First of all, please let me answer, from my perspective, the few study questions you posit in the beginning of your notes. I’ll additionally add what I think the “correct” answers are; meaning what I suspect your thesis is alluding to. This makes it more fun, because it adds yet more grist for the mill of my repudiation!
Question 1:
What If?
- A document was discovered next week in Greece
- Purporting itself to be a lost letter of Paul to the Corinthians. (see 1 Cor 5:9)
- Appearing to be the letter spoken of in 1 Corinthians
- Widely attested by scholars to be authentic
- Should this letter be included in the Bible? Why or why not?
I would say “yes”, it should be put in the Bible. Why? Because it is deemed “authentic”. Authentic is a synonym for many words, some of which are; correct, accurate, genuine, real, true, and, dare I say, Canonical?
I think the “correct” answer is no. Why? I’ll allow you to answer that.
The reason I would say yes is simple. Truth is truth. Authentic is authentic. New knowledge is good knowledge. Is it better knowledge? Perhaps not. But it is more knowledge. I’ll get back to this....
Question 2
Which Came First – Acceptance or Formal Definition?
- Did the worshipping communities of Christ followers begin to accept and live by the New Testament Canon of scripture once the Church formally defined it?
Or
- Did the Church formally define the New Testament Canon in recognition of those documents the worshipping communities of Christ followers had already accepted and were already living by?
My answer is, “YES!” To both questions. In some cases they followed precedent in others they followed expedience, or more accurately, precedent set by the political or spiritual ideas of the religious people in positions of power at the varied councils.
The “correct” answer, I believe, will be option 2. Why? Because this will allow that “eye-witness” accountants of Jesus were practicing the orthodox beliefs espoused by him and his original 12 disciples. They were there. They saw it. These are the true beliefs. And these accounts are what inform the Canonization process.
The reason I think this is hooey is because of the sausage factory involved in amassing these books.
Now we could go into the provable and documented history of the Canonization process, but I fear collective boredom encroaching. Most of the folks who read this blog are aware of Constantine, Augustine, Nicea, Trent, Tyndale, Marcion, Luther, etc. Per our last topic, “-isms”, it’s important to note that the Canonized Bible may look a little different depending on which church you attend. Or which country you live in. Or which translation. Or what century you lived in.
This is important. Alan, you repeatedly embrace the notion that “relationship” trumps “knowledge”. Although I will concede it’s a rather inarguable position, I find it very curious what this “relationship” is built upon. Is it your understanding of Scripture? Is it a warm feeling you get in your abdomen? Is it the traditions of your own experiences and the experiences conveyed to you by others? I’m guessing some combination of all of these. (Unless you’ve got your own burning bush story. Are you holding out on me dude?)
In short, I find it fascinating that in all things religious, it is considered perfectly reasonable to pick and choose which facts we use. We can gloss over this insanely messy process that transpired over centuries of time, because it is a “miracle” and this is simply how God saw fit to bring His word to us. As Occam’s razor has proven so beneficial in lowly matters such as medicine, cosmology, physics and the like perhaps the Good Book could do with a shave.
Finally, I find it odd that the Tree of Knowledge gets such a bad rap, when obviously it has been used in compiling such information as you have presented here. Perhaps it’s the taste of said Tree’s fruit that religion finds so nauseating.
Jace
No comments:
Post a Comment