What Counts as "Scripture"?

[RedFan]

Most religions, oriental and western, have their own set of revered writings. But what qualifies a writing as "Scripture?" What criteria mark writings as what Bruce Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content (3rd ed. 2003), calls "sacred, authoritative, and worthy of being read in services of worship”? (For the Christian Scriptures Metzger himself said the three criteria were orthodoxy, apostolicity and ecclesiastical consensus.)

I'm not so much interested here in the historical selection process for which Christian writings "made the cut" (e.g., the Letter to the Hebrews is in, the Epistle of Barnabas is out) as I am in what influences may have motivated the selectors -- and what influences should have motivated them. Taking as a given that all Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, etc. (2 Tim. 3:16), how do we identify the "God-breathed" nature of a particular writing so as to be worthy of admission into the Canon?

A secondary question is whether the criteria we settle on -- if indeed we can reach a consensus here -- necessarily close the Canon. (Sorry, Book of Mormon fans!)

So let's take a deep dive. Thoughts????

 

[GISMYS_7]

Almighty eternal God knows how to protect His inspired word. He has no problem.

 

[RedFan]

Almighty eternal God knows how to protect His inspired word. He has no problem.

Did almighty eternal God inspire the selectors of the OT and NT Canon?

 

[Bob Estey]

Most religions, oriental and western, have their own set of revered writings. But what qualifies a writing as "Scripture?" What criteria mark writings as what Bruce Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content (3rd ed. 2003), calls "sacred, authoritative, and worthy of being read in services of worship”? (For the Christian Scriptures Metzger himself said the three criteria were orthodoxy, apostolicity and ecclesiastical consensus.)

I'm not so much interested here in the historical selection process for which Christian writings "made the cut" (e.g., the Letter to the Hebrews is in, the Epistle of Barnabas is out) as I am in what influences may have motivated the selectors -- and what influences should have motivated them. Taking as a given that all Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, etc. (2 Tim. 3:16), how do we identify the "God-breathed" nature of a particular writing so as to be worthy of admission into the Canon?

A secondary question is whether the criteria we settle on -- if indeed we can reach a consensus here -- necessarily close the Canon. (Sorry, Book of Mormon fans!)

So let's take a deep dive. Thoughts????

I think one has to back up a step and DEFINE "scripture."

 

[Randy Kluth]

Many of us have simply been raised up with "the Bible." Undoubtedly, those who wished to frame their religion from its origins have had to select that which forms its history and fundamental truths.

Christianity has its own unique religious "flavor" in adopting its sacred writings. This includes the belief that God directly inspires certain human products, whether it simply holds a certain "spirituality" from God or actually produces what is thought to be inspired by God for Scriptural purposes.

So we believe that whether fully conscious of it or not, certain writings have come to display this "divine influence" in raising the level of a written product to the point of representing an important aspect of our religion. Some men were called to be founders of Christianity, such as apostles, and they were thought to be capable of representing reliable and authoritative truths about Christianity. Certainly, Jesus spent over 3 years with his chosen 12 so that they could accomplish some of this.

The canon is closed on the OT because it was written in a time when only the Jews were "God's People," and they have "passed the torch," so to speak, to Christian nations. The Jewish People can no longer present their own system, the Law, as a part of valid Scripture.

If the NT canon is closed, it is only because Christianity has already run its course. No need to establish fundamentals when they were already settled years ago, and the edifice has been built.

To look back at what established the original history and the original fundamentals, we recognize that apostles and high church leaders were selected from the very beginning, and not from later Church Fathers. And writings were selected with high content describing what these church leaders themselves thought were critical in developing the Church on solid dogma, as well as on responsible practice.

The canon is closed. Works that were thought to be "compromised" or weak on doctrinal or historical matters were rejected. Works that were partly valid have been kept for whatever content assisted, though were rejected as less than canonical. Products chosen as "canonical" were chosen only if they were not compromised with material that could do harm to Christian belief and practice. For example, Jude was accepted as canonical, but he only adopted some material from the Book of Enoch without sanctioning the Book of Enoch itself as canon itself.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Did almighty eternal God inspire the selectors of the OT and NT Canon?

As in everything there is free choice. There were bound to be "selectors" who could do the job as a majority over time. But how much compromise God has allowed in the process is a matter of historical record and a matter of individual observation. Obviously, God has produced the Bible using imperfect men.

Some Christian traditions continue despite it being laced with some corruption. It is up to the individual to decide what is "going too far" in our tolerance.

 

[SavedInHim]

Most religions, oriental and western, have their own set of revered writings. But what qualifies a writing as "Scripture?" What criteria mark writings as what Bruce Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content (3rd ed. 2003), calls "sacred, authoritative, and worthy of being read in services of worship”? (For the Christian Scriptures Metzger himself said the three criteria were orthodoxy, apostolicity and ecclesiastical consensus.)

I'm not so much interested here in the historical selection process for which Christian writings "made the cut" (e.g., the Letter to the Hebrews is in, the Epistle of Barnabas is out) as I am in what influences may have motivated the selectors -- and what influences should have motivated them. Taking as a given that all Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, etc. (2 Tim. 3:16), how do we identify the "God-breathed" nature of a particular writing so as to be worthy of admission into the Canon?

A secondary question is whether the criteria we settle on -- if indeed we can reach a consensus here -- necessarily close the Canon. (Sorry, Book of Mormon fans!)

So let's take a deep dive. Thoughts????

Honestly, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to get at here. All I can say is the New Testament canon is a collection of books recognized as given by God. It isn't something constructed by man; it was revealed by the Holy Spirit. Other writings don't measure up to the standard set by the New Testament writings. If an epistle or some other writing was discovered and could be proven authentic, I'd be all for adding it to the canon if it lived up to the standard of the rest of the New Testament.

 

[GISMYS_7]

selectors

God inspired the writers and the selectors ===THINK!!

 

[RedFan]

Honestly, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to get at here. All I can say is the New Testament canon is a collection of books recognized as given by God. It isn't something constructed by man; it was revealed by the Holy Spirit.

And the question is, whoever did the recognizing at the time the NT Canon was collected, how do we know that the Holy Spirit guided that recognition?

 

[GISMYS_7]

Who thinks Almighty God does not protect His inspired word??

 

[SavedInHim]

And the question is, whoever did the recognizing at the time the NT Canon was collected, how do we know that the Holy Spirit guided that recognition?

I believe He did. There will always be those who cast doubt and that's fine; I'm at peace. You have to remember, it wasn't only those who finalized the canon. The writings they had to work with were mainly the apostles' writings that had been circulated and accepted by believers and congregations from all over for a long time. They were read in the congregations. So it wasn't only those who finalized the canon who recognized them as being from God, but many others as well.

 

[RedFan]

I believe He did. There will always be those who cast doubt and that's fine; I'm at peace. You have to remember it wasn't only those who finalized the canon. The writings they had to work with were mainly the apostles' writings that had been circulated and accepted by believers and congregations from all over for a long time. They were read in the congregations. So it wasn't only those who finalized the canon who recognized them as being from God, but many others as well.

Fair point. But let me also point out that the earliest collections don't agree on the Canon. Codex Vaticanus doesn't have 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon or Revelation. Codex Alexandrinus has 1 and 2 Clement. Codex Sinaiticus has the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas. And so on. Somebody picked and chose the contents of what you now have on your shelf, and by default declared that all earlier collections were either incomplete or overinclusive -- what you would thus call NOT collected by the Holy Spirit's guidance, even though their contents were likewise "circulated and accepted by believers and congregations from all over for a long time" and "read in the congregations." So those features are necessary but not sufficient conditions of canonicity.

That is why the OP poses its question.

 

[marks]

And the question is, whoever did the recognizing at the time the NT Canon was collected, how do we know that the Holy Spirit guided that recognition?

Psalms 119:89-90 KJV
89) LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
90) Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.

Jeremiah 1:11-12 LITV
11) And the Word of Jehovah was to me, saying, Jeremiah, what do you see? And I said, I see an almond rod.
12) Then Jehovah said to me, You have seen well; for I will watch over My Word to perform it.

Isaiah 55:10-11 LITV
10) For as the rain and the snow comes down from the heavens and do not return there, except it waters the earth and make it bring forth and bud, and give seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
11) so shall My Word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in what I sent it to do!

I believe God guards His Word so we can know Him.

Much love!

 

[RedFan]

Psalms 119:89-90 KJV
89) LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
90) Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.

Jeremiah 1:11-12 LITV
11) And the Word of Jehovah was to me, saying, Jeremiah, what do you see? And I said, I see an almond rod.
12) Then Jehovah said to me, You have seen well; for I will watch over My Word to perform it.

Isaiah 55:10-11 LITV
10) For as the rain and the snow comes down from the heavens and do not return there, except it waters the earth and make it bring forth and bud, and give seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
11) so shall My Word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in what I sent it to do!

I believe God guards His Word so we can know Him.

Much love!

I think you beg the question.

Nobody denies that God's word is eternal (Psalm 119). Nobody disputes that God protects His word (Jeremiah 1). Nobody contests that God's word accomplishes what He pleases (Isaiah 55). But none of this helps us identify which writings are God's word. Why does Jude qualify, but not Barnabas? Why does Philemon qualify, but not 1 Clement?

 

[SavedInHim]

Fair point. But let me also point out that the earliest collections don't agree on the Canon. Codex Vaticanus doesn't have 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon or Revelation. Codex Alexandrinus has 1 and 2 Clement. Codex Sinaiticus has the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas. And so on. Somebody picked and chose the contents of what you now have on your shelf, and by default declared that all earlier collections were either incomplete or overinclusive -- what you would thus call NOT collected by the Holy Spirit's guidance, even though their contents were likewise "circulated and accepted by believers and congregations from all over for a long time" and "read in the congregations." So those features are necessary but not sufficient conditions of canonicity.

That is why the OP poses its question.

So if Vaticanus doesn't have 1 or 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon or Revelation that means they weren't circulated or used in the congregations? 1 and 2 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas and Shepard of Hermas didn't make the cut. Just because they're included in Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus that doesn't mean they should've been included in the canon.

I'm beginning to see where this is going and I'm afraid I have nothing more to offer really. It reminds me of a debate I had with a friend several years ago who kept insisting the canon was the creation of a bunch Catholic bishops who were in a conspiracy to keep certain books out because they were inconvenient to them. Too many Dan Brown novels I would say.

 

[RedFan]

So if Vaticanus doesn't have 1 or 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon or Revelation that means they weren't circulated or used in the congregations? 1 and 2 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas and Shepard of Hermas didn't make the cut. Just because they're included in Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus that doesn't mean they should've been included in the canon.

I'm beginning to see where this is going and I'm afraid I have nothing more to offer really. It reminds me of a debate I had with a friend several years ago who kept insisting the canon was a creation of a bunch Catholic bishops who were in a conspiracy to keep certain books out because they were inconvenient to them. Too many Dan Brown novels I would say.

Yes, I suppose you should disengage. Thanks for participating.

BTW, I believe 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and Revelation WERE circulated and used in the congregations -- but the aggregators who compiled Vaticanus apparently didn't deem them canonical. 1 and 2 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas and Shepard of Hermas apparently were deemed canonical by other aggregators. And all of these early aggregators got it wrong, but the aggregator of what we now have as the NT got it right?

I'd like to think so too -- but I'd like to identify the criteria they applied so that I can have that confidence. Hence the OP.

 

[marks]

I think you beg the question.

Nobody denies that God's word is eternal (Psalm 119). Nobody disputes that God protects His word (Jeremiah 1). Nobody contests that God's word accomplishes what He pleases (Isaiah 55). But none of this helps us identify which writings are God's word. Why does Jude qualify, but not Barnabas? Why does Philemon qualify, but not 1 Clement?

My thinking is that God is committed to preserving His Word for us, and that is why we have the canon we have, He brought it to be.

Much love!

 

[quietthinker]

What Counts as "Scripture"?​

One will never know if the objective is missed.

'Finally he sent his own son to them, saying, 'They will respect my son and have regard for him. ' But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, 'This [man] is the heir; come on, let us kill him and seize his inheritance. Matthew 21:35-39

 

[RedFan]

Who thinks Almighty God does not protect His inspired word??

From what? Additions and subtractions? Copyist edits? Inadvertent copyist mistakes?

We have none of the original manuscripts. We have only copies of copies -- and they don't agree. (It is the job of textual criticism to try and reconstruct what the original author said -- an inexact science at best.)