# Can a text be historically correct and yet not be canon?



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 3, 2004)

Just a question I was thinkning about the other day.

Can we say a text is perfect or corect in a sense historically that it deals with events of say Israel and it has parts where God speaks through prophets and other such things. Now would this text be beneficial as a historical text only. Or maybe let me rephrase this is it possible to have a text like this but have it not be scripture? 

blade

p.s.let me know if im being to confusing


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 3, 2004)

Nathan,
To me, the Apocrypha is such an example.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 3, 2004)

good point.

other takers or ideas?

blade


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 3, 2004)

As history, yes, with qualifications.

Certainly, almost any old script is immensly valuable from an historic standpoint. It gives us insight into the time in which it was written. Its historic reliability (as to events, persons, facts of life, details, etc.) has to be judged in the light of other things--perhaps a preponderance of the evidence, or more significantly by the unquestionable reliability of the Biblical historic record. However, even if a known biblical prophet's name or word were attached to this text, it could not [i:52d4d7e63b]for that reason[/i:52d4d7e63b] be ascribed certain truthfulness. Because we have no way of knowing if that name is, in fact the same person who is in the Bible, or if this is a forgery, or a creative writing assignment. 

The only reliable source for the Prophetic Word is Scripture. It isn't possible to judge infallibly the truth or falsehood of some other word from a &quot;prophet&quot; outside of the preserved Scripture. Suppose someone found a 2500 year old text that purported to include some additional prophetic material from, say, Jeremiah. We have no way of verifying its authenticity. The doctrine of preservation, if it is to mean anything intelligible, means preserved for the church's use. 

So, even if the record was accurate down to the detail (which thing we could never know with perfect certainty), including preservation of a prophet's sermon or portion thereof, it is not Authoritative, because it is not Scripture.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 3, 2004)

Ok interesting.

blade


----------



## alwaysreforming (Apr 3, 2004)

Absolutely can something be historically accurate and yet not be Scripture. If not, everything that was accurate would need to be included in the Bible, but that is not the definition for our &quot;Canon.&quot;
The best place to start with a query into a question like this would be any Systematic Theology book or any other book on the Canon and then look to see what the requirements for Canon are. Its is certainly more than historical accuracy.

For one, Scripture has been preserved through &quot;The Church&quot; in different ages and seeing what the past &quot;Church&quot; has considered &quot;Canon&quot; is one requirement. There are several more but off the top of my head but I cannot recall them well enough to post them. When I researched the subject, I used the above references, as well as &quot;The Baker Encylcopedia of Christian Apologetics.&quot; Hope this helps somewhat.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 5, 2004)

I was gona say knowing that if the only requirment was that it was preserved through the church thatn many books could be canon basd off of that assumption.

the big thing is that it is used for the building up of the faith.

blade


----------

