A question regarding scripture, Located within the Gospel of Mark.

[Asforme&myhouse]

It quite obviously does not considering we have very few complete speeches of prophets recorded and no course material from the ancient schools of the prophets.

I have heard that the school of the prophets was not a school in the way we think of school. The school of the prophets was what the whole group of prophets was called. It wasn’t a place where they were learning how to be prophets. So, there probably wouldn’t be any course material.

 

[Pacman]

I have heard that the school of the prophets was not a school in the way we think of school. The school of the prophets was what the whole group of prophets was called. It wasn’t a place where they were learning how to be prophets. So, there probably wouldn’t be any course material.

School meaning group in the sense of “a school of fish” this is my understanding...
No curriculum it’s not that kind of “school”

 

[Cap]

Don't over spiritualize it. Scripture simply means sacred writings. (also this)

Yes. For example, a quick search found me this list of references to non-extant writings that were mentioned in the Bible (including ones containing prophecy and so are self-evidently scripture and not simply just government chronicles or other supporting non-inspired documentation).

I realize that will rub some Protestants the wrong way. But just because the Bible contains everything we need for righteousness and godliness does not mean it contains everything God ever communicated to man. It quite obviously does not considering we have very few complete speeches of prophets recorded and no course material from the ancient schools of the prophets. We also like to think of the cannon of scriptures as absolutely perfect, but in truth there are several different cannons; of which the Protestant is both the newest (by over 1000 years), smallest (which should bother you), and the only one divorced from direct apostolic tradition. Things are significantly more complex than black & white evangelical theology would have you believe. And I speak as one from the evangelical protestant tradition.

Enoch is an interesting case. While the Protestants leave it out it is in the Ethiopian cannon, was recognized as scripture by the pre-Christ Jews, was quoted by Jude, is the oldest known scripture, contains the earliest known prophecy of Christ and was widely read in the early church. And Enoch specifically wrote it was recorded for those of us in the last days; that is us, today. But it was effectively lost to us until very recently, the last 50-100 years. Only the Ethiopians preserved it in their canon. And while one could have cast doubt on its authenticity, being only preserved in the Ethiopian language and by that church, all such doubts were removed with the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls.

I love to trot out Enoch whenever a Catholic takes sole credit for the preservation of the scriptures as they buttress their claim to be THE church. Drives them up a wall. Not only were they not the ones to pick and choose scripture, they even failed to preserve it all. And the church which preserved that scripture predates the RCC.

But don't let any of that trouble your faith dear reader. Even though humans have been an imperfect vehicle, God is mighty and able to preserve His scriptures for us. There are a host of reasons for which we can have complete confidence in both the preservation and authenticity of our holy writings; which I can go into if anyone like.

I am not exactly sure why the crowd here that needs to find EVERYTHING in scripture is not having an issue with this. So, basically scripture has variables, depending on how one sees things. Interesting. When the discussion about Peter was talking about Paul and his writings it was labeled as Scripture, and not just sacred writings to prove is validity, but now it is being said that scripture can be whatever a group of believers wants it to be, labeled as sacred writings. This is rather confusing to me.

This also brings up the discussion about the Talmud, isn't it 'sacred writings' under these terms? Or the Quran?

"I love to trot out Enoch" by what authority can you do this?

So now its ok to use other works not in the Bible, which is called the Word of God? There is more? This is not over spiritualizeing something, it's changing the foundation of what is Scripture and what is not.

 

[rockfox]

I have heard that the school of the prophets was not a school in the way we think of school. The school of the prophets was what the whole group of prophets was called. It wasn’t a place where they were learning how to be prophets. So, there probably wouldn’t be any course material.

That could be, I am not well versed in them. My suspicion is that they were not unlike Greek schools, or any other place where one more skilled mentors others.

"I love to trot out Enoch" by what authority can you do this?

So now its ok to use other works not in the Bible, which is called the Word of God? There is more? This is not over spiritualizeing something, it's changing the foundation of what is Scripture and what is not.

Which 'Bible' do you speak of? The Protestant? The Catholic? The Greek Orthodox? The Ethiopian? By what authority do you reject the Ethiopian Bible? By what authority did the Protestant reformers removed books from the 'Bible' that Christians of every faith tradition accepted as from God? Who changed which foundation?

When the discussion about Peter was talking about Paul and his writings it was labeled as Scripture, and not just sacred writings to prove is validity

No I'm saying 'scripture' = 'sacred writings'. This is just basic dictionary definition. To the Jew, the Talmud may be considered sacred writings, I don't know. Certainly that is true for the Quran and Muslims. But that doesn't make those writings are True and from God. What are sacred writings to Christians? Those compositions we believe were written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Bible itself never defines which letters the scriptures are, or even how to know, save this one example of Peter speaking about Paul's letters in general, by which we can have confidence that what Paul was writing is true.

but now it is being said that scripture can be whatever a group of believers wants it to be

Is that not what the Protestants did? At least the RCC and Orthodox can tell a better story; they had tradition dating back to the time when the prophets and apostles could confirm the word. Though that may not be a very accurate rendition of how the composition came to be vis a vi Constantine.

 

[Cap]

That could be, I am not well versed in them. My suspicion is that they were not unlike Greek schools, or any other place where one more skilled mentors others.



Which 'Bible' do you speak of? The Protestant? The Catholic? The Greek Orthodox? The Ethiopian? By what authority do you reject the Ethiopian Bible? By what authority did the Protestant reformers removed books from the 'Bible' that Christians of every faith tradition accepted as from God? Who changed which foundation?



No I'm saying 'scripture' = 'sacred writings'. This is just basic dictionary definition. To the Jew, the Talmud may be considered sacred writings, I don't know. Certainly that is true for the Quran and Muslims. But that doesn't make those writings are True and from God. What are sacred writings to Christians? Those compositions we believe were written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Bible itself never defines which letters the scriptures are, or even how to know, save this one example of Peter speaking about Paul's letters in general, by which we can have confidence that what Paul was writing is true.



Is that not what the Protestants did? At least the RCC and Orthodox can tell a better story; they had tradition dating back to the time when the prophets and apostles could confirm the word. Though that may not be a very accurate rendition of how the composition came to be vis a vi Constantine.

I don't know, now it seems there is no consistency in what scripture really is and no one else seems to care.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Don't over spiritualize it. Scripture simply means sacred writings. (also this)



Yes. For example, a quick search found me this list of references to non-extant writings that were mentioned in the Bible (including ones containing prophecy and so are self-evidently scripture and not simply just government chronicles or other supporting non-inspired documentation).

I realize that will rub some Protestants the wrong way. But just because the Bible contains everything we need for righteousness and godliness does not mean it contains everything God ever communicated to man. It quite obviously does not considering we have very few complete speeches of prophets recorded and no course material from the ancient schools of the prophets. We also like to think of the cannon of scriptures as absolutely perfect, but in truth there are several different cannons; of which the Protestant is both the newest (by over 1000 years), smallest (which should bother you), and the only one divorced from direct apostolic tradition. Things are significantly more complex than black & white evangelical theology would have you believe. And I speak as one from the evangelical protestant tradition.

Enoch is an interesting case. While the Protestants leave it out it is in the Ethiopian cannon, was recognized as scripture by the pre-Christ Jews, was quoted by Jude, is the oldest known scripture, contains the earliest known prophecy of Christ and was widely read in the early church. And Enoch specifically wrote it was recorded for those of us in the last days; that is us, today. But it was effectively lost to us until very recently, the last 50-100 years. Only the Ethiopians preserved it in their canon. And while one could have cast doubt on its authenticity, being only preserved in the Ethiopian language and by that church, all such doubts were removed with the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls.

I love to trot out Enoch whenever a Catholic takes sole credit for the preservation of the scriptures as they buttress their claim to be THE church. Drives them up a wall. Not only were they not the ones to pick and choose scripture, they even failed to preserve it all. And the church which preserved that scripture predates the RCC.

But don't let any of that trouble your faith dear reader. Even though humans have been an imperfect vehicle, God is mighty and able to preserve His scriptures for us. There are a host of reasons for which we can have complete confidence in both the preservation and authenticity of our holy writings; which I can go into if anyone like.

Love this.

Also of interest is the Testament of the Patriarchs, and Jubilees, both of which were considered scripture and preserved by the Essenes or whoever was at Qumran.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

To the question of Talmud and if it is considered sacred writings. From what I understand, Talmud is the official commentary of the Mishna. The Mishna is considered by the Jews as sacred writings in that they consider it to be the Oral Law written down and not to be confused with the Tanach (the Torah or Pentetuch) The Talmud is only commentary as I understand it

 

[Phillip]

I don't know, now it seems there is no consistency in what scripture really is and no one else seems to care.

I’m a bit of a die hard, as I think most people on this site are as well. The scriptures, as we all know them, are inspired words of God. Word of God. I have no doubt in this. I believe books have been written at least since the time of Enoch, possibly earlier. The scriptures, as I understand, became our Bible if those putting the Word together believed it was written in the first person. Some books were deemed to be written after the fact. Thus, they were not placed in the Bible.

The consistency you talk about is there. But, as others have said, you have to line some things up with OT. Heck, many scholars were of the opinion that Sodom and Gomorrah were just fables until about 60-70 years ago when they found Sodom on some ancient tablets. (Going off of memory on the timeline, so forgive me if I’ve taken you to the wrong decades)

I guess what I’m saying, time to dig in. I started down a new road of discovery a while back. These new discoveries (PM being the big one) have been enlightening. But I’ve had to dig in. But I’ve had to do a lot of studying on my own.

 

[rockfox]

I don't know, now it seems there is no consistency in what scripture really is and no one else seems to care.

I wouldn't say there isn't consistency. I would just say that life is more complex and subtle than the Sunday School version of things we were all taught. It's a milk and meat kind of thing.

As I said in another thread, I'm just talking basic, undisputed history and word definitions here.

Are there scriptures that have been lost? Undeniably, you can see them referenced in your very Bible. See the link in my prior comment. As I was reading on this issue today I even ran across a claimed lost New Testament Gospel that once circulated amoung the Jewish Christians; though I'm not sure how well regarded it was. But don't let that trouble you, the essentials we need were preserved.

Are there differences in the cannon between different Christian faiths? Yes, you can see a chart here. This is a simple undisputed matter of accounting history. If
you want to start finger pointing about 'changing scripture', we only condemn ourselves as we Protestants were the ones to drop texts. Even worse,

Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against his new doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.

This may not make much sense to our modern ears, but it is understandable if you were familiar with Luther's context, with the degree to which the RCC had become corrupted and to which the Reformation upturned society. There were many excesses.

Lest we distrust the secular wikipedia's take, let's take it from the horses mouth

Canon of Scripture
Question
What is the position of the Orthodox Church regarding the books that the Protestant churches refer to as the Apocrypha? Maccabees, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, etc.

Answer
The Old Testament books to which you refer—know in the Orthodox Church as the “longer canon” rather than the “Apocrypha,” as they are known among the Protestants—are
accepted by Orthodox Christianity as canonical scripture. These particular books are found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, but not in the Hebrew
texts of the rabbis.

These books—Tobit, Judah, more chapters of Esther and Daniel, the Books of Maccabees, the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, the Book of Sirach, the Prophecy of Baruch,
and the Prayer of Manasseh—are considered by the Orthodox to be fully part of the Old testament because they are part of the longer canon that was accepted from the
beginning by the early Church.

The same Canon [rule] of Scripture is used by the Roman Catholic Church. In the Jerusalem Bible (RC) these books are intermingled within the Old Testament Books and
not placed separately as often in Protestant translations (e.g., KJV).

That last bit is an important note, even the original KJV included many of these books. We don't need to get upset or defensive about it, just take it as an area you can expand your study to become more familiar with the ideas and stories our forebears knew and valued.

Even from the Protestant perspective, these Apocryphal works are still good, being regarded as equal to any other human work. Yet while you will commonly see churches talk about, and hold bible studies around, contemporary books and take them as guides in theology never do you see them do so for these ancient and valued works. Most don't even know they exist. Even I myself haven't read most of them.

I'll stop flogging the dead horse now. Forgive me if this was overwrought, I find history interesting.

 

[Cap]

I wouldn't say there isn't consistency. I would just say that life is more complex and subtle than the Sunday School version of things we were all taught. It's a milk and meat kind of thing.

As I said in another thread, I'm just talking basic, undisputed history and word definitions here.

Are there scriptures that have been lost? Undeniably, you can see them referenced in your very Bible. See the link in my prior comment. As I was reading on this issue today I even ran across a claimed lost New Testament Gospel that once circulated amoung the Jewish Christians; though I'm not sure how well regarded it was. But don't let that trouble you, the essentials we need were preserved.

Are there differences in the cannon between different Christian faiths? Yes, you can see a chart here. This is a simple undisputed matter of accounting history. If
you want to start finger pointing about 'changing scripture', we only condemn ourselves as we Protestants were the ones to drop texts. Even worse,



This may not make much sense to our modern ears, but it is understandable if you were familiar with Luther's context, with the degree to which the RCC had become corrupted and to which the Reformation upturned society. There were many excesses.

Lest we distrust the secular wikipedia's take, let's take it from the horses mouth



That last bit is an important note, even the original KJV included many of these books. We don't need to get upset or defensive about it, just take it as an area you can expand your study to become more familiar with the ideas and stories our forebears knew and valued.

Even from the Protestant perspective, these Apocryphal works are still good, being regarded as equal to any other human work. Yet while you will commonly see churches talk about, and hold bible studies around, contemporary books and take them as guides in theology never do you see them do so for these ancient and valued works. Most don't even know they exist. Even I myself haven't read most of them.

I'll stop flogging the dead horse now. Forgive me if this was overwrought, I find history interesting.

First, I have no issue with the idea you are stating. That's my motto, question everything. I have no issue with the Word of God in everything we see, whether it is a sacred writing, to a Damascus road experience. God is ready to speak to us in anyway we will listen. But yet when individuals bring up a 'spiritualization' of God's Word a lot of defenses go up trying to pin an idea to some Scripture that they try and based on their life experience. It's all God's Word, it just needs to be defined by an individual so that they can see God clearer for themselves.

That's it, no problem with me in your view.

 

[rockfox]

spiritualization' of God's Word

Simple miscommunication. I spoke of over spiritualizing the idea of scripture; it's just a word, it has a dictionary definition. I didn't intend to degrade the value or holyness of God's word.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I have found this same info also @rockfox and have found even more re the same topic. I have a good bit in files but don’t wanna extend this thread with them as some of them are quite lengthy on the subject.

I would highly encourage all to read the preface to the original King James written by the translators themselves. And to do just a little bit more study into the “Canonization” process. I have multiple references by Irenaeus, Justin Martyr etc of the authority of the Septuagint and its almost universal usage by the 2nd century church as well as the Apostles and first century church fathers. (The Septuagint includes multiple deuterocanonical books that are not included in the Masoretic Text used for the KJV) It is not until you get to the mid 3-5 hundreds that the Masoretic text becomes “complete” and “Canonized”. As best I can tell, the same Jewish mindset towards Christ is the culture that both the Masoretic text and the Talmud’s was written from.

IMO the preoccupation with sola Protestant Canon (as opposed to sola Scriptura) is a direct result of fundamentalism in the 20th century

 

[rockfox]

IMO the preoccupation with sola Protestant Canon (as opposed to sola Scriptura) is a direct result of fundamentalism in the 20th century

Ya it was very much a reaction to the textual criticism that was overthrowing peoples faith at the time. In context it made sense, even if it went too far and papered over the nuance of history.

Ya the use of the Masoretic Text over the Septuagint is the one problem I have with modern translations in light of what we've learned about later changes to the text by the Jews.

 

[Pacman]

So I want to clarify... are you guys saying there are books other than the 66 books of the Bible that are just as valid and should be taken as equal to the Bible?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

So I want to clarify... are you guys saying there are books other than the 66 books of the Bible that are just as valid and should be taken as equal to the Bible?

Thats a great question. One that I’m not comfortable going that far for some docs. From what I’ve seen, it makes me question the Canonization efforts, especially if it equals the “everything else is evil” mantra, and it makes me seriously question why certain other writings are not included in the Canon. (some of them I’ve found the reasons for and IMO the reasons are humanly unsustainable)

In the absence of perfect knowledge, Ive settled that the Canon has served a purpose, but that purpose was not supposed to be to restrict knowledge of other reputable writings, rather to focus and compile the available documents to focus on Christ. IMO the Canonization process was very similar in effect and context to fundamentalism. Both utilized to combat a Satanic attack on the church, but both have limited utility and should not be taken to extremes.

IMO There are documents that, if available would definitely qualify as Scripture by writings included in the Canon.

 

[Pacman]

Thats a great question. One that I’m not comfortable going that far for some docs. From what I’ve seen, it makes me question the Canonization efforts, especially if it equals the “everything else is evil” mantra, and it makes me seriously question why certain other writings are not included in the Canon. (some of them I’ve found the reasons for and IMO the reasons are humanly unsustainable)

In the absence of perfect knowledge, Ive settled that the Canon has served a purpose, but that purpose was not supposed to be to restrict knowledge of other reputable writings, rather to focus and compile the available documents to focus on Christ. IMO the Canonization process was very similar in effect and context to fundamentalism. Both utilized to combat a Satanic attack on the church, but both have limited utility and should not be taken to extremes.

IMO There are documents that, if available would definitely qualify as Scripture by writings included in the Canon.

So.... yes and no????

 

[PeteR]

Good discussion, the challenge is who is determining the sacredness of a writing and why?

I think there is a lot of value in many ancient works but I try to be careful citing outside of the accepted (Protestant) cannon primarily because so often there are readers who may think they have the foundation to swim in those waters, but quickly find themselves questioning everything. Almost always, for the protection of the reader, I open and close with caveats.

 

[rockfox]

So I want to clarify... are you guys saying there are books other than the 66 books of the Bible that are just as valid and should be taken as equal to the Bible?

Quite possibly. I'm not clear on why the Protestants left some out. I struggle to justify that, but I haven't studied the actual historic details for why they did that in detail. I've heard some of the reasons how modern Protestants justify the cannon, but those reasons applied to Enoch would include it. I haven't any strenuous objection to embracing the Orthodox or RCC cannon. But then I haven't read most of those works either. If I had to guess I'd say the Protestant cannon is too restricted; but I don't know.

I have the impression that the cannon wasn't "these and only these are scripture" but rather it was to say, "for sure these are scripture". The other works were kept, preserved and passed down for a reason; I think even in the Bible compilations of the time.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

So.... yes and no????

Personally, I love and adore the King James, (Schofield edition) it will probably be the only translation I ever use, but this does not mean that I ignore issues within it that I have found. It was translated with several bias’ (not necessarily bad bias and noted by the translators themselves) and understanding those gives greater clarity in certain passages.

IMO this translation and canon has been elevated beyond its merit, not by the translators who are very matter of fact about their own limitations, but by fundamentalism some 2-300 years later in an attempt to control the debate thru restricted knowledge and history.

Ever wonder why early Christian history is so unknown in fundamentalism (aside from certain “approved”authors and commentary)? The church leaders and apologists preceding the Council of Nicea shed a lot of light and confirm documents as Scripture that are not included in the current Canon. This can only raise questions that they can’t answer with their current platform.

I will say that I believe that all of it is scripture, just that not all of scripture that God has given is included in the current canon. Our present canon is witness itself that this is true.

 

[FollowingHim]

I have gained the impression, and I could be wrong, that the Protestant church simply decided to adopt the Hebrew Tanakh as the Old Testament. In throwing out the problematic views of the Catholic church and trying to trim things back to the fundamentals of Christianity, they figured that the Jews would have the Old Testament correct, but the church had the New correct. So they trimmed the Old back to what the Jews were using. I'm sure there was enormous more detailed study and debate that went into it, but the final conclusion seems to be this simplistic.

But that means that every book that the Jews rejected because it was too Christian also ended up being thrown out by the Protestants. Much of the Apocrypha has a more Christian flavour than the rest of the Old Testament. It's highly valuable for Christian study, and without it there's a big gap of about 400 years in the history also.

Given that the LXX was translated from the Hebrew, the only reason the Apocrypha isn't preserved in Hebrew is because the Jews have deliberately chosen not to preserve it.