The Cannon of Scripture as we may or may not know it...

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Homologoumena and Antilegomena

Our Pastor is running two Bible Studies this fall, one on the Revelation, and one on the Apocrypha. It is interesting to note from an historic perspective that until the Council of Trent, there were a group of Books that were universally accepted by the whole of Christendom, and another group that while often included in Bibles, were not. In our Lutheran Tradition, we have maintained the traditional pre-Trent view, and as a result, we hold the Apocryphal books to the same level as we hold Revelation. Since Trent the Catholic Church has closed the Bible, and as a result they have excluded some books that had been included in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles since the first century. Interesting that the Concordia edition of the Apocrypha has some books in it that Catholic Bibles no longer do. Like Revelation, we don't look to these books as a source of doctrine; but they and the other Antilegomena books in all our Bibles are used to support doctrine, and give the rest of the Bible context.

How many others here have heard of or understand this distinction?

Anyway, I am enjoying our studies this year a great deal!

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Homologoumena and Antilegomena

How many others here have heard of or understand this distinction?

Anyway, I am enjoying our studies this year a great deal!

So is one the cannon of Scripture and the other the canon? Hope you are having a good day

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

So is one the cannon of Scripture and the other the canon? Hope you are having a good day

Maybe... I get double strikes on the keyboard all the time auto spell check missed that as it is a word also. Maybe the two edged sword has become a double barrel cannon. LOL.

 

[Paidiske]

The Anglican church reads the apocryphal books (listed below) "for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine;" but we do not put Revelation into the same category, but rather consider it useful/necessary for establishing doctrine.

(The Third Book of Esdras
The Fourth Book of Esdras
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Judith
The rest of the Book of Esther
The Book of Wisdom
Jesus the Son of Sirach
Baruch the Prophet
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Susanna
Of Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees)

 

[Tigger45]

Luther also put Hebrews, James & Jude in the same rankings as Revelation.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I am a traditional 66 book canon Bible guy myself.

The evidences that back up the traditional Bible is enough to make you do backflips through hoops of fire as a poodles bark cheers of joy to your success.
Now, these evidences do not exist for so called other books (in my view).

Anyways, you can check out these evidences at my Blogger article here
(if you are interested):
Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

 

[hedrick]

The Second Book of Maccabees)

I dispute the usefulness of this as an example of life. If you read it in a modern English translation, try changing the names to modern names. It reads like Taliban propaganda. These guys were the precursors to Jesus' opponents, the Pharisees, but bloodier.

 

[hedrick]

Luther also put Hebrews, James & Jude in the same rankings as Revelation.

Wikipedia says the list for Luther was Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. But also "Current Lutheran usage expands this to also include 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John." Is the issue just authorship? If so, you'd have to include the Pastorals and possibly Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians.

Personally I'm not sure it's worth disputing the canon. Rather, I try to assess each book on its own: author, purpose, etc. So I wouldn't necessarily reject NT books from the canon. I would, however, not place a high value on a book whose author attempted to claim authority to which they weren't entitled.

 

[AlexDTX]

homologumena
pl n
(Bible) Bible formal those sections of the New Testament that have been accepted since the early Christian era as being part of the body of sacred or officially recognized writings

antilegomena
(ˌæntɪlɛˈɡɒmɪnə)
pl n
the books of the New Testament which have been excluded from the canon of Scripture

I did not know the words, so looked them up and posted definitions in case others don't know the terms.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Also, it takes common sense to to figure out that many of the apocryphal books, or gnostic gospels is silly at best when it comes to their narratives or doctrines. Hence, why certain churches do not take them literally but they take them more in a metaphorical way. That to me is like grasping at straws. Either it is 100% true or it is not. If a text contradicts the Bible and or goes against the character of our Lord and His followers, it is a pretty safe bet it is false. Then there is the lack of evidence that they are divine like the Bible, as well. So that's two strikes right there.

 

[Paidiske]

I dispute the usefulness of this as an example of life. If you read it in a modern English translation, try changing the names to modern names. It reads like Taliban propaganda. These guys were the precursors to Jesus' opponents, the Pharisees, but bloodier.

Well, if you want to be like that, Ezra was also a precursor to the Pharisees. (And I'd argue that the relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees was more complex than just being "opponents.")

But does that mean there is nothing to be gained by reading and reflecting on this text? I'm not sure I agree. Even if I decide that I wouldn't make exactly the same choices as, say, Eleazor the scribe (who went to martyrdom rather than eat pork), reflecting on why that is so, and what I would (I hope) be willing to be a martyr for, and so on, can still be valuable.

 

[Lulav]

I dispute the usefulness of this as an example of life. If you read it in a modern English translation, try changing the names to modern names. It reads like Taliban propaganda. These guys were the precursors to Jesus' opponents, the Pharisees, but bloodier.

How could you possibly compare them to the taliban? This was a time when Gods people were fighting to keep the laws God gave them instead of succumbing to the persecution of the Gentiles who hated the LORD, with a passion. This is the time that Jesus spoke about as well as Daniel, Antiochus is a forerunner of the Antichrist to come. One who desecrated the Holy Temple.

This is the story of Judas Maccabeus and his brothers, of the purification of the great temple, the dedication of the altar, 21and of the heavenly manifestations accorded to the heroes who fought bravely for the Jewish people. Few as they were, they plundered the whole land, put to flight the barbarian hordes, 22regained possession of the temple renowned throughout the world, and liberated the city. They re-established the laws that were in danger of being abolished, while the Lord favored them with every kindness. 23​

 

[Lulav]

Well, if you want to be like that, Ezra was also a precursor to the Pharisees. (And I'd argue that the relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees was more complex than just being "opponents.")

But does that mean there is nothing to be gained by reading and reflecting on this text? I'm not sure I agree. Even if I decide that I wouldn't make exactly the same choices as, say, Eleazor the scribe (who went to martyrdom rather than eat pork), reflecting on why that is so, and what I would (I hope) be willing to be a martyr for, and so on, can still be valuable.

There are some who believe that Jesus was a Pharisee (as was Saul/Paul) and they really weren't opponents, but using the Rabbinic way of debating Torah.

 

[Lulav]

Homologoumena and Antilegomena

Our Pastor is running two Bible Studies this fall, one on the Revelation, and one on the Apocrypha. It is interesting to note from an historic perspective that until the Council of Trent, there were a group of Books that were universally accepted by the whole of Christendom, and another group that while often included in Bibles, were not. In our Lutheran Tradition, we have maintained the traditional pre-Trent view, and as a result, we hold the Apocryphal books to the same level as we hold Revelation. Since Trent the Catholic Church has closed the Bible, and as a result they have excluded some books that had been included in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles since the first century. Interesting that the Concordia edition of the Apocrypha has some books in it that Catholic Bibles no longer do. Like Revelation, we don't look to these books as a source of doctrine; but they and the other Antilegomena books in all our Bibles are used to support doctrine, and give the rest of the Bible context.

How many others here have heard of or understand this distinction?

Anyway, I am enjoying our studies this year a great deal!

If I may ask, which books do Lutherans use for doctrine?

I would agree that Revelation is not for doctrine (maybe the first three chapters though which was the things which 'was') the rest is future.

 

[hedrick]

Well, if you want to be like that, Ezra was also a precursor to the Pharisees. (And I'd argue that the relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees was more complex than just being "opponents.")

But does that mean there is nothing to be gained by reading and reflecting on this text? I'm not sure I agree. Even if I decide that I wouldn't make exactly the same choices as, say, Eleazor the scribe (who went to martyrdom rather than eat pork), reflecting on why that is so, and what I would (I hope) be willing to be a martyr for, and so on, can still be valuable.

Right. Knowing the history is really useful. Is that what is meant by saying it’s useful for an example? I doubt people who say that are envisioning it as a bad example, or even a serious mixed one. Certainly the Macabbees showed loyalty to God in a critical time. The problem is that once they got into control, they created problems themselves.

Similarly, the Pharisees were not bad guys. They valued loyalty to God. They were generally considered (and probably were) higher in integrity than the party that was basically collaborating with Rome. And they did in some critical cases try to humanize the Law. Still, they had fundamental differences from Jesus, and those issues stem from the purity ideal that was so dear to the Maccabbees.

 

[Paidiske]

There are some who believe that Jesus was a Pharisee (as was Saul/Paul) and they really weren't opponents, but using the Rabbinic way of debating Torah.

I'm aware of that. I think, in both cases, it would be perhaps (we can't be sure) not inaccurate, but certainly insufficient to describe them as Pharisees; clearly their own understanding and practice went beyond that of the Pharisees.

The point really was just that Anglicans, at least, put that selection of books in a separate category to the rest of Scripture, which is seen as less reliable for establishing doctrine.

 

[Paidiske]

Right. Knowing the history is really useful. Is that what is meant by saying it’s useful for an example? I doubt people who say that are envisioning it as a bad example, or even a serious mixed one.

I think the point is, these are texts worth reflecting on, but we don't rely on them to formulate doctrine.

 

[Lulav]

I'm aware of that. I think, in both cases, it would be perhaps (we can't be sure) not inaccurate, but certainly insufficient to describe them as Pharisees; clearly their own understanding and practice went beyond that of the Pharisees.

The point really was just that Anglicans, at least, put that selection of books in a separate category to the rest of Scripture, which is seen as less reliable for establishing doctrine.

OK, just putting it out there for some who aren't aware.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The Anglican church reads the apocryphal books (listed below) "for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine;" but we do not put Revelation into the same category, but rather consider it useful/necessary for establishing doctrine.

(The Third Book of Esdras
The Fourth Book of Esdras
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Judith
The rest of the Book of Esther
The Book of Wisdom
Jesus the Son of Sirach
Baruch the Prophet
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Susanna
Of Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees)

Below is a list taken from the table of Contents, as published by Concordia in "The Lutheran Edition With Notes"; in our tradition, we view these in a similar manner to the Anglican tradition, and have retained the traditional usage as "liturgical texts". Regarding Revelation; historically, there is no doubt that it was written by a guy named John, however, was it St. John the Apostle; or one of another two possible "Johns"? This is the same for some of the other epistles contained in the new testament. It is not a question of the value, but one of the criterion from the time of the early Church has been apostolic authorship for NT books. As such, widely accepted as these have been, their acceptance as canonical is considered Adiaphora, as is the acceptance and usage of the Apocrypha:

BTW, My present Pastor does believe that Revelation was penned by St. John the Apostle; as do most Lutherans, but historically, it is not definitive.

 

[Paidiske]

Anglicans include the epistles of John and Revelation as Scripture in the fullest sense. Although I know that in the east Revelation is not read in the liturgy, I'm actually fairly surprised to read people here suggesting that it shouldn't be relied on to establish doctrine. It presents such a rich and robust Christology!

But if authorship is such an issue, then would the disputed letters "of Paul" also be considered adiaphora? Because if not, that starts to look a tad arbitrary...