<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Canon on Sign and Shadow</title>
    <link>https://signandshadow.com/tags/canon/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Canon on Sign and Shadow</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <managingEditor>tommy@signandshadow.com (Tommy Keene)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tommy@signandshadow.com (Tommy Keene)</webMaster>
    <copyright>© 2026 Tommy Keene</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://signandshadow.com/tags/canon/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    
    <item>
      <title>Did the Apostles Know they Were Writing Scripture?</title>
      <link>https://signandshadow.com/2025/06/13/did-the-apostles-know-they-were-writing-scripture/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>tommy@signandshadow.com (Tommy Keene)</author>
      <guid>https://signandshadow.com/2025/06/13/did-the-apostles-know-they-were-writing-scripture/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;There is a well known and (for evangelicals) well-loved section of 2 Peter (probably the verse most people are actually familiar with) in which Peter describes Paul&amp;rsquo;s writing as &amp;ldquo;scripture&amp;rdquo; (2 Peter 3:15-16). The problem is that this is very strange. At best, it is rare for NT writers to refer to other portions of the NT as Scripture (1 Tim. 5:18 is debated). This has led many to conclude that this section of 2 Peter is so blatantly anachronistic that it cannot be written by Peter.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Is the NT Reliable? Part 5: The &#34;Hard&#34; Problem</title>
      <link>https://signandshadow.com/2024/03/08/is-the-nt-reliable-part-5-the-hard-problem/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>tommy@signandshadow.com (Tommy Keene)</author>
      <guid>https://signandshadow.com/2024/03/08/is-the-nt-reliable-part-5-the-hard-problem/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;What follows is a continuation of a talk I gave at &lt;a href=&#34;https://rts.edu/calendar/sed-contra-is-the-new-testament-reliable/&#34;  target=&#34;_blank&#34; rel=&#34;noreferrer&#34;&gt;RTS Washington’s &lt;em&gt;Sed Contra&lt;/em&gt; series&lt;/a&gt;. The series of is intended to be a casual space for conversation about difficult or controversial topics. Since I decided to write up my presentation “conference style,” I thought I’d chop it up into bits and post it on the blog. Here’s the final installment (and links for the other parts should appear above).&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Is the NT Reliable? Part 2: The Text of the New Testament</title>
      <link>https://signandshadow.com/2024/02/27/is-the-nt-reliable-part-2-the-text-of-the-new-testament/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>tommy@signandshadow.com (Tommy Keene)</author>
      <guid>https://signandshadow.com/2024/02/27/is-the-nt-reliable-part-2-the-text-of-the-new-testament/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Let us embark, then, on the easy problem. There are four reasons typically put forward to discount the reliability of the NT. Under scrutiny we should consider the text itself, the theology represented in that text, and the historical accuracy of the events the text records. I’ll take each of these in turn. In this post we&amp;rsquo;ll deal with the New Testament Text.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>
