Why the need for canonicity? Latin word “ Canon” meant measuring stick. In 1st century no great need for canon to be defined - because apostles were divinely appointed . The rise of heresies occasioned the need to define a canon. During times of intermittent persecution there was risk of scriptures being confiscated. As 2nd century wore on - death of original apostles with their oral teachings would be lost. Thus the early Christians recognized the need to define canon of scripture for later generations to know what was and what was not apostolic doctrine.
Found list of criteria for NT canon selection on various sites:
Notes 3 criteria:
1 apostolic origin,
2 recognition by the earliest Churches, 3 agreement with the doctrine the apostles wrote or taught elsewhere
Number 3 looks a little less scientific than the first two.
Why the need for canonicity? Latin word “ Canon” meant measuring stick. Yup
In 1st century no great need for canon to be defined - because apostles were divinely appointed .
That is a non-sequitur.
In the next line you mention heresies. Well they started while the apostles were alive, and the bigger ones in the near future God could foresee.The need for an authoritative apostolic canon was great before the apostles died.
The rise of heresies occasioned the need to define a canon.
YUP, and they started early, while the writers were alive and still writing.
During times of intermittent persecution there was risk of scriptures being confiscated. As 2nd century wore on - death of original apostles with their oral teachings would be lost.
LOST to the reprobate official church as it developed.
Not lost to whomever had inherited the apostolic canon.
SOMEBODY had to get those writings mentioned in 2 Timothy’s dramatic ending.
Thus the early Christians recognized the need to define canon of scripture for later generations to know what was and what was not apostolic doctrine.
Where in 2 Timothy does it list the orthodox books? Where does it say, for example, The Apocalypse of John of Patmos is right but The Apocalypse of
Peter is wrong?
LOST to the reprobate official church as it developed.
Not lost to whomever had inherited the apostolic canon.
SOMEBODY had to get those writings mentioned in 2 Timothy’s dramatic ending.
You make it sound like this trail is lost to the ages. There were two main locations geographically in the first century for that were basically "centers" for Christianity - Alexandria and Antioch. Alexandria was rife with Gnostiscism and almost as soon as they got their hands on an epistle from the Apostles they rewrote it and infused it with Gnostiscism. From this line of Greek Texts can be traced Codex Sinaticus/Codex Vatacanis which were the two main texts used by Westcott and Hort in the 18th century. Antioch was Paul's main center and the Christians there took great care to preserve the intergrety of Apostolic writings. This line of texts trace to the Textus Receptus and of course KJV, Geneva, et al. Bibles were translated in to English from these texts. Last time I tried to tell you this you gave some smart a$$, dismissive comment about the devil whispering in my ear when I quoted you verifiable history.
You make it sound like this trail is lost to the ages. There were two main locations geographically in the first century for that were basically "centers" for Christianity - Alexandria and Antioch. Alexandria was rife with Gnostiscism and almost as soon as they got their hands on an epistle from the Apostles they rewrote it and infused it with Gnostiscism. From this line of Greek Texts can be traced Codex Sinaticus/Codex Vatacanis which were the two main texts used by Westcott and Hort in the 18th century. Antioch was Paul's main center and the Christians there took great care to preserve the intergrety of Apostolic writings. This line of texts trace to the Textus Receptus and of course KJV, Geneva, et al. Bibles were translated in to English from these texts. Last time I tried to tell you this you gave some smart a$$, dismissive comment about the devil whispering in my ear when I quoted you verifiable history.
Respectfully, OS, it sounds like you are addressing text types, transmission vectors and translations. These are different issues from canon. HOWEVER, the Alexandrian vs. Byzantine text type would make for a fascinating topic.
Respectfully, OS, it sounds like you are addressing text types, transmission vectors and translations. These are different issues from canon. HOWEVER, the Alexandrian vs. Byzantine text type would make for a fascinating topic.
Yes, I am addressing text types based on this:
Quote
Not lost to whomever had inherited the apostolic canon.
This is why I got specific and sorta went off topic a little because it's no mystery what happened to the writings that eventually were compiled into our Biblical Canon. It is a fascinating topic and one I have studied extensively. But it's hard to get into the Canon and not get into texts since the texts are what were circulated during the first century. Although, getting too specific is definitely off topic.
This is why I got specific and sorta went off topic a little because it's no mystery what happened to the writings that eventually were compiled into our Biblical Canon. It is a fascinating topic and one I have studied extensively. But it's hard to get into the Canon and not get into texts since the texts are what were circulated during the first century. Although, getting too specific is definitely off topic.
Right. I get it. Lo shonta!
What's unique about this particular canon topic is the assumption (postulate) that the canon identifies itself as the canon. Still waiting for the evidence of a list of authoritative books listed within the authoritative books identified as authoritative by their own authority.
What's unique about this particular canon topic is the assumption (postulate) that the canon identifies itself as the canon. Still waiting for the evidence of a list of authoritative books listed within the authoritative books identified as authoritative by their own authority.
Yeah....I think Elmer Fudd was the original canon compiler...probably replaced by Daffy Duck until Jerome came along and shuffled the deck. Im sure before Jerome the canon was in perfect authratative order with itself as the defining authority. Only makes sense...lo shonta....
This is why I got specific and sorta went off topic a little because it's no mystery what happened to the writings that eventually were compiled into our Biblical Canon. It is a fascinating topic and one I have studied extensively. But it's hard to get into the Canon and not get into texts since the texts are what were circulated during the first century. Although, getting too specific is definitely off topic.
Yes it is. Absolutely. Been a focus of my studies for a while now...except I no longer study the way I used to...Im a little more balanced and somewhat intermittent. So Im taking my time and enjoying the ride.
What's unique about this particular canon topic is the assumption (postulate) that the canon identifies itself as the canon. Still waiting for the evidence of a list of authoritative books listed within the authoritative books identified as authoritative by their own authority.
Wait on. But you wont see it from me.
Who ever said my theory comes up with an authoritative list of books ? Not me.
It does come up with a partial list of early writers and canonizers, and it documents the attitudes and activities of these men had towards the end of the First Century.
*/*/*/*/*
On a completely different topic, I see you folks had some difficulty with SIT fluency, from your frequent "lo shonta" quips.
Was that a personal difficulty you yourselves had with fluency, or are you decrying the fact that many others in TWI did not graduate to the extreme fluency that is available in SIT?
Why the need for canonicity? Latin word “ Canon” meant measuring stick. In 1st century no great need for canon to be defined - because apostles were divinely appointed . The rise of heresies occasioned the need to define a canon. During times of intermittent persecution there was risk of scriptures being confiscated. As 2nd century wore on - death of original apostles with their oral teachings would be lost. Thus the early Christians recognized the need to define canon of scripture for later generations to know what was and what was not apostolic doctrine.
Yes it is. Absolutely. Been a focus of my studies for a while now...except I no longer study the way I used to...Im a little more balanced and somewhat intermittent. So Im taking my time and enjoying the ride.
In a sense we are verifying the criteria of the NT canon in our personal studies through the use of textual criticism and other Bible resource tools…and in my opinion the most effective and productive “tools” for our studies is an ongoing development of critical thinking skills, honesty, humility and sensitivity to the Holy Spirit.
Who ever said my theory comes up with an authoritative list of books ? Not me.
Well, that's what a canon is. What do you think this topic is about? You said the evangelists assembled the canon. I knew you were being willfully ignorant of what canon means. That's why I provided the definition, repeatedly.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
On a completely different topic, I see you folks had some difficulty with SIT fluency, from your frequent "lo shonta" quips.
How do you see that? With your binoculars? I never had problems with fluency. In fact, I'm trilingual in SIT. You probably didn't even know that was available. But, hey, you can't go beyond what you were taught.
I think if victor had believed big enough to live long enough, Father would have lead him to me with a trail of cookies, and I would have taught him how (H-O-W) to SIT fluently.
In a sense we are verifying the criteria of the NT canon in our personal studies through the use of textual criticism and other Bible resource tools…and in my opinion the most effective and productive “tools” for our studies is an ongoing development of critical thinking skills, honesty, humility and sensitivity to the Holy Spirit.
As I read of your Top-Down approach results, I am learning some good things.
To the extent that your studies there have encouraged you to accept the “standard” canon as Authoritative, that is good.I am picking up some traces of that in you, some of the other posters, and some of the links you have provided.
My experience with the Top-Down approach in early 1972 was discouragingto me. It made me doubt, on many levels, the veracity of the PFAL recognized KJV canon.
My discouraging experience back then may have been due to my immaturity, age 23 and fresh out of the class.It may also have been due to me being exposed to Top-Down approaches done by the radical theologians of that era, 50 years ago.Thomas Altizer’s “God is Dead” theology was on the cover of Time Magazine then.
So maybe my PFAL maturity here in 2022 and some better Top-Down approach sources have made it possible for me to learn more.
But as soon as I hear things coming from Top-Down approaches, like “2 Timothy and 2 Peter were late RC forgeries,” then I tune out.The valuation of different books in the NT canon by textual criticism and other “scientific” techniques is where I get off the bus.
*/*/*/*
Meanwhile, the Bottom-Up approach seed has been planted here.
I think both methods, when handled properly, can encourage us to rely on the Bible canon we have received.
I think if victor had believed big enough to live long enough, Father would have lead him to me with a trail of cookies, and I would have taught him how (H-O-W) to SIT fluently.
A year or two ago here I posted details on my only in-person hearing of VPW operate SIT and interpretation, live, and not a recording. It was fluent.
I was very keen on spotting fluency, or lack thereof. This was so that I could lead Excellors' Sessions better for the Intermediate Class we would often run.
I think fluency was a problem in TWI, and lots of leaders were stricken by the fears that prevent fluency.
I never got to help any of those leaders, but in Excellors' Sessions there was ample chance to help new students with it.
So, I was really listening carefully when I finally got the chance to hear VPW. It was years after I got good at ministering fluency in Excellors' Sessions. He was fluent.
I lived in New Knoxville town for 2 years, and sat in twigs with Uncle Harry, Liddy, Ruben, and Mal George attending, and all 3 were pretty fluent. Almost everyone who took PFAL could use some occasional 5-senses, mechanical tuning-up of their mechanics of speech, me included.
How do you see that? With your binoculars? I never had problems with fluency. In fact, I'm trilingual in SIT. You probably didn't even know that was available. But, hey, you can't go beyond what you were taught.
Had you read further before asking that you;d have seen that I knew my observations weren't conclusive, so I asked questions:
I had written, "Was that a personal difficulty you yourselves had with fluency, or are you decrying the fact that many others in TWI did not graduate to the extreme fluency that is available in SIT?"
Was that a personal difficulty you yourselves had with fluency, or are you decrying the fact that many others in TWI did not graduate to the extreme fluency that is available in SIT?
Nah..just poking fun at vpw for faking it with his lo shonta crap.
Well, that's what a canon is. What do you think this topic is about? You said the evangelists assembled the canon. I knew you were being willfully ignorant of what canon means. That's why I provided the definition, repeatedly.
No, you got that wrong.
As I have stated several times now, I see the evangelists ATTITUDES and ACTIVITIES to be indicators that they knew of the need for a list, a future canon, and they they were active in assembling such a list.
The contents of their early, preliminary lists we do not have. We do have their inspired writings that reflect their pro-canon ATTITUDES and ACTIVITIES.
You make it sound like this trail is lost to the ages. There were two main locations geographically in the first century for that were basically "centers" for Christianity - Alexandria and Antioch. Alexandria was rife with Gnostiscism and almost as soon as they got their hands on an epistle from the Apostles they rewrote it and infused it with Gnostiscism. From this line of Greek Texts can be traced Codex Sinaticus/Codex Vatacanis which were the two main texts used by Westcott and Hort in the 18th century. Antioch was Paul's main center and the Christians there took great care to preserve the intergrety of Apostolic writings. This line of texts trace to the Textus Receptus and of course KJV, Geneva, et al. Bibles were translated in to English from these texts. Last time I tried to tell you this you gave some smart a$$, dismissive comment about the devil whispering in my ear when I quoted you verifiable history.
Please pardon me. Was that in the heat of battle?
It would help me to see the exact wording and context.
Maybe I can manage to say the same essential content, without the whisper thingy.
Meanwhile, I will focus on the content of your most recent response here, and try to respond later.
On a completely different topic, I see you folks had some difficulty with SIT fluency, from your frequent "lo shonta" quips.
Well, let's see now. On a typical day, we had a believers' meeting before the 6 AM run, another at breakfast, another at dinner, another at the end of work time, another at night twig, another at end-of-day house meeting.....
So,Yeeeaaah...Nope! I don't think there was any discernable lack of "fluency".
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
199
126
90
153
Popular Days
Oct 17
109
Oct 11
87
Oct 15
69
Oct 10
54
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 199 posts
T-Bone 126 posts
OldSkool 90 posts
Nathan_Jr 153 posts
Popular Days
Oct 17 2022
109 posts
Oct 11 2022
87 posts
Oct 15 2022
69 posts
Oct 10 2022
54 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
I haven't been following this thread but had a peek. This whole thread is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the canon of scripture. But I did note the following, originally posted by our
waysider
Ahhh, those were the days.
waysider
Bake 'em away, toys.
Posted Images
Mike
That's a lot of bold fonting.
I can see an "bababababab" structure to it.
Where "a" is not bold fonted
and "b" is bold fonted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Here it is in abababababa
noun
A collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine
The writings or other works that are generally agreed to begood, important, and worth studying.
a: an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture
b: the authentic works of a writer
c: a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Found list of criteria for NT canon selection on various sites:
Notes 3 criteria:
1 apostolic origin,
2 recognition by the earliest Churches,
3 agreement with the doctrine the apostles wrote or taught elsewhere
From:
https://explorethebible.lifeway.com/blog/adults/how-did-we-get-the-new-testament-canon/
~~~~
1Written by recognized prophet or apostle
2 Written by those associated with recognized apostle or prophet
3 Truthfulness - see Deut. 18: 20-22
4 Faithfulness to previously accepted canonical manuscripts
5Confirmed by Christ, apostle, prophet see Luke 24:24-27, 44; II Pet 3:16;
From;
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/blog/curious-christian/7-10-2012/what-criteria-were-used-determine-canon-scripture
~~~~
Why the need for canonicity? Latin word “ Canon” meant measuring stick. In 1st century no great need for canon to be defined - because apostles were divinely appointed . The rise of heresies occasioned the need to define a canon. During times of intermittent persecution there was risk of scriptures being confiscated. As 2nd century wore on - death of original apostles with their oral teachings would be lost. Thus the early Christians recognized the need to define canon of scripture for later generations to know what was and what was not apostolic doctrine.
From:
https://www.lifeway.com/en/articles/bible-study-establishing-new-testament-canon
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Edited by MikeNumber 3 looks a little less scientific than the first two.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Number 3 looks a little less scientific than the first two."
This doesn't mean personal, subjective agreement. It means the sources are objectively in agreement with each other
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Where in 2 Timothy does it list the orthodox books? Where does it say, for example, The Apocalypse of John of Patmos is right but The Apocalypse of
Peter is wrong?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
You make it sound like this trail is lost to the ages. There were two main locations geographically in the first century for that were basically "centers" for Christianity - Alexandria and Antioch. Alexandria was rife with Gnostiscism and almost as soon as they got their hands on an epistle from the Apostles they rewrote it and infused it with Gnostiscism. From this line of Greek Texts can be traced Codex Sinaticus/Codex Vatacanis which were the two main texts used by Westcott and Hort in the 18th century. Antioch was Paul's main center and the Christians there took great care to preserve the intergrety of Apostolic writings. This line of texts trace to the Textus Receptus and of course KJV, Geneva, et al. Bibles were translated in to English from these texts. Last time I tried to tell you this you gave some smart a$$, dismissive comment about the devil whispering in my ear when I quoted you verifiable history.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Respectfully, OS, it sounds like you are addressing text types, transmission vectors and translations. These are different issues from canon. HOWEVER, the Alexandrian vs. Byzantine text type would make for a fascinating topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yes, I am addressing text types based on this:
This is why I got specific and sorta went off topic a little because it's no mystery what happened to the writings that eventually were compiled into our Biblical Canon. It is a fascinating topic and one I have studied extensively. But it's hard to get into the Canon and not get into texts since the texts are what were circulated during the first century. Although, getting too specific is definitely off topic.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Right. I get it. Lo shonta!
What's unique about this particular canon topic is the assumption (postulate) that the canon identifies itself as the canon. Still waiting for the evidence of a list of authoritative books listed within the authoritative books identified as authoritative by their own authority.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yeah....I think Elmer Fudd was the original canon compiler...probably replaced by Daffy Duck until Jerome came along and shuffled the deck. Im sure before Jerome the canon was in perfect authratative order with itself as the defining authority. Only makes sense...lo shonta....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Textual criticism is a fascinating discipline!Textual criticism
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yes it is. Absolutely. Been a focus of my studies for a while now...except I no longer study the way I used to...Im a little more balanced and somewhat intermittent. So Im taking my time and enjoying the ride.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Wait on. But you wont see it from me.
Who ever said my theory comes up with an authoritative list of books ? Not me.
It does come up with a partial list of early writers and canonizers, and it documents the attitudes and activities of these men had towards the end of the First Century.
*/*/*/*/*
On a completely different topic, I see you folks had some difficulty with SIT fluency, from your frequent "lo shonta" quips.
Was that a personal difficulty you yourselves had with fluency, or are you decrying the fact that many others in TWI did not graduate to the extreme fluency that is available in SIT?
Just curious. Could be a whole new thread topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
In a sense we are verifying the criteria of the NT canon in our personal studies through the use of textual criticism and other Bible resource tools…and in my opinion the most effective and productive “tools” for our studies is an ongoing development of critical thinking skills, honesty, humility and sensitivity to the Holy Spirit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Well, that's what a canon is. What do you think this topic is about? You said the evangelists assembled the canon. I knew you were being willfully ignorant of what canon means. That's why I provided the definition, repeatedly.
How do you see that? With your binoculars? I never had problems with fluency. In fact, I'm trilingual in SIT. You probably didn't even know that was available. But, hey, you can't go beyond what you were taught.
I think if victor had believed big enough to live long enough, Father would have lead him to me with a trail of cookies, and I would have taught him how (H-O-W) to SIT fluently.
Edited by Nathan_JrLo shonta!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
As I read of your Top-Down approach results, I am learning some good things.
To the extent that your studies there have encouraged you to accept the “standard” canon as Authoritative, that is good. I am picking up some traces of that in you, some of the other posters, and some of the links you have provided.
My experience with the Top-Down approach in early 1972 was discouraging to me. It made me doubt, on many levels, the veracity of the PFAL recognized KJV canon.
My discouraging experience back then may have been due to my immaturity, age 23 and fresh out of the class. It may also have been due to me being exposed to Top-Down approaches done by the radical theologians of that era, 50 years ago. Thomas Altizer’s “God is Dead” theology was on the cover of Time Magazine then.
So maybe my PFAL maturity here in 2022 and some better Top-Down approach sources have made it possible for me to learn more.
But as soon as I hear things coming from Top-Down approaches, like “2 Timothy and 2 Peter were late RC forgeries,” then I tune out. The valuation of different books in the NT canon by textual criticism and other “scientific” techniques is where I get off the bus.
*/*/*/*
Meanwhile, the Bottom-Up approach seed has been planted here.
I think both methods, when handled properly, can encourage us to rely on the Bible canon we have received.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
A year or two ago here I posted details on my only in-person hearing of VPW operate SIT and interpretation, live, and not a recording. It was fluent.
I was very keen on spotting fluency, or lack thereof. This was so that I could lead Excellors' Sessions better for the Intermediate Class we would often run.
I think fluency was a problem in TWI, and lots of leaders were stricken by the fears that prevent fluency.
I never got to help any of those leaders, but in Excellors' Sessions there was ample chance to help new students with it.
So, I was really listening carefully when I finally got the chance to hear VPW. It was years after I got good at ministering fluency in Excellors' Sessions. He was fluent.
I lived in New Knoxville town for 2 years, and sat in twigs with Uncle Harry, Liddy, Ruben, and Mal George attending, and all 3 were pretty fluent. Almost everyone who took PFAL could use some occasional 5-senses, mechanical tuning-up of their mechanics of speech, me included.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Had you read further before asking that you;d have seen that I knew my observations weren't conclusive, so I asked questions:
I had written, "Was that a personal difficulty you yourselves had with fluency, or are you decrying the fact that many others in TWI did not graduate to the extreme fluency that is available in SIT?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Nah..just poking fun at vpw for faking it with his lo shonta crap.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No, you got that wrong.
As I have stated several times now, I see the evangelists ATTITUDES and ACTIVITIES to be indicators that they knew of the need for a list, a future canon, and they they were active in assembling such a list.
The contents of their early, preliminary lists we do not have. We do have their inspired writings that reflect their pro-canon ATTITUDES and ACTIVITIES.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Please pardon me. Was that in the heat of battle?
It would help me to see the exact wording and context.
Maybe I can manage to say the same essential content, without the whisper thingy.
Meanwhile, I will focus on the content of your most recent response here, and try to respond later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Well, let's see now. On a typical day, we had a believers' meeting before the 6 AM run, another at breakfast, another at dinner, another at the end of work time, another at night twig, another at end-of-day house meeting.....
So,Yeeeaaah...Nope! I don't think there was any discernable lack of "fluency".
lo maka seetay, y'all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.