If you reject inerrancy can works be added to the Bible

[mdsimpson92]

It is just a question that has come to my mind. Given that much of the Bible ranges from poetry to opinions to letters, could there be works over the ages that could be considered of similar quality or would be considered a worthy addition? If there are, what would they be?

[Metacrock]

It is just a question that has come to my mind. Given that much of the Bible ranges from poetry to opinions to letters, could there be works over the ages that could be considered of similar quality or would be considered a worthy addition? If there are, what would they be?

No. Well, I guess we can always argue about that. there's no reason why the canon should be tied to the concept of incoherency. The books of the canon are the one's that the Bishops thought reflected the deposit of truth they were given and had the authroity of the Apostles on them. they never said "because they are inerrant." that was not a criteria.

[met]

It is just a question that has come to my mind. Given that much of the Bible ranges from poetry to opinions to letters, could there be works over the ages that could be considered of similar quality or would be considered a worthy addition? If there are, what would they be?

Seems like in some circles - I'm thinkin' more progressive on4es and especially progressive RCC - the Gospel of Thomas is on the verge of being considered canonical....

[naz]

There are many canons out there to choose from. What is canonical to one group may not be for the other.

Personally I enjoy reading the apocryphal and pseudepigraphic texts. They can help shed light on the meaning of the canonical works.

[Metacrock]

There are many canons out there to choose from. What is canonical to one group may not be for the other.

Personally I enjoy reading the apocryphal and pseudepigraphic texts. They can help shed light on the meaning of the canonical works.

Yea I do too. I'm not arguing for a super canon. I'm arguing for keep the canon we have (whatever tradition we are in) just change our orientation toward what ti means to have a canon. I take there to be other authorities. I think major theologians and councils and creeds also serves as authority.

[mdsimpson92]

Yea I do too. I'm not arguing for a super canon. I'm arguing for keep the canon we have (whatever tradition we are in) just change our orientation toward what ti means to have a canon. I take there to be other authorities. I think major theologians and councils and creeds also serves as authority.

Fair enough. It's just that works like Tolstoy, Kierkegaard and Augustine often strike me as being excellent works about trying to deal with God and religion. Granted these never really went to a council of Bishops and tradition (ok Augustine's might have).

[Metacrock]

Yea I do too. I'm not arguing for a super canon. I'm arguing for keep the canon we have (whatever tradition we are in) just change our orientation toward what ti means to have a canon. I take there to be other authorities. I think major theologians and councils and creeds also serves as authority.

Fair enough. It's just that works like Tolstoy, Kierkegaard and Augustine often strike me as being excellent works about trying to deal with God and religion. Granted these never really went to a council of Bishops and tradition (ok Augustine's might have).

that comes under the heading "what is the fundamental function of the canon?" I think the original was to preserve Jesus teachings. of course for the OT it was to put up a framework in which Messiah would make sense.