Time to Revisit and Maybe Revise the Canon?

[Redbaron]

This may have been discussed here before in another thread, but the question does seem to arise from time to time. Take a look at the article and react. Is the Canon frozen shut? or can it (or should it) be reviewed and revised from time to time? What would you change, if anything?

Is It Time For A New Biblical Canon?

For the first 400 years of Church History, almost everyone had their own personal Canon of Scripture. Marcion of Sinope was the first to compile his own

www.patheos.com

 

[Luce NDs]

The canon is thus breached ... everything appreciates a break or void ... thus Eris 've Ness ... a dark item!

 

[Mendalla]

Given that it has been reviewed and revised at times and there are variations in the canon from sect to sect, yes. It's not like there is a single canon set in stone, even if all the various canons agree on most of it. The canon is, in the end, what the human organization known as "the church" declares it to be so why can that organization not review and revise as needed?

 

[Redbaron]

I'd agree that the Canon is a human contraption rather than a divine mandate. While I'd not monkey around with it willy nilly, I could see a good case to including the Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonicals in the canon. Also the Gospel of Thomas into the NT list. I'm not convinced, though, that the Revelation really belongs (waiting for the lightning to strike....)

 

[Luce NDs]

I'd agree that the Canon is a human contraption rather than a divine mandate. While I'd not monkey around with it willy nilly, I could see a good case to including the Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonicals in the canon. Also the Gospel of Thomas into the NT list. I'm not convinced, though, that the Revelation really belongs (waiting for the lightning to strike....)

One could look into its derivation as being composed of word in the construct ... that's the guise factor considering the lost horizon effect ... uneventful if you mist it while in a state of nebulae ... Lion's Gate? Sampson jawed one to death ... thus that cat in the sans at Gaza ...

Well maybe ... nothing is sure as nothing appears intangible ... understand! This Tu can be put to word ... ET TU? Thus touted ... regardless of the uncertainty ... some folk just have to be piously stoned ... dependant on the slinging ... there are hard essences and then the Goyem ... posing as Jinn ... myrrh dervish!

May gum up the aye of a Ka Mile ... distant wanderers?

 

[Mendalla]

I'm not convinced, though, that the Revelation really belongs (waiting for the lightning to strike....)

You're in good company. Didn't someone point out in a previous thread on the subject that no less than Martin Luther thought it shouldn't have been included?

 

[BetteTheRed]

Me, probably. The other books I'd ditch are the pseudo-Pauline epistles.

 

[paradox3]

Me, probably. The other books I'd ditch are the pseudo-Pauline epistles.

It's very easy to get mixed up with some of those epistles. In general I prefer the gospels and spend more time with them.

Yet I chose a passage from Corinthians for my father's funeral last year and that reading is still with me.

Revelation is pretty much a mystery to me except for a few popular excerpts.

 

[Mendalla]

Revelation is pretty much a mystery to me except for a few popular excerpts.

A friend (then Christian, now atheist) once pointed out how it reads like a bad sf or fantasy novel. That's what got me to read it for the first time. I was in my early teens, I think, and it was around the time that Hal Lindsey's Late, Great Planet Earth was in vogue.

 

[Mendalla]

Yet I chose a passage from Corinthians for my father's funeral last year and that reading is still with me.

Paul actually wrote some terrific stuff and had some good ideas. He's been dragged down a bit by the pseudo-Paul stuff, but his place as one of the real founders of Christianity as we know it makes the genuine Pauline epistles mandatory reading, I would suggest. Right up there with the Gospels.

 

[paradox3]

Paul actually wrote some terrific stuff and had some good ideas. He's been dragged down a bit by the pseudo-Paul stuff, but his place as one of the real founders of Christianity as we know it makes the genuine Pauline epistles mandatory reading, I would suggest. Right up there with the Gospels.

Isn't there some controversy about this though? AFAIK there are some epistles definitely written by Paul, a few possibly written by Paul and some definitely Not's

 

[Redbaron]

A friend (then Christian, now atheist) once pointed out how it reads like a bad sf or fantasy novel. That's what got me to read it for the first time. I was in my early teens, I think, and it was around the time that Hal Lindsey's Late, Great Planet Earth was in vogue.

I sometimes compare it to a cautionary tale about eating pepperoni pizza just before bedtime.

 

[Mendalla]

Isn't there some controversy about this though? AFAIK there are some epistles definitely written by Paul, a few possibly written by Paul and some definitely Not's

Right, hence my mention of the "genuine Pauline epistles". Sure there's controversy over some, but some are pretty widely regarded as being in that category, too, so start there and approach the rest with a bit more skepticism.

 

[paradox3]

When I finished reading the through Gospels a few years ago, my minister at the time recommended going to the letters next. Instead I went through the gospels again with a different focus.

I would need to look up the list of epistles believed to be genuine. Might just do that.

 

[paradox3]

And oh yes, that minister also recommended reading Paul's epistles in the order in which they were written.

 

[Redbaron]

There was a book a few years back, called The Evolution of the New Testament, or something, I believe by Borg. He printed the New Testament writings in the order in which many NT scholars believe them to have been written, and provided a bit of commentary, background and context for each writing. I think I still have a copy of it here, somewhere.... anyway, if you csn find that book, you might find it interesting.

 

[paradox3]

Just looked it up. Borg's book was called Evolution of the Word and seems to be as you describe.

Evolution of the New Testament is someone else's work..

 

[Mendalla]

And oh yes, that minister also recommended reading Paul's epistles in the order in which they were written.

That's how the course does it. Begins with 1 Thessalonians. In his introduction, the prof goes through the order and which ones are controversial or considered to be by others. The course is Understanding the New Testament from The Great Courses and the lecturer is Dr. David Brakke of Ohio State. I am watching it on Kanopy, the library e-lending service.

 

[paradox3]

A little sleuthing and it looks like there is consensus that these epistles are authentic to Paul:

1 Thessalonians
Galatians
1 Corinthians
Philemon
Philippians
2 Corinthians
Romans

I have recorded them in the order Borg believed they were written. Other authors list them a bit differently.

Seems like opinions are divided when it comes to 2 Thessalonians, Colossians and Ephesians.

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus are widely considered not to have been written by Paul.

And then there's Hebrews. No longer even included as a letter.

Not sure if I have a reading and/ or bible study project coming up.

 

[paradox3]

This would be a 61 chapter project.

The gospels were an 89 chapter project.

Haven't compared the lengths of the chapters.