continues in helping us discern which words among all the words actually show forth God’s Word. We continue to gather as a community, searching for the truth in Christ in regard to many a topic. When the communal conscience is confirmed by the Holy Spirit, we may be onto something. We shouldn’t be so naive to think that the process will go on undistorted. But neither should we be so cynical that we’ll never hear correctly what God is saying. For the most part, honest, humble, God-fearing people are seeking the truth in Christ and I imagine we’ve got a pretty good grasp of it; like seeing in a mirror dimly.
Re: The "Non-Canon-Based" Canon
I just wanted to say that I am in the process of writing my response and that I haven’t forgotten or abandoned my post. Fortunately (and unfortunately in some ways) I am selling my house, and if any of you have ever been through that, there are TONS of things to work out. Between that an work I haven’t been able to re-post. I have been typing my comments into a Word file when I have a little time so that I can "cut & paste" the whole thing at one time. In it I will have responses to all four who have commented thus far, so as to eliminate multiple posts for no reason.
Again, sorry for the slow response time, just a little busy. Hopefully I will be able to get to it tommorrow (Friday the 18th). Thanks to all for contributing so far! Blessings to all in Yahshua!
Re: The "Non-Canon-Based" Canon
Does it matter anymore about a canon? I have several Bibles, several translations of the Bhagavad Gita, Bahai writings, Buddhist scriptures, much of understanding Buddhism from different schools, Zoroastrian writings, different Jewish tendencies, Taoism, several ancient mythologies, theologies of world religions, historical Jesus materials, Christian Church from Persia to China (Jesus Sutras), Secularism, a lot on Unitarianism, a great deal of Christian theology including radical versions - there are no boundaries to what may be read, used, give insights. Nothing gives The Truth. I do not believe there is The Truth at all, but insights for situations.
http://www.pluralist.co.uk
Canon envy...
okay so your canon is bigger than ours
:-)
Re: The "Non-Canon-Based" Canon
Pluralist is more committed to the truth than most contributors to this site. A commitment to relativism ought to be more tentative about its own insights, otherwise it becomes as intolerant as those viewpoints it seeks to criticise.
Does it matter if there is a canon? Probably - because the narrative and writings of the bible are not open-ended, and the issue of validity has been debated for as long as there have been traditions and writings.
Are there canons in other faiths? Presumably; I would assume that some writings are said to be integral, and others valuable, or interesting, but not integral to faiths besides Christianity. Pluralist probably knows more about this than I do.
Is there no ‘truth’ in writings outside these ‘canons’? Of course there is, but we would not suggest, for instance, that Keats’s ‘Ode to Autumn’ is determinative of the Christian faith, for all the profound truth about the human condition which it contains. Yet accepting the validity of a ‘canon’ in the corpus of writings which define my faith does not mean that I can find no value in reading widely outside that canon - either in secular or religious literature. With the latter, I frequently come back to the bible with greater appreciation.
What constitutes the uniqueness of the writings of the biblical canon, in contrast to those considered to be non-canonical? That returns the discussion to the wider questions concerning the canon - but whatever the point of view, it is not an irrelevant question.
Re: The "Non-Canon-Based" Canon
It seems to me that we adopt as authoritative those texts that resonate with our worldview…with the metanarrative that we use to order our understanding of reality. Societies are going to elevate to scriptural status those texts which capture each society’s identity and values.
So, to know my canon (my own personal canon—excluding those parts of the traditional canon which I ignore, including those contemporary texts which I use to order my thinking of the Bible) is to know me as a western evangelical philosophical Christian. Know the canon of "my kind of people," and you’ll see me as part of evangelical Christianity. As for Pluralist’s "canon", well let’s just say I wasn’t exactly shocked.
The question is, "Are all canons arbitrary human creations, reflecting their creators, or are any better than the others, because they reveal transcendent truth?"
I believe there is a God and he has given us revelation. He has specifically revealed himself in "history", contributing to a shared narrative. I believe the truths thus revealed are of a higher order than what may be known through observing nature.
Our creation, Science, does inform us, and I don’t believe it is especially pious to ignore what we observe or to reject without thought what scientists say. However, science doesn’t inform us about right and wrong, and it doesn’t bring us into a close enough relationship with God.
Re: The "Non-Canon-Based" Canon
Thanks to all who have contributed thus far. All of your comments seem wel thought and have contributed much. For ease, I am going to address this to all four commentors thus far, so I don’t have to respond four different times.
Mr. Wilkinson - I defintely agree with the traditions of the past possibly having an enormous influence upon, and being an enormous reason for, a canon. I too believe that the standards have already been set, but I am merely trying to search for them in the same way that Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, Job, etc…had to. They didn’t have a "Bible" as we know it (at least from the history we know of presently) to refer back to when questioned about matters of doctrine and faith. So clearly they had something else that could stand as a foundation for them to build their faith upon. So they could build with faith and confidence knowing that they were building a temple pleasing to God. I also agree that Yahweh is in control of His word, and could have DEFINITELY used the "objects of His wrath to make better known His grace to the objects of His mercy".
By seeking criteria outside of the established canon we are forced to not just believe what anyone tells us, and seek diligently the face of God. A biblical example would be that of Abraham in Gen. 26:5 which states that Abraham kept Yahweh’s charge, commandments, statues, and laws…and all this without the Torah as we know it having been written. How? How did he know what the laws, commandments, and statutes of God were? Did he have some written document to which to refer, or were the laws, commandments, and statutes of God just so clearly known in that time that anyone could follow them (unlikely - Chaldeans)?
I must say that I disagree with your statements about what the Bible (or the various books within) claims for itself (themselves). Malachi 3:6 says, "For I, YHWH, do not change;" even if the compilation of the Bible itself is not timeless, the truth within, if given by God, must be. Yahweh does not change, neither do His standards of righteousness and holiness. Psalm 119:142 - "Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your law is truth." The books themselves might not be an earthly copy of a heavenly original, but the books (specifically Torah) instruct copies of heavenly things to be made. The Ten Commandments are placed inside of the Ark of the Covenant, which is a type of the heavenly Ark (or throne) before which our Lord now ministers as High Priest. This Ark is also shown again in Revelation. Could the heavenly Ark also contain the heavenly Commandments? And the laws contained within the Torah are definitely taken as, an written down as "the words of God spoken to man".
I do agree with your assessment of what the Bible is though. Especially about the central narrative part. Although I would like to throw another thing out there that I brought up on another forum. What is the constant thread throughout the OT and NT that all are petitioned to come back to? What were the tribes of Israel constantly slack and rebellious to which caused them much pain, grief and sorrow? What is also constantly exalted and held to the highest place throughout the entire Bible by all contributors thereto? The LAW of YAHWEH. It was, is, and will be the standard of righteousness, and the truth. Yahshua was the living breathing example of the Law lived perfectly, to the spirit and the letter. Could the standards (criteria) of canonicity be contain also therein?
Phil – In brief summation, I wholeheartedly agree with what you have stated. As I have said previously, Yahweh is in control of everything. It is definitely not outside the scope of His power to direct and guide even those who are rebellious towards Him, to accomplish His plans. The canon we currently have could very well have been the result of His power working in that way. The main point that I am trying to get back to is, what are His criteria for determining what is and what is NOT of Him. Back to Job, Isaac, Abraham…how did they know what was pleasing to Yahweh? The people of like faith as us, namely Christianity, has been numbered of upwards of 30,000 denominations. Thirty THOUSAND!! And there are canons ranging from 5 books (the Samaritan Bible) to 87 (the Ethiopian Orthodox Church)! How, with so much DIVISION present TODAY in the church over beliefs & doctrines, did Abraham and others stay united in the TRUE faith, and that without ANY BIBLE?!? We have a “solid” canon, and we can’t even agree, yet those who we read about within our canon all knew the same God, and the same standards and laws that He commanded. That is where I am trying to get to.
Albannach – As a believer and follower of Messiah Yahshua, I am not seeking to make this a non-Christian forum. I am seeking other people in the like faith, who may have had the same topic come up in their walk, who could pour some wisdom upon me. From a “ministry to others” standpoint, we should not take the stance of just saying, “Well it’s the Bible, and its been around for 2000 something years, and it’s the truth.” In my missions/evangelism experience, that is not enough to reach those who are more “intellectual”. Most, and I do say MOST, people will accept faith Yahshua when told about the free gift of salvation offered through his blood. Especially in poorer countries, where hearing that anything is free is foreign. And hearing that Yahshua will not only forgive them their sins, but bring joy and peace into their lives, brings burly grown men to their knees in thankfulness and tears. But what about the hearts of those who are content? What about those in the United States? A place where we have an abundance, and peoples hearts are cold because of their contentment and satisfaction? That is who I seek an answer for as well, not only myself.
PastorPete – I also wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. The spirit of Yahweh can definitely confirm or deny anything that we are told. The problem still lies in explaining all the denominations of Christianity…All of them think they are in the truth, and all of them believe they are being led by the Holy Spirit. Yet there different beliefs on almost every possible topic, and all still call themselves the “Body of Christ”. I ask, Is Christ divided against himself. I mean take baptism for example. Some believe a simple sprinkling will do it, others believe that if your toenail is sticking out 1/16 of an inch you haven’t been “fully immersed”, and still others believe that baptism is non-essential to salvation, others believe it is absolutely necessary. And all this supposedly from the same Bible, all confirmed to each by the same Holy Spirit? (I am anti-denominational, can you tell?) The brutally apparent division in the Body of Christ is by far our hugest weakness, and the world sees it pasted on every TV screen and newspaper. I feel convicted about our division all the time. And I eagerly desire our unity in the faith. So back to the topic…how can this be possible without first establishing a truthful, reliable canon, from which we can teach/correct/rebuke/train in all matters of the faith…and how can that canon be established without first having a clear set of criteria by which to compare the multiplicity of writings out there?
I eagerly await all of your comments and fruits of your study. Thank you all again for all the time you dedicate to this post and this site in general. For me, it is great to be able to “air out” my mind to those who can give an informed and thoughtful response. Blessings to all in Messiah Yahshua, especially on this Sabbath day!
—-knght4yshua
Re: The "Non-Canon-Based" Canon
First up, I want to inform you that although I am a Christian. I am by no means a biblical scholar, at least I don’t think I’m one. I do however believe that the Bible (I favor the KJV but I think the subsequent versions serve it’s purpose as well) is the word of God. I do have personal insights on this topic though.
You were posing the question (i paraphrase) of how Abraham, Isaac, and Israel knew they were pleasing to God without having any written Torah or writings at all to base their certainty on. I think there are at least 2 possibilities.
1. They knew whenever they stepped over the line because God would deal out punishment in one form or another
2. From the days before they discovered and followed God, they remembered what the spiritual and sometimes physical sensation of guilt felt like, and therefore, if they never ever felt guilt like that again, then they knew they were pleasing God
3. Or, and this might tie in to #2 is that their knowledge was internal. I can give examples of my personal experiences, they may seem silly to you but they make a valid point. When I was a child, sometimes my mother would buy candy and keep it in the refrigerator. Most of the time, the candy (chocolate) was for her, and occasionally it was for me and my sister. One morning, I quietly left my bedroomand proceeded to raid the refrigerator (I was 5) for this candy while my mother was asleep. Just as I touched the wrapper, I felt a voice… I can’t really say I heard a voice because it was more like feeling but still using clear english words. The words, from the best of my recollection, said "are you stealing?" Then as I stopped to try to figure out why i was hearing something without hearing something, the internal-instinct-based-voice again said, "why are you stealing from your mother?" My point to this childhood story is to remind people of the power of conscience AND the power of the Holy Spirit. I think of the human conscience as the microphone for the Holy Spirit. This analogy works when you consider the fact that some people seem to not have a conscience; in reality, they have their microphone turned off so the Holy Spirit can’t (I use the term can’t loosely, obviously God is all powerful and can do anything) speak to them with the same loudness and clarity. It doesn’t mean he isn’t speaking, it just means his message is either or both harder to hear and harder to understand. The switch for the microphone is switched to the on position whenever we seek "truth" and it is switched to the "off" position whenever we seek anything that is irrelevant or unrelated to truth.
I personally think #2 and #3 answer this paradox better. Once Abraham had experienced God, he managed to keep his microphone switched to the "on" position all the time. In addition, in Abraham’s day, distractions weren’t as common as the distractions we have today. In an era without telephones, cars, televisions, and computers, radios, and a world where a person told time by looking at the sky, the distractions were considerably less. Afterall, imagine how much quieter your life would be without all of the above mentioned luxuries? God speaks all the time, but it tends to only be in quiet moments that we hear him the clearest. Abraham and his sons had that advantage of long periods of silence. Another thing to consider is after they discovered God, and through faith and understanding, recognized a universal truth, they probably clung to it for all their might. If you’re lost in a very dark place, a place where you can’t see the hand in front of your face then you are scared/concerned/worried etc./ and then someone walks by holding one tiny little candle, no matter how small it is, you recognize that a tiny bit of light is better than trying to find your way out of the place in complete and utter darkness. Once Abraham and his descendants saw the light, they wouldn’t let it go for anything, they clung to it tightly without letting go so that after the epiphenal moment, they were always close to God and therefore were never ever outside God’s will again.
Wow, I’m not usually so long winded but I’m opinionated at times, and I feel strongly on this one. I would love to hear your thoughts.