Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
...In another thread Azure and I were discussing something and the subject of non-canonical books that were in circulation by Christians in the first few hundred years but were eventually not included in the canon.
His contention was that the books that were left out were left out because they dealt with mundane things, or they re-stated things already contained in the other books, etc.. my contention was that some books were left out because they had different doctrines and such in them, things that would have gone against the Nicene Creed or significantly contradicted the eventual canon. I mentioned the Gospel of Thomas because of it's gnostic slant (understanding the saying would unlock the secret teachings of Jesus I think is what it says).
I haven't had a chance to go do some research on that from where I got the idea, just wondered if you had some input?
Thanks in advance.
|
The link provided by Cheese does a decent job of explaining the historical development of the Jewish and Christian canons of Scripture. It needs to be noted that the very concept of "canon" is reactionary: by this, I mean that pressure was placed upon certain religious sects to provide ever narrower clarification of doctrine, and official lists of sacred teachings resulted from this. I believe that in the earliest Christianities, it would have been preferable for there to be no canon at all! For the Jews, much of the need to come to agreement about what was official religious scripture was accelerated by two things: First, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple essentially and eternally de-centralized the Jewish cult, and out of a need to preserve their religious culture and self-identity, the Hebrew scriptures become suddenly more important than ever before. Second, the rapid and pervasive growth of the new Christian sects, and their own rudimentary canonical programme presented a heightened need for the rabbi's to delimit their scriptures.
Something else I should like to add to all of this is that the importance and centrality of "scripture" prior to the second or even third century is greatly exaggerated. In Judaism, the Temple and the cult that had developed around it over the course of the past several centuries was the focal point of their religious beliefs and practice. "Scripture"—if there ever was even such a thing—was little more than collections of liturgy and "histories" which supplemented the cultic practices. In the Church, all that mattered was Christ. There is much evidence that in the late first and through the second century, the "scriptures"—which were never very well defined—were read and cherished, but that these, along with the whole of their developing theology was subject to the "rule of faith". That is, to the teachings and leadership of the Apostles, and the Apostolic Fathers.
One only need glance at the earliest of the Christian creeds to guage how important "scripture" was in the first few centuries. The Apostles Creed—widely regarded as the most ancient—makes no mention whatsoever of "scripture". The first affirmation of a sacred, closed collection of religious literature does not occur until the fourth century, where it is the seventh article in the Nicene Creed. The state of the early Church is at substantial odds with modern evangelicalism, where an affirmation of "Scripture" is often one of the first three tenents of any so-called "statement of faith"!
My favourite part of the linked essay—and perhaps the most telling, in this discussion—is where Mr. Taylor makes the following observation about fundamentalism:
Quote:
|
"If the Word of God is inerrant, or something close to it, then deciding that a book is a member of the canon of the Bible is to proclaim it infallible. The true believer now regards a canonical book as no mere human creation, but God-breathed and incapable of error. It now has magical powers. It has been observed by some Christians that fundamentalists do not so much worship Jesus as worship a book; thus, they are bibliolaters."
|
One of the very reasons, I believe, that the early Church was distinctly not a "people of the Book", was in an effort to safeguard against this very disingenuine form of idolatry. In the vast majority of evangelical churches today, God has been replaced. Jesus Christ has become little more than an icon. THE BIBLE is the supreme object of devotion, veneration, and worship. Hymns are sung in praise of its supremecy. Prayers are uttered to God, but their content is primarily that he might aide our understanding of it; God has become the Bible's handmaid. The pulpit has replaced the altar, and the sermon has replaced the sacraments.
Evangelicals are fanatical in their devotion, but I sincerely question where that devotion lays. In my observance, they are idolators and apostates of the worst kind: they have usurped the supreme being with something as common as scripture.