THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON - Principles underlying it's creation (Pentateuch, tradition, Gospels)

[Clear lens]

POST ONE OF TWO

The poster Katzpur asked, in post #10 of the thread called “The Doctrine of the Fall of Lucifer in early Judao-Christianity” said : I am genuinely interested in knowing why certain ancient writings were rejected and deemed to be uninspired of God. I mean who decided and what was their criteria? Don't misunderstand me; I'm not necessarily saying that they were wrong by not including the Book of Enoch, for instance. I'm just wondering how they came to the decision they did.”

The thread link is here : The doctrine of the fall of lucifer in early judao-christianity

Another poster asked a similar question as follows : “Being raised in a christian home, I've always been rather troubled by this question for the simple fact that it wasn't addressed. Who were the people that actually chose the 66 books which we now possess? Were they under divine inspiration as well?”

I thought such questions were profound and their consideration has many implications. I’ve wondered what CAN be said with any accuracy about the specific “people” or “organizations” involved in the several millennia-long process of accumulating sacred records; the gathering of the vast sacred libraries; the collating of vast numbers of texts as vast records accumulated, and were processed through culling and editing so as to include some texts and to exclude others in the creation of both Bibles. Though Old Testament periods become increasingly shrouded as one moves toward the beginnings of written history, I have wondered if similar principles that we know happened to New Testament records could be a model for the Old Testament and other sacred Christian writings as well. I think one can only speculate regarding these things, but I felt like speculating a bit.

Katzpur’s question asks regarding why certain writings were rejected and “deemed to be uninspired of God”. I do not know of ANY RECORDS that were rejected based on the claim that they were “uninspired” in the earliest canons, and in fact, I believe that the two main criteria determining whether a text would be INCLUDED into or EXCLUDED from any several different N.T. canons which have come and gone over the centuries were NOT based on whether a text was inspired or not, but rather I believe such decisions were mainly based on the following criteria :

The main Criteria upon which INCLUSION into a canon seems to have been based were:
#1) a textual agreement with the personal theology of the influential person or organization promoting a specific canon and
#2) The way in which the person or organization wishes to use the included texts

The main Criteria upon which EXCLUSION seems to have been based:
#3) The strength of a specific doctrinal disagreement contained in an excluded text.


We see this same phenomenon within forum discussions. Posters wishing to demonstrate their theology both choose and then use certain sacred texts they find useful to the support of their theology and they tend to avoid other texts. Luther, in his desire to promulgate “Faith without works” desires to quote Paul and desires to exclude james. Psychologically, texts which agree with our personal theology appear “authoritative” and “feel” worthy of canonization, whereas texts which disagree with our personal theology tend to be dismissed and remained “unused” and neglected as references.





1) TEXTS IN THE INTERTESTAMENTAL PERIOD – SOME CONTEXT AND COMMENTS

The Earliest Christians did keep and collect letters and texts, but they were poorly fitted to collate and standardize sacred records of their times. I think that as dissensions arose, the development of some sort of standard, written word of the Apostles became a necessity. (I’ll give examples later)

Early Judao-Christians had a large library of sacred texts of various levels of availability. Letters included in modern New Testaments represent only a fraction of the total that must have been written. If one considers just Paul, we assume he wrote many other letters during his years as an apostle, which have been lost to history. Presumably many of these lost letters were just as sacred as those that came to be included in the New Testament. If we found one of these “lost letters” in an archeological dig, it would be just as inspired as those letters we have.

It isn’t just “letters” that were important to early Christian communities, but there was a wide range of literature written and distributed; being read; believed and adhered to by early Christians. There were many early Gospels beside the four we have. Luke introduces his gospel version by indicating that “… many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us…”(Lk 1:1) All of these “gospels” were part of the early Christian literature. Similarly, there were many Christian apocalypses in addition to that of John. The Shepherd of Hermas was one such apocalypse found included in the 4-5th century New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus. Other apocalypses were quite popular sacred texts in the early centuries of the various Christian churches.

There were church order such as The Didache (Teaching) of the Twelve Apostles in multiple languages and versions. There were many, many Christian apologies and martyrologies (e.g. Martyrdom of Polycarp) and tracts and commentaries. There was a great deal of “romance” literature (meaning Christian “novels”) and hymns, and poetry, etc. As Christianity spread and became more organized, specific “liturgies” started to develop.

Justin Martyr describes a Sunday service in his Roman congregation where Christians gather :

“…and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things…”(1 Apol. 67)

I believe that, in the earliest Judao-christianities, certain books simply became more popular and viewed as more “authoritative” than other books in an organic way in the same way as many other types of traditions develop. I do not think that there was any “organized Christian group” who, in the first two centuries, designated what was in some arbitrary canon. However, pressures for a “standardized” canon did develop over time.




2) THE FIRST SIGNIFICANT CHRISTIAN “CANON”

An influencial Christian-philosopher-teacher named Marcion, developed the first “canon” of any significance. Though Marcion had access to other texts, his canon excluded all but eleven books: a version of the gospel of luke and ten epistles. The reason for the exclusion of other text had to do with Marcions’ personal theology.
This first canon and the reasoning underlying its’ inception are important example, because all other canons seem to come into being under similar circumstances. They all reflect the personal theology of the Canon’s promoter, or promoting organization. There were many early “canons”. Some jewish christains who held the Mosaic law was still valid used only Matthew; others accepted only Mark; Marcion accepted only Luke; the Valentinians accepted only John, and importantly, they formed their ideas regarding what was inspired and ‘canonical’ based on their personal theologies.

Irenaeus accepts all four, but again, his reasoning is not because these four were “inspired” in some special way, but rather he accepts them because of his personal belief in a particular theological symbolism. He explains:

“It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are [4]. For, since there are four zones of the world I which we live, and four principles winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world, and the pillar and ground of the church is the Gospel…it is fitting that she should have four pillars…. (Against Heresies 3.11.7) “

The underlying reasoning as to WHY these gospels (and no others) should be included was Not based on whether they were “inspired” (which was somewhat of an arbitrary measure itself), but rather was most often based upon arbitrary theology and personal logic (or illogic).

It wasn’t until the middle of the 4th century until Athenasius, a bishop of the most dominant form of Christianity wrote a list of the current 27 books. Thus we are left during the 2nd and 3rd centuries without any generalized agreement as to theology and without an agreement as to a specific canon.

Just as these early groups of Christians disagreed with one another and this affected their preferred “canons”, The various versions of the New Testament emerged out of theological conflict. As one Christianity gained greater influence and membership than all the others, they decided for their members which books would be included in their canon. And, I think, that in the same manner as Marcion who determined his “canon” based on texts that agreed with his theology; just as Irenaeus determines 4 gospels are fitting based on his personal logic; that the developing roman church created both theology and matched a set of books to that theology and called it their “canon”. BUT, this didn’t happen until the 4th century.

Initially, there were difficulties in creating a standard with the Gospels and letters they already had. Paul had already stamped a qualified approval onto Old Testament texts as “able to make wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus”, however New Testament texts had only limited distribution and were NOT universally accepted as inspired in the same sense as the Old Testament text. If prophets are not received “in [their] own country” then it seems equally true that they are not received “in [their] own time period”. It was a difficult for some of the early Christians to accept New Testament canonical texts as authoritative in the same way the Old Testament had been. Bishop Ignatius laments :

“For I heard some people say, “If I do not find it in the archives [i.e. the Old Testament] I do not believe it in the gospel [i.e. New Testament Text].” And when I said to them, “It is written,” they answered me, “That is precisely the question.” But for me, the “archives” are Jesus Christ,...” (Ignatius to the Philadelphians 8:2)

Looking back, there were so many sacred texts quoted in early christian documents, it was also difficult to know which texts WERE sacred to them before any of the various Christian “canons” were arbitrarily decided upon. The Apostolic Fathers are a group of Christian texts that come from the period when an original apostle could have either still been alive or the writer could have known an apostle. These writers use both texts that later came to be in later New Testaments, and they quote texts that did not end up in the modern canon. The early Christians in their various writings simply quote texts they personally feel are authoritative for their purpose.

Such writings also demonstrate that the modern canonical texts are not the same as some of the original texts. This is not simply a matter of their “quotes” being different than modern text (since exactness of quotation was not required to the ancient writing styles) but, as in the case of Mark (which some think is a source document for much of the other gospels), Papias writing seems to indicate an original Mark existed which was different than our modern Mark.

For example, Papias (quoted by Eusebius) said

“the Elder [John] used to say. Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote accurately all that he remembered.; though he did not [record] in order that which was either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord, nor followed Him; but subsequently, as I said, [attached himself to] Peter, who used to frame his teaching to meet the [immediate] wants [of his hearers]; and not as making a connected narrative of the Lord’s discourses” (Euseb l.c.)

Since the current Mark is in as clear an order as the other Gospels, it seems that this Mark was not the same as current Mark. The same issue arises with early manuscriptual differences. For example Catabriensis Bezae, one of the five oldest and most important New Testament Manuscripts we have (4-5th century) is so different than others from a similar period (i.e. Vaticanus, Siainaticus, etc) in it’s details and text. For example, it’s text in ACTS of the Apostles is approx 20% longer than other Manuscripts; leading so scholars to speculate that it represents a “second edition” of the New Testament material. Perhaps “First Mark” which Papia’s described” was deemed insufficient for the needs of the later church and thus our current version of Mark represents a “second edition” as well. Certainly there were also counterfeit Marcan texts (which the sad story of the licentious Carpocratians demonstrates). In the final analysis, the Gospels do not represent a complete “Life of Christ” nor full chronological biographies, but rather they are simple fragmentary “memoirs” of “some events” in the Life of Jesus.

The situation is more complicated than the existence of multiple versions of the text. Not only did influential individuals and organizations pick texts that agreed with their theology, but textual changes by copyists also tended to bring the texts in line with their idea of “orthodoxy”. Remember, this is an age BEFORE copyrights and “intellectual property laws”. Texts were not only freely used, but freely changed according to their usage.

This was such a problem that authors would sometimes include injunctions and curses upon those who might make changes to the texts. One such injunction by an author against changing his text appears in the closing verses of john’s apocalypse : “…If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (revelation 22:18-19)




3) THE “ACCUMULATION OF SACRED TEXTS” VERSUS “CANONIZATION OF” SACRED TEXTS
It is in this prior context that I wanted to make the important distinction that there was an accumulation of vast amounts of sacred texts and, as Papias reminds us regarding the New Testament, only a small portion of the records and deeds were recorded and saved. That our records only represent a tiny portion of real history is the clear in the final message of John to us : “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. (John 21:25)

We know there are other New Testament era prophets who wrote and prophesied, but whose histories we do not have. For example, the prophet Agabus described in NT Acts 11:27 : “And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, ...” We have very little of the history of such relatively “unknown prophets”.

The same is true of Old Testament prophets. There are some books referred to in the Old Testament (which were used as source material) but which were not included in the later versions of the Old Testament. In fact, some of the Old Testament text cannot BE understood, without referring to those same histories which were left out of it’s texts.

For examples : The history of Moses first Marriage. Moses encourages Israel NOT to marry non-Isrealites, yet his first marriage was to an “ethiopian woman”. This marriage seems like an “apparent” hypocrisy unless one knows this specific marital history (which our version of the Old Testament, in the main, leaves out). The story in Numbers 12 where “Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.” is so fragmented so as NOT to be contextually understandable.

One must turn to other sources such as Josephus who HAD access to the earlier Old Testament histories and relates the story of Moses marriage to Princess Tharbis (the ethiopian woman) and provides the important context which relieves Moses of any hypocrisy.

The story of Joseph in Egypt is full of important examples of an Old Testament story which leaves out many important contextual details. An obvious example is the story of Joseph pretending to “divine” with a silver cup. The only current Old Testament reference is in Genesis 44 where Joseph has his servant place a “silver cup” in the brother’s sack as they leave egypt. Current Genesis 44: (KJV) relates it thusly :

“1 AND he commanded the steward of his house, saying, Fill the men's sacks with food, as much as they can carry, and put every man's money in his sack's mouth. 2 And put my cup, the silver cup, in the sack's mouth of the youngest, and his corn money. And he did according to the word that Joseph had spoken. 3 As soon as the morning was light, the men were sent away, they and their [donkeys]. 4 And when they were gone out of the city, and not yet far off, Joseph said unto his steward, Up, follow after the men; and when thou dost overtake them, say unto them, Wherefore have ye rewarded evil for good? 5Is not this it in which my lord drinketh, and whereby indeed he divineth?

The statement “Is not this it in which my lord drinketh, and whereby indeed he divineth?” refers to the earlier story of Joseph, pretending to use the cup to divine, but our Modern Old Testaments completely leave out this story and thus the “divination” becomes a “lost reference” without any context. It is, for most, a confusing sentence without meaning when the text leaves out the prior history. One must turn to Jasher (which is left out of current old testaments) or other sacred texts to understand such references. It’s not simply bit’s and pieces that are missing.

There are entire BOOKS that have been left out of Old and New Testaments. For examples : the covenant (Ex. 24:7), the wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14), Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18), the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41), Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29), Nathan the prophet (2 Chr. 9:29), Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chr. 12:15), Iddo the prophet (2 Chr. 13:22), Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34), the sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19), Enoch (Jude 1:14) (though an enoch IS included in the modern EASTERN Old Testament still), New Testaments epistles to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9), to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3), and from Laodicea (Col. 4:16). The HUGE changes occurring in Old Testament Samuel that are occasioned by the recovery of earlier and larger versions of Samuel which have been found in the Dead Sea Scroll Samuel is a profound example of how modern bibles will change significantly as we continue to discover much of the missing texts.

I believe that there have been more ancient Judao-Christian texts discovered within the last century and a half, then in all other centuries combined. This is not merely both amazing and exciting, but I believe that it will hold special meaning for restoration efforts in relation to early Judao-Christian theology. I do not know much about specific decisions as to how some books ended up in the multiple versions of the Old Testament and why some were left out. I do not know why some verses were translated as they are, rather than in another manner. However, as I look at later important disputations over the canon, such as occurred among reformers who engaged in disputations over the New Testament canon and some of whom created their OWN Old and New Testaments, I imagine that the earlier processes of discussion and dispute and decisions regarding including and excluding texts may be much the same as disputations and translational changes the New Testament underwent as the reformers re-examined the text and the canon. It is speculation, but I will give some reasons why I think it is a good provisional model (until we have more and better data).




4) THE POPULAR DOCTRINE OF EACH COMMUNITY AND AGE AFFECTED (DETERMINED?) IT’S CANON
No only did (does) the most popular doctrine of each community determine it’s view of an authoritative canon, but the resulting canon it produces then comes to represent and support the most popular doctrines. Thus the canon becomes a “tool” to be used as a source of instruction and edification for specific doctrines believed by that particular community. (By community, I mean a group of believers)

In regards to the current western New Testament,the Anglican historian, B.F. Westcot, said

“It cannot be too often repeated, that the history of the formation of the whole Canon involves little less than the history of the building of the Catholic Church.”

I think his historical point is, in the main, correct and a good provisional model for the processes which created the modern western canon (as opposed to the eastern Christian Canon which has 81 books). The important principle is that the nature of any textual canon represents in great measure, the nature of the individuals and the organization that most affected the creation of that specific canon. Had the Jerusalem Saints achieved domination over other christian churches instead of the Roman Church, a resulting canon might have both included and excluded different books than we now have just as the modern eastern ethiopic Old Testament includes more books than the western Old Testament.

DOCTRINE CREATE CANONS AND THE RESULTING CANON SUPPORTS DOCTRINE
I think Westcot was correct in the main in his theory that the books included into the western Canon, were settled by common usage AND that common usage was determined to a great extent by the western roman church which both encouraged some texts and banned other texts based on the texts agreement to IT’S theology.

For example, even into the 1600s, Galileo was punished and his writing banned based on the fact that Galileo's text disagreed with the catholic doctrine that the earth was the center of the universe and did NOT move. However, in the Protestant nations and among Protestant Scholars, Galileo’s texts were, comparatively, very well received and were more “authoritative”. In this same manner, whether a sacred or profane text was authorized and “included” into a group of “authoritative” literature, was, somewhat arbitrary and dependent upon popular belief which encouraged or discouraged specific texts.

We can see similar polarization and reactions to the Book of Enoch. Enoch was extremely popular to the New Testament writers, who read Enoch and who quoted Enoch as authoritative scripture a great deal (the Great apochryphologist, James found 128 references from Enoch in the New Testament). However, the Enochial literature and it’s early Christian model of the Trinity (as three individuals) would have been discouraged by any dominant church attempting to advance a different model of the Christian trinity. Additionally, Enoch’s description of a physical heaven with physical angels who are able to exercise free will and choice (and who abuse their free will) would have caused additional dissonance as the later Christians distanced themselves from such early Christian doctrines. I think this is one of the reasons that some early christian literature and doctrines which were extrememly popular and very orthodox, became unpopular and labeled as “unorthodox” in later christianities.

It’s not just TEXTS containing opposing doctrines that can be excluded, but individuals who step away from the party line regarding a popular canon were excluded from religious influence as well. For example : In Geneva, Sebastian Castellio, an Erasmian in the court of the Lord, was denied ordination to the ministry on the ground among others that he rejected the inspiration of the Song of Songs. The ministers of Geneva (including Calvin) gave this account of the incident :

"Castellio said that it was a lascivious and obscene poem in which Solomon described his indecent amours. [...]we told him also that he should not trust so to his own judgment, especially when he advanced nothing which had not been obvious to every one before he was born...[...] When this did not weigh with him we considered what we should do. We were all agreed that it would be dangerous and set a bad example if he were admitted to the ministry on this condition. To begin with, good people would be not a little offended if they heard that we had ordained a minister who openly rejected and condemned a book accepted as Scripture by all the churches. Further the door would be open to adversaries and detractors who seek to defame the gospel and disrupt this church. Finally, we should be without any answer for the future to any one who wanted to repudiate Ecclesiates or Proverbs or any other book, unless we wanted to debate whether or no the book were worthy of the Holy Spirit (Cal. Op. XI, 674-6 (Corpus Reformatorum 39)

5) REFORMATION DISCUSSIONS : ARE THEY A PROVISIONAL MODEL FOR ANCIENT CANONICAL DISPUTATIONS?
Since we do not HAVE many clear records describing specific ancient discussions and disputations as the Old Testament “ur-texts” were written and came to be either included or excluded from an increasingly stabilizing group of popular Jewish texts, we cannot know exactly how the ancient Jews came to accept one text over another in the gradual production of what came to be the western Old Testament. We don’t have many extant records from the production period of New Testament texts that specifically record discussions and disputations regarding the specific popular christian texts that ultimately became the western New Testament.

However, we DO have later discussions and disputations where influential protestant leaders discuss the canon. I believe that these discussions help us form an fairly accurate “provisional models” as to what ancient discussions and disputations were like; the very discussions and disputations and principles involved in forming the various ancient Judao-christian Canons. An analysis of these discussions may help us understand WHY some books came to be included in a canon and why others were excluded AND, perhaps serve to correct some of our erroneous assumptions regarding the genesis of sacred canons themselves. For example :


AUTHORSHIP DID NOT DETERMINE THE POPULAR CANON FOR REFORMERS

It was long known by Protestant reformers that Moses could not have written the account of his own death and Carlstadt pointed this out, yet again when the issue of false authorship came up as an issue. (Herman Barge, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 2 vols (1905), 1, 193.) Luther admitted that this portion of Genesis must have been added by someone else, but felt that we should accept Moses as partial author of the text preceding his death. Luther, in his own right, did not believe Revelation was apostolic nor that Hebrews was Pauline. However, In Luther’s translations, he kept both of them in his Canon despite making significant changes in his translation of the text.

There was and is still a lot of confusion regarding the texts of the New Testament : For example, the early traditions fixed upon Clement of Rome as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (On origen’s authority, ap. Euseb, H.E. vi.25). Some later traditions attribute it to Paul. Others disagree with them. No one can confirm WHO wrote it. Thus the text was involved in on-going controversy as to whether it should be included in the “canon” or not. We still do not know who it's author was. However, since all New Testament books are apocryphal or pseudographic to the extent that they could not prove the authorship of any of them other than the deep tradition gleaned from early writers, then the ability to PROVE authorship was NOT a criteria for inclusion into the biblical text.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

[Clear lens]

POST TWO OF TWO



6) THE VIEWS REGARDING SPECIFIC AUTHORITY OF BOOKS WERE DRIVEN BY DOCTRINAL PREFERENCES AND UPON THEIR VALUE AS DOCTRINAL SUPPORT

I believe that when one looks and the underlying motives and criteria, one finds that these influential players viewed texts as authoritative to the degree that the texts agreed best with their own religious notions and beliefs rather than a dependence upon an arbitrary catholic derived canonicity, or traditional inclusion.

For example : In their controversy over the freedom of the will, Erasmus argued with Luther by citing Sirach (from Old Testament apocrpha). He believes it authoritative and says:

“I think no one should detract from the authority of this book Because Saint Jerome indicated that it should not belong to the Hebrew canon, since Christians received it into their canon, and I cannot see why the Hebrews excluded it when they included the Parables of Solomon[presumably Ecclesiastes rather than Proverbs] and the amatory Canticles . (Weimar edition (W), 18, 666, lines 18-22; Tishreden (TR), 1, no. 475. 208)

Luther, having his own scriptural dislikes said :

“I so hate Ester and II Macabees that I wish they did not exist. There is too much Judaism in them and not a little heathenism.”

However, Luther’s reasons for dislike of Macabees was because it contains the scripture on which the Catholics based the doctrine of purgatory (Xii 40-6). Ester, however, was in the canon.

Luther loves Paul’s writings on Faith because Luther’s faith is so dependent upon them, however, the writings of James which is used so often to counter Luther’s doctrine, is NOT accepted to readily by Luther. The Epistle of James Luther characterizes as an ‘epistle of straw’. In 1522 Luther declares regarding the Book of Revelation that he : “...could not regard it as prophetic or apostolic or even as the work of the Holy Ghost because it was so replete with visions and images.” The worst was that in this book ‘Christ was neither taught nor known’. Luther would not impose his own opinion upon others, but for himself his spirit could not find its way into this book” (Erlangen edition (EA), 63, 115, 169.)

Luther could find only pretend enough paliation towards the book of James so as not to “forbid it”. He says regarding James : “... His book is not to be forbidden, because it does contain some good sayings.” (EA, 63, 157) Still, his view on the minimal value and authority of James for doctrine is clear. It is also clear from such sayings that, for such influential individuals, (who affected both the canons and biblical texts of million of others), THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS DETERMINED THEIR PERSONAL CANONS, that is, if the text agreed with their beliefs, it was viewed as authoritative. If the text did not agree with their views, it either was NOT viewed as authoritative, OR, it was views as LESS authoritative. It is a two edged sword that both uses some text and avoids other texts just as as we see from the ways scriptures are used in debates on the forums nowadays.

An important criteria for Luther was whether a book, (in HIS PERSONAL ESTIMATION) “proclaimed Christ”. He proclaimed :

“That which does not preach Christ is not apostolic though it be the work of Peter or Paul and conversely that which does teach Christ is apostolic even though it be written by Judas, Annas, Pilate, Herod.” (Luther in EA, 63, 156f)

Thus, again we see that the religious ideology of individuals affects the types of text they as sacred. If the Bible tells us anything, it tells us that it is always more difficult to change ones current dogma to match a living prophet than it is to “listen selectively” or to cull from a speaeh or text, that which does not match our personal theology. The problem with such an arbitrary criteria and the actions which follow it, is that it is dependent upon background and understanding and a host of purely personal characteristics. This is what I mean when I say that ANCIENT INCLUSIONS INTO THE CANON WERE DRIVEN BY DOCTRINAL PREFERENCES of influencial individuals and groups.

If issues such as personal and popular doctrine determined which texts the influential individuals choose as authorized scripture for CHRISTIANS, then can one assume that similar issues and arguments affected ancient influential Jews anciently in their attitudes and in their editing and translations of texts they selected to include in an arbitary canon anciently?

We sometimes hear that a Jewish council at Jamnia determined the Jewish canon, but this is not so. The council was convened to discuss which books “defiled the hands” in the view of the specific type of Jews *attending this meeting. (“defiling the hands” was is a euphamism for which books were so sacred as to require one to wash ones hands to be read, and other, less respected books did not require the washing of the hands). Their discussions and disputations concerned a level of respect that is being described and I imagine their disputations occurred in their meetings regarding their canon were similar in nature to the disputations among the reformers regarding the reformers’ canon. (*By “specific type of Jews” I mean this in the sense that such determinations, would have been dominated by the dominate type of Judaism controlling the Jamnian conference.)

If Jewish apostates (from original ancient Judaism) are the dominant religion, then apostate Judaism would dominant such discussions, would determine the popular canon and would affect the text and translation that went into that canon. One must remember that Jamnia came on the tail end of any number of such discussions comprised of any number of individuals and groups who would have both included and culled texts and who would have edited those texts according to some standard, and that standard would have been THEIR personal beliefs, and/or the beliefs of the religious community of which they were a part.

It is partly because this principle the translator Jim Sanders comments

“Whenever one says canon, one has to be clear which community one is talking about. It one says canon, one has to say which canon. There are many canons. The Ethiopian Orthodox canon has 81 books in it.....Professor VanderKam said this morning that we don’t really know the limits of what would have been thought of an authoritative traditional literature at Qumran. . (Lecture, Oct 27, 1990 BAR)

7) TEXTUAL CHANGES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT WERE DRIVEN BY PERSONAL THEOLOGY

Not only did personal preference affect what BOOKS were held to be authoritative by individuals, but personal preference affected the inclusion of biblical text (or exclusion of sacred text) in the various translation of these influenTial individuals and groups.

For examples : In HIS translation of the New Testament, Erasmus shocked contemporaries by omitting the famous proof text for the trinity in I John v.7 where the authentic text reads : ‘There are three that witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are at one.’ The fictitious modification had amplified the original thusly : ‘There are three that witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one in Christ Jesus, and there are three that give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit’.

This proof text had long been recognized as spurious and counterfeit and did not belong in any authentic New Testament. Since the text was not to be found in any authentic early Greek manuscript, Erasmus properly omitted this text.

However, the masses were used to reading that specific text and the Church Hierarchy were used to using that specific text to support their doctrine. BOTH groups demanded that Erasmus replace the text back into the subsequent bible. This he refused to do. However, the ultimate pressure of the outcry was such that he gave in to the demands to reinsert it (which he did in his third edition in 1519) His critics even went so far as to have a counterfeit Greek manuscript created to show the text existed in the Greek… The Strong-willed Luther was able to withstand such pressures and did NOT insert the spurious text into his translation. However, others did, including the compilers of the King James Version.

This tendency to believe as authoritative, text which supports our views may underlie the initial 1897 declaration by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, with the endorsement of Pope Leo XIII that this passage WAS authentic (as it agreed with their doctrine). It took another 40 years for this decision to be reversed. (I do not think the text is claimed by the roman church to be authentic since this time though I do not know this.)

The tendencies in ALL men (including Luther) and ALL ecclesiastical organizations is that we tend to view that which agrees with our prior biases to have authority and to be useful for edification and to change texts that are not in agreement by either ink or by interpretation to agree with our bias. If this principle is true of the reformers and true of organizations, and all men, then this tendency to change text to agree with prior belief affected the Jewish compilers and the Jewish editors of the Old Testament as well.



8) TEXTUAL CHANGES WERE USED TO SUPPORT THE BELIEFS OF THE TRANSLATORS
Not only were texts included into a canon based upon doctrinal preferences but Textual changes were made to support the belief of the translators who create the bibles. In fact, personal belief CANNOT HELP BUT CHANGE MEANINGS of what we read. If I believe in a certain doctrine, I cannot help but read my bias INTO the text. All of us do this since we ALL HAVE BIAS. This is true of the reformers and it is true of the reformers who were translators.

The protestant reformers also used translation to bolster their personal theologies. Erasmus frustrated his contemporaries when he translated LOGOS in John’s prolog not by the prior word “VERBUM” but instead by the word “SERMO”. Both refer to verbal expression, but VERBUM, by usage has overtones of consubstantiality with the Father, and SERMO allows a possible lower view of Christ’s person.

Even more insulting was his rendering of METANOEITE ( Matt. Iv. 17). The Cambridge history of the Bible relates that “The Catholic Vulgate had POENITENTIAM AGITE, which might be taken to mean DO PENANCE. Erasmus rendered it RESIPISCITE which means BE PENITENT. Luther, used THIS translation to bolster his critique of the penitential system of the Catholic Church.”


If Erasmus’ changes to text angered contemporaries, then Luther’s changes enraged them. His famous addition to the text is in Romans 3:28 where he adds the word “allein” to the text so as to change Pauls speech from “a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. “
to being justified “allein durch den Glauben” (i.e. ALONE through faith / through faith ALONE). It the addition of a single word raised a furor, then Luthers removal of one of the Ten Commandments incensed his critics.

The Cambridge History of the Bible explains :

“Luther omitted from the Ten Commandments the one against graven images partly on the ground that it was meant only for the jews. In consequence Luther’s list of the commandments ran in part as follows : (1) thou shalt have no other gods before me. (2) thou shalt no take the name of the Lord in vain. (3) remember the sabbath day, etc. But calvin did not admit Luther’s distinction and his list read : (Thou shalt have no other Gods. (2) thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. (3) thou shal not take the name... This is why in Germany the fourth commandment is the one which enjoins obedience to parents, but in the reformed lands, the fourth commandment refers to the sabbath. Luther compensated for his omission of the second on images by making two commandments out of the tenth. For him the ninth forbade coveting the neighbor’s house, and the tenth, coveting his wife, etc. (Walter Dress, ‘Die Zehn Gebote in Luthers theologischen Denkin’ (Wissenshaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt Universitat zu Berlin, Gesellsch. Un sprachwiss, Reihe, Nr. 3, Jr. 111 (1953-4), pp. 213-18)

Luther believed in a principle he called “JUDISCHES SACHENSPIEGEL”. He meant that it was a “specific case rule” (my translation) for specific people at specific times. Thus, he felt that the Pentateuch and even the Ten Commandments contained portions which were specifically directed to the Jews and only to the Jews. Obviously, his personal beliefs affected what he included and what he excluded from his first translation (what was specifically authoritative and what was not specifically authoritative IN HIS PERSONAL VIEW).

As I’ve demonstrated, it is not merely textual inclusions and exclusions that are driven by personal theology, but the text itself. Luther’s theology affected his translation, which in turn, confirmed his conviction. The word LIFE in the Old Testament was translated by him as ETERNAL LIFE in his translation. MERCY became GRACE, and THE DELIVERER OF ISRAEAL was translated as SAVIOUR.

This principle has ALWAYS been true. Christians and Jews and most individuals who have influence over texts have always manipulated these texts, whether knowingly or unknowingly, to support their own doctrinal biases.

Luther’s motivation to exclude the second commandment and translate words to support his theological beliefs may be similar to the motivation for the Jewish tiqqune sopherim (errors of the scribes). The scribes changed what was there because it did not suit their prior biases. It happened with the Jews; with the Samaritans; and with the Christians, and (I suspect it happened with Muslim texts but do not have sufficient data to support this belief)

Erhman reminds us of an important principle regarding editing of all manuscripts, both Old Testament AND New Testament. Some changes are made on the "lowest level" by scribes who are simply trying to correct the manuscript to agree with their own beliefs (or often to agree with another manuscript they are working with or have worked with previously).

For example :
The first Chapter of the Book of Hebrews in one of the oldest and best surviving manuscripts of the New Testament, codex Vaticanus (one of the five most important New Testament Manuscripts we have from before the 6th century). A note appears in the margins between the 1st and 2nd columns. One corrector to the text erased a word in verse 3 and substituted another word in it’s place; however, a second corrector came along, erased the first correction, and then reinserted the original word, and wrote a note in the margin, castigate the first corrector. The note reads, “Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don’t change it!”. In such cases, it's often impossible to tell who was correct; the corrector, the corrector of the corrector, or a third or more correctors who correct them, each in accordance with their differing data and biases.



Some of the very old manuscripts were changed many times in different centuries by different correctors, using different manuscripts. This sort of mixing of families of manuscripts is common, (which greatly complicates classifying manuscripts).

These Scholars were aware of spurious textual additions and other problems with the text. As I've shown, even POPULAR PREFERENCES affected the text even when those preferences were wrong. If popular preferences changed the text of the New Testament at the time of the reformers, then why would this not be true of Old Testament Text as it was collated and edited in it’s several translations? I believe it was and will refer to it’s mechanism and examples as follows :




9) THE OLD TESTAMENT PERIOD AS A MODEL OF THIS SAME PHENOMENON
Just as influential Christians vied for influence, Influential Christian groups vied for influence, some winning out over others. In this same manner, Judaism was certainly NOT monolithic and had multiple schisms. Jesus finds himself between various Judaisms, of which the Saducees and Pharisees were only two competing types. When “horizontal Judaism” (i.e. those that sought authority and meaning through sacred texts) came to replace “vertical Judaism” (i.e. Jews that sought authority and meaning through revelation from Prophets and direct revelation), I think this shift affected the type of texts the dominant judaism both became interested in and those they culled in the same manner that later Christians saved and culled texts based on the type of Christianity that became dominant. I believe it also accounts for the differences in Jewish translations just as various Christian translators translated concepts to be consistent with their personal beliefs.




10) SIMILAR VARIETY EXISTED WITHIN JEWISH SACRED TEXTS THAT EXIST WITHIN THE CHRISTIAN TEXTS

The Christian, Justin Martyr, in his early dialogue with Trypo complained that the Jews removed certain passages from the scriptures which would have made it more clear that Jesus was the very Messiah they had looked for. Modern discoveries seem to support Justin's claims.

For example : The discovery of the dead sea scroll texts was amazing as it represents a Judaism whose authoritative texts were not only more broad than the current Western Old Testament, but they were Messianic in the extreme. AND, if the copper scroll is authentic, it means THIS Judaism may better represent orthodox Temple Judaism of the apostolic period than any other type of Judaism.

Intentional changes to Jewish records have been known for centuries. For example, the Jewish Talmud (which dates to the 5th century a.d.) Itself lists the tiqqune sopherim (the "errors of the scribes"). Most of these errors are assumed to be intentional alterations of the Old Testament due to scribal concerns that certain ideas showed disrespect for God, or the original texts disagreed with the scribes bias’ regarding God. Such changes in texts that occurred among the Jews, represent the same process of textual changes due to personal doctrinal preference that we see among the reformers who argued over which texts are authoritative and changed the texts to agree with their personal beliefs.

For years, the Dead Sea Scrolls were almost a thousand years older than the oldest extant Jewish versions of complete Old Testament Books. They also show many thousands ("thousands") of variations from later Jewish records. All the typical plus and minus and change variations are seen in comparisons to other Jewish Texts.

Variant Readings are COMMON in ancient versions of Jewish texts. Students reading biblical Hebrew simply need to look at the footnotes (i.e. "The critical apparatus") of the scholars’ edition of one of the most commonly used scholarly Hebrew Bibles (i.e. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) to discover that variant readings are listed on every page of this bible. Students reading Jewish Midrashic compilations such as Stone’s Chumash (which contains various content from multiple midrashic accounts as well as accounts of the sages") will notice frequent multiple various readings of Jewish texts.


Incomplete and Lost Jewish Narratives :
As Justin Martyr claimed, Jewish narratives have changed. There is much lost or corrupted data that would have made the scriptures more clear. (Whether the Jews would have accepted Jesus if such changes had not occurred in their scriptures is another matter)

An example of a lost passage of scripture is from the DSS text of Samuel: The missing paragraph belongs to 1 Samuel 11:1. It presents forty nine words (49) which are missing in the Hebrew Bible as well as in other Jewish texts in this single verse. With the restoration of this passage, the final verse in Chapter 10 transitions smoothly and with a better understanding as we enter the first verse in chapter 11. With such textual restorations of the Jewish text, the entire context of the story can be put into it’s proper perspective: After restoring the missing words, the translated Jewish text reads:

"And Nahash, king of the children of Ammon, oppressed harshly the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had fled from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead (1 Sam.11:1)

The restoration of the missing paragraph helps readers to understand the situation; the conditions of the treaty of Nahash, and the underlying motive to rally around King Saul and the prophet Samuel. It elucidates the Israelite motive to Slay many Ammonites and to cause the others to flee.

Missing text in the Jewish record is NOT a rare occurrence. There are also smaller, but significant additions in verses 11, 13, 18, 22, 23 and 24 IN JUST THE FIRST CHAPTER OF SAMUEL. This is partly the reason the New International Version Bible prefers the DSS textual readings over the traditional hebrew text. They are not the only bible trying to correct corruptions and deletions from the traditional Jewish text. "Today’s English version"; "Revised Standard Version", the "New Revised Standard Version", "The New English Bible", The "New American Bible", etc. are ALL using DSS corrections over the prior traditional Hebrew Text.

It is not just the "few words" that are missing, nor even just stories, but entire BOOKS that are missing from the current Jewish narratives. For example Joshua 10 relates the "sun stool still, and the moon stopped", but it refers us to a book missing from the Jewish narrative when it says: "Is this not written in the Book of Jasher?" (Josh 10:13) It is not just this narrative that could benefit from restoration of excluded books, but MANY other stories cannot BE understood without referencing materials the Jews either excluded or did not include in their later records that ultimately became the Old Testament.

Another example (of hundreds) of this type of exclusion by Jews is Genesis Chapter 44. Joseph instructs his servants to place a silver cup into Benjamins sack as a ruse to retain Benjamin in Egypt. One point of confusion is "THE CUP" and it’s having been used in "divining" or as a source of "revelation" (like the urim and thummim was to the Dead Sea Scroll Jews in their descriptions). The Genesis 44 naratives (kjv) says :

"And put my cup, the silver cup, in the sack's mouth of the youngest, and his corn money. And he did according to the word that Joseph had spoken. As soon as the morning was light, the men were sent away, they and their a sses. And when they were gone out of the city, and not yet far off, Joseph said unto his steward, Up, follow after the men; and when thou dost overtake them, say unto them, Wherefore have ye rewarded evil for good? Is not this it in which my lord drinketh, and whereby indeed he divineth? ye have done evil in so doing.”

The entire story of Joseph, who, when eating with the brothers, pretended to be inspired by the cup (and thus knowing how to set the brothers down, and grouped correctly, according to their birth mother) is lost from current wester Old Testaments. The importance of WHY it is the CUP the brothers would have presumably stolen, is lost to the Jewish Old Testament. One must read the stories from Jasher, or other sources. The same is true of Zelikah’s (Potiphar’s wife) feast from Joseph’s history. It is excluded from the modern Jewish Old testament. One may read Jasher for a fuller version, but they cannot find it in the Jewish Old Testament.

Such examples of Jewish exclusions of narrative and selective editing of scripture are vast and certainly books HAVE been written on the vast amount of exclusions, additions and other changes the Jews have made to earlier records.




11) THE JEWS PRODUCED TRANSLATIONS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE POPULAR DOCTRINE OF IT’S OWN COMMUNITY JUST AS THE CHRISTIAN REFORMERS DID
Just as the Christian reformers changed the text to be consistent with their personal or group doctrinal bias, a similar phenomenon is reflected in the regional differences in the major Jewish translations. Consider, for examples, variant readings relating to God’s appearance to men between two major Jewish translations (the MT and the LXX), and, the differing personal bias between these groups affects these translations (just as it affected the translation of the samaritan pentateuch and bias affected Luther’s translations and just as it affects almost ALL translations done by men having bias.)

"the Lord met him" (Ex 4:24) (MT)
"the angel of the Lord met him" (LXX)

"and Moses went up to God" (Ex 19:3) (MT)
"and Moses went up to the mountain of God" (LXX)

"and they saw the God of Israel" (Ex 24:10) (MT)
"and they saw the place where the God of Israel stood" (LXX)

"and he beholds the likeness of the LORD" (Num 12:8) (MT)
"and he beholds the glory of the LORD" (LXX)

The LXX Jewish translation avoids directly stating that men are able to behold God while the MT (also a Jewish translation) indicates men can access and even see God. Each Jewish Group translates according to it’s own bias just as the Samaritans did, and just as the Christians did. We all have doctrinal bias; and, translators with doctrinal bias translate according TO their bias.

Jim Sanders gives what I think is a good example of even small changes to texts. At a BAR lecture series he had shown slides of various ancient hebrew texts and said after his lectures :

“You saw manuscripts this morning with just consonants and maybe a few marginal notations, but Masoretes did three things with those consonants. They inserted vowels according to the tradition of the oral readings of the time. They inserted accent marks (te’amin) and cantillation marks (in the case of the poetic sections) so the lector knows where to pause, how to parse a sentence and so on. Hershel [Shanks] was citing from Isaiah 40 this morning, “A voice cries: ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord’ “ is the way the Masoretes put the accent marks. Matthew was free to read the verse in his way because he did not have the advantage of the Masoretic accent marks. He was able to say “A voice cries in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord.’” and apply it to John the Baptist. They put the Masorot in the lateral margins and in the top and bottom margins. These were notations by scribes to subsequent generations of scribes for copying accurately. (underline is mine)

His point, for those able to understand, is that if very, very specific meanings are often dependent upon such changes as an accent mark then what sort of doctrinal meanings can be developed from word and sentence changes. Such changes can produce and support the doctrines of an entirely different religion.


For example : SAMARITAN RECORDS
When one looks at horizontal judaism’s motives for editing out or for adding new text to old narratives, the motives do not seem to me to be so different than for other Jews and other religious groups who did the same thing for the same reason.

For example: the variant readings in the Samaritan Pentateuch are different in approximately six thousand places when compared to the traditional Jewish version. Some variations are NOT minor variations. Most major variations are intentional changes dealing with temple worship. For example: The tenth commandment in the early Samaritan decalogue relates to "the sanctity of Mount Gerizim", which was a major doctrinal dispute between these two types of Jews.


These and many other consideration cannot tell us what the original sacred texts looked like, nor can they tell us what books should or should not be in a “sacred canon”, but they do provide a superficial glimpse regarding a very few speculative motives and mechanisms which one can consider in the production of any arbitrary “canon” of scripture, including our Western Old and New Testaments. I seems clear that there is a tendency in man to view as “authoritative”, those texts which seem to support our theological belief.



That desire to confirm current tradition, often seems stronger than the desire of men and women to change their beliefs to accord to a text which disagrees with a current belief. We tend to either dismiss disagreeable texts, or we “re-interpret” them so that they do not mean what we do not want them to mean. I think that those influential individuals and organizations who suggested our present canon which most of us have inherited, frequently chose texts based on the criteria that certain texts agreed with their theology, and texts that did not perform this function were seen to have less value and were excluded. Certainly, texts which seemed to teach a different theology than that held by the creators of any of the canons were excluded.

I hope this provisional model makes sense and am certainly WANTING to modify it as I discover errors in it. I appreciate any corrections that anyone would like to make.



Clear

[ans57]

Originally Posted by Clear lens

POST ONE OF TWO

The thread link is here : The doctrine of the fall of lucifer in early judao-christianity

Another poster asked a similar question as follows : “Being raised in a christian home, I've always been rather troubled by this question for the simple fact that it wasn't addressed. Who were the people that actually chose the 66 books which we now possess? Were they under divine inspiration as well?”

I thought such questions were profound and their consideration has many implications. I’ve wondered what CAN be said with any accuracy about the specific “people” or “organizations” involved in the several millennia-long process of accumulating sacred records; the gathering of the vast sacred libraries; the collating of vast numbers of texts as vast records accumulated, and were processed through culling and editing so as to include some texts and to exclude others in the creation of both Bibles. Though Old Testament periods become increasingly shrouded as one moves toward the beginnings of written history, I have wondered if similar principles that we know happened to New Testament records could be a model for the Old Testament and other sacred Christian writings as well. I think one can only speculate regarding these things, but I felt like speculating a bit.

Katzpur’s question asks regarding why certain writings were rejected and “deemed to be uninspired of God”. I do not know of ANY RECORDS that were rejected based on the claim that they were “uninspired” in the earliest canons, and in fact, I believe that the two main criteria determining whether a text would be INCLUDED into or EXCLUDED from any several different N.T. canons which have come and gone over the centuries were NOT based on whether a text was inspired or not, but rather I believe such decisions were mainly based on the following criteria :

The main Criteria upon which INCLUSION into a canon seems to have been based were:
#1) a textual agreement with the personal theology of the influential person or organization promoting a specific canon and
#2) The way in which the person or organization wishes to use the included texts

The main Criteria upon which EXCLUSION seems to have been based:
#3) The strength of a specific doctrinal disagreement contained in an excluded text.


We see this same phenomenon within forum discussions. Posters wishing to demonstrate their theology both choose and then use certain sacred texts they find useful to the support of their theology and they tend to avoid other texts. Luther, in his desire to promulgate “Faith without works” desires to quote Paul and desires to exclude james. Psychologically, texts which agree with our personal theology appear “authoritative” and “feel” worthy of canonization, whereas texts which disagree with our personal theology tend to be dismissed and remained “unused” and neglected as references.

It is true that the compilation of the bible was not an act of any definite occurrence. It was a matter complicated and hard to understand...an evolutionary growth controlled by religious leaders with various beliefs and agendas. More often than not...the canon bible which is widely used by the western mindset today have caused contradictory representations from differing sects...as witnessed within forum discussions.

I've been blessed to own some of these rejected books and with utmost prayer for guidance, have used it where certain events in the old and new testaments are truncated and/or ambiguously penned.

It is equally true that these books are riddled with prolific tales and myths...thus for the believer...it takes the guidance of the Holy Spirit and "common sense" to separate the tares from the wheat (as the analogy goes.)

Clear lens...It takes spiritual dedication and time to compile and share what you know of this controversy without bias. For that...I thank you sincerely.

From the core, blessings...!

[Clear lens]

Ans57 re “time to compile and share what you know of this controversy without bias”. Thank you for the complement, I wish I deserved it. Like you have observed, it takes some sifting though some chaff in some of the older texts to find the worthwhile themes. However, I do find that as one becomes familar with ancient sybolism and idioms and euphamisms, the task becomes more pleasant.

I understand and appreciate the words “without bias” that you included. However, I have to admit to some bias. I am a christian through and through. I cannot speak or write independent of the context of all that I have seen and heard and experienced, which, for me, has been a great deal of evidence that there is a God who loves us and wants us to progress in specific ways, and that Jesus is the redeemer, sent by his Father to redeem all who want redemption.

Good luck in your own spiritual journey ans57

Clear
vifuoo

[ans57]

Originally Posted by Clear lens

Ans57 re “time to compile and share what you know of this controversy without bias”. Thank you for the complement, I wish I deserved it. Like you have observed, it takes some sifting though some chaff in some of the older texts to find the worthwhile themes. However, I do find that as one becomes familar with ancient sybolism and idioms and euphamisms, the task becomes more pleasant.

I understand and appreciate the words “without bias” that you included. However, I have to admit to some bias. I am a christian through and through. I cannot speak or write independent of the context of all that I have seen and heard and experienced, which, for me, has been a great deal of evidence that there is a God who loves us and wants us to progress in specific ways, and that Jesus is the redeemer, sent by his Father to redeem all who want redemption.

Good luck in your own spiritual journey ans57

Clear
vifuoo

Like you, I am a staunch believer in the Almighty God and his Christ. Perhaps...the only difference is that, I don't belong to any "organized religion" nor do I believe in luck.

Psalms 40:5 Many, O LORD my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered.

7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me...

Many blessings to you...ans