"His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven" (Song of Solomon 5:11 KJV).
It has been said that the Song of Solomon almost did not make the biblical canon because Jews and Christians both had trouble making sense of the work. This book was eventually given an allegorical interpretation by readers in Judaism and Christianity, so that we now have this great sacred work in the scriptural canon, which Jehovah inspired by means of his holy spirit.
59 comments:
As I said in another thread, these other accounts/stories did not become canonical.
You don't get the difference between canonicity and endurance of texts? Just asking ☺
Not sure I understand what the problem is.
Also see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/07/kanwn-and-disputed-bible-books.html?m=1
Canon either refers to a published list of books or it denotes divinely inspired books that Jews or Christians take to be authoritative for their beliefs and conduct.
Shakespeare scholars and English professors often refer to the English canon
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/right-books-in-old-testament/question16-was-hebrew-canon-after-christ.cfm
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2011/10/seven-reasons-for-excluding.html?m=1
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Book-of-Judith
I never said any such thing, nor do I believe it. Some of us believe that Jesus established a group of men while he was on earth, who served as the foundation stones for the ecclesia that originated on the day of Pentecost in 33 CE. Revelation 21 likewise calls these men foundation stones of the holy city, New Jerusalem. It is the Lord's apostolically-founded ecclesia that determines canonicity for God's people in one sense of the word by making lists, but I believe God's holy spirit ultimately determines what's truly needed for matters of faith and conduct. That part of the canonization process does not depend on men.
Charles Ryrie more likely states the truth of the matter: "It was not necessary to wait until various councils could examine the [Bible] books to determine if they were acceptable or not. Their canonicity was inherent within them, since they came from God. People and councils only recognized and acknowledged what is true becausde of the intrinsic inspiration of the books as they were written. No Bible book became canonical by action of some church council" (Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 105).
We also read: "the Canon of the New Testament was completed when the last authoritative book was given to any church by the apostles, and that was when John wrote the Apocalypse, about A.D. 98" (Benjamin B. Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, pp. 455-56).
https://archive.org/details/formationofchris0000camp/page/n7/mode/2up
It takes more than preservation and utiliation to make a book canonical or else the pseudepigraphal works would be canonical. Furthermore, canons are established within certain contexts (i.e., the Jewish or Christian canon), so what's canonical for one group might not be for another (Prots and Catholics). But this finally comes down to which writings are normative for the true Christian ecclesia: which books have a divine origin.
Speaking of evidence, try proving that Revelation is a second century invention. You can't do it, nor can you prove that the apostles did not exist in the first century as a body in Jerusalem.
Amun-Ra apparently became fused with the Egyptian sun god. https://egyptianmuseum.org/deities-amun
If one believes in Almighty God Jehovah, it is not a stretch to believe that he inspired a book and left humankind some precepts by which to walk. Sorry if some don't believe God looks out for us and provides a light for our roadway.
1) There are two major theories for the date when Revelation was written: the early and late dating of the book. Last I checked, the debate was still open.
2) What evidence would you need to show that Christians were persecuted during the reigns of Nero and Domitian, who both preceded Hadrian? They both seem to be documented in the literature of the time.
See https://www.academia.edu/81032686/Roman_Anti_Christian_Persecutions_Reframing_the_Paradigm
https://www.academia.edu/109673522/Persecution_and_Martyrdom_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire_from_AD54_to_100_A_Lesson_for_the_21ST_Century_Church
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/historicity-of-the-neronian-persecution-a-response-to-brent-shaw/72A73656C0F1372963C197F8945D38D3
Would like to read this one: https://www.baylorpress.com/9781481313889/christian-persecution-in-antiquity/
The claim about Hadrian remains somethhing that needs evidence. A book came out in 2010 (thereabouts) that made similar claims, but nothing has stuck yet.
I can accept a "parting of ways" scenario with respect to Christianity and Judaism, but pushing Christianity into the second century based on slender to no evidence is not for me.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110742213/html?lang=en
Matt 24:24 speaks of a future time: "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."
I don't believe the first-century Christians were persecuted because the fathers said it: we have secular testimony for these things and the Bible. Even Wikipedia contains information about Christianity as a first-century movement.
The Hadrian suggestion is a hypothesis; scholars working on the problem admit as much. It is not a fact. We'll just have to disagree on Matthew.
I also suspect the statement about Mark is flawed.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%9C%E1%BE%B6%CF%81%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%82#Ancient_Greek
https://biblehub.com/greek/3138.htm
1) I hope you realize that the claim about Mark's name is in all probability wrong. I went through that long thread about the subject and nothing there substantiates the original claim plus it is about Pontic Greek, which has nothing to do with Mark's name.
2) Tacitus was a secular writer and there are others who talk about Christians being persecuted. What about Pliny? And I just posted a link for that recent study about Christians being persecuted. But I'm wiling to move on if the conversation is not going to be productive.
The 1966 article for which you posted the link appeals to Tacitus and Suetonius to support the Neronian persecution, both of whom were secular writers. For the record, I never said that the first-century persecution had to be a result of imperial policy nor did I make any specific claims about the breadth of the persecution. My point is that first-century Christians were persecuted by Romans and some Jews, period.
The first point I waas making about "Mark" is that the issue is diminutive forms. Secondly, this has nothing to do with the heretic, Marcion.
See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%9C%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%BA%CE%AF%CF%89%CE%BD
https://ehrmanblog.org/is-the-martyrdom-of-polycarp-an-authentic-account/
I'm well familiar with the dates for Tacitus, yes. Who said Tacitus was an eyewitness and since when do historians have to be eyewitnesses?
To quote Wiki:
The Annals (Latin: Annales) by Roman historian and senator Tacitus[1] is a history of the Roman Empire from the reign of Tiberius to that of Nero, the years AD 14–68.[2] The Annals are an important source for modern understanding of the history of the Roman Empire during the 1st century AD.[3] Tacitus' final work, modern historians generally consider it his magnum opus[4] which historian Ronald Mellor says represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing".[5]
Judaeo-Christian persecution is different from your everyday persecution. See Matt 24:9 and John 16: followers of Christ are persecuted for the sake of his name. See also 1 Peter, which speaks about being persecuted for bearing the name, Christian.
Read the book of Acts chapters 4, 5 and 17.
https://books.google.com/books?id=eZkRAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=marcion+martyrdom+of+polycarp&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi61vql2-WEAxX0EFkFHZb3BaoQ6AF6BAgIEAI#v=onepage&q=marcion%20martyrdom%20of%20polycarp&f=false
Yes, I know you think Acts is a late work, but scholars are mixed on this question.
Criticisms about whether Peter wrote or did not write 1 Peter are beside the point when it comes to the subject of why Jesus' followers are persecuted. That's what I was addressing in my last remarks and we've also strayed from talking about the Song of Solomon.
In reply to ancient history, it wasn't done in exactly the same way. Nevertheless, they developed methods for passing down information accurately.
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html
As this link shows, the objections to Peter's authorship are not determinative or conclusive.
For an example of people being persecuted for their faith, see what's happening in Russia towards Jehovah's Witnesses
I'm going to lock this thread.
Post a Comment