Bible, Canon, Scripture: What does it mean, and why does it matter?

[Joshua]

Greetings all!

To continue the flurry of activity, I thought I'd move us into another very relevant area of discussion. In these modern times, we see ideas such as Sola Scriptura, and "bible believing" revivals, where churches strive to be the "New Testament Church."

These ideas rest on the foundation of the concept of the Authority of the Bible, Canon, or Scriptures depending on your personal preference for terminology.

I guess it makes sense for us to probe our understanding of these words a little bit, so I'd like to pose some questions your way:

What do the words Bible, Canon, and Scripture mean to you? What do these words represent?

Are these words important, are the things they represent important? And if so, why?

I can't wait to see where this conversation leads us!

[Joshua]

Hello Brother Joe,

The Early Christians had an understanding that differed vastly from our own. A lot of our understanding of these terms comes from centuries of traditional trappings layered on, rather than a firm grasp of their original meaning.

Taking their origin into account; Bible means Books, Scripture means Writing, and Canon comes from a word meaning measure, scope, ruler, etc. These were not lingua sacra originally, but every terms know to the ordinary man.

It is my opinion that the best place to begin is with the understanding as offered by the Early Church. In their eyes, Bible is a Collection of Books, the Canon is the Scope of Accepted Books, and the Scriptures are Sacred Writings.

The Early Church Fathers were also known to refer to the Scriptures as the Oracles of the Lord, helping to convey their Spirit-Breathed origin and "The Holy Scriptures" to convey the sanctifying quality of the information contained within. During times of persecution it was considered a sin to offer up the Bible for burning, even under the pain of death.

As the Church adopted these terms to specific things, a universalized understanding was born... but this understanding has changed over time. These brave modern times have seen the evolution of concepts such as Sola Scriptura, while those who champion the doctrine forget that that Canon they revere is in and of itself a product of tradition. And in this case a relatively modern one, both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Biblical Canon's have been changed over time.

In general our whole perception of how to approach our collection of sacred writings has shifted from being Scripture based to being Canon based. And it is here that the perceived "disagreements" in the testimony of the Early Christians is found... debated often centered on whether or not a text was fit for inclusion in the Canon, not on whether or not it was actually Holy Scripture.

We find the ancient authors paying much attention to this due to their familiarity with St. Paul:

"Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness." 2 Tim 3:16 ASV

Origen for example exchanges correspondence with Julius Africanus on this very subject, as it relates to the Book of Daniel.

Notice Paul does not speak of a Canon, but rather of holy writings... If all scripture is fit for teaching, reproof and correction, then why wouldn't all scripture belong to the Canon? What function did the Canon serve?

With that I shall leave you... I eagerly await further discussion :)

Peace and be well,
Joshua

[Greg Monroe]

Joshua stated...
"Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness." 2 Tim 3:16 ASV

Notice Paul does not speak of a Canon, but rather of holy writings... If all scripture is fit for teaching, reproof and correction, then why wouldn't all scripture belong to the Canon? What function did the Canon serve?
.........

Joshua, that is an intriguing question, What function did the Canon serve?
The Canon of Scriptures was established to be "proof text", the Standard by which all teachings were to be measured against.

Note that Paul makes the statement "Every scripture inspired of God" and not "Every scripture "IS" inspired of God". Virtually anyone who possessed the training and skill to be a scribe could write mere "Scripture", for all writings, letters, commentaries, etc.. were "scripture".

To distinguish the letters of Paul from the memoirs of Caesar or the thesis of Greek Philosophers, you needed to first determine what exactly makes scripture "inspired of God". The Canon was to be that measure. If a scripture or book agreed fully with these "Known Examples", it was a safe bet that the Inspiration came from the same source. If they differed, then they were not to be considered "Inspired by God".

[Joshua]

Peace to you Brother Greg!

Thank you for participating in the discussion, I look forward to continuing it with you.

You're definitely attacking this from the right angle, recognizing that a canon is a measuring tool, and the word "scriptures" is merely referring to "writings" in a generic sense, but leaning on the canon(at least the NT canon) as a measuring stick is an iffy proposition within our period of history.

Prior to the actions of Jerome and Eusebius, the Canon of the Church of God was varied by locality, and even today the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawedo Church maintains a Canon which is at variance with the rest of Orthodox Christendom.

Even Codex Sinaiticus offers a Canon at odds with what we use in modern times:
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx

Each community in the Early Church had at least some access to the LXX thanks to the widespread use of Greek, as well as the oral tradition passed on by the Presbyters and the Bishop. So when discussing the Canon of the Early Church, especially in the age of the Apostles, and directly after we have to acknowledge that the sacred writings referred to more often than not was specifically referring to the LXX version of the Old Testament.

For example, Paul himself in 2 Timothy, 3:16 appears to be justifying his citation of material outside the normative scriptures known to his audience. You can read my personal insight on that more in this discussion: http://cotacf.ning.com/forum/topics/interesting-insights-on

It's obvious that the Apostles were authoritative, as they were witnesses to Christ and his teachings. Therefore their preaching was handed down and preserved orally through the body of the Church, and in the earliest times this often took precedence over what was written.

The Gospels are generally considered to be universally known early, and many scholars believe the body of Pauline Epistles was one of the earliest circulating groups of distinctly Christian Texts; but Tatian's Diatesseron and it's popularity in the east is a strong testament that the Canon was still very fluid even in the days of Irenaeus. On the other hand the Catholic Epistles were a source of much controversy for quite awhile, further highlighting the fluid nature of the Canon in the Early Church.

The specific function that the Canon served relates to the preaching of the word to outsiders. Many aspects of oral tradition, and some Holy Scripture outline mysteries, to be reserved for the faithful; the Canon contained the texts fit for exposition to a totally public audience. It is for this same reason that the Revelation of John is seldom read in the Eastern Orthodox communion... though it's status as Holy Scripture is never in question.

To summarize my point, the Canon serves as a measure... but as a measure of what is fit to be shared with those outside the house of God. It serves also as a witness to sound faith, but so does the Tradition of the Elders as evidenced by the practice of the Elders, likewise the Spirit serves as a witness through the people. The fact that we gather together to discuss this, and have been brought together in faith is a work of the Spirit, acting as a witness to the world.

A classic example of these principles in application could be applied to the Gospel of Thomas. At face value, this text is sufficiently at variance with the Canon that most Christians discard it entirely. In the Early Church, those who knew the mysteries saw that this text had no claim to Apostolic Authorship, but like many texts of false gnosis perverted true teachings of the Church. Even Origen was known to have acknowledged that there was some truth in this text.

With this in mind, we know that it can never be Holy Scripture; for a little leaven, leavens the lump... but we know this not because it stands at variance with just the Canon, but also with the Tradition of the Elders, as evidenced by the writings of the faithful.

With this in mind, I know hope to pose a new question... since we know that not all Holy Scripture is Canonical, but all Canonical texts are Holy Scripture, how do we measure a text to determine it is Holy Scripture?

Are all "orthodox" writings Holy Scripture? Is our collection of sacred texts ever growing, and if so does this in any way change the faith that is "delivered once for all?"

I look forward to hearing back from you Brother Greg... and I hope others chime in from time to time as well.

Peace and be well,
Joshua

[Greg Monroe]

John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one,
I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

Joshua, you pose an interesting question here.
IMHO the answer to this is found in defining and understanding the term "Inspired of God".
If by comparison with the "benchmark"(Canon), and it is found to be in agreement with no contradictions, but maybe new insight from the Author, then I have no problem with adding it to the list of Holy Writings and considering them to be of value "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction". I classify many of the Apostolic and Ante-Nicene Fathers in this category. "Inspired by God, yet not Canon". They can be used as additional witnesses for understanding what was first given, but not to be used as "proof text" themselves. We can and should continue to build upon the Foundation, but in the process we should avoid expanding that foundation beyond the original stones.

There are indeed variances in what is considered to be Canonical by differing regions and branches, but at the same time, there are also those writings that ALL AGREE UPON. We would do well to embrace those writings that we are in agreement on, and not be so quick to divide over differences.

As for the writings that are held by some but not all as Canonical, they can and should be measured against the Universally Accepted, and if they are found to be without conflict, be accepted as Holy and Inspired.

[Joshua]

Peace to you Brother Greg...

All I'm going to add at this time is an interesting conundrum to your view... none of the Ante-Nicene authors appear to have anticipated their writings to be used as any more than a witness to Apostolic Tradition or as personal correspondence.

In the generations that follow, they were not quoted authoritatively as Scripture and in many cases they were often grounds for anathemas during the conciliar age. (Tertullian, Origen, etc)

Moreover, the latest text I have found evidence as being considered Canonical and/or Scriptural is the Shepherd(Pastor) of Hermas which is variously dated. Part of the reason this text was not readily accepted, and was eventually removed was because of it's post-Apostolic date.

That being said, it seems to me from the evidence that there was indeed an extant criterion for dubbing books both Canonical, and Scriptural by at least 220 AD. The problem is, I have yet to find any clear cut principles for making that decision... at least as defined by the Early Christians. So I've been doing what they would have done... looking to the witness of tradition and trusting God to guide me.

So far so good, since I've gotten this far ;-).

That being said, I suggest you check out the Epistle of Barnabas at your leisure; it is an edifying piece of scripture. As for the Tradition, I recommend St. Irenaeus' Proof of the Apostolic Teaching. It wasn't in the ANF collection, but you can find it if you look. If you need it, feel free to message me.

If you or anyone else has a favorite you'd like to share, I'm all ears; I like reading :D.

Peace and be well,
Joshua

[Greg Monroe]

Bro Joshua,

Your statement "none of the Ante-Nicene authors appear to have anticipated their writings to be used as any more than a witness to Apostolic Tradition", is exactly how I see them, as a witness to Apostolic Tradition. The divide between Canonical and Scripture is not clear cut, I agree, but I feel it safe to assume that those Scriptures which the Ante-Nicene Fathers spent so much of their time quoting, discussing, and defending can and should be considered Canonical, simply because THEY USED THEM AS SUCH. If the Early Church felt it right to use certain books and letters as the example to follow, and they are certainly closer and more intimate with the "Faith first Given", then who am I to question their guidance?

I make it a practice to teach the ANF's as witnesses to Canon, and the Canon as a witness to Christ.

As for the Shepherd of Hermas, I feel it is appropriate for use as scripture to teach Apostolic Tradition, but since it itself often quotes the Apostles and other Canonical Sources, that is not itself Canonical. See my point?
We have a Foundation of Canon, and the Shepherd of Hermas builds upon that foundation. Therefore, it is Scripture for learning, but what does it teach? Canon!

Wonderful Topic so far...
Greg