Skip to main content

The Relation of Inspiration and Canonicity

Jude presents us with a 'problem.' He explicitly sites 1 Enoch in Jude 14 plus he has numerous allusions to traditions about the Old Testament that are not found explicitly in the Old Testament. What weight should we afford these texts and traditions? As I argued in the previous post on OT quotes in the NT, if a tradition is used that is an element of the Jewish worldview of the author and isn't an explicitly Christian worldview (e.g., how Jude sees Cain as the archetype of a false teacher leading others into sin), then we're not bound to investing those Jewish traditions with Scriptural authority. The text of Jude still has full Scriptural authority and its point is fully valid, we are not required to understand, e.g., Cain as the archetype of a false teacher leading others into sin. We simply need to see Jude's point. Jude is using an example that would be familiar to his audience, nothing more, nothing less.

This type of approach doesn't solve all of our problems fully, though. Jude cites 1 Enoch in a manner showing that he believes it to be inspired and authoritative. What do we make of that? 1 Enoch is not in our Bibles. Some, in the early church, argued for the inclusion of 1 Enoch in the cannon because of Jude's citation of it. Conversely, some argued that Jude should not be in the cannon because it cites 1 Enoch. God did see to it that Jude was included in the cannon and thus I believe we are bound to seeing 1 Enoch as inspired. That does not mean, though, that 1 Enoch should be canonical. Many things that are inspired are not canonical. I certainly believe the Apsotle's Creed is inspired, as I believe Amazing Grace is (the Chris Tomlin rendition too!). As being inspired by God, it does carry a certain amount of weight and authority. However, it does not mean that it is authoritative to the same degree that Scripture is.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…