A thought that popped in my head recently is that many Protestants will argue to the death that the Bible should only contain 66 books--27 books of the New Testament, and 39 of the Old Testament, and the Deuterocanonical books are illegitimate and should be banned. Catholics and Orthodox will argue against this and point to the fact that the earliest Christian compilations of the Bible had all of these Deuterocanonical books, and the first Christians considered the Deuterocanonicals authoritative as Scripture.
In the meantime, however, there are certain books that were once tentatively considered part of the New Testament (such as 1 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas) that were later rejected. But to make matters more complicated, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes the Book of Enoch in its Old Testament, as well as a bunch of other books that are only found in their OT, while their NT numbers 35 books, including works that are completely unique to their Church. Yet despite a differing Biblical canon, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was under the authority of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt until the 1900's, with the Coptic Christians (who have the standard NT and the standard Septuagint OT) accepting the Ethiopic Canon as valid for use by the Ethiopian Christians, because while the two churches may have differing Bibles, both shared the same Faith--they both agree on the nature of the Trinity, miaphysitism, the nature of the Sacraments, they share the same theology, soteriology, hamartiology, eschatology, ecclesiology, pneumatology, the same prayer life, and almost the same exact liturgical life aside from a few aesthetic cultural differences. They have all this in common, except they both have different Bibles.
Indeed, in the earliest days of Christianity, before a more-or-less standard NT was established, you had Church Fathers with differing lists of what they called NT Scripture, yet they all agreed on the same Faith. While on the other hand, Christian denominations who all agree on the Bible canon differ sharply over the Faith--whether or not Jesus is divine, whether the Trinity is a thing, whether Hell exists, and whether Jesus rose bodily from the dead are just the tip of the iceberg. Calvinists deny that we have free will and assert that God predestined us to Heaven or Hell, and we can do nothing to change that fate, while Arminians affirm our free will and reject the notion that God has already preordained where we end up. Some say the Bible supports the Rapture, others vehemently deny that.
I hope the point I wish to discuss is becoming clear. My contention is that, if Christians can have different Bible canons yet share the same Faith, and likewise have the same Bible yet disagree on the Faith, how important is the exact list of Bible books, really? And why or why not?
In the meantime, however, there are certain books that were once tentatively considered part of the New Testament (such as 1 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas) that were later rejected. But to make matters more complicated, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes the Book of Enoch in its Old Testament, as well as a bunch of other books that are only found in their OT, while their NT numbers 35 books, including works that are completely unique to their Church. Yet despite a differing Biblical canon, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was under the authority of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt until the 1900's, with the Coptic Christians (who have the standard NT and the standard Septuagint OT) accepting the Ethiopic Canon as valid for use by the Ethiopian Christians, because while the two churches may have differing Bibles, both shared the same Faith--they both agree on the nature of the Trinity, miaphysitism, the nature of the Sacraments, they share the same theology, soteriology, hamartiology, eschatology, ecclesiology, pneumatology, the same prayer life, and almost the same exact liturgical life aside from a few aesthetic cultural differences. They have all this in common, except they both have different Bibles.
Indeed, in the earliest days of Christianity, before a more-or-less standard NT was established, you had Church Fathers with differing lists of what they called NT Scripture, yet they all agreed on the same Faith. While on the other hand, Christian denominations who all agree on the Bible canon differ sharply over the Faith--whether or not Jesus is divine, whether the Trinity is a thing, whether Hell exists, and whether Jesus rose bodily from the dead are just the tip of the iceberg. Calvinists deny that we have free will and assert that God predestined us to Heaven or Hell, and we can do nothing to change that fate, while Arminians affirm our free will and reject the notion that God has already preordained where we end up. Some say the Bible supports the Rapture, others vehemently deny that.
I hope the point I wish to discuss is becoming clear. My contention is that, if Christians can have different Bible canons yet share the same Faith, and likewise have the same Bible yet disagree on the Faith, how important is the exact list of Bible books, really? And why or why not?
