I think I generally agree with the spirit of this article, in its attempt to move away from viewing Scripture as magic guide full of inscrutable commandments, dictated by the very mouth of the Almighty; and moving toward a perspective that views Scripture as informing us and the community in the Story of God.

While I'm Protestant, I've come to embrace the way the Orthodox view Scripture, as part of the Holy Tradition passed down to us. Scripture, no doubt, holds a place of primacy within that Tradition, but it is still Tradition.

In my own studies of the history of the Church and the process of canonization what has consistently caught my attention is how it seems to have consistently been a sort of grass roots activity. What is and is not in the Canon seems to have far less to do with the votes of bishops (examine the various regional councils and the writings of the Fathers and it's clear there were disagreements on the order and exact enumeration of the Canon) and far more to do with common assent among the Faithful.

The reason we ultimately have the Apocalypse of John and not of Peter (both were at one point regarded as important texts in use among the churches) isn't because Bishop So-and-So said X, but because the Apocalypse of John simply became more widely read and widely used in the churches.

The Canon came about through liturgical use, the worship of the people ultimately paved the path toward a Canon of Scripture. As others have already said, there has never been an Ecumenical Council (unless we count Trent) which decided on this matter, nor did the Emperor have any say on the matter. Both before and after Constantine (and even Theodosius I) there was no universal consent (e.g. codices from the 5th century contain the Didache). A further example is that the Armenians didn't include St. John's Apocalypse until fairly late, and for a long time the Armenian Canon included the dubious Third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians.

If we approach the Bible with the understanding that the Scriptures are an integral part of the Story of Faith that has and continues to inform us as the Church of Jesus Christ; that it's not about Divine Dictation, nor merely human arbitration, but rather the Story as embedded in text, liturgy, sacrament, community and action all coexisting in harmony under the move of the Spirit which ultimately grounds us as the people of faith–and furthermore grounded in the One Word that has become flesh for us in our Lord Jesus Christ. I think that's when we can really appreciate what Scripture offers us, the opportunity to wrestle, struggle, and participate in and with the living story of God as revealed to us in Jesus.

Part of the problem, I think, is our tendency to dissect and compartmentalize all these various facets of the Christian Narrative; Scripture as X and then placing it in location Y, etc. Rather than approaching the Christian Narrative holistically, as many things existing in tandem, threads interwoven of which we are a part. We are not objective observers, but subjective participants; we are not standing outside the Scriptures and Tradition looking in, but parts of the larger whole struggling to live out the call of discipleship which Christ has called us to. It is this struggle to be the people of God living into the world the Mystery of Christ, I believe, that defines our Christian existence.

For whatever it's worth, that's at least this reader's two cents.

I think I generally agree with the spirit of this article, in its attempt to move away from viewing Scripture as magic guide full of inscrutable commandments, dictated by the very mouth of the Almighty; and moving toward a perspective that views Scripture as informing us and the community in the Story of God.

While I'm Protestant, I've come to embrace the way the Orthodox view Scripture, as part of the Holy Tradition passed down to us. Scripture, no doubt, holds a place of primacy within that Tradition, but it is still Tradition.

In my own studies of the history of the Church and the process of canonization what has consistently caught my attention is how it seems to have consistently been a sort of grass roots activity. What is and is not in the Canon seems to have far less to do with the votes of bishops (examine the various regional councils and the writings of the Fathers and it's clear there were disagreements on the order and exact enumeration of the Canon) and far more to do with common assent among the Faithful.

The reason we ultimately have the Apocalypse of John and not of Peter (both were at one point regarded as important texts in use among the churches) isn't because Bishop So-and-So said X, but because the Apocalypse of John simply became more widely read and widely used in the churches.

The Canon came about through liturgical use, the worship of the people ultimately paved the path toward a Canon of Scripture. As others have already said, there has never been an Ecumenical Council (unless we count Trent) which decided on this matter, nor did the Emperor have any say on the matter. Both before and after Constantine (and even Theodosius I) there was no universal consent (e.g. codices from the 5th century contain the Didache). A further example is that the Armenians didn't include St. John's Apocalypse until fairly late, and for a long time the Armenian Canon included the dubious Third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians.

If we approach the Bible with the understanding that the Scriptures are an integral part of the Story of Faith that has and continues to inform us as the Church of Jesus Christ; that it's not about Divine Dictation, nor merely human arbitration, but rather the Story as embedded in text, liturgy, sacrament, community and action all coexisting in harmony under the move of the Spirit which ultimately grounds us as the people of faith–and furthermore grounded in the One Word that has become flesh for us in our Lord Jesus Christ. I think that's when we can really appreciate what Scripture offers us, the opportunity to wrestle, struggle, and participate in and with the living story of God as revealed to us in Jesus.

Part of the problem, I think, is our tendency to dissect and compartmentalize all these various facets of the Christian Narrative; Scripture as X and then placing it in location Y, etc. Rather than approaching the Christian Narrative holistically, as many things existing in tandem, threads interwoven of which we are a part. We are not objective observers, but subjective participants; we are not standing outside the Scriptures and Tradition looking in, but parts of the larger whole struggling to live out the call of discipleship which Christ has called us to. It is this struggle to be the people of God living into the world the Mystery of Christ, I believe, that defines our Christian existence.

For whatever it's worth, that's at least this reader's two cents.

Agreed.

“This list of authoritative books was ushered forth by Constantine who needed to unify an empire, not primarily out of religious devotion but out of political necessity.”

Disagreed. Constantine did not usher in the list of authoritative books. The Council of Nicea did not definitively state what books where authoritative. In fact, no ecumenical (both east and west represented) authoritatively stated what books were included in the canon. This is the reason Luther felt he could dismiss certain books traditionally treated as apostolic. The Council of Trent responded (called by the Roman/Western Church in response to protestantism) by defining the approved books, and they included the apocrypha as well, which was different than traditionally done… hence the protestant rejection of those books as inspired. Constantine had no religious authority at the council. Of course the presence of the emperor was bound to have an influence, and his motivations for calling the council were political; however, that does not mean the actions of the council were politically motivated and to suggest so is to deny the faith of those present… many of whom had resisted the great persecution under Diocletian that ended only 12 years earlier. The discussion of texts as well as Christology andTrinity were religiously motivated. We have to understand that the authority of the bishops was first a religious issue and only began to include a political issue once the church gained political power… which did not occur under Constantine but Theodosius I.

“I also still contend that the authority of the texts, whatever that might mean, whether authority over or authority as the first word, lies primarily with God not humanity.”

Disagreed (kind of). The power of the texts lies with God, not humanity. The authority of the texts is imparted to it by humans. Of course, the text itself gives those humans the power to give the authority to the texts in the first place (power of binding and loosing) so it is circular. Nevertheless, if different humans had been in charge, we might look to the Gospel of Thomas rather than the Gospel of Matthew as authoritative.

“Finally, I have come to find that the authority of scripture is important not because we can lord it over others in some ridiculous attempt to covert others to our own opinions. Rather it is so that we can ourselves become convinced of the call Christ has placed upon us.”

Agreed. Wholeheartedly! It is not about who's in and who's out. It is about who is willing to let Christ impact their lives (whether they would attribute it to Jesus or not). Often it is the scriptures that impact people, but personal experience (mystical even) must not be discounted. The problem is that personal experience only had authority for the particular person whereas the texts are meant for humanity as a whole.

“Regardless of our opinions about doctrines or dogmas it is imperative that we live in love as Christ loved and gave himself for the church. In other words, we must go and do also, as Bonhoeffer said, 'in so doing, we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God not taking seriously our own sufferings but those of God and the world.'”

Agreed.

Further, I also still contend that the authority of the texts, whatever that might mean, whether authority over or authority as the first word, lies primarily with God not humanity. This list of authoritative books was ushered forth by Constantine who needed to unify an empire, not primarily out of religious devotion but out of political necessity. On the other hand, No recognizable revelation exists apart from the life and witness of those who bear it. And thus the authority of the texts comes inextricably connected to the way it effects humanity and the practice thereof. “See how they love one another', this is where the approach to the revealed God begins. “If you devour one another, you do not have the love of God in you,” etc. The life of the Christian is what gives testimony to God and to the meaning of that revelation. There is no absolute truth of Christ to which one can return washing their hands of what they themselves do in order to be justified in their theology or actions. 'If believers are not attempting to conform their lives to the truth of Christ, then there is no truth. This makes us see that in not being what Christ calls, we render all revelation false, illusory, ideological, imaginary, political, and nonsalvific. We are thus forced to be Christians or to recognize the falsity of what we believe. This is undeniable proof of the need for correct practice.' (See the subversion of Christianity, Jacques Ellul)

Finally, I have come to find that the authority of scripture is important not because we can lord it over others in some ridiculous attempt to covert others to our own opinions. Rather it is so that we can ourselves become convinced of the call Christ has placed upon us. Regardless of our opinions about doctrines or dogmas it is imperative that we live in love as Christ loved and gave himself for the church. In other words, we must go and do also, as Bonhoeffer said, 'in so doing, we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God not taking seriously our own sufferings but those of God and the world.'

Peace
J

“I do not believe the intentions for making the list had anything to do with lending legitimacy to any one interpretation of the texts, but to the authority of the texts themselves.”

I disagree. Lending legitimacy to a singular interpretation was intended. We are all forgetting that there was not an ecumenical council that solidified the canon until the Council of Trent in the mid-sixteenth century… and that council cannot be called ‘ecumenical’ since the eastern churches were not present – and none of the protestants were invited either ;-). They affirmed the traditional books believed to be authoritative; however, they included the apocryphal books such as Maccabees, Sirach, etc. These books had traditionally been thought of as useful, but not authoritative. The whole thing was done as part of the counter-reformation, hence in response to Luther and the rest.

Athanasius’s list (which is the first full list but hardly the first time those books were named authoritative… see Ireaneus’ list of acceptable gospels in the mid-second century > Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) was only binding for the church’s in North Africa since that was where he was archbishop. His purpose was two-fold: he only wanted writings that were ‘known’ to be apostolic in origin to be authoritative, and he wanted to establish the authority of the church to determine which writings were apostolic.

However, this is where I must challenge Sara’s statement, “The questions of heresy were entrenched in political power grabbing.” Although power was a factor, we must not discount the actual faith of these people. Athanasius firmly believed that Christ was of the same substance (όμοουσία – homoousia) as opposed to Arius’ claim that Christ was only of similar substance (όμοιουσία – homoiousia). Amazing what that one iota does to the divinity of Christ. Athanasius was not willing to budge that one iota because it would admit that Arius was correct and that “there was a time when Christ was not.” This was not about power for Athanasius. In fact, he was exiled twice and repeatedly beaten for opposing the much more popular Arius. Yet, he endured because he believed in the divinity of Christ (the ‘Trinity’ had not been fully formed but this was leading to it). If it was about power, he would have ignored the theology and retained his bishopric. To simply assume the suppression of heretics was about power is narrow and does not do justice to the humanity of the people involved.

I totally agree that the text must be read in its contextual origins. I further agree that we cannot approach the text without our own perceptions of the world, nor should we try. I disagree that the authority of a text comes from its effect on humanity. Its authority comes from humans themselves. Those who championed the books we consider the canon did it because they believed those were the books that contained the teaching of the apostles, to which Christians were supposed to devote themselves (see Acts 2). The Church taught that she alone held the deposit of faith and therefore was the only entity able to determine which books represented that faith. Yes, it was a display of power, but that display arose from religious ideals rather than political aspirations.

I agree that scripture has been used to legitimise all sorts of evils, and that this may be due to an uncritical look at the texts themselves, but is that an indictment of the canonisation process or our own failure to truly understand the Bible?

I think it all comes down to what you said last, “interpreting scripture must be done in cautious communication with context, divine speech act, authorial intent, intended audiences and our own story. The story of Jesus.”

I know of a guy who had a little cross tattooed on the inside of his wrist. This way any time he was reading any portion of scripture he would be reminded that he had to interpret it through the cross (through the life, death, resurrection of Jesus). This is something that we often forget.

Thanks for the reminder.

So, that is a round about way of saying I mostly agree. I don’t think these things should have been made “official” in that they became markers of who is “in” and who is “out.” Rather, they should have been understood as declarations of what they deemed faithful. If they would have been able to do that without labeling Arius and Pelagius as “heretics” and then later seek to kill off their heretical kind, things would have been much, much better.

I think perhaps one of heaviest influences at this time as well was Greek philosophy- the focus shifted from earlier Jewish influence in which the story of Jehovah and his people took precedence to one of deciding the “big questions” such as the nature of God, the person of Jesus, the will and nature of humans- things totally abstracted from the unfolding, fluid nature of the biblical narrative. The Reformation did nothing to change this, but merely took away the monopoly of the clergy to decide these things, and put them in the hands of the common people (who promptly created new types of clergy with their own monopolies).

One year ago I wrote an article (the only one I’ve ever sbmitted to this site): http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/2008/03/the-others-bible/

I tried to deal with some of what you say here, but it wasn’t so complete. it was really interesting to read your article.

Simply put: the question of inerrancy just seems like the wrong question if by inerrancy we mean its ability to accomplish something that it may or may not have been meant to accomplish anyway. The right questions might be rather: what are these books for and have they been successful at this? And I think the author of this post did an excellent job getting at just that.