I need a haircut. Nothing new about that really. But I do.
I just read a really annoying article on the canon of scripture. I won't go over all of my picky little points. But the major problem had to do with the author's claim that the canon was determined, as it were, "by accident." I have a problem with this mainly because, while it is true that there are, of course, billions of undeliberate factors which influence any event, the formation of the canon was extremely deliberate. It isn't as if one day a meeting was held on a lazy sunday afternoon, and a Pope and two of his buds kicked back to pick some books they liked. There were multiple canonical councils to be considered, and over a century's history of bickering about the subject, particularly between mainstreamers and Gnostics, about what should be considered sacred text, before the first canonical council was even ever held.
Also, the article treated Tradition in such a way that, well, it practically didn't even deal with Tradition. It made a vague reference to pre-scriptual days when the people believed the oral testimony of the Apostles, and another vague reference to how this idea still exists in the "Roman Church." But it stated that this view lost out. Then he went on to talk about Luther and his minions. Well, the fact is, that this idea is by no means vague in the Roman Church, nor in the Eastern Church, it's absolutely central to both traditions. And Tradition didn't lose out. Catholicism and Orthodoxy are hardly denominations to be easily sneezed at in the Christian world.
posted by Sarie @
10:40 AM
>Comments: 0
