The Question Of Canon As A Good Deal Of Modern Day Biblical Scholarship Essay

The introduction deals with the ideas of authority and perspective, and how they function properly in the process of Biblical interpretation. A key idea is that reading is a dialogue between the text and the reader. Both sides have a role to play. If we acknowledge this, then we must also acknowledge that the perspective of the reader has some significance in how the Bible is interpreted and exercises authority. This dialogical reading transcends the categories of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’, and

Richard, R. P. (2010). God's judgments: interpreting history and the Christian faith. Bibliotheca Sacra, 167(665), 113-116. Retrieved from

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

Bruce offers a solid explanation of the formation of the canon chronologically starting with the Hebrew scriptures (p. 21) until the 4th century where church councils started to present the first spoken finished canon (p. 97). Bruce shows the importance of the Old Testament scriptures, but writes most about the New Testament. He not only shows how the New Testament came to be a canon but offers a deep analysis of non-canonical scripture called the Apocrypha (pp. 48, 90-93).

Bruce Waltke begins his argument by establishing the opponent’s view. Waltke writes that forms of criticism hold “that most of the literature of the Old Testament had a long oral prehistory before being written down” (17). Waltke seeks to refute this claim by establishing that “biblical literature had a short oral prehistory

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

“Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of thy womb a reward.

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

The juxtaposition of any two writings is a formidable task. The content of each, even if they seem alike, is a small part in determining similarities and differences. One must also look at the styles, authors, themes, supposed audiences and authorial intent. This front becomes even more difficult while exegeting and deciphering ancient texts because of how far removed the writings are from modern understanding and scholarship. It is also further complicated when one lacks the factual knowledge of which piece was written first and/or if both texts were using a third source at the time of their creation. These difficulties find their apex at the study of Christian history and all of its subsequent writings. In particular, the gospels according to Thomas and Luke, while they have similarities and at times identical phraseology are vastly different when one considers their theological understandings, themes, format and style.

The scenario takes place between a knowledgeable Catholic man, and a practicing Protestant adult. The Catholic man is Charles, who is a family friend of Steve, and has a very in-depth knowledge of both the Catholic and Protestant faith. The Protestant adult is Steve, who is curious into learning the importance of the Catholic faith in Tradition and Scripture. Steve presents to Charles many legitimate questions about his faith and legitimacy of the Catholic tradition.

The purpose of the paper is to differentiate between Christ of faith and Jesus of history. New Testament biblical scholars from the 19th Century have been preoccupied by the notion of Christ of faith versus Jesus of History. Jesus of history can be described as the quest for historical Jesus, while the Christ of Faith is the Christ of Christian belief either through the Church or historically. Some traditions even went ahead to argue that the Jesus of History could never be found and therefore the Christ of faith is the only way forward for Christians. On the other hand, those who have been promoting the Jesus of History have often assumed that the historical Jesus is much superior as compared to the Christ of Faith. Despite the key differences between Christ of faith and the historical Jesus, both these aspect have an implication for Western Christianity.

In biblical study, Narrative Criticism has been developed against the evolutionary models of historical criticism, which has been mainly focused to reenact the position and thought of the original writer and audience through certain ‘scientific and analysis of biblical material’. This discipline is the study of a narrative text most likely similar to any narrative literature. It is sub discipline of interpretation method under literary criticism, which emphases on ‘the literary form or shape of the text in its final form’ as pointer of what the texts meant. There is general agreement among the various disciplines of literary approach, that they all consider Scripture as a ‘literary document’, rather than a ‘historical’. These various disciplines,

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).

Perhaps the greatest achievement to come from early church history is the establishment of a universal New Testament Canon. While we may not put much thought into it today, which books should be included or excluded from the New Testament was once the center of much controversy. It took the church many years to settle upon the current collection of books as being the proper Canon, making it more of a process than an event. Ironically enough, the need for a universal Canon was only realized after many disputes over the version suggest by the Christian heretic Marcion. Marcion’s collection of books were revised by Athanasius and later endorsed by the church through councils. Once the New Testament Canon was established, all other suggested books became part of a collection known as the Apocrypha and their use dismissed by the church.