The Canon of the Bible
As Geppy suggested here, I decided to investigate a little bit about the canonization of the Bible. This was, I must say, a new road for me, because I am new to this area of the Bible. So my adventure started with the obvious question, "What the heck is he talking about?"
After a few google searches, I now have a clue, and may move forward. If you, like myself, are new to some of these terms, please read on and I will try to explain what I am learning as I go.
The Biblical canon was created to keep the message that the Apostles said, as a divine interpretation or inspiration of God. It was necessary because after the Apostles and prophets died, many false writings were being produced and in 302 AD Emperor Diocletian issued an edict that all the sacred books should be destroyed by fire.
The list of books which are considered "canon" is dependent on a few things. The Jewish have a different list than Christians, and then Catholics and Protestants have a difference also, called the Apocryphal.
Now, to the question at hand. "I'd be interested in your thoughts on the Epistles that the church at one time accepted as canonical, but then removed from the canon as part of church politics" The book of Enoch was given as an example.
Epistles are the "letters" in the New Testament. They are most easily spotted in the New Testament by an introduction of the author, and his credentials (1 Corinthians 1:1 "Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,")
What I found online from the website, www.anabaptists.org, this was said: " At the time of the formation of the New Testament canon twenty out of the twenty-seven books were readily and universally accepted as genuine, and therefore called "Homologoumena" (i.e. acknowledged). These twenty books were the four Gospels, the Acts, the epistles of Paul (except that to the Hebrews), and the first epistles of John and Peter. The other seven books--Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James, Revelation--were disputed for a time by particular churches, and were therefore styled "Antilegomena" (or disputed)."
No where have I read anything about "church politics" interfering with canonization. Catholic Christians, Protestant and Evangelical Christians hold the same canon of the New Testament, 27 books, all having been originally written in the Greek language.
A "Book of Enoch" would seem slightly strange to me, because Enoch was seventh from Adam (Jude 1:14). It sounds more likely to fall under the label "pseudepigrapha" or false. I could be wrong.
Geppy, at this point, I would ask what specifically you mean when you say church politics, and which books you are talking about.
6 comments:
Some reasons I found were:
1) Some of their teaching is unbiblical or heretical.
2) Are extrabiblical or fanciful.
3) subbiblical, at time even immoral.
4) written in the postbiblical or intertestament period.
The book of Enoch is classified as pseudepigrapha
5) Not received by God's people.
What are these reasons for?
Terminology:
Homologoumena - Accepted by all
Antilegomena - at one time been disputed
Pseudepigrapha - rejected by virtually everyone
Apocrypha - Accepted by some
------------------------------------
There are 5 books that are Antilegomena. Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Ezekiel, Proverbs.
There are many Pseudepigrapha. The resource I have only lists 18. There is approximately 280 non-canonical gospels.
John 21:24-25
"This is the disciple who testifies these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true. and there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen"
Enoch specifically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch
Also, quoted in Jude. Therefore Jude at least felt it was high enough up on his list to place it in his epistle. Also, is canon for the Ethiopic church. Generally accepted as pseudepigrapha does not mean false.
Pseudepigrapha in general doesn't mean false; just not accepted.
As to other books, if you research a little further you will find that there were other books that were accepted as canon by some and not others. And thus to form a unified church, the disputed books were rejected from the canon to form a unified front to other teachings that were deemed heretical. This is what I refer to as "church politics."
Some starting points can be found on Wikipedia, though only as starting points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon
When doing research on anything religious, I try to avoid wikipedia. I have used it in the past, however I now refrain from using it.
It can be a descent starting point. I have found a copy of the book of Enoch, where in Jude did you see a reference?
As far as any other books, I would suggest that those whom canonized these books were much smarter than I. That aside, reading them isn't wrong, but before changing any of my beliefs, I would test them against the current Bible.
Geppy,
You are correct that it may be quoted in Jude, however the Bible quotes from sources that are not righteous. For example, quotes from heathen poets (Acts 17:28).
Also, when it is referenced it does not say "it is written" or "the scripture say".
Post a Comment