Should we re-open the canon?

Question

After all, the Catholic church decided what got to stay in, and what was dismissed. And with all the archeological finds of various manuscripts over hundreds of years, shouldn't these things be taken into consideration?

So Don, don't confuse you with the facts huh?

I've got news for you snoddrift, the Bible has been altered throughout history.

ok, kingreef, but the scriptures we have now were compiled by women haters, and people who thought the earth was flat...

The NRSV is a translation. Not all NRSV Bibles include the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha are writings from the inter-testamental period.

Thank you mr. conradmex. I'm not saying I should be the one to decide what gets added... I didn't realize asking a question was an indication of arrogance, but I do like myself!

Answer 1

There's a lot of misunderstandings out there about the Canon. The third-century curch father Origen used the word canon to "denote what we call the 'rule of faith,' the standard by which we are to measure and evaluate." Later, the term meant a "list" or "index". As applied to Scripture, canon means "an offically accepted list of books."
It is important to note that the church did not create the canon; it did not determine which books would be called Scripture, the inspired Word of God. Instead, the church recognized, or discovered, which books had been inspired from their inception. Stated another way, "a book is not the Word of God because it is accepted by the people God. Rather, it is accepted by the people of god because it is the Word of God. That is, God gives the book its divine authority, not the people of God. They merely recognize the divine authority which God gives to it."
TESTS FOR INCLUSION IN THE CANON
From the writings of biblical and church history we can discern at least five principles that guided the recognition and collection of the true divinely inspired books. Geisler and Nix present the principles as follows:
1. Was the book written by a prophet of God? If it was written by a spokesman from God, then it was the Word of God.
2. Was the writer confirmed by acts of God? Frequently miracles separated the true prophets from the false ones. "Moses was given miraculous powers to prove his call of God (Ex. 4:1-9). Elijah triumphed over the false prophets of Baal by a supernatural act (1 King 18). Jesus was 'attested to... by God with miracles and wonders and signs which god performed through Him' (Acts 2:22).... [A] miracle is an act of God to confirm the Word of God given through a prophet of God to the people of God. It is the sign to substantiate his sermon; the miracle to confirm his message."
3. Did the message tell the truth about God? "God cannot contradict Himself (2 Cor. 1:17-18), nor can He utter what is false (Heb.6:18). Hence, no book with false claims can be the Word of God." For reasons such as these, the chuch fathers maintained the policy, "if in doubt, throw it out." This enhanced the "validity of their discernment of the canonical books."
4. Does it come with the power of God? The fathers believed the Word of God is "living and active" (Heb. 4:12), and consequently ought to have a transforming force for edification (2 Tim. 3:17) and evangelization (1 Peter. 1:23) If the message of a book did not effect its stated goal, if it did not have the power to change a life, then God was apparantly not behind its message." The presence of God's transforming power was a strong indication that a given book had His stamp of approval.
5. Was it accepted by the people of God? Paul said of the Thessalonians, "We also constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13). For whatever subsequent debate there may have been about a book's place in the canon, the people in the best position to know its prophetic credentials were those who knew the prophet who wrote it. Hence, despite all later debate about the canonicity of some books, the definitive evidence is that which attests to its original acceptance by the contemporary believers. When a book was receiveved, collected, read, and used by the people of God as the Word of God, it was regarded as canonical. This practice is often seen in the Bible itself. Once instance is when the apostle Peter acknoledges Paul's writings as Scripture on par with Old Testament Scripture. (2 Peter 3:16)

It is important to recognize that it was not the Catholic church which determined the Canon.The term "apocrypha" comes from the Greek word "apokruphos", meaning "hidden or concealed."
In the fourth century AD, Jerome was the first to name this group of literature "Apocrypha". The Apocrypha consists of the books added to the Old Testament by the Roman Catholic Church. Protestants reject these additions as canonical Scripture.
Why not Canonical?
"Unger's Bible Dictionary", while granting that the Old Testament apocryphal books do have some value, cites four reasons for excluding them from the Hebrew canon:
1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and anochronisms.
2. They teach doctrines that are false and foster practices that are in variance with inspired Scripture.
3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of suject matter and styling out of keeping with inspired Scripture.
4. They lack the distinctive elements that give genuine Scripture its divine character, such as prophetic power nad poetic and religeon feeling.

So, to answer you question more directly, considering what the scriptural canon actually is and considering how intact the Bible we have now is compared with original manuscripts... I'd say "no". I don't believe we need to reopen anything.

Answer 2

Well, Trent was not the last word in any event, but, as you say, the contents of the Bible have been in flux ever since the first or second century.

And the canon has been reopened. In the NRSV, the several sections of the Apocryphya indicate which churches recognize which books as dominical, and which don't - yet some churches include nondominical books in the lectionary. That's less than half a step from canonicity! Give it a generation or two and Rome, eventually, will follow.

Answer 3

It wasn't the "Catholic" church that did that. It was a council of godly men who set reasonable standards that I believe were directed by God himself.

The books that were excluded all have obvious contradictions and errors in them that testify that they were not divinely inspired from start to finish. In some of the books stories about Jesus were embellished with tales of birds flying in formation as He came up to the temple like some Heavenly host of angels welcoming Him home.

In other books like the gospel of Thomas we have an account of Jesus supposedly telling his disciples that only men could enter the Kingdom of Heaven and so if they wanted any women to be saved they should pray to Him and ask Him to transform them into men.

So, my answer would be "No, we don't need to re-open the canon of Scripture".

Answer 4

NO!

To reopen the canon this late in the game would be to invite all sorts of horrible influences into it.

Just trust God to provide you with understanding, like He will always do for His children.

Aviod the traditions of men that make void the word of God. Really look at your denomination, and the Spirit of God will show you what He's been showing me for years. You see, it was easier for me in this matter- I grew up with no traditions that were of a religious nature. And I am not bound to them in any way. That was the way God raised me.

Stick to the scriptures!

Answer 5

Nothing much has changed really. Why mess with what works?
Consideration? Maybe. Inclusion with Holy scripture? Nah...

Answer 6

I'm for taking all such documents, shoving 'em down the muzzle of a 155mm cannon and fertilizing the fields of Armageddon with 'em!
Kaa-BOOOM!

Answer 7

It's blasphemy to add to or alter the Word of God (the Holy Bible), so I'd just leave it how it is if I were them.

Answer 8

What is your pedigree that you can judge what is and isn't to be included in scriptures? You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself..

Answer 9

Re-open the canon...no. Teach them...yes.
But you will never convince the closed minded, you know.

Answer 10

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Fact has NOTHING to do with the rc canon.

Peter is buried under St.Peters because a poop said he was.THAT'S IT...............no facts required.