I never stated that they weren't equal in authority
ANDREW....
Since God literally wrote the Ten Commandments with His finger in two tablets of stone, WRITING (grafi) has been important in Western religion. Especially what GOD writes (not just inscripturated words but GOD'S inscripturated words)
But (with the exception of those two tablets) God has not directly declared what is and is not HIS writing... what IS and IS NOT authoritative and normative. THAT has always been a matter of Tradition.... something that informally evolved into that understanding. Jews can look to the Council of Jamnia (90 AD) but even that is not so clear.... Muslims have the Prophet telling them it's 39 OT books plus his later revelation. But nothing like that has occured in Christianity. We simply have an informal, evolving Tradition.
This was true for the Jews. As late as Jesus' time, some only recognized the Five Books of Moses as canonical and authorative. Others accepted the Prophets/History but often as UNDER or LESS canonical than the Books of Moses. And the Wisdom Literature often on a third tear (if accepted at all). Jesus Himself speaks of "the Law and the Prophets" (meaning Books of Moses and the Prophets/History) but He uses the Psalms canonically showing He accepted those too. But did He see all these as canonical? Equally so or on this "teared" system? No one can know. The Jews had yet another level - DEUTEROcanonical, Scripture but not DIVINE Scripture, useful and important and tresured but not fully canonical.
For early Christians, it's obvious Tradition was/is never perfect. There was much discussion and debate early in our history (on this and MUCH else). Different books floated around - used, defended, promoted. But over the course of four CENTURIES or more, we developed a LAYERED approach. The NT came to be understood as above the OT in canonicity (the OT says no pork... the NT says ok to eat pork... the NT "trumps" the OT although BOTH are canonical Scripture). The NT had two layers - the Homologoimena with 21 books and the Antilegomena that numbered 9-11 or so (Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, James, Jude, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Didache and some included 1 and 2 Clement and the Gospel of the Hebrews). IN TIME, it SEEMS the Homologoimena was reduced to 6.... some just dropping out of common use, NO ONE KNOWS WHY). You are right: Early Christians seemed unaware of the Jewish Council of Jamnia and had a fairly wide understanding - Law, Prophets, Wisdom Literature - and several others that some Jews also read. But it seems Christians regarded these beyond the 39 (by our count) as DEUTEROcanonical.... not even Antilegomena. While there seems to be a solid Tradition around 39 as canonical..... and 8-20 or so as DEUTEROcanonical that later number varied. AND STILL DOES.
The Tradition still evolves. About 400 years ago or so, many Protestants AND Catholics BOTH came to view all the books "accepted" as equal (even though the Council of Trent went to some lengths to NOT say that). So now, the "fight" for or against the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books (those 8-20 or so) is ...different, because IF they are part of the Bible the MODERN view is therefore they are inerrant, fully canonical, DIVINE words. What Lutherans and Anglicans do is simply not affirm the modern twist. The OT is under the NT. And while we acknowledge an imperfect TRADITION (no ruling!) around 66 books as canonical (not necessarily equally so), we have no need to toss out the 8-20 or so others historically used (or even the Didache for that matter) - but not as fully canonical but as DEUTEROcanonical. And indeed, other things can be USED as such too! Often Luther's tome INCLUDED his Small Catechism. Often the KJV INCLUDED the Book of Common Prayer.
Nathan wants to find some perfect, universal, official, binding RULING so that every Bible was the exact same since 33 AD (or some other date). He can't. He wants to establish the modern view of some that if it's in a tome with "BIBLE" on the cover, it just be the inscripturated words of GOD (not man) and fully/equally canonical. Not so. And he wants this "set" to be as listed in ARticle 6 of the 1563 Thirty-Nine Articles of the singular Church of England. NO ONE agrees with the Church on England on this - and NEVER has.
Andrew, Traditional Christianity and (by far) the two largest faith families in Protestantism are NOT telling you that you are forbidden to read First Maccabees or Psalm 151 or the Prayer of Manassah or even the Didache. NO publishing house is legally forbidden to publish and market those books. And YES, absolutely, there is MUCH beyond the 66 that is valuable, helpful, informative, inspirational.... and in some cases, has a rich and ancient embrace. Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans all agree on that. We often include readings from these in our Lectionaries. Calvin agreed with this too - he did NOT forbid these books from being read or used or charished - he simply did not count them as fully CANONICAL.
There are two common MYTHS found in 21st Century Christianity:
1 That Jesus told the 12 Apostles EXACTLY what books are DIVINE Scripture, inerrant, canonical and God-breathed (and evidently what other books are useful but not in that group). The 12 Apostles told ONLY the Roman Catholic Church (not the Orthodox Church because they got it wrong) and in 16th Century, the Roman Catholic Church officially, formally and authoritatively finally told the world this list. This is pure myth. There is NOTHING that supports this.
2. That essentially God sent out this mass email perhaps around the end of the First Century. Sent it to all Christians. And it listed the books of the Bible (Nathan thinks it was the list found in Article 6 of the Church of England's Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563). Everyone thus had THAT Bible, everyone used and read the same books. But in the Reformation, the Catholic Church invented 7 more in order to support their unique dogmas because they used Sola Scriptura and had to have the Bible support their teachings. This too is pure myth. There is NOTHING that supports this.
We have TRADITION. Informal.... evolving.... imperfect. It is AMAZINGLY ancient and catholic around 66 books, incredible how LITTLE repudiation of the canonicity of those has ever occured (well until quite recently). This is stunning. But .... there have been others that have been embraced, used, quoted, found in lectionaries and tomes along with the 66... and in some cases STILL ARE. But many Catholics STILL refer to them as DEUTEROcanonical ("secondary, under, submissive to the canonical). Luther continued this view... and included the common used used in Germany at the time BUT refused to make this an official stance. Anglicanism also continued this view... and included the common ones used in England at the time (many more than in Germany) but DID make it the official stance (the one Nathan says is mandated for all Christians). Andrew.... if you want to read Psalm 151 PLEASE DO!!!! BUT if you want to insist that it's inerrant, fully/equally canonical, inscripturated words of God... then you don't have history or Tradition on your side... and if you try to enforce this with Myth #2 above...well.... you just wondered into silly myth. It wasn't that clean or simple.
Likewise since the unbelieving GOATS decided to declare YOUR protestant OT canon
There is no such thing as the Protestant canon.
Luther INCLUDED 74 books in his tome.... Anglicans many more than that.... Lutheranism and Anglicanism are by far the two largest Protestant faith families. But PROTESTANTISM never included anything in anything because it cannot.
the Anglican church chose the historical and traditional term "ecclesiastical", but regardless the Christian body accepted the "intertestamental" books as equal
This is flat out wrong. Read Article 6. It flat out verbatim states they are NOT equal.
And the Church of England is not Protestantism.
Perhaps Nathan thinks that the Assemblies of God denomination IS Protestantism and what he's experienced there MUST be a legal ruling of Protestantism. Not so. The Assemblies of God is a new denomination (one of tens of thousand Protestant ones) and a tiny fraction of the world's Protestants.
You claim they are "good to read" but that is a flat out protestant lie, you discourage them
Wrong.
Luther INCLUDED one more in his tome than modern Catholics do. They are IN many of the Lutheran Lectionaries. The ONLY study I've seen on them is put out by CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE, a Lutheran publishing company. The only study I've done on them was in a LUTHERAN church, during our Sunday Pastor's Class.
Now, do Lutherans forbid all the pubishing houses in the world from publishing these? Nope. Is there some prohibition in the Lutheran Confessions about reading them? Nope. Luther studied them.... he taught them.... he preached on them.... odd if Lutherans discourage that.
dead with a 1611 KJV of the Holy Bible in your hand, you're too good for that right?
I'm not Anglican. And I understand that while the 1611 KJV was a good translation for 17th Century England, well, not so much today. There is better scholarship today, better understandings of koine Greek and ancient Hebrew now, and of course the English language has changed quite a bit over 400 years. So no, I don't use it. Did you when you were Catholic?
.
