Dan,

Just that it wasn’t magically adopted outside of culture and typical human interaction and bias

Good point, and one I wish I had integrated into the post.

I’m glad you called me on the 2 Peter thing. Looking back, my comment about it bearing “few signs of apostolic authority” may have been overstatement. It’s actually hard to identify the tradition from which 2 Peter was written. However, considering that it’s extremely unlikely that Peter wrote it himself (even Origin and Eusebius doubted this) and that it borrows from and adapts two other books of dubious origin (Enoch and Jude), it seems whatever tradition produced it was not likely to be particularly close to the bedrock (pun intentional) himself.

I certainly enjoy the suggestion of a ‘deuterocanon’ for the NT, but honestly, I think we have one: The Apostolic Fathers is certainly just that, just not well-publicised.

Yes, I was thinking vaguely of the Fathers when I said that. I would prefer to see the earlier Fathers — the Didache, for Pete’s sake, which Clement quoted as authoritative — but the line gets fuzzy how late it too late.

But truthfully, is the deuterocanon well-publicised among most Protestants?

It’s generally not, and if pointed out at all, it’s to say that it’s not authoritative. But indeed, I’d say that it’s a good deal less useful for Christian believers than the Apostolic Fathers; if I were to go to bat for either the existing deuterocanon or the Fathers as a NT deuterocanon, the latter would certainly take precedence for me.

Thank you again for the fascinating discussion!

Dan,

Just that it wasn’t magically adopted outside of culture and typical human interaction and bias

Good point, and one I wish I had integrated into the post.

I’m glad you called me on the 2 Peter thing. Looking back, my comment about it bearing “few signs of apostolic authority” may have been overstatement. It’s actually hard to identify the tradition from which 2 Peter was written. However, considering that it’s extremely unlikely that Peter wrote it himself (even Origin and Eusebius doubted this) and that it borrows from and adapts two other books of dubious origin (Enoch and Jude), it seems whatever tradition produced it was not likely to be particularly close to the bedrock (pun intentional) himself.

I certainly enjoy the suggestion of a ‘deuterocanon’ for the NT, but honestly, I think we have one: The Apostolic Fathers is certainly just that, just not well-publicised.

Yes, I was thinking vaguely of the Fathers when I said that. I would prefer to see the earlier Fathers — the Didache, for Pete’s sake, which Clement quoted as authoritative — but the line gets fuzzy how late it too late.

But truthfully, is the deuterocanon well-publicised among most Protestants?

It’s generally not, and if pointed out at all, it’s to say that it’s not authoritative. But indeed, I’d say that it’s a good deal less useful for Christian believers than the Apostolic Fathers; if I were to go to bat for either the existing deuterocanon or the Fathers as a NT deuterocanon, the latter would certainly take precedence for me.

Thank you again for the fascinating discussion!

Regarding your conversation with PunkJohnnyCash, my understanding is that the Christian OT was canonised based on a later Jewish canon; however prior to that it included a larger one. This is why the deuterocanon has always enjoyed so much confusion, and why many churches have wider canons than the Protestant one. Things are confused a little more, because much of the deutorcanonical inclusions in the earlier Jewish canon seems to have been rejected on the grounds that they were too Christian – books such as Baruch, for example. However, PJC is a little premature saying that they were included as canon until recently; they were long considered outside of canon, but rather books of special significance.

I certainly enjoy the suggestion of a ‘deuterocanon’ for the NT, but honestly, I think we have one: The Apostolic Fathers is certainly just that, just not well-publicised. But truthfully, is the deuterocanon well-publicised among most Protestants? Thank you both for the conversation.
.-= Damian´s last blog ..Inspiration, Fallibility and Canon =-.

Regarding your conversation with PunkJohnnyCash, my understanding is that the Christian OT was canonised based on a later Jewish canon; however prior to that it included a larger one. This is why the deuterocanon has always enjoyed so much confusion, and why many churches have wider canons than the Protestant one. Things are confused a little more, because much of the deutorcanonical inclusions in the earlier Jewish canon seems to have been rejected on the grounds that they were too Christian – books such as Baruch, for example. However, PJC is a little premature saying that they were included as canon until recently; they were long considered outside of canon, but rather books of special significance.

I certainly enjoy the suggestion of a ‘deuterocanon’ for the NT, but honestly, I think we have one: The Apostolic Fathers is certainly just that, just not well-publicised. But truthfully, is the deuterocanon well-publicised among most Protestants? Thank you both for the conversation.
.-= Damian´s last blog ..Inspiration, Fallibility and Canon =-.

Perhaps you could at some point expand more on your thoughts regarding 2 Peter, esp. as having little apostolic authority. I’m aware that most scholars do not regard the book as having been written by Peter himself, but beyond that my knowledge of the subject is minimal.