Canonical Books of the Bible

I finally voted as well. It was not an easy decision, even though I chose the "standard protestant" answer.

In Latin and Greek the word "canon" means a rule or a standard, and I judge all doctrine by the 66 books of the Bible. If the doctrine finds support there, I accept it, or at least consider it for further study. Scripture must be viewed with the Gospel as the lens, so because of that, "First the homologoumena, then the antilegomena, and then the Hebrew OT (66 books)" might have been a better choice for me. But, I recognize much of the Hebrew OT as independently authoratative (w/o the Gospel, the law is still the law), so I think I made the correct choice for my current understanding.

I could not choose any of options including the Apocryphal nor dueterocanonical OT books, because I have not yet read them. I was going to do that this year, but many things got in the way, and I finally decided to read more Reformation and early church Literature this year and tackle the Apocryphal OT books next year. Maybe by then, I would have a different answer, but I don't think so.

DanHead said:

I finally voted as well. It was not an easy decision, even though I chose the "standard protestant" answer.

In Latin and Greek the word "canon" means a rule or a standard, and I judge all doctrine by the 66 books of the Bible. If the doctrine finds support there, I accept it, or at least consider it for further study. Scripture must be viewed with the Gospel as the lens, so because of that, "First the homologoumena, then the antilegomena, and then the Hebrew OT (66 books)" might have been a better choice for me. But, I recognize much of the Hebrew OT as independently authoratative (w/o the Gospel, the law is still the law), so I think I made the correct choice for my current understanding.

I could not choose any of options including the Apocryphal nor dueterocanonical OT books, because I have not yet read them. I was going to do that this year, but many things got in the way, and I finally decided to read more Reformation and early church Literature this year and tackle the Apocryphal OT books next year. Maybe by then, I would have a different answer, but I don't think so.

Click to expand...

Can't rep you for that post, but I can say "Nice Post"!

-James

To be clear:
Protestants today (other than Anglicans) have 66 books.
Roman Catholics have 73 books with addtions to 2 books (Esther, Daniel).
Anglicans have 76 books with addtions to 2 books (Esther, Daniel).
Eastern Orthodox have 78 books with addtions to 3 books (Esther, Daniel, Psalms).

There are other books to consider as well which are/have been accepted by Syrian, Armenian and Ethiopian Orthodoxy.

I accept the 78 books of the EOC, plus the additions to the O.T. by the Ethiopian and Syrian Orthodox (Enoch, Jubilees, 2 Baruch, 4 Baruch, and Psalms 152-154). I also accept the Psalms of Solomon from the LXX and the additions to the O.T. which were historically accepted by the Armenian Orthodox. Its a bit of a hefty O.T.

I do think there is a heirarchy of authority in the books, the gospels being at the top; I haven't worked out all the other details though.

Just to be clear:
Of the homolougomena there are 54

For those who wish to "weight" scripture, I have concluded there are 5 classes of antilegomena, details to follow.

Of the antilegomena there are 12 in the Protestant 66-book Bible. 5 in the Old and 7 in the New.

In the Old, there are Esther, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs and Ezekiel. Of these all issues were resolved and their acceptance is universal.

In the New there are two books of the antelegomena which have also come to have universal acceptance, James and Hebrews.

That defines your primary class of antilegomenal books, those which have come to have universal acceptance.

In the New there are five books of the antelegomena which have NOT come to have universal acceptance, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation. These were not part of the canon of the Syrian Orthodox scriptures.

That defines your secondary class of antilegomenal books, those which have nearly come to have universal acceptance, but not quite. Perhaps they can be said to have approached ubiquity in terms of acceptance.

The third class of antilegomenal books are 10 in number, with additional parts to 3. These are those whose acceptance has been very pervasive, they are Judith, Tobit, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, Psalm 151 and additions to Esther and Daniel.

There is a fourth class of antilegomenal books. These are books whose accetance has not been pervasive. These are 2 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees, Psalms 152-155, Things Omitted from Jeremiah the Prophet, Apocalypse of Baruch, 3 Corinthians, and Shepherd of Hermas.

Finally, a fifth type of antilegomenal book can be observed, these are books whose acceptance was historical but not current. These books are Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Joseph and Asenath, Lives of the Prophets, Psalms of Solomon, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas and The Teaching of the Twelve.

So the five types of observable antilegomena are those whose acceptance is 1. Universal, 2. Ubiquitous, 3. Pervasive, 4. Limited and 5. Historical.

Another class of books which have been part of Bibles should be mentioned. They do not properly fall under either the class of homolougomena or antilegomena and for lack of a better calssification could be referred to as regional compsitions. Among others these would include 1, 2 and 3 Maqabeyan, Repose of John, and Elegy of Euthalius. But they should be the subject of another thread.

It's the standard 66 for me. I have read the Apocrypha and reread some of the books.

I personally would not consider them canonical, but worthy of reading.

Mark

Talk about archeology...

This thread is ancient!!!

Protoevangel said:

Talk about archeology...

This thread is ancient!!!

Click to expand...

It has been resurrected from dry bones...

Lotar said:

I thought this would be interesting to see.

Click to expand...

Since this is the LUTHERAN forum, and the poll was made open to nonlutherans (and indeed, many have participated), the result is misleading.

I think the result would have been different if the poll in the LUTHERAN forum was asked of Lutherans.





.

MarkRohfrietsch said:

It's the standard 66 for me. I have read the Apocrypha and reread some of the books.

I personally would not consider them canonical, but worthy of reading.

Mark

Click to expand...

When was the standard 66 canonized?

Father Seraphim (Rose) said:

No matter how "right" you may be on various points, you must be diplomatic also. The first and important thing is not "rightness" at all, but Christian love and harmony. Most "crazy converts" have been "right" in the criticisms that led to their downfall; but they were lacking in Christian love and charity and so went off the deep end, needlessly alienating people around them and finally finding themselves all alone in their rightness and self-righteousness. Don't you follow them!..."

Click to expand...

Nice sig, btw.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Since this is the LUTHERAN forum, and the poll was made open to nonlutherans (and indeed, many have participated), the result is misleading.

I think the result would have been different if the poll in the LUTHERAN forum was asked of Lutherans.





.

Click to expand...

It's hard to take a 4 year old thread and expect it to reflect the new TCL. Back then the forum was TCCL and debate and interaction with non-Lutherans was actually encouraged. Those were different times.

Also--although you probably are already aware--while it appears there are many who participated in the thread were not Lutheran...at least 3 of us were at the time although I think from this thread we can see Lotar starting to pull away.

I wonder whatever happened to JVAC? I sure liked that guy. It was fun to watch Lotar and him go at it. Thanks for resurrecting the thread and reviving old memories.

Wow---what a blast from the past----all our X Lutheran friends.

ByzantineDixie said:

It's hard to take a 4 year old thread and expect it to reflect the new TCL. Back then the forum was TCCL and debate and interaction with non-Lutherans was actually encouraged. Those were different times.

Click to expand...

I didn't realize the thread was 4 years old (that's a year before I came to CF). And yes, things were different then (I wasn't Lutheran when I first began posting in this forum; this thread would have been old even then).

Still, I think I have a point (lol) in that a poll in a Lutheran forum presumes a poll of Lutherans. If I went over to the Catholic forum and posted a thread about if Transubstantiation is wrong and then many (if not most) of those taking part were Protestants and so say "no," I think we'd have a misleading poll...

No big issue. And I thank you for pointing out that it was posted in a time when things were different. I suspect this was a thread that should not have been resurrected (however good the motives no doubt were). There doesn't seem to be much going on here anymore, so I suspect we should expect old things to be resurrected.

Good to see you! I hope all is well with you....


Pax


- Josiah




.

Also--although you probably are already aware--while it appears there are many who participated in the thread were not Lutheran...at least 3 of us were at the time although I think from this thread we can see Lotar starting to pull away.

I wonder whatever happened to JVAC? I sure liked that guy. It was fun to watch Lotar and him go at it. Thanks for resurrecting the thread and reviving old memories.[/quote]

ByzantineDixie said:

It's hard to take a 4 year old thread and expect it to reflect the new TCL. Back then the forum was TCCL and debate and interaction with non-Lutherans was actually encouraged. Those were different times.

Also--although you probably are already aware--while it appears there are many who participated in the thread were not Lutheran...at least 3 of us were at the time although I think from this thread we can see Lotar starting to pull away.

Click to expand...

Yea, my answer would be just a little different now.

ByzantineDixie said:

I wonder whatever happened to JVAC? I sure liked that guy. It was fun to watch Lotar and him go at it. Thanks for resurrecting the thread and reviving old memories.

Click to expand...

I miss JVAC and Recht and Chi-Rho, and... Ahh, the good old days!

Thanks CJ...things are very good...but way too busy at work. Good to see you finally became Lutheran...cause you were always so close.

Oh yes...we had such fun, Dan. Speaking of ChiRho...you know he got married to his girlfriend and they had their first child, a son...I think in the last quarter of last year? Don't quite remember exactly when. I think he's still Lutheran...like Recht. I have seen Recht around here the last few days.

Recht...if you see this. Hope you are well. (The Former Luther's Rose)

ByzantineDixie said:

Thanks CJ...things are very good...but way too busy at work. Good to see you finally became Lutheran...cause you were always so close.

Oh yes...we had such fun, Dan. Speaking of ChiRho...you know he got married to his girlfriend and they had their first child, a son...I think in the last quarter of last year? Don't quite remember exactly when. I think he's still Lutheran...like Recht. I have seen Recht around here the last few days.

Recht...if you see this. Hope you are well. (The Former Luther's Rose)

Click to expand...

That's really cool (Chi-Rho)!


Yea, I just found a post by Recht. It was quite funny. I see he's still in top form!

Welcome back Recht, I used to go by DanHead.

ByzantineDixie said:

It's hard to take a 4 year old thread and expect it to reflect the new TCL. Back then the forum was TCCL and debate and interaction with non-Lutherans was actually encouraged. Those were different times.

Click to expand...

I think it is amazingly open here considering how many strange provocateurs come crashing through. To people who are sincere these Lutherans give them a sincere answer, often even in civil terms! It is only the hard heads that get chewed out here.

Hello Dixie Chick!! Long time no talk, I am well, overwhelmed at times, very busy, but God continues to provide for me far more then I deserve!

Hey there Christian formerly known as Danhead! Glad to see your still around man!


Sure its an old thread, but still no harm in discussing.

I guess after all this time, I would ask: What is "canon", what does the word mean, not in Webster's Dictionary, but what did the word mean to those that used it and was there a correlation between a narrow/broad understanding of the word and the lists that those Fathers/Councils created?

I am sincerly asking, so don't be too shocked!

Oh my goodness. Chi Chi a father. Lotar too, by the looks of his picture. All these guys having babies. Congratulations guys!

Then there's good ole Reicht with his gun. Gotta keep some things the same. Can't take too much change or Flipper goes Ape.