What is your "biblical" canon?

[No*s]

1). What books constitute your Bible? -- Several religions have a set of books that are guides to their thoughts, and they don't have to be the sole source of religious truth. They simply act as a rule by which you measure your beliefs/actions for guidance.

2). Why do you accept these? -- For what reason do you consider them authoritative and not others? In the New Testament, for instance, why accept 3 John but reject the Didache, or in the Old Testament why accept Esther but reject I Enoch? I'm looking for something beyond "It's God's word." How do we know without assuming it from the beginning?

3). Which versions/variants do you accept, and why? -- Any hand-copied book is going to change over the years, and so, many variants emerge. What variant do you favor?

4). Is this holy book your sole source of authority, and if so, have you bypassed all interpreters (including translators), and is your method of determining which books/variants specified by the book itself?

------------

My answers:

1). I accept the New Testament common to all Christians. The Old Testament contains all the books of the Protestant Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible), but also includes 1-3 Maccabees, Judith, 3 Esdras, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Baruch, and Tobit. There are traditions that also cause me to hold 4 Maccabees and 4 Esdras in high regard.

2). Why? Because this is the standard canon that was passed down in the Church, and I accept the Bible on her authority.

3). For the NT, I tend to favor the traditional text handed down by the Church. However, I make extensive use of the Nestle-Aland text, which is somewhat different. For the Old Testament, I use the LXX. It was the Bible of the Apostles, and has remained the Bible of the Orthodox Church, and is considered the primary standard.

It has several quirks, which include Is. 7.14 (for Christians), 151 Psalms, additions to Ezra and Daniel, a significantly shorter Job, and a Jeremiah that is likewise shorter and in a very different order, and several other small changes (such as God finishing creation on the sixth day...not the seventh, and then resting on the seventh).

4). No, I have the authority of the Church, and that's how I know what books are in the Bible. I can also gain spiritual guidance from other Christians, the Traditions of the Church, other Jewish writings circulating in the First Century, the Divine Liturgy, and so on. All of these I am to understand under the guidance of the Church.

 

[jewscout]

1) the Tanach...which is the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings
2) Personally...i accept these writings because they are the collected knowledge and "history" of the Hebrew people. Officially...the Torah is divine revelation. I also find that the Torah is not just a document but it grows and changes with us in our lives...i can find problems in my own life reflected in the Torah and it's commentaries...it can be really creepy
3) i like the Stone Tanach i have at home...Stone Tanach and Chumashes are my favorite!
4) I also read the commentary and there are several supplements that Rachel's family has that i use to get more out of the weekly portions

 

[No*s]

Understandable Jewscout .

 

[Scuba Pete]

I don't have a canon, but I do carry a sword. Does that count?

 

[No*s]

Yes, but I carry a light sabre .

 

[BUDDY]

The origin of what is universally recognized as the Holy Bible, is simply a compilation of writtings put together by what was to become the Catholic Church. They got together and over the course of several years, decided what was commonly agreed to be the inspired writings. Since that event occured there have been many who have tried to say that this book or that book or letter should have been included. In my opinion, it seems fom research, that what we have is most commonly known throughout history as the holy writings. The fact that they were put all together in one book does not diminish there importance, but verifies the fact that God has provided, through divine intervention, a more excellent way to study his word. Plus, regardless of what is left out, it does have in it what is needed for righteaous living.

BTW - I think the Bible should be a guide into how we live, as well as our thoughts.

 

[Scuba Pete]

EEWRED,

you and I agree completely on this... but then I go to a coC as well (West Orange in Orlando). Welcome to the board!

 

[Betho_br]

Lately I bought “The New Testament in the Original Greek” by Robinson and Pierpont (2018). I should have done that earlier. No stories in brackets, as the Adultera (John 7:53-8:11) or the longer Mark Ending (16:9-20), but just running text. It is a joy to work with this NT with a relative small number of variant readings in the Byzantine tradition. That already shows this tradition to be a robust and important one. More information about the texts constituting the presented text would have been a profit, maybe a task for future editions. Since my theological education (Utrecht) I was accustomed to the Nestle-Aland editions of the NT and to the idealistic quest for the original text type of the NT (Alexandrian), with a lot of variant readings in the foot notes. During the years a real shift for the Byzantine tradition entered into my mind by two impressive insights.

1. There have been three ecclesiastical decisions for the NT canon (the 27 books): Egypt (367, Athanasius); Italy (382, Pope Damasus); North Africa (397, Augustine). Most interesting is that there has never been a decision alike in Turkey-Greece (the old mission-field of the apostle Paul), and yet the canon of 27 has always been followed there. It has all appearances that the canon was introduced there in the time of the apostles and under apostolic authority. This view has also influence on the opinion of what the canonical text must be: the Byzantine. And in line, this text will also be closer to the original text then the Alexandrian type of text, with its many variant readings.

2. (Second but not least). In the three synoptic gospels (orations about the end of the world) we hear Jesus say (in different words): “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” He is speaking then about the final history of the world, and this saying has always given me great doubts about the so called oral tradition, prior to the writing of the gospels. And indeed, two gospel writers have spoken about the immediate writing down of Jesus’s actual words.

(Luke) "1Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, 2just as delivered to us the eyewitnesses from the beginning also (being) ministers of the (spoken) word," (Luke 1:1-2. Elaborated on RSV, the active form has been presented in v. 2 as in the Greek original.)

(a) 'The things which have been accomplished among us,' are the deeds of Jesus, the Jesus events. Luke wanted to tell something about that in the introduction of his Gospel.
(b) The word 'us' in the former expression refers to the bystanders of the events.
(c) This 'us' is repeated in v. 2. To them the eyewitnesses delivered, to the bystanders.
(d) As good eyewitnesses they delivered two things: not only what they had seen, but also what they had heard.
(e) Also being servants of the spoken word, they delivered (v. 2). This excludes oral tradition, as it was not possible to deliver orally during the Jesus events. This includes note taking, as they could only deliver in writing during the spoken word of the Jesus events.
(f) The service to the spoken word included the writing of the actual words of Jesus.

It is obvious that the ministers (servants) of the spoken word were not the preaching apostles after Jesus’s departure, as is supposed usually. No, these servants of the word were the professionals, who wrote down what Jesus said and did in their reports, that were distributed among the bystanders. They (many v. 1) could write on their wax tablets what they had experienced with Jesus and tell and read at home. These reports from the ministry of Jesus became later the sources for the gospel writers.

(John) Another gospel writer said the same; in his first Letter (1:3, 4 RSV): "3that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, ... 4And we are writing this that our joy may be complete." What they had seen and heard, could only made known later, if it would have been written down during seeing and hearing. The present times (proclaim, are writing) in these texts refer to parallel activities that started in the past (the beginning v. 1) and continued at the time of the writing of John's Letter. So the first reports had been brought in books and broadcasted all over the churches after Pentecost.

The same we read in Hebrews 2:3-4 (own translation): "3How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation; which beginning to be spoken by the Lord, was established for us by those who were hearing, 4God also bearing witness, both with signs and wonders, etc."
Remark. God gave his testimony to the ministry of Jesus (the Lord) as his confirmation to the work of Jesus (v. 4). Within this ministry worked hearers as establishers of the actual words of Jesus.

Conclusion. Two precious diamonds are hidden under a thick dust layer of Christian thinking: (1) the localization of the original NT canon in Turkey-Greece (the later Byzantine region), and (2) the absence of a so called oral tradition prior to the gospels. It is time to remove the dust and to face the facts. In my view, these facts constitute a historical state of affairs that speaks in favor of the primary Byzantine text form as the original, and in favor of the authenticity of the four gospels in general.

Ben van Noort
Theologian MA (Utrecht), teacher, and author (of the work “Jesus’s Stenographers, The Story of the Red Letters” 2018. WestBow Press, a division of Nelson and Zondervan)

When it comes to the New Testament, I prefer comparing the Byzantine text with the critical text NA28th.