funinspace

I understand basically that the Apocrypha was part of the LXX Hebrew texts that the new Greek/Roman Christians used in the early centuries. At the end of the 1st century the Jews more formally establish their own canon excluding the Apocrypha. It seams that the Apocrypha was implicitly included within the OT, as the NT was slowly made definitive in the west. I agree that there appears to be some dissention on it's inclusion, much like Hebrews and Revelations. The original defining decisions were made by a very large community of believers in the 4th century.

What I don't get anymore, is the de facto stance today's Protestants take towards the revision of the canon nearly 500 years ago. I know there were a few others that spoke about canonicity of various books over the centuries. However, for whatever reason it seamed to germinate in the Protestant reformations, especially with the works of Martin Luther. Were there any large bodies of Christian scholars/leaders that met, much like the Synods a thousand years before to make canon changes? Was there any new information? Why were the heretics in the 16th century right, and the ones in the 4th wrong? It seams more a fitful process over a couple hundred years vice some lead change. Now most all the Protestant theologians appear to be in agreement post mortem, but that seams kind of backwards.

I'm not looking for a (RCC & Eastern Orthodoxy)/Protestant/atheist bashing contest. I'm especially curious as to how Protestants see the canon revision process, and how they see it as legitimate. Maybe there is some historical context that I am not aware of, I don’t know.

funinspace

Hum, no Protestants here have pondered such? Or maybe all here agree that the RCC has the right canon? I've noticed that there are prints of the RSV that now include the Apocrypha. Would you use this or the Jerusalem Bible? I realize there are many "liberal" non-inerrancy type Christians here, where it might not matter much either way. So to them: do you use the standard Protestant canon, or do you read a Bible with the Apocrypha within it? And if you had any thoughts as to why, I would find it interesting.

Stumpjumper

Well I'm a liberal non-innerantist and I have a Catholic Bible as well as an updated King James Version of the Protestant Bible. Personally I don't really believe in the Canon process as I find it extremely arbitrary. Why was nothing Clement wrote Canonized? Also, many of the early theodicies and atonement theories were developed by Christian Fathers who claimed no Divine inspiration. The official view is that the public Revelation period ended with the death of the last apostle but that God works through history to update the Bible. Of course, I would not argue that.

I say read it all. Some of it has to be right

funinspace

It was in Ethiopia Thanks for your views! Are you even nominally RC or just respect some of their Christian heritage?

jdlongmire

fun, this is a great topic! Wish I had time to respond properly.

My stance is that God works specifically throughout history to refine His revelation to Man. These "Once for all Time" instances are common-ish in Scripture:

Creation
Fall
Flood
Christ

I consider the closure of the canon one of these instances.

edited to add: very good source of the Reformed view on Scripture.

Timeline for NT

-JD

Mageth

Then why are there two accounts of it in Scripture?

Comes once a year...

Floods happen all the time.

History has given us many who claimed, or were claimed, to be "Christ" or the equivalent.

Which canon? There are several.

Alethias

A pretty good summary of the protestant view on canonicity can be found here , which was linked on the link jdlongmire so thoughtfully provided.

It even fits with classic protestant thought in that it makes only very limited reference to specific church councils and how they determined what was canonical. Protestants don't like to think about that very much, in my opinion because it shows their dependance on catholicism.

SoT

Pendaric

<This seems more appropriate to BC&H than GRD, so....>

Stumpjumper

I follow Catholic theology for the most part. I don't want to get into a debate with JD but I find it most accurate scripturally. I just kind of ignore the inner rumblings of the Vatican. In regards to theology I specifically follow Hans Urs von Balthasar, Karl Rahner, and Richard John Neuhaus all of which are pretty much universalists.

I had a good article on the Canon bookmarked. I'll look it up.

funinspace

st -- It can be a discussion, and not a debate. I wasn't looking to prove anything.

Eh, BC&H? Oh well...