Canon--part2/2
SAM
Walter:
>Now what exactly is your objection to regarding the _Tanakh_ as the *Old*
>Testament of the Christian Bible?
If your referring to the supposed "Hebrew" canon of the modern
Protestant/Jewish [OT] Scriptures, I object to having a human Jewish
tradition, formed after the birth of the Church specifically in reaction to
Christian witness, control or change the views of the early Christians who
obviously did not believe in a closed canon. Why would anyone Christian
distrust the Early Fathers of the Church yet trust the first century
apologetics of the Jews at Jamnia?
Now some have tried to make this merely a historical argument with no
reference to Jewish authorities. They have tried to falsify the NT record
to make it appear that the early Christians only quoted from the Hebrew OT
or Greek translations of those same Hebrew original books. This is simply
false. Others have tried to make it appear that a faithful remnant of the
Fathers maintained that only those books with Hebrew originals are
canonical. Again this is very hard to sustain in critical discussion.
This is especially true since the discovery of Hebrew originals for some of
the Deutero's at Qumran and Masada.
Patrick W. Shehan, _The Wisdom of Ben Sira_ vol. 39 Anchor Bible, [New
York: Doubleday, 1987] cites evidence for a Hebrew version of _Ben Sira_ at
the first century B.C. community of Masada which was written
"stichometrically" meaning each verse receives a full line. This is also
the practice followed by the first century B.C. Hebrew fragments of _Ben
Sira_ found in Cave 2 at Qumran. This writing practice was usually
reserved for books that were later received as canonical. (Shehan p. 20)
I'm not sure, however, the same can be said for all the Deutero's at
Qumran. I think the evidence from Qumran proves that the canon was still
open during this period. Rather than saying the community of Qumran
believed the Deutero's were canonical, I think the evidence suggests that
the question was still open. It seems fairly clear that Ben Sira was
accorded an "sacred" status at Qumran, but the fragmented evidence for the
other Deutero's leaves much to question. No one is looking to Qumran to
solve the question of what is canonical. Qumran is not a Jewish council on
par with later Christian ones [and neither was Jamnia in 90 A.D.] which
pronounced judgment on the nature of the canon. Perhaps some at Qumran did
even consider Enoch canonical. Enoch, BTW, is a composite work filled
with later interpolations (many of them from Christians). The external
evidence would have to be examined carefully to determine whether the
manuscript in question is genuinely from the Qumran community, or whether
it was brought to the site at a later time.
Once again, the evidence from Qumran suggests the canon was *not* closed.
It was Christians who first determined the nature of the canon and not the
Jews. The Jews later responded to Christian claims. [cf. Jewish historian,
Cohen, Shaye J. D. _From the Maccabees to the Mishnah_ Philadelphia :
Westminster Press, 1987. Series:Library of Early Christianity 7 and the
Anchor Bible Dictionary, s.v. "Canon"].
>
>> I am surprised to hear of Catholic Bibles in France and Germany which
>> did not contain the Deutero's. I would like to hear more details as I
>> don't have the NJBC on my shelf. I had previously understood that it was
>> the British Foreign Bible Society in 1827 that first decided to publish a
>> Bible without the Apocrypha, and the American branch soon followed.
>
>I know of no further details, other than that it was done.
>
[ . . .]
>
>> The fact that Jerome and a few others had second thoughts on
>> this, based primarily on faulty historical information, does not make this
>> into an issue that took 1600 years to decide.
>
>It wasn't just Jerome -- it was also Athanasius, and Cyril of Jerusalem --
>eminent scholars, all. And it was precisely those scholars -- early as
>well as later -- who knew Hebrew who agreed with Jerome.
Again it is my contention that the issue of the canon was not sorted out
until later. It is hard to make an air tight case when Athanasius squeezes
the number of books in to the alphabetic logic of 22 books. Of course this
was an ancient (Jewish?) convention. He also included *by name* Baruch
and the Letter (additions to Jeremiah sometimes Baruch chapter 6), and may
have included the additions to Daniel and Esther in the same manner without
mention in order to manipulate the numbers to equal 22. Although elsewhere
he does clearly call Wisdom, Sirach, Tobias, Judith and Esther as well as
the first century Didache and Shepherd of Hermas "recommended reading" but
not canonical. _Festal Letters_ [39] Athanasius carefully distinguished
the above works from _apocrapha_ which may have been the likes of the
Gnostic gospels (Gospel of Thomas etc.). When Cyril says "have nothing to
do with the apocrapha" he likely has the same schema in mind. He includes
Baruch and "the Letter" in the 22 books of the Hebrew OT. In a fragment
from St. Melito of Sardis found in Eusebius [CH 4,26] we find Esdras
included in "the Twelve." Origen, who like Jerome was indebted to Jewish
influences, also enumerates 22 books "according to the Hebrews" but
apparently leaves out the Twelve Minor prophets while including the Letter
(which may have included Baruch). Further, Origen's comment "outside of
these, there is Maccabees" may *not* have indicated that he personally
thought Maccabbees was not inspired but only that the "Hebrews" of Origen's
time counted it as uncanonical. [ Eusebius, CH 6,25] One thing is certain,
the views of the above Fathers do not conform to the modern Protestant OT
or Jewish Hebrew canon from the second century. St. Hilary of Poiters
mentions the same list [22 books] but concludes, "It is to be noted also
that by adding to these Tobias and Judith, there are twenty-four books,
corresponding to the number of letters used by the Greeks [ie.
corresponding to the number of letters in the Greek alphabet].
_Commentaries on the Psalms_, _Prologue_ 15]
It is interesting to note historically what Protestants have said about
this. The Belgic Confession reads in part (Art. 5) "[to believe] . . . all
things contained in them [the canonical scriptures], not so much because
the Church receives and approves them as such, but more especially because
the Holy Spirit witnesses in our hearts that they are from God."
In the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith; (Art. I, 4-5)
4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to
be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of
any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself),
the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because
it is the word of God.
If I may interject here, not all works of Scared Inspired Scripture, even
claim to be the Word of God. . . .so how do we recognize this divine
authorship?
5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the
Church to an high and reverend esteem of the holy scripture,
and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine,
the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope
of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery
it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other
incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are
arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the
word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and
assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof,
is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by
and with the word in our hearts.
Anyone who has been "button-holed" by Mormon missionary, and has
been cajoled into accepting a _Book of Mormon_, knows that the argument
for an inward work of the Spirit on the heart of the "believer" is also
used by Mormons to establish the authority and inspiration of Joseph
Smith's writings. The entire foundation of scriptural authority is based
on a subjective inner feeling. If you want to talk about thin branches . .
. !
Concerning Anabaptist beliefs of the period, Robert Friedmann, in
his _The Theology of Anabaptism_ [p. 36, emphasis mine] writes,
The bible alone was the guide to their newly found faith, and
this bible (in either the Lutheran or the Zurich edition) they
read assiduously from cover to cover, *including the Apocryphal*.
To them it was an open book, and they claimed to have
experienced a spirit akin to it. They read it as people seeking
guidance. They read it without sophistication, to be sure, rather
unaware of tradition--mediaeval, sectarian, or otherwise.
It seems the canon used by the early Anabaptist was as much an accident, as
the choice of scripture by many Protestants today. The only difference is
that today we have "so called" Protestant and Catholic Bibles.
>> As I'm sure you are aware, councils only define what has been
>> brought into dispute.
>
>Which is why Trent made it binding dogma for the Roman Catholic Church.
>As I said, it was only in the 16th century that the question became really
>important, and was definitively defined by the various ecclesial
>communities.
Again, it was defined definitively for Roman Catholics by Florence at the
latest but probably much earlier in the ordinary Magisterium of the church.
Pax,
s.a.m.
Scott Anthony McKellar ~ Abbotsford, BC, CANADA
S...@bc.sympatico.ca
Habere non potest Deum patrem qui ecclesiam non habet matrem
http://www3.bc.sympatico.ca/DunsScotus/Home1.html
http://www3.bc.sympatico.ca/DunsScotus/Apologia/Apologia.html
**********
For help on using CHRISTIA's listserv processor to change
your subscription, search the archives, or use the library,
send the command GET FAQ PART1 to LIST...@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
Walter Tappert
> >Now what exactly is your objection to regarding the _Tanakh_ as the *Old*
> >Testament of the Christian Bible?
>
> If your referring to the supposed "Hebrew" canon of the modern
> Protestant/Jewish [OT] Scriptures, I object to having a human Jewish
> tradition, formed after the birth of the Church specifically in reaction to
> Christian witness, control or change the views of the early Christians who
> obviously did not believe in a closed canon. Why would anyone Christian
> distrust the Early Fathers of the Church yet trust the first century
> apologetics of the Jews at Jamnia?
The current Canon of the Tanakh is completely consistent with the 1st
century CE witness of Josephus (in _Contra Apion_) and 4 Ezra. There is
no reason to believe it was formed as counter Christian apologetic.
> Now some have tried to make this merely a historical argument with no
> reference to Jewish authorities. They have tried to falsify the NT record
> to make it appear that the early Christians only quoted from the Hebrew OT
> or Greek translations of those same Hebrew original books. This is simply
> false.
Would you care to cite some examples in the NT where the Apocrypha were
directly quoted *as Scripture?*
Remember, the LXX (and other translatations) are just that --
translations, not canons. Consider the modern example of the NRSV: each
book of the NRSV has canonical (or at least quasi-canonical) status in
some Christian community; there is, however, no one Christian community
which gives canonical (or quasi-canonical) status to *every* book in the
NRSV. If I quote a passage (say from Genesis, or Romans) from the NRSV,
you cannot deduce from that my attitude toward 4 Maccabees.
> Others have tried to make it appear that a faithful remnant of the
> Fathers maintained that only those books with Hebrew originals are
> canonical. Again this is very hard to sustain in critical discussion.
> This is especially true since the discovery of Hebrew originals for some of
> the Deutero's at Qumran and Masada.
Jerome of Bethlehem, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius of Alexandria made
a clear distinction between those books which were included in the Tanakh,
and those books used by Christians which were not.
> Patrick W. Shehan, _The Wisdom of Ben Sira_ vol. 39 Anchor Bible, [New
> York: Doubleday, 1987] cites evidence for a Hebrew version of _Ben Sira_ at
> the first century B.C. community of Masada which was written
> "stichometrically" meaning each verse receives a full line. This is also
> the practice followed by the first century B.C. Hebrew fragments of _Ben
> Sira_ found in Cave 2 at Qumran. This writing practice was usually
> reserved for books that were later received as canonical. (Shehan p. 20)
But Sirach was not later received as canonical by the Jews! And Shehan is
not even claiming that Qumran had a notion of "canonicity" as Trent does!
> I think the evidence from Qumran proves that the canon was still
> open during this period. Rather than saying the community of Qumran
> believed the Deutero's were canonical, I think the evidence suggests that
> the question was still open.
And your point is?
Yes, the question of the Canon was open -- it was open for Roman Catholics
until Trent!
> Again it is my contention that the issue of the canon was not sorted out
> until later.
Mine too! In the 16th Century!
> Athanasius carefully distinguished
> the above works from _apocrapha_ which may have been the likes of the
> Gnostic gospels (Gospel of Thomas etc.). When Cyril says "have nothing to
> do with the apocrapha" he likely has the same schema in mind.
Jerome is quite clear about what "apocyrypha" are; there is no need to
retroject an anachronistic (and polemic) definition of "apocrypha" into
the 4th century.
Scott, I notice that you did not mention the Lutheran Confessions or the
[Anglican] Articles of Religion.
*Any* statement on the inspiration and authority of Scripture of
necessity be accompanied by (either implicitly, or explicitly) an
additional statement, "And this is what we mean by Scripture: )
Trent and the Articles of Religion do so explicity; the Lutheran
Confessions, implicitly.
The neuralgia over the definition of the Canon is not over the *contents*
of the Canon -- as one who goes to a weekly Eucharist in the Episcopal
Church, and as one who prays the Daily Office according to the _Book of
Common Prayer_ I certainly read, in the course of the three year
Eucharistic lectionary and the two year daily lectionary, as much of
the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books as most Roman Catholics.
The issue is one of ecclesiology, one of authority. You claim the Bishop
of Rome has the right to define the Canon of Scripture for all Christians;
I do not think he has that right.
It's that simple.
Peace,
Walt
**********
To leave the list CHRISTIA, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA
to LIST...@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU or, if you experience difficulties,
write to CHRISTIA...@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU.