tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post2107429826874013932..comments2024-03-28T09:52:15.415-04:00Comments on Common Denominator: The New Testament CanonKen Schenckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-2209362098715756352009-08-27T15:13:32.134-04:002009-08-27T15:13:32.134-04:00Nate, sorry I nver got back to your excellent prob...Nate, sorry I nver got back to your excellent probing. I didn't have a response on the tip of my tongue and didn't get back to it. Hope springs eternal!Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-86009137889877265412009-08-27T15:11:36.488-04:002009-08-27T15:11:36.488-04:00I posted the following on Facebook before I realiz...I posted the following on Facebook before I realized it was syndicated from your blog...<br /><br />Thanks for a great summary! I have a few questions, if you don't mind...<br /><br />1. You argue for a "Spirit-led Christian tradition" by tracing the articulation of thought from the NT through the post-apostolic writers, the Nicenes and the post-Nicene Christological thinkers. How do you rectify the fact that each of these writers claims specifically that they are not developing the apostolic theology? Certainly Bauer's work is important, though, as Erhman notes, his arguments are often over-asserted. I ask this specifically in mind of recent discoveries (such as Irenaeus' "Proof of the Apostolic Preaching" with its proto-homoousias) which clearly provide much earlier support for later doctrinal 'developments' than was previously known.<br /><br />2. It seems to me that usage is the primary criterion in consideration of the canon and that authorship and antiquity are secondary criterion. I suggest this because authorship and antiquity are discussed primarily to resolve disputes between local churches which differ in their usage of a text in their divine services. Texts that are not read liturgically in any local church do not have any consideration whatsoever (from what I can see; please correct me if I am wrong).<br /><br />Related to this, it seems to me that the primary function of a canon is its use liturgically. Theological writers throughout history have no particular qualms about quoting from a variety of important sources that may or not be canon (even earlier [known] non-canonical pseudepigraphal sources and contemporary luminaries). One liturgical scholar (forgive me I don't recall the source) even notes that the practice of announcing the source of the reading before the reading itself is to assure the hearer that the reading is from an approved text.<br /><br />Further, the various writings responding to the claims of Marcion directly (in particular Irenaeus' Against Heresies), while mentioning his textual truncation, seem entirely uninterested with establishing a proper canon as a counter-argument.<br /><br />Given these, does it not make sense to understand the (almost entirely post-Nicene) development of the canon to be more a function of establishing liturgical normalcy across the imperial church than a response to any particular ideological threat or the desire to establish a specific textual authority? Viewing it in this manner avoids the difficult of why, when obvious local variances exist, differences in canon do not appear as significant arguments in all the debates of Nicea and beyond. (Certainly textual differences and translations are debated, but I'm not aware of any group [a la Marcion] which holds its own canon in order to argue its own theology.)<br /><br />Is this a fair assessment? What particular difficulties would arise in viewing the canonical process in such a way?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00463464834576379106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-89197057395642918452009-08-23T16:55:52.624-04:002009-08-23T16:55:52.624-04:00As best I can tell, his list was closest to the Pr...As best I can tell, his list was closest to the Protestant canon, minus Esther and plus Baruch.Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-87687314366646192252009-08-23T15:15:23.456-04:002009-08-23T15:15:23.456-04:00Did Athanasius propose the exact set of 66 books P...Did Athanasius propose the exact set of 66 books Protestants now considered inspired or did he include the Deuterocanonicals?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-89589126790564590332009-08-23T00:30:25.816-04:002009-08-23T00:30:25.816-04:00This is well done. There's some good informati...This is well done. There's some good information on this blog. So much of what's written about the canon on the internet is nonsense. This was a refreshing exception.<br /><br />Thanks and congrats on a fine job!Paul Pavaohttp://www.christian-history.org/history-of-the-bible.htmlnoreply@blogger.com