Actually, I thought it was very funny

Good for you Peter .... poor Kay. I went back to New Matilda to see what comments Jane Caro got for posting that joke - 13 comments, none unfavourable!

Shipoffools.com is well worth looking at - I sent it to a still practising Catholic friend and she replied that she had laughed out loud. I think the site is actually run by Christians.

Peter, I didn't want to get involved in all the turgid debate etc, but I remembered today to request a copy of a book from my local library that I heard about on Radio National's "The Spirit of THings". The book is "James, the brother of Jesus" by Eisenman.

Now hold on, I don't want you to comment on the book, just that new bits of information, new interpretations keep coming out - and surely you are still open to these ?? because you seem really closed and dogmatic in your beliefs. I mean it's not like the Bible was written yesterday, by God.

Solomon.
Interesting question: what is genuinely new in Christian theology? The most accepted form of knowledge in our time is the form of natural science which does not accept a limitation on its knowledge. There can be no closure of the scientific canon. Theology is somewhat different since it reflects on a history and their came a time when the old men decided that everything had been said, particularly with the book of Revelation, the great canon closer. It is interesting that all of the archaeological research that has been done, the dead sea scrolls etc, have had little effect on how we understand the Christ event. One could argue that even if they found the body of Jesus that it would not alter our theology one bit. What can be new in theology is different interpretations of the existing texts. Any sermon may be an occasion for this to happen. So it is not that we can add to our knowledge of biblical texts so much as coming to a deeper understanding of what they are saying to us. Theology is an open canon in that there will always be more things to be said. As the words of the prophets always opened a new future for the people, so with preaching. This is why it is dangerous to lay down so called Christian principles, because that closes off the future and traps the faith in law. I have previously pointed to the story of Lot and his daughters. This is a prime example of how Israel collected stories that did not seek to solidify around ethics but was open to the new and the strange. There are many OT books that do the same, they erode religion just as Jesus did and allow the future to be a surprise.

Peter,

I'm not convinced. You say "their came a time when the old men decided that everything had been said" - - why do you accept that ? isn't it true that these old men were human beings - they selected, they left out, they altered .....I guess you share Kevin Donnelly's aversion to 'deconstruction', but what exactly makes this 'text' different to any other. Just 'faith'?

When you say that the new discoveries "have had little effect on how we understand the Christ event", would it be true to say that they haven't affected you and others, and that's OK, but that there are many senior clerics who have been very much affected by these new findings and interpretations; and given that, that you might be a little less dogmatic ?

Solomon.
I have never paid much attention to the formation of the canon, it always seemed a bit boring. My hunch is that the canon was closed under pressure from things like the Gnostic gospels. The decision was made that these were not of the unity of the NT as it stood and were to be excluded. In hindsight they were right to do so since the Gnostic gospels (Thomas) carried quite a different flavor with them that was quite averse to the theology already developed. I know that in modernity this seems suspicious but modernity would have no boundaries on anything, just a free for all. The church understands that there is such a thing as the Holy Spirit, which is the spirit of Christ. It was deemed that the canon as it stood reflected this spirit. Unfortunately the spirit has been supernaturalised into some kind of force by the charismatic movement. But it is no different from saying that democracy carries with it a certain kind of spirit.

Which brings me to say that the bible is inerrant, not because, judged by our empirical understanding of history it tells us what actually happened, but because it is all guided by the same spirit. This does not mean that everything in it needs to be justified either, it can be an account of unfortunate events that are immoral. As I have said before, the genius of Israel, which the church inherited, is to reflect on its experience in a way that exposes the truth. The only proof that God exists is the existence of Israel among the nations. That is, its reflection on human experience exposed the truth so that is survived the downfall of all of the nations around it. Any people who do not have this understanding will fail and that is the strength of Western civilization. Having God on your side is the same as understanding the truth about humanity.

Sells,
Your second paragraph in the previous post expresses some views that are, what I consider to be, unusual interpretations. Sure, your're entitled to them. There are a few points that I would like to make though. The content of the Gnostic Gospels found at Nag Hammadi seems very diverse - admittedly after only a brief browse through them - and they contain some way out ideas in places. Some of the language is the kind of stuff that you hear coming from the neocons, and in some other kinds of institutions - forces of evil versus forces of light - trippy stuff like that.

Now I think that the Nag Hammadi texts show us that we need to take this kind of stuff into consideration when we talk about religion. That is one part of the religious impulse that the old church leaders thought was taking things too far, and it was banned. But that extreme impulse remains and reasserts itself, especially in uncertain volatile times. If a church can not be universal, by its own admission by banning part of the early religious texts, then it needs to recognise that there are other views. There are gaps, and there always will be.

One approach to this problem was to try to force a uniformity of expressed views throughout populations, which lead to the very worse kinds of religious violence. All religions seem to be capable of doing this. The idea of freedom in secular states is a protection against this violence, among other things.

The Gnostic Texts are interesting in many ways...