tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19785125.post8268479731553263124..comments2024-01-03T07:56:32.311-05:00Comments on quaker oats live: canonizationAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07488876505679035140noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19785125.post-13176078979506065612008-02-09T23:40:00.000-05:002008-02-09T23:40:00.000-05:00That's interesting about the different groups' use...That's interesting about the different groups' use/belief in Revelation. I believe that makes it "canon 1," since it's seen as an important work but it didn't make it to full canonization. Although it probably mostly makes it "non-canonical," because it's not seen as important enough to make it in the Bible. It's a little confusing because I think some of the people our text referred to thought of "canon 1" as stuff that was on its way to canonization before it was canonized, and some think of it as the "purer" form of the canon, that stuff (or person) that was/is used as authoritative but before it's been officially canonized. So good question! I don't know that there's a right answer, but the question shows that more work in definitions needs to happen before we can really communicate effectively. This book I was reading (Biblical Canon by Lee McDonald) was working on defining the term "canon," which he says is not done well yet, and I think he would agree that there is a lot more work that needs to be done in this area. A book we read for this week, "Holy Scriptures, Sacred Text" or something like that, was talking about how many scholars put forward ideas that sound contradictory because of their different uses of the word "canon," but they're actually all correct in some ways, just talking past each other because of the way they're defining canon and other such words. So I think that sort of question still needs to be defined more clearly in order for the classifications of "canon 1" and "canon 2" to be useful.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07488876505679035140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19785125.post-12793503900706229492008-02-08T21:11:00.000-05:002008-02-08T21:11:00.000-05:00I have a question.The Greek Orthodox Church is wil...I have a question.<BR/><BR/>The Greek Orthodox Church is willing to include John's book of the Apocalypse (Revelation) in its bibles, but refuses to use it in its liturgy.<BR/><BR/>The Ancient Eastern Church of Syria is willing to include the book of the Apocalypse (Revelation) in its Greek-language bibles, but still excludes it from its Syrian-language Bible, the Peshitta.<BR/><BR/>Does that make the book of the Apocalypse (Revelation) "canon 1" or "canon 2"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com