I just downloaded The Book of Enoch. It's assigned resource type "Bible". It should be "Ancient Manuscript". You really need to make these user editable or something. As it is, type teeters on the edge of uselessness.
Please add this to the list on the wiki http://wiki.logos.com/Metadata_correction_proposals -> Logos does act on these suggestions.
The Book of Enoch. It's assigned resource type "Bible". It should be "Ancient Manuscript".
It is correctly tagged as Bible. It is part of the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Therefore, references to it should be treated as Bible citations.
Sorry but this is my soapbox. Books treated as canonical historically by any major branch of Christianity should have equal "rights" in Logos. I have been tossing around ideas as how to best indicate what canon accept the books for all books except the universally accepted ... but I run into logical problems as to "major". A sect that accepts only Revelation does throw a monkey-wrench into any of my ideas.
Martha,
You're right about Enoch, but I reverted the change you made on the wiki about The Book of Jubilees - purely because that resources is about Jubilees rather than being the ancient manuscript itself. I thought I'd better mention it as I didn't want to start a revert war!
purely because that resources is about Jubilees rather than being the ancient manuscript itself
Thank you. I shouldn't assume from the title.[:$]
Well, Gnosticism was a major branch of Christianity. Are you going to class the Nag Hammadi; scriptures too? What about the book of Mormon? I'm sorry, but I find this classification ideology of no use to me. And I suspect most Christians would find it wrong and many even condemn it as dangerous. The more I think about it, the more I find myself leaning towards the latter camp.
Approximately three-quarters of the Christians in the world use a broader definition of Scripture than the North American Protestant Bible. Does Logos really want to limit their market that much? I think that they have clearly showed that is not their intent with their packages of Samaritan and Jewish materials (more limited canon). The NRSV includes at least three additional canons - Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Slavonic Orthodox. With the large Ethiopian refugee community here, I am not comfortable excluding them. Logos includes the Letter to the Laodiceans as Scripture because it appears as such at least one of the Bibles they carry (German I am supposing).
To the best of my knowledge, neither the Nestorians nor the Gnostics ever had a declared (or customary) canon. But there are particular historical churches (Armenian, Syriac, Malabar) for which I've not tracked down formal canons so I don't know what the actual boundaries of the works Logos should consider Biblical are.
While I generally take a conciliatory stance on the Logos/denominational bias issues, this is one I feel very strongly about. When a broader canon was used for 3/4 of the time and is now used by 3/4 of the people any company that limits the definition of Scripture to the North American Protestant Bible cannot claim to be serving Bible scholars or Christians as a whole. Fortunately, Logos has chosen to serve Christians as a whole.
Note: I do not want to imply that Logos as a company practices denominational bias. However, those groups that purchase the most resources are most apt to have additional similar products published. This is how it should be.
I find this classification ideology of no use to me
It's fine that you find it of no use. I find many of the resources of no use to me. However, in terms of internal resource links it is important that Logos treat it as Scripture. Individual users adjust to the canon (and translation) that they find useful for their work in Logos.
There's two issues here. One is technology, the other is terminology. From a terminology point of view 1 Jubilees is not part of the Bible for many people (and I suspect for most Logos users given probable demographics). Even most of those who do consider it part of the Bible would view it as deutero-canonical. (Having said that, Martha, calling the narrower canon 'North American' and 'Protestant' is wrong on both counts.)
We get the same issue in 'Bible Search', where a search of 'Entire Bible' in the NRSV (for example) includes the deutero-canonical works.
Personally, I understand that very few resource types are used. There are good technological reasons for this. I put with with 'monograph' as a catch-all the covers many non-monographs. Although seeing 'Bible' on books I consider non-canonical grates somewhat, I put up with it using the same logic.
(Having said that, Martha, calling the narrower canon 'North American' and 'Protestant' is wrong on both counts.)
I realize that NAP is my shortcut for the canon. However, because it is not the standard canon of Church of the East, Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran or Anglican I think "Protestant" is a fair common label (common not technical). And because I think that the American Bible Society preceded the English Bible Society in the removal of the deutero-canonical books. Therefore, in common parlance it's almost fair to call in North American - Canadians and Mexicans feel free to object loudly. But NAP is much more pronounceable than USPC [;)] And, yes, I realize that there were European "splinter" groups that removed the deuterocanonicals earlier. (Yes, I am tongue-in-cheek calling Calvinists a splinter group).
Now that I've given my rationale, I'd be interested in why you consider it wrong on both counts.
There's two issues here. One is technology, the other is terminology. From a terminology point of view 1 Jubilees is not part of the Bible for many people (and I suspect for most Logos users given probable demographics). Even most of those who do consider it part of the Bible would view it as deutero-canonical. (Having said that, Martha, calling the narrower canon 'North American' and 'Protestant' is wrong on both counts.) We get the same issue in 'Bible Search', where a search of 'Entire Bible' in the NRSV (for example) includes the deutero-canonical works. Personally, I understand that very few resource types are used. There are good technological reasons for this. I put with with 'monograph' as a catch-all the covers many non-monographs. Although seeing 'Bible' on books I consider non-canonical grates somewhat, I put up with it using the same logic.
I don't consider the deutoro-canonical books to be "Bibles" either, however I understand that the type designation Bible is not an indication of canonicity, but rather an indication of how these sorts of texts are versified and addressable with Scripture-like references. If they were not type Bible, you wouldn't be able to go to 1 Enoch 13:7, say; nor would books that referenced a verse in one of these works be able to have links that jumped there, nor would any commentary on that text be able to scroll in tandem with it, nor would you be able to do a Passage Guide on them, or see parallel translations of them (if such exist -- I bet they do for the most common ones like the Apocrypha which are accepted as canonical by the Catholic Church), etc. So "Bible" type just means this resources works with the Bible-only features in Logos. It doesn't mean Logos claims it to be the Word of God.
Maybe my understanding of this is incorrect, because I know there are other works of antiquity which are referenced by numerical references, too. (E.g., Josephus Antiquities of the Jews is referenced as, for example, Ant. 3.218.) And perhaps Logos has a way of indexing books by such a reference scheme even if it isn't of type "Bible."
however I understand that the type designation Bible is not an indication of canonicity
I have considered suggesting that one be able to set one's canon and verse-mapping at a global level which then would trigger a difference in presentation of those text you consider canonical, deutero-canonical or non-canonical.
The 'narrower canon', as you call it, is far more ancient than North American Christianity, so it can't under any circumstances be called North American. Not only so, but it also predates the reformation by at least a millennia. I accept that prior to the various church councils and confessions in the 15th and 16th century the definition of the canon was not as clearcut as some of us would like and did tend to move somewhat depending on the time and place you happened to be. But its hardly as if every Christian accepted the broadest canon prior to the reformation, is it? You choose to talk of people removing the deuterocanonicals.That's simply not what happened. And even most of those who do recognise the books view them as of lower authority than the other books.
If you believe in a broad church, and you consider the canon to be those books which the Church accepts as authoritative, then where there is dispute, the smaller canon applies. (Because by definition everyone agrees that the books in the smaller canon are canonical.) This means the only time the deutero-canonicals could ever be considered 'canonical' were for a hundred years or so before the Reformation. At all other times, substantial portions of the church rejected the books.
What I like about L4 is that it now uses a very standard Windows GUI interface. It has the same look and feel as other professional Windows applications and that is one more thing I don't have to learn. Remember, it is a tool. It should be as transparent as possible so that I can focus on the subject matter, not on the tool.
You can get wrapped around the axle with historical, doctrinal, technical and marketing arguments. From a practical standpoint, the reason I use software instead of printed material is because it saves me time and that also translates into more research and consequently better results. That is exactly what I want. It should take no longer to open Logos and read John 3:16 than it does to pick up a printed Bible and do the same thing. When I search for something in the Bible using Strongs or Logos, there should not be a many differences due to cannon, language or other issues unless I am doing something special or there there is significant benefit to it. Otherwise it just takes me longer to sift through the results. When I am doing research, I should not spend half my time documenting bugs or searching for how-to answers online. That is when I start longing for a paper library. Make it fast, reliable and intuitive.
Kudos to the whole Logos team for a big step in the right direction with L4. It was a huge undertaking. Now it is time to work on the rough spots that slow the user down, such as speed, reliability and intuitiveness.
Suggestion: When you get L4 optimized better, take some time to characterize it with respect to hardware and see what really helps and what really hurts performance. For some of us, this is our most important application and some recommendations as to how to spend our money on hardware to get the most performance for our budget would help.
but it also predates the reformation by at least a millennia.
Do you have concrete examples? This is a topic that interests me for a number of reasons.
But its hardly as if every Christian accepted the broadest canon prior to the reformation, is it?
Certainly not, and I did not mean to imply that. However, to the best of my knowledge of major groups:
You choose to talk of people removing the deuterocanonicals.That's simply not what happened. And even most of those who do recognise the books view them as of lower authority than the other books.
I use that terminology because that it what my research has shown for English. I cannot speak for other European languages. For both the American and the British Bible Societies, I have read in histories of the English Foreign Mission Bible Society [name is approximate] when those Societies removed the deuterocanonicals from their published Bibles. I believe that 1826 is the date usually given for England. From my readings for the Lutheran canon, I understand that the German Lutheran Bibles published in the US normally included the deuterocanonicals; they were dropped when the language switched to English. I agree that in the West and Byzantine traditions the books are treated as deuterocanonical. For the eastern tradition, I have not been able to gather enough information to know.
At all other times, substantial portions of the church rejected the books.
Again, I would love to be given references to materials supporting this view. I have read articles on the influence of Christianity in the setting of the Jewish text, specifically rejecting the Greek texts. But I've seen nothing in early liturgies or church fathers to imply that the Jewish decisions changed the Christian canon. If you are referring to the Alexandria vs. Palestine canon practices, I suspect that it comes down to our definition of canon. You get different answers if you speak of Scripture from which doctrine can be derived vs. Scripture suitable for use in liturgy. Although the terms proto- and deutero- were not yet in vogue, the argument seems to have basically divided a nearly firm collection of books between these categories.
I would also point out by the inclusion of the NRSV with apocrypha, Logos has supported 4 canons for quite some time. I see no reason for them to change their practice. They tag as Bibles the books that function as Bibles. It is a system rather than a theological statement.
<!-- /* Font Definitions */@font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;}@font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-520092929 1073786111 9 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}.MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}.MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;}@page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;}div.Section1 {page:Section1;}-->
As someone not from North America or even from the West, Itake strong exception to the concept of the 66 books of the Bible as the “NorthAmerican” Canon for the reasons that Mark stated.
A few points to consider
From a marketing/business perspective, just like all marketsare not equal, all views of the canon CANNOT be treated as equal. One needs to primarilyserve the need of the majority and accommodate the minorities if possible.Thinking otherwise would lead to bankruptcy. This is why we don’t have aversion of Logos in all known languages and why some resources are prioritizedover others. It might not be fair but it is pragmatic.
From a technical perspective, trying to please everybody I arecipe for disaster; searches, collections, and so on rely on precise and consistenttagging of resources (it is true of all databases). This becomes an evengreater issue as the library grows. Improperly tagged resources defeat thepurpose of having dynamic collections and so on since a lot of cleanup has tobe done to get the right results. Instead of making the majority of userscleanup their results by having a very flexible idea of what “type: Bible”means, it is better to have the minority of users make the adjustment toinclude resources that might have been overlooked. It could be a great idea, asMJ suggests, to be able to set a Canon at the global level but in the meantime,the definition of the Canon has to fit the understanding of the majority ofusers for the reasons given above.
Logosmight want to follow classifications such as the one provided by the SBL Handbookof Style (pages 73ff) and be consistent throughout.
The SBL Handbook has categories such as Hebrew Bible/ OldTestament (39 books), New Testament (27 books), Apocrypha and Septuagint, OldTestament Pseudepigrapha (where Enoch is found) , Dead Sea Scrolls and relatedtexts, Mishnah, Talmud, an Related literature, Targumic texts, other rabbinicWorks, Apostolic Fathers, Nag Hammadi Codices, New Testament Apocrypha andPseudepigrapha , classical and Ancient Christian writings and so on. To simplifythings there could be groups and subgroups (a few of the resources above couldbe grouped under “second temple literature” ora similar concept)
There should be an option to customize the metadata of allresources/ create a customized canon but the default information should fit a well established set ofguidelines that will suit the majority of users
Alain
original post removed by poster
Itake strong exception to the concept of the 66 books of the Bible as the “NorthAmerican” Canon
Fine. I've already explained why I use it; if I'm given a better term, I'll switch. The other prime candidate would be the Calvin Canon which I suspect would get equally strong objections. If it weren't for the Samaritans,Syrians and a Russian Revelation-only group, I could call it the Short Canon. There really is no common English language neutral name for this canon.
all views of the canon CANNOT be treated as equal No, but the NRSV comes close. One needs to primarilyserve the need of the majority and accommodate the minorities if possible. Surely you recognize that Protestants are the minority of Christians., the intended audience That is why I find the fact that this devolves into an argument on canon astounding - I feel caught in a surrealist logic. Logos is a company that provides software designed to be used by a theological breadth of users. Yet, when they implement resources reflecting that intent, users rise up saying "but that doesn't agree with what I believe. Make them change it!" Logos is not owned by the "Northern Branch of the Southern Non-denominational Re-baptist Pentecostal Church of Immediate Rapture". It is appropriate for Logos to tag as Bible those items that are processed as Bibles just as they tag as maps those items that are processed as maps. To me this is so self-evident that I am truly unable to understand the logic of those opposed.
all views of the canon CANNOT be treated as equal
No, but the NRSV comes close.
One needs to primarilyserve the need of the majority and accommodate the minorities if possible.
Surely you recognize that Protestants are the minority of Christians., the intended audience That is why I find the fact that this devolves into an argument on canon astounding - I feel caught in a surrealist logic. Logos is a company that provides software designed to be used by a theological breadth of users. Yet, when they implement resources reflecting that intent, users rise up saying "but that doesn't agree with what I believe. Make them change it!" Logos is not owned by the "Northern Branch of the Southern Non-denominational Re-baptist Pentecostal Church of Immediate Rapture". It is appropriate for Logos to tag as Bible those items that are processed as Bibles just as they tag as maps those items that are processed as maps. To me this is so self-evident that I am truly unable to understand the logic of those opposed.
MJ
I was referring to the majority of Logos' users as of now. if the user base changes, Logos might have to change thing around. until then, that majority is made of those you call "protestants"
This has nothing to do with what should be considered the Canon but with what the majority of users consider to be the "canon". My point is not theological, it is just a matter of database design and building a product to meet the user's expectations (that is the expectations of the majority of users).
The types assigned to resources impact searches and collections. In order to produce accurate searches and collections, the types must also be accurate (in the sense that they describe resources as commonly understood by the clear majority of users) . This is the same principle behind making a product intuitive, it will not satisfy everybody (i.e. users coming with a different set of expectations) but it will satisfy most users because it is exactly what they expect.
I gave the example of the SBL handbook because it provides a classification that is common among a large number of scholars. it is not "gospel" but it represents a set of expectations when dealing with scholarly resources and follows the principles outlined above.
Are all scholars in SBL protestants or holding to the same view of the Canon? of course not. if anyone should be aware of the various views of the Canon, it would be the members of SBL. However, the society came up with a convention that allows easy classification of resources.
What you do not appear to grasp is that for a system of classification to function properly it must be based on a consensus/conventions (whether it is "right" or "fair" is irrelevant), if the system tries to integrates every possible definition of what a given category is, it becomes irrelevant and we might as well tag the resources ourselves according to our personal tastes.
the goal is not to promote one canon over another but to come up with a convention that is intuitive (what is intuitive is generally based on what the majority of people do or think naturally, the majority here being the actual users of Logos 4, which happen to consider the canon to be the 66 books of the OT and the NT)
post removed by poster
<!-- /* Font Definitions */@font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 415 0;}@font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-520092929 1073786111 9 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}.MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}.MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;}@page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;}div.Section1 {page:Section1;}-->
You do realize that appeal to authority, experience, or credentialscannot be substituted for valid arguments?
I will bow out now
Thanks for your interaction. I'm happy to respond, but I wonder whether some of our disagreement is due to a different understanding of what the canon is. By canon I mean those books which are accepted as being of divine origin and are the authority for the church. I do not mean those books which are accepted to be read in the church nor those books which are accepted as true or wise.
Could you clarify a definition for 'canon' that I can use to answer you previous questions?
Mark
I wonder whether some of our disagreement is due to a different understanding of what the canon is
I suspect so I would say:
I'm not too sure how to progress here as what we both mean by 'canon' is so different. As I use the term, 'canon' is a theological concept that presupposes completion. One cannot define the limits of the canon unless one presumes there there is a limit, that is that the canon is closed. It means the concept of the canon you express in your first point is antithetical to the concept of canon as I use the term.
But let me also highlight another major area of disagreement. You asked me earlier to 'give concrete examples' of my claim that what you call the protestant canon predates the Reformation by at least a millenia. To try and keep the debate at least nominally relevant to Logos, let me cite a Logos resources: [:)]
Most significant is the fact that from the middle of the 4th century the term canon came to be used for the collection of the sacred writings of the OT, which had been taken over from the Synagogue, and of the NT, which had already taken essential shape from c. 200… The use of κανών in this sense was not influenced by the fact that Alexandrian grammarians had spoken of a canon of writers of model Greek. Nor is the decisive point the equation of κανών and κατάλογος, formal though the use of the term may be. What really counted was the concept of norm inherent in the term, i.e., its material content as the κανών τῆς ἀληθείας in the Christian sense. The Latins thus came to equate canon and biblia. (TDNT 3:601)The concept of a canon is inarguably ancient - indeed predating Christianity itself. I trust we can agree on that. What is left to discuss is whether the canon as delineated by protestants is equally ancient.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that all Christians at all times accepted only or all of what Protestants now accept. I'm sure you're aware of Eusbeius' Hist. eccl. 3.25 where he gives three levels of acceptance within the church: Undisputed, disputed and rejected. As you read that section it seems reasonably clear that the position in the third/fourth century was not all that dissimilar to the one today. Adding the undisputed to the disputed works equates almost exactly to what you call the protestant canon. I could list further manuscripts that also contain lists of canonical books which equate more closely to what you call the protestant canon that to any other canon you might mention. This culminated in the declarations at Carthage in 397 and 419. I suggest, therefore, that the term protestant canon is not an historically accurate or appropriate term, convenient though it may be.
Therefore I just can't see how you can argue that "formal definitions of what is in or out of the canon is a reformation and post-reformation phenomena" or that you talk about North American protestants removing the deutero-canonicals.
Because this goes outside the Logos guidelines (although it started with a Logos issue) I will keep this brief. I believe that we would agree on the history of the canon but disagree on the interpretation of those facts.
Therefore I just can't see how you can argue that "formal definitions of what is in or out of the canon is a reformation and post-reformation phenomena"
You can't see how I can argue this because you and I would disagree on what constitutes a "formal definition". While there were local councils suggesting canons, it was only at the Council of Trent that there was a formal definition of the canon. I have seen Lutherans argue that Luther considered the canon to be open not closed. I've seen a fairly late date for the Byzantine tradition to semi-define the canon.
Therefore I just can't see how ... you talk about North American protestants removing the deutero-canonicals.
Here, I have a little problem understanding why you can't see. It is a simple matter of printers printing Bibles first with the deuterocanonicals (in Anglican order) and then later printing the same translation without the deuterocanonicals. I can't find the blog again unfortunately but there was an interesting observation in a Lutheran blog about why their new study Bible does not include the deuterocanonicals. It points out that Lutheran Bibles traditional include them, including American printed Bibles up until those Bibles were printed in English. When the issue arose with regards to the Lutheran study Bible (I don't remember which of the two recent ones), it was determined that including the deuterocanonicals would raise too many questions that their priests were not trained to answer. I.E. the return to tradition would have to occur first in the seminaries.
You folks might want to review the actions of the Council of Trent which started in 1545. The Wikipedia article seems to give a fair assessment (but certainly not an absolute one). Note in the section on Canons and Decrees this part of the first paragraph.
the decree was passed (fourth session) confirming that the deuterocanonical books were on a par with the other books of the canon (against Luther's placement of these books in the Apocrypha of his edition) and coordinating church tradition with the Scriptures as a rule of faith.
("Coordinating" here in reference to tradition would mean of "equal in rank, quality, or significance" per the Webster's dictionary in Logos.)
So the division between the prostestant and catholic canons was set by the Council of Trent. It was apparently done by the catholic church as part of the "counter-reformation."
I do not plan to join this debate, but simply to point to an event in history that you might want to consider if you have not already done so.
Peace!
I wish the the Ecumenical Council statements were available both in the original and in translation in Logos.
A translation of the actual statements of the Council of Trent is available at http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.htmlWith regards to my comment on the concept of proclamation in the church as a sign of canonical status:
"But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church"
OK. You're suggesting that there needs to be a formal church council where 'the church' officially recognises particularly documents. I'm suggesting that the canon was defined functionally centuries before by its practice and use of the various books.
It is a simple matter of printers printing Bibles first with the deuterocanonicals (in Anglican order) and then later printing the same translation without the deuterocanonicals.
I'm struggling here because you appear to be equating "what's printed with the bibles" with "canon", and I'm not. By your definition conservative reformed evangelicals consider the ESV Study Bible Notes as canonical. But, of course, they don't. Generally speaking, until Trent the church believed the so-called deutero-canonicals were of less authority than the proto-canonicals. They helped you understand the canonical books, and therefore could usefully be included within printed Bibles or even read in church - just like study Bible notes. Again I'm generalising, but the historical situation was something like this: unfortunately in the run up to the reformation some in what became the Roman Catholic Church started to put too much weight on these non-canonical texts, which led to their 'removal' by protestants. This removal was to ensure they were not treated in the 'new' canonical way but rather as they always had been treated - as important, but not divine and not authoritative.
I'm suggesting that the canon was defined functionally centuries before by its practice and use of the various books.
I am suggesting/asserting that the canon is defined functionally as what is read as Scripture in the Church. I am further suggesting that such a canon has never been universal i.e. the same in the three major branches of Christianity (Western, Byzantine, Church of the East). However, the belief that the Scriptures read in Church are divinely inspired is nearly universal - 'nearly' meaning consensus of belief not belief of all theologians.
as they always had been treated - as important, but not divine and not authoritative.
I don't believe that this statement is supportable - as I have indicated before, in most relevant theology the fact that they are read in the church is evidence that they were considered divinely inspired and authoritative. Think "lex orandi, lex credendi".
I'm struggling here because you appear to be equating "what's printed with the bibles" with "canon", and I'm not.
Here I am not making any theological statement. I am simply giving the historical facts that lead me to use the term "removed." My use of the word is not a theological use it is a historical use. First you have it; now you don't. I would use the same terminology for the removal of the Letter to be Laodiceans in the German Bible - a book that was deemed non-canonical centuries before its removal from German manuscripts. BTW I don't know if Germans used the Letter in their lectionary.
One direction I would really like Logos to go although I know it will be a gradual change: much of Bible interpretation and disputes totally ignores everything except the Western church. Because the Byzantine and Eastern Churches existed in cultures more similar to Biblical culture than the Western church, the Biblical studies from these traditions have much to add to our understanding. There are two hopeful trends:
I have been pleased with the increasing interest in the Early Church Fathers and the two Orthodox Bible translation initiatives - which, of course, I'm going to want to have in Logos. I think you can also see why I'm very interested in Logos' capabilities to handle the various canons and verse-maps that this entails.
Mark,
I owe you an apology and need to thank you for pressing me to look further. I was unaware of the Byzantine Quinisext Ecumenical Council of 692 which did approve a canon - 6 canons to be precise and did state that not all books in the canon were of divine origin. The work of this Ecumenical Council was not accepted in the West. An interesting addition to my knowledge on the development of the canon.
Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. I've been away at a conference.
How do you respond to the famous statements of Eusebius I referenced earlier, and the declarations of Carthage?
My apologies for posting theological rather than a Logos based answer. I really did try to use Logos so that I could claim I was demonstrating its usefulness. But the beta insisted on blowing up on me any time I tried to navigate through my notes to the source documents.
How do you respond to ... the declarations of Carthage?
Even more than the Byzantine Quinisext Ecumenical Council of 692, the Third Council of Carthage of 397 is not seen as an ecumenical council that spoke for the whole Church. From my readings, I believe that the Council was held near the beginning of the concept of a closed canon within the church. I also note that the statement itself does not claim authority but instead refers to the need to consult with others. The "others" stamp of approval came at Trent - talk about slow. However, it seems to support the notion that reading in the Church requires that it be canonical and the use of the larger canon:
"Item placuit ut praeter Scripturas canonicas nihil in ecclesia legatur sub nomine divinarum Scripturarum. Sunt autem Canonicae Scripturae hae: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium, Jesus Naue, Judicum, Ruth, Regnorum libri quator, Paralipomenon libri duo, Job, Psalterium Davidicum, Salomonis libri quinque, libri duodecim prophetarum, Jesaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Esdrae libri duo, Machabaeorum libri duo. Novi autem Testamenti, evangeliorum libri quator, Actuum Apostolorum liber unus, Epistolae Pauli Apostoli xiii., ejusdem ad Hebraeos una, Petri apostoli duae, Johannes tres, Jacobi i., Judae i., Apocalipsis Johannis liber unus. Hoc etiam fratri et consacerdoti nostro Bonifatio, vel aliis earum partium Episcopis, pro confirmando isto canone innotescat, quia a patribus ista accepimus in ecclesia legenda. Liceat autem legi passiones martyrum cum anniversarii eorum dies celebrantur."
or
"It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept."
http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html
My apologies to Logos for not pulling up their translation - but since I don't own the Latin in Logos ...
How do you respond to the famous statements of Eusebius I referenced earlier
From my reading, I understand that Eusebius was inconsistent in terminology and in content. Examples (from Lee Martin McDonald's The Biblical Canon)
Eusebius, like the Council of Carthage, represents the early makings of a closed canon. He categorizes books with represent to his understandings of what that canon should contain. ... unfortunately Logos 4 just crashed on me so I'm leaving this incomplete for the time being. Switching back to the web - as I read Eusebius, he acknowledges that there is still debate and no where implies that his opinion bears ecclesial authority.
If I recall correctly there are about 30 proposed canons if one goes through the 8th century or so - excluding similar developments in the Byzantine Church and Church of the East.
How do you respond to the famous statements
So the short of it is that I don't really see how these concrete examples further your cause. I see them as recording the history of the disputes inherent in moving from an open to a closed canon. I see the Byzantine Quinisext Ecumenical Council of 692 as treating canonicity more in keeping with your approach.
So the short of it is that I don't really see how these concrete examples further your cause.
Thanks, Martha. My 'cause' here is that the 66-book canon cannot be accurately described as either North American or protestant, and that protestants did not remove the deutero-canonicals from the canon.
As you rightly point out the church took some time to agree on canonicity. But it is fair to say that during the first 1,000 years or so of the New Testament church, most of the church accepted the 27 NT books as authoritative. Equally it is true that much of the so-called deutero-canonicals were not considered authoritative during the same period. I'm sure you know the details, but this link provides a nice table. That (in my view at least!) is sufficient evidence to substantiate both my points.
In order to demonstrate that I am wrong, I would suggest you would need to show:
Does that make sense?
is that the 66-book canon cannot be accurately described as either North American or protestant, and that protestants did not remove the deutero-canonicals from the canon
As we're far outside the guidelines, I'll be brief:
The 66-book canon was part of American declarations of faith/church practice before it was part of European declarations.
I would not make this claim. I would claim it was commonplace printing first in North America.
That the church had fully and finally accepted a larger canon before the protestant reformation and not merely as a result of the reformation.
The Church had no need for a definitive statement prior to the reformation. Check the lectionaries and prayer books of Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox and Eastern Churches for evidence of the use of the broader canon. Lex orandi, lex credendi.
It seems we're agreed on the evidence, but not on the interpretation of that evidence, and have probably therefore reached the limit of the usefulness of the discussion (it was fun whilst it lasted!). I think our differences are coming from other suppositions which it would be even more off-topic to discuss, namely:
As a consequence of probable disagreement on these two points, we give different levels of significance to different pieces of evidence, and therefore come to different conclusions.
Mark and Martha, this has been a fascinating discussion, and you've both modeled a wonderfully gentle and civil way to discuss differences. I'm glad you went off on that tangent from the original post, since I learned a lot about canon, liturgy, and church history from your well-researched and thoughtful posts.
A very fair assessment. However, I do think it was a useful exchange in that we got beyond the surface of different canons to the more fundamental concepts behind those differences. Thank you.
Besides, I bet we agree on one of your three points [:D]
What is the church? (I suspect my definition would be considerably narrower than yours.)
The Body of Christ (and only God knows how narrow or broad that is)[;)]
The Body of Christ (and only God knows how narrow or broad that is)
Amen!
