The Library - 2013-09-16 (page 1 of 2)

« first day (712 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3897 days later) »

1:35 AM

This is a theological question that could a couple more VTCs

3

Q: What are the criteria for evaluating whether a book is included in the canon of scripture?

What criteria were used in collecting the Scriptures (Canon) which we now know today as the Holy Bible. I'm not looking for new theological hypotheses here, just established ones. For example, how did they decide that a Scripture (say Mark) was canonical?

biblical-theology canonicity

According to whom? This is inherently a theological question, not a textual one. There are many books which various groups consider canonical. Are you referring to all of these or only a subset of these works? Which perspective are you coming from? Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians all have different canon, as do Jews. — Dan 15 secs ago

5 hours later…

6:48 AM

@Dan I've rephrased the question title and added history — Jack Douglas 35 secs ago

6 hours later…

1:17 PM

@JackDouglas odd, it didn't ping me for this

hmmm, that is weird

@JackDouglas I still think it's off topic, if for nothing else because it is too broad

Canon is a theological concept, not a textual one

We are not a Christian site

So the Jewish canon? Christian? Which Christian tradition?

@Dan all of them?

None of them agree

This is a better fit for C.SE

The present answers give a variety of canons, are they missing major ones?

1:19 PM

The choice of the canons is theological/doctrinal, not textual

I'm not saying it's a bad answer, just that the question isn't a good fit here

@Dan sure, but it's now a history question

@JackDouglas then a good answer would need to cite numerous sources, mention a lot of information missing in Noah's answer and more

And cover the various approaches to the canon which differ in each tradition

@Dan a more exhaustive answer isn't necessarily better, but it could be…

there are 3 close votes, but I think we should solicit input from others

Caleb is not around much this week otherwise I'd suggest asking him

How about @Frank?

Or @Soldarnal?

basically the question is, whether or not this question is precisely on-topic, is it one we want to keep?

anyways

let's resume our meta chat

sure :)

1:25 PM

in option #3, do you consider applying a text to oneself or one's religion to be an unsupported leap?

i.e. as explained here

@Dan I agree btw, but the it is a subject that is likely to appeal to our experts

@Dan good question

for me 'unsupported' is about whether the connection is clear

(to the vast majority of readers)

so in your answer, with "and thus our record of debt" indicates that you apply this concept to yourself (ie you are indicating that you are a Christian of some sort)

@JackDouglas yes, but I have since edited that (i.e. one second ago)

because that is an unsupported leap

why does it need support, isn't the connection obvious? (I may be wrong)

@JackDouglas it is, but that doesn't make it supported

The issue is that it becomes a doctrinal application question

The person is not asking about the text alone, rather they are asking how the text applies to me/my religion

And the latter requires pastoral care

I can tell you what the text means

But I don't know all the specifics of your situation

You may actually be misapplying the text to yourself

You may not actually be a Christian, for instance ;)

I don't have the ability to interview you and get to know you to determine this

And that makes giving spiritual advice to you dangerous

In Orthodoxy, if you were to ask a priest from another parish a theological question - the answer you will get is "ask your priest"

I've come to see the immense wisdom in this approach

YOUR priest is appointed as your Shepherd, not the one down the street

I can help you understand what Paul said about the salvation of the Romans in his letter to them, in their specific context

I can't tell you what it says to YOU

Because your context is different

So this is not just some nitpicky ideological philosophical issue, there is also a doctrinal/theological/pastoral concern here for me as well

<\end wall of text>

Yes, but as well as being all arguable, it all sounds like the kind of thing you shouldn't have any hesitation applying to your own answers, but should perhaps hesitate about insisting on in other folks answers

I personally preferred your answer before the edit (and not because I am a Christian)

but it is fine either way and I don't want anyone to impose that sort of preference on you

1:34 PM

That is another issue

You and @Caleb both correctly pointed out that I am confusing questions and answers

My main beef is with questions

So I do need to clarify that

With answers I am not as much of a stickler

OK

The tools for answers are comments, votes, and if necessary flags or VTD

I do need to clarify this in my meta post

My option #3 actually brings one of the core standards for answers as a proposal for questions too however

But people can pretty much answer how they want, to include tons of doctrine

That doesn't bother me - I can just DV if the doctrine is unsupported - but it is often necessary for a good answer

It is questions I am concerned with

all questions are doctrinal

1:37 PM

yes I know

All language is doctrinal

:P

so I want standards for questions that don't say "No doctrine" but do promote intelligent, thoughful interesting content

rather than nonsense and pointless debate

But I think there should be some sort of standard that questions should not lead down specific doctrinal paths but be open to all responses, and should mainly seek to understand a text or issue not apply it to someone/thing

@JackDouglas I'm with you here

@Dan OK, but that isn't exactly what I'm suggesting in Option #3

Methinks there is a fourth way we are about to come up with, or an edit to #3 :P

My central sticking point is the issue I brought up about applying doctrine to oneself in questions

I can just DV it in answers if unjustified

But in questions I think it needs to be edited

I added a disclaimer here

And @JackDouglas keep in mind that I am open to allowing people to apply it to themselves, as long as we specifically clarify that this is OK

Again, while I may be opposed to it, I'll settle for a clear definition

If it's somewhere in writing and it is clear that this practice is acceptable, I will have accomplished my objective to have a clear standard

But to me, option #3 is just as unclear as our current policy. And I could still argue on the basis of #3 and the current policy that we are being inconsistent]

@JackDouglas what bothers me most about your intent language is that it could be used to excuse all sorts of doctrinal application if the OP claims s/he didn't mean to do it

Regardless of whether or not they meant to do it, there are certain ways of wording things that actually do seek to apply doctrine, whether the OP is intelligent enough to critically evaluate their intentions or not

1:52 PM

I'm wondering if what we both need to do is continue our question editing crusade

and have a chat each time we do

this'll help clarify the actual extent of the perceived problem

and also help me think straight

@JackDouglas I do think we get further with real examples and applications

At the same time, I'm pretty sure if I edited first person out of a question I'd be accused of changing the author's intent

And potentially get in trouble somehow

@Dan do it the way you want and we'll discuss it afterwards

I'm confident that whatever you do will improve the question even if I'd have done it differently

Also, please comment on my edits and make it clear what you would have done differently (and how much it would have mattered)

Get ready for an example in one minute

@Dan on a new question?

2

Q: Does Mark 11:26 mean that those who do not forgive others are not forgiven by God?

Mark 11:26 has always bothered me: But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your transgressions NASB As far as I can tell, the overall locus of the gospel message is that forgiveness is not about works, but about faith in Jesus. This verse in isolation se...

mark forgiveness

That question was a pastoral question through and through

Feel free to roll back my edit

2:00 PM

@JackDouglas I'm okay with question being here. It seems on topic to me. The formation of the canon is a big topic in biblical studies. The question may not come out of the text, but it does relate to what texts we use.

But I wanted to give you an example of how I would approach it

I've also been rolling over a couple of questions to ask here and want to get them right before I post them.

The main one deals with Revelation, but I specifically want a Jewish POV. Is @Monica still around?

@FrankLuke @JackDouglas Noah saved that question with a good answer that takes Jewish and multiple Christian perspectives into account

But I still think questions like that will attract more poo than crops

@FrankLuke she changed her name to @GoneSilent

@Dan Good. There's evidence that the writings were settled before the time of Christ, though. At the very latest, by the time Josephus was drug out of Israel.

@Dan Oh. She's really hurting, then.

@FrankLuke I'm afraid so. I presume you have read all about it on meta?

2:04 PM

@JackDouglas I don't hit meta much right now. I am swamped with work, church, and home.

@Dan I think your edit is an improvement over my edit. Does it harm Joseph's asnser at all?

@JackDouglas not that I can tell, his answer is excellent. I'd give it two upvotes if I could

@FrankLuke Well if you have the time at some point, this would be where to start.

but real life should come first!

@JackDouglas I'll leave the tab open and see about it on break or lunch today.

The question I'm rolling around in my head deals with the two witnesses of Revelation. They appear to be prophets.

I'm wondering if any Jewish apocalyptic writings would have clues as to their identity.

I know Christian interpretations might idnetify them as [Elijah and Enoch] or [Elijah and Moses].

I know in the rabbinic that some miracle workers had visions of Elijah visiting them, and I'm curious if there are other prophets who return that way.

I wouldn't want to exclude Christians interp in the question (those would be great answers), but I am very curious about the Jewish.

Since I really want a Jewish POV, c.se is out. And because it comes from Revelation, mi yodea is right out.

That makes this site the perfect place for it.

@FrankLuke are you still in the AG?

2:19 PM

@Dan Yes.

cool, I used to be an AG guy

took some coursework through Global University

I still have a lot of respect for AG

many Pentecostals seem to go off the deep end, AG had very biblical and sensible approaches to many things

@Dan I have a very good friend who works at Global. I used to work in the world missions department and then in the Sunday school literature.

@FrankLuke very cool!

@Dan I so agree with this.

Sunday school lit editor was the most rewarding and best job I have ever had.

I still consider myself a charismatic with a seat belt :P

2:23 PM

@Dan Glad I didn't say "I think it's the charismatics who give us a bad name." :P

@FrankLuke haha no it's the charismaniacs who give you a bad name :P

@Dan "charismaniacs" is an awesome name

@Dan I'll give you that one.

@JackDouglas @FrankLuke :P

@FrankLuke they always joke in Eastern Orthodoxy that we are Pentecostal Roman Catholics (we are neither), but it is a funny way to explain ourselves

And most Orthodox congregations speak in tongues every Sunday (English, an eastern European language, and at least one dead language)

:P

@Dan Is that like the Baptist preacher I heard once who said they weren't protestant?

He was serious in saying that "Baptists could trace themselves back to John the Baptist."

I actually bought a copy of the booklet he was working from. $1. Bad history links.

2:29 PM

@FrankLuke nice

@FrankLuke wow

I've heard a UPC minister trace his church to Acts 2

So I guess this isn't as surprising

And no, his church wasn't in modern-day near east

It was a condensation of Sermons from the Trail of Blood. Probably better links with more explanation, but this was the first I found with something.

@FrankLuke I see

@Dan I can see that. Hard for him to explain how the UPC can actually trace itself back to the first split of the AG.

Even EN Bell, our first superintendent and a great diplomat couldn't prevent that split.

@FrankLuke yup, no mention of Asuza street nor Methodism in his history lesson :P

He wasn't super at the time (IIRC), but he was still active

Or the Bible college in Kansas, I bet.

2:37 PM

nope

But AG has a special place in my heart because I returned to the faith in the AG

@Dan I am very glad to hear that.

I had become agnostic (during a pre-seminary program that took scholarly rigor more seriously than spiritual formation)

My faith wasn't ready for textual criticism and historical conflicts in the early Church

You might be glad to hear also that the AG world missions are working more with local churches when they go to places that already have one than they used to. At least, that was the direction things were going when I was in AGWM.

@FrankLuke that is very good to hear

I dropped out of the program and joined the Army

then came back through an AG church'

and slowly weaved my way here to Eastern Orthodoxy

:P

but I met my wife in the AG as well

@Dan I was KJV only when I first went to seminary. A TC issue in Numbers where I simply could not justify the KJ reading dashed that.

2:42 PM

so double awesome

@FrankLuke haha so you understand the conflict haha

Yep. I met my wife at seminary.

@FrankLuke awesome

@Dan Yep. But I followed the evidence and realized my faith was in the one behind the text not in any one translation.

@FrankLuke same here, especially now being outside of the 'sola scriptura' traditions

My 21-year-old Protestant self would have burned my 30-something self at the stake as a liberal heretic

@Dan If I may ask, how do traditions outside the sola scriptura handle apparent contradictions in the text? You know the protestant answer, so I won't repeat that here.

2:45 PM

@FrankLuke same here, I followed the historical and biblical evidence to find a God who is bigger than both and a Church that he had promised would prevail against the gates of Hades (that has)

@FrankLuke that depends on which contradictions :P

@FrankLuke for instance, the chronological contradictions in the gospels we believe are intentional

The Orthodox consider John to be a mystical gospel that intentionally changed things up to share a spiritual point (and original readers would have caught this)

@Dan To what purpose? I am not arguing. I am trying to understand. (ninjaed)

For a lot of reasons, such as linking Jesus with the Passover lamb

garden of Eden imagery (none of the synoptics call Gethsemane a garden, only John does)

and much more

@Dan This isn't from John, but like the two accounts of the temptation in the wilderness have different orders for the temptation.

St. John Chrysostom has written extensively on this, as has Origen

Luke has a reason for the order he chooses. To make a point that the other does not.

2:48 PM

but unlike in Protestantism, there is not necessarily 'doctrinal agreement' on much in Orthodoxy

we are one Church who confess the faith of the Nicene Creed

but beyond this I cannot speak for Orthodoxy as a whole

so please only construe what I say as true for some

You can find some fundamentalist KJV-only Orthodox too ;)

@Dan Certainly.

@Dan And that surprises me. Not the fundamentalist part, but the KJV only part.

I'd expect "Koine only".

We have a Greek text from 1904 that some cling to like fundies cling to Textus Receptus

and it pretty much is identical to TR

Also note that we do not consider the Hebrew OT authoritative

We translate from the Greek Septuagint

@Dan That makes sense then.

and the KJV-only argument is not for TR reasons nor other reasons you commonly see

it actually has to do with copyright law

@Dan Not too surprised.

2:52 PM

It is our belief that the Bible is a product of the Church and should be translated by and for the Church, and freely distributed

@Dan ::Head imploding::

and so the KJV is the only Bible that meets those criteria currently

in English

but most of us would just say that there is no good English Bible translation

because of the manuscript choices of the KJV, but it is better than nothing

@Dan You can still get to heaven in its train, even if you don't get to the highest level, eh?

@FrankLuke bingo, because we are not 'people of the book'

In fact I think you could find a lot of Orthodox priests who would go so far as to argue that scripture reading is not necessary for laity

because it is not part of their vocation

rather, participation in the life of the Church, particularly the sacraments, is most important

Because this unites you with the one who gives us life, we partake of the medicine of immortality

the Bible was not nailed to the cross, Jesus was :)

and we also believe that you learn the faith by participating in Divine Liturgy, not by reading a book

in fact, reading the book would do you no good if you did not also become part of the Church

but you should realize that we read most of the Bible during Divine Liturgy

;)

most of our Liturgy is straight scripture

and we read entire books and LOOONG portions

Not just verses

(we usually chant them)

@Dan At seminary, we had a man who had converted to orthodoxy and felt called to the priesthood. He joined AGTS specifically to take our Greek classes as a prepper.

2:58 PM

@FrankLuke but then again, we don't share Western views on death, heaven and hell either

@FrankLuke Orthodoxy is filled with former Pentecostals, Lutherans, and Anglicans

He spoke in our biblical theology class. He spent most of his time explaining the sacraments.

@FrankLuke very cool

One of the students asked about orthodox theology. He replied along the lines of "I have discussed nothing else since this class session started."

His quote exactly was, "this is all theology."

@FrankLuke yes but our rejection of Aristotelian philosophy as the basis of systematic theology means that we don't approach it as a 'system'

theology is mystical

And our views on nature mean that everything we do is theological/sacramental in many ways

The Orthodox believe that Western Christians have a functionally Gnostic worldview since they generally adopt dualism (spiritual realm vs. physical realm)

but this is pagan thinking

In contrast, the early Church rejected this dualism and embraced only a dichotomy of created vs. Uncreated

because of this, we reject the notion of a 'two-storey universe'

So God and the spiritual realm is interwoven with our daily lives

And heaven intersects with our reality frequently, not least in the sacraments

Our rejection of Aristotelian logic / Scholasticism means that you will never see a list of 'fundamental truths' like the AG's 16 come from the Orthodox

amazon.com/Light-Christian-East-Introduction-Tradition/dp/…

You may enjoy this book, it is written for Protestants by a Protestant theologian

It's nice because it is not trying to convert you or anything

The author is decidedly Protestant

But it does a phenomenal job of introducing Orthodox thought to those already well versed in Protestant theology

I can agree with most of this, even. Thank you for this chat and the book recommendation. I have a big interest in church history (and attended an orthodox service once in seminary).

Have to go now.

Thank you again.

3:07 PM

@FrankLuke absolutely, great talking to you

Adios

Hola @TRiG

3 hours later…

6:09 PM

@JackDouglas actually, narrowing it to a specific doctrinal perspective actually makes it less on topic on this site in my opinion. This is not a Christian site. — Dan 6 mins ago

@Dan ^^^^ not being a Christian site doesn't affect the topicality of questions relating to Christian history does it?

@JackDouglas In the future I'll try to comment mostly here in chat since I confused the OP

heh, don't worry about that

he's engaging!

@JackDouglas yes, questions should be about textual history here, not Christian history specifically.

But that doesn't preclude answers with Christian history

@Dan why not Christian textual history?

or would you preclude a history question about the Hebrew Bible?

(as we are not a Jewish site)

@JackDouglas because from an academic perspective, the texts are not inherently Christian per se, i.e. we share the Hebrew Bible

so a good question will address both perspectives

But at the same time, it really shouldn't have to

6:12 PM

@Dan the question isn't about the texts, but about the history of the canons

As the idea of 'canonical' is theological

@Dan in what sense?

he isn't asking "what should be in the canon?"

@JackDouglas 'canon' refers to what books hold religious authority in specific traditions

of course

and the OP has now revealed that his intent is to receive information specific to the Christian Protestant tradition

making it a better question for C.SE

(see how the intent language works both ways)

(but even you recognize that sometimes, regardless of intent, things just are)

6:14 PM

I think the question as was (and ad is again) is fine if a bit broad. Could use a 'canonical' answer!

@Dan why?

if it is on topic here it can be on-topic on C.SE too

@JackDouglas because we don't want questions like so: "Please tell me about _____ (insert doctrinal thing here) from __________ (insert religious tradition here) perspective."

that is what C.SE does

@Dan no we don't generally

this one is special

@JackDouglas even though his intent is specifically to only hear one perspective?

because it is about the texts

@Dan that is neither good nor bad is it?

I don't want him moving the goalposts this late though

Poor Noah doesn't deserve half his answer to be ripped out

(and the OP had already accepted it!)

@JackDouglas I agree, and Noah did a fine job given the question

6:17 PM

yes, it's a great summary, isn't it

do me a quick favor tho - can you remove all but our first two comments?

first one comment each I mean

so keep my first one, and your initial response, but kill the rest?

done

that 'intent' thing is a hobby horse of mine, but it is to keep exegesis questions focused on the text

@JackDouglas as is this is an OK fit for the site as per our current guidelines. Thanks — Dan 11 secs ago

(as to not further confuse the OP or other passersby)

@JackDouglas yes but it works both ways - and I really don't think it's a helpful standard

because it can be abused too

sorry, added the other comment of mine back in, I want to keep the OP informed

@Dan maybe, but it is the backbone of the sites focus. questions like this one and the few genuine hermeneutical-approaches Qs are edge cases really: the 'in essence arises from the text' rule is what keeps us from drifting in the ocean

it anchors us to the 'biblical' in BH

@JackDouglas 10-4, good call

6:22 PM

(I'm not saying it's perfect, but it has been immensely helpful)

things were a lot more flaky before Richard made that meta post

@Dan thanks

@JackDouglas I think I get your perspective (and it is apparently shared by Frank as per his earlier comment)

@Dan you mean about this 'canon' Q?

@JackDouglas I edited the canonicity tag to clarify this dispute, how did I do?

@JackDouglas yes

@Dan awesome!

@JackDouglas ok I can live with that

now we have a reference to point to for clarification

(remember, my main beef is unclear standards. I may wish to change those standards, but I'll settle for now for just having clear guidelines)

6:26 PM

If you want to tighten up the guidelines (and I'm not against that), I think we should focus on the mainstream exegesis questions and not worry too much about the less common topics. Do you think that is wrong and we should nail everything down in one go?

@JackDouglas I'm OK with that

we've probably got a lot of work to do to stop things slipping into the morass you are afraid of

Can you help me with this?

(what with traffic doubling in the last 4 weeks)

@Dan er, I presume you don't mean improve it?

@JackDouglas that's exactly what I mean

I think the list is fine

It's my primary/secondary/tertiary that I know @Caleb disagreed with

And I am willing to revamp that

I just want to have a list of what books are open for direct examination / on topic

I think @Caleb wanted to see more here

He wanted to see stuff in my secondary category open for direct primary examination I believe

which I'm fine with. I asked him for help but I know he is too busy

6:30 PM

I'm torn with this

On the one hand "I wouldn't to get too pedantic about a literal definition of what is actually — according to the Oxford-American-Heritage-Merriam-Webster dictionary — part of THE anointed Bible. That is not the way to go.

You build a site for a group of experts. If there are related texts which experts in this field tend to study because the texts are so closely tied to the subject, I would include them as "on topic" for this site"

I have DV'd that, but in one sense I know it is really important sensible advice

@JackDouglas so here is my thinking thus far

My main goal was to create a definition of the word 'bible'

heh

Not really to make a rule for everything exhaustively that is on topic (what if a new discovery is found tomorrow)

So I am thinking of making a new meta question and just ask, "What is the Bible" for this site?

And then just copy and paste the books

leave all the primary/secondary/tertiary stuff alone

but at least then there is a reference for what the Bible is in the widest sense of the word

I can mention that not all agree on the canonicity of all these books, but in scholarly discourse, these books are 'Biblical'

Thoughts? Too much meta or a good idea in order to separate the issues?

@Dan hmmm

I think it is in the right place, but…

your answer exemplifies why pinning things down completely isn't always helpful: in some ways blundin's answer is more useful because you can bring a text to it and come away quickly and easily with a very good idea about whether it is on topic

I think you could do an answer similar in style to his, that is much better

(ie examples of on-topic and off-topic)

(5 bullets max for each)

that would then be a great resource to point confused new users to from our 'help' page

you could even keep most of the rest of your meta post as a giant footnote

I'm pretty sure I agree with Caleb that most of what you have as 'secondary' should be permitted in the sense that we should allow questions focussed directly on them. They are still 'secondary', just permissible I think?

@JackDouglas yes

but my idea of making a list of the 'Bible' would not be with the goal of saying everything else is off topic

It would just be a definition, this is the Bible

then other posts that say Bible could link to it

and say what is on topic is the Bible and other texts that help us understand it or are about it

I disagree with Blundin on ruling out some of those works

For one, 'extra 12 used by Eastern Orthodox'? Huh? The Orthodox don't even agree on how many fall into this category? Can't use a number there

And we don't have a true canon in the Western sense, which is the weakness of the entire post in my opinion

We have the 'Anagignoskomena' and then a bunch of other stuff

If this were Orthodoxy we'd allow all Patristic works for direct examination also

And I don't think we should rule out 'Ancient Jewish literature' and yet allow tons of extrabiblical 'ancient Christian literature'

@JackDouglas yes I said they were permissible also, but for indirect

I could change that to direct

@JackDouglas good point. I don't know about the 5 bullet thing, but what about this change? meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/687/423

Also @Caleb see this update. Better?

@JackDouglas as it stands most of my post is already a giant footnote

7:05 PM

@JackDouglas what about Gnostic texts?

My gut is off topic

7:33 PM

@JackDouglas but I decided to see what everyone thinks

1

Q: What about Gnostic texts?

Are they considered on topic? They are not primary texts as they do not appear in any Judeo-Christian canon. However, we also allow the direct examination of secondary texts. Should Gnostic texts be considered valid secondary texts that are open for direct examination?

« first day (712 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3897 days later) »

Transcript for

Sep '1316

The Library

General discussion for hermeneutics.stackexchange.com

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile