Do Books Belong In The Canon

In fact, the presence and identification of errors within the texts of Scripture do not serve to weaken the doctrine of preservation; rather it serves to strengthen preservation by the recognition and elimination of textual error. DEVELOPING THE NEED FOR A CANON

Moody Smith When Did the Gospels Become Scripture? Academic Journal Article, Journal of Biblical Lieterature; Vol. 119, No. 1 (Spring, 2000), pp. 3-20 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3267965 . Accessed:

The process by which Scripture has been preserved and compiled is one whose history is worth noting. The early church had many opportunities to share the Good News of Christ via word of mouth, but from the time of Christ’s resurrection until the mid-second century, there had not been a single culmination of writings considered to be essential for the purposes of

“The Church has always and everywhere maintained, and continues to maintain, the apostolic origin of the four Gospels. The apostles preached, as Christ had charged them to do, and then, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they and others of the apostolic age handed on to us in writing the same message they had preached, the

Evidence for OT and NT canonicity and tests for canonicity are for the OT canonicity is seen in “the Law” originating from the Old Testament in Law of Moses is seen as being “authoritative”. Examples of scripture that supports this are “1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6 and Ezra 6:18”. These writings help justify the first five books of the Old Testament that Moses contributed in writing. Second “from the prophets” is another example of evidence seen where the prophets were inspired with the word from God. The gospels of Joshua, Chronicles, and Daniels are examples of supportive books in the gospel. Third example is “from Malachi 4:5” where the prophecy ends with Malachi and resumes with John the Baptist. Evidence for the NT is “quotations of the old testament to the new”, which shows “250 quotes from the old testament” being used. Second, “Matthew 5:17” shows the Law and the Prophets holding power as spoken by the Lord. Third, “Luke 11:51” the condemnation of Jewish leaders for murdering the Lord's messengers throughout time. The tests for canonicity are first “the test for authority” where the books of the canon were backed up by an authoritative prophet or apostle. Second, “the test for uniqueness” where evidence had to be unique to be placed in the canon. Third, “the test of acceptance by the churches”, where the books had to gain acceptance by the

Machen stated that the New Testament books “are regarded by all serious historians as genuine products of the first Christian generation.” (PAGE 18) The statement merely could be false without Machen’s willingness to terminate as un-serious all historians who ignore the validity and authority of the New Testament. The argument of the New Testament authenticity is still conflicted between in liberalism and typical denominations. A weakness in Machen’s argument on Doctrine was while Machen indicates that the New testament could be understood through the perspective of the “primitive Jerusalem church” (PAGE 22), no supportive agreement was found what the primitive church looked

As we move further into the research of this paper, defining some terms under the viewpoints of the selected authors is necessary. Millard Erickson defines inspiration as “that supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit upon the Scripture writers which rendered their writings an accurate record of the revelation or which resulted in what they wrote actually being the Word of God.” While inspiration primarily concerns the quality of the finished product rather than the process of that period of time in which the entirety of the Scriptures came into being, the divine-human authorship raises the tension as to how those Scriptures came into being. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states: “We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking applies only to the autographic text of Scripture.” The leads to the question “What constitutes an autograph or the autographs?” In general, scholars use the term autographs to refer to the first or original copies of the biblical documents which is the material the author actually wrote himself. One customary definition of the term “autographa” in a theological discussion refers to the unchanging form of text whereby the original document is identical to the final canonical form of a given OT biblical book. Since canon involves the list of all books that belong in a bible or those reckoned as Holy Scriptures which

N.T. Wright releases “How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels” with the affirmation that the church has come to emphasis almost exclusively on Jesus’ birth, death and resurrection. Although, the gospels devote the majority of their time on Jesus’ life. Jesus’s life, death, resurrection and rise did not hint the end of the old Israel story, but redirected it further to a worldwide effort of adaptation. Wright addresses several New Testament documented interpreters who present the gospels as simply “the prognosis of early Christian faith, reflecting the disputes and predicaments of the early church,” something Wright calls a “half-truth”. Wright argues that notwithstanding the gospels countless differences, none of

Gospel is an old English word meaning “good news.” When comparing the four gospels they are all unified, but each gospel can have slight differences to them. Whether is literary structure, length, how many teachings, important events, different significance, geography or chronology; they all are correlated to tell us Jesus’ story, in their own way. In like manner, God didn’t give us one explanation from an confined individual. Rather, God educates us about the broad richness of Jesus’ life through a numerous prophet-witnesses. Moreover, God works through well-documented and a valid history, not through confidential revelations to a single person. The prophetic witnesses of the Gospels endorse the truth that God himself is speaking. Each Gospel

Sensitivity relating to the perceived expiration of the first Mosaic covenant has brought forth a minor controversy in recent decades about the political correctness of referring to the Old Testament as being "old." Some Catholic Scripture professors express a preference for "Hebrew Scriptures," while others apologetically retain the old reference to prevent confusion. (Pazcuzzi 2/97). The issue of Judaism having been superceded by Christianity will be addressed at various points in this paper.

Why should one lie awake over the relation between canon and creed? The oddity of this question is the focus of Robert W. Jenson’s work, Canon and Creed. Produced within the Interpretation series that seeks to give resources to the church catholic, Jenson takes on the burden to show how the two resources of the church are enmeshed, interpreting and being interpreted by one another. The “bewilderment” that many contemporaries have over the interplay between canon and creeed, as Jenson sees it, has “slipped through our grasp,” probably causing modern Christianity to lose other parts of the church’s life (2). Before delving into the meat of his book, Jenson frames the context for the canon and creed by the analogy of the telephone-game.

Gospels are narratives of the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. There are many gospels but only four were included in the Christian cannon: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The canonical gospels have many similarities and differences. There are many different theories as to why these differences exist beginning with the observations of Clement, Augustine, and Papias – three fathers of the church. Clement of Alexandria was said to have held a traditional view that Matthew and Luke, the gospels with genealogies, were written first. Augustine of Hippo believed that the gospels were written in what is now their canonical order and that each writer relied upon the work of the previous author. Thus, John derived from Luke who derived from Mark who derived from Matthew. Papias thought that Mark used Peter as a source for much of his gospel. In the late 18th century, church scholars began to challenge the long held views that the gospels were written before any of the other New Testament writings

This method examines the unique literary features and the social function of the genre, canon, paying particular attention to the way in which once historically conditioned literature is given a new authoritative function as the comprehensive word of God to later communities of faith.

The New Testament was canonized over a period of approximately four hundred years (Stotesberg). From AD 50-125, the books which in the end constitute the New Testament were written. Simultaneously, other books, which did not end up being included in the final canon, were produced. These books are the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, I Clement, the seven letters of Ignatius of Antioch, etc. (“Development of the Difficult Canon”). As more and more books were written, Christians realized that it was imperative that they gather and consolidate this material before it became lost. Sometime before AD 100, ten of Paul’s letters were gathered and combined into their own canon. The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were combined to form another canon soon after the canonization of Paul’s letters. The Gospels and Paul’s letters became the main body of a new group of Scriptures that would soon become the New Testament. Soon Acts, I Peter, I John, and Revelation were inserted into this body of Scripture. Following this, the rest of the books were added to the New Testament (Barker).

During the early history of the church, there was no such thing as a New Testament “canon.” The selection of books that were to be included or excluded from the texts used by the church was the responsibility of each individual church body, and thus varied greatly from location to location. Because there was no canon – (books considered