(esp. for Pat Sloane, on closing dates for the canon...)
In Western Christendom (which I'm more familiar with), the final canon was
indeed decided by the Council of Trent, in reaction to the Protestants (one
would have to get the dates of the confessional statements of the various
groups if one wants to set a definite date for the Protestants). But the
history is really much more complicated than that. The Council of Florence
in the 15th c. promulgated a list identical to Trent's, but there was some
confusion about the authority of that Council. Earlier, in the 5th c. or
so, there was a list promulgated during the reign of Pope Damasus and also
the list from one of the Councils of Carthage; both are identical to
Trent's list. And of course, the canonical list in Augustine's _De
Doctrine_ is also identical to Trent's list.
In Eastern Christendom (and in Jerome, because of his time in the East,
IMHO), the matter is more confused -- largely, I believe, because of the
nature of the interaction with the Jews in the East. One has to read the
Eastern Fathers very carefully to determine whether they are talking about
the Christian Scriptures or the canon of the Jewish Scriptures. As for
modern Orthodoxy, I'm not sure of the modern stance on the canon of the Old
Testament, although I have heard that (due to influence from Protestantism)
there was a movement beginning in the 17th c. to relagate the
deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament to a secondary status. I would
be very happy to become better informed on this matter, perhaps by an
Eastern Christian on this list...
As for the Jews, the canon was only agreed upon toward the end of the 1st
c./beginning of the 2nd c. of the Christian era, with the rabbinical
councils at Jamnia. I'm not certain how quickly this Palestinian canon
became the norm for the rest of diaspora Judaism, although it seems to have
been general accepted by, say, 4th c. CE. I'm given to understand that
there are aspects of these decisions that make them appear reactionary to
the primitive Christian movement -- ie, the rabbis established the
canonical criteria they did in order to distinguish themselves from the
Christian sect.
The state of the canon at the time of Jesus Christ was very fluid; that is
to say, there was no consensus among the various groups within Judaism as
to what books should constitute the Scriptures. The Sadducees and the
Samaritans felt that it should only be the Torah; the Pharisees probably
held a canon close to the modern TaNaK (although I don't know for certain
whether we can say they also held other books as canonical); the
Alexandrian Jews apparently held the books of the LXX as canonical; the
canon of the Qumran Community, as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls, seems
to have included books of the LXX, as well as works such as the Rule of
Discipline and the book of Jubilees.
Thus if a modern Christian (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox or whatever)
wants to claim that his Old Testament is the same as the canon in Jesus'
day, he must ask himself: whose canon? The New Testament itself is a very
mixed witness: I may be misremembering the numbers, but something like 65%
of the Old Testament Scriptures cited in the New Testament follow a LXX
reading; the remaining 35% are closer to a Greek translation of a Masoretic
reading. Sometimes LXX texts and Greco-Masoretic texts are cited in the
same book. The New Testament authors seem to have used whatever Old
Testament version was closest at hand Then there are fun things like
Jude's citation of the book of Enoch as an authoritative book -- and no
Christian group takes Enoch as part of the canon, except some of the Copts,
and then it's largely because Jude cites it (as far as I'm given to
understand).
To further complicate matters, I would argue that one cannot speak of a
canon at all in the modern sense until the invention of the codex in the
4th c. (CE). Before that time, all of these books would have been on
scrolls, often individual books on individual scrolls (cf. the Dead Sea
Scrolls). Say that you have a place of worship in the 1st century CE,
containing the Torah, the Former Prophets, the 16 Latter Prophets, the
Psalms, your leader's commentary on the Psalms, Sirach, and a collection of
Hymns sung in the community, a memoir of your founder's life by one of his
first disciples, and a collection of letters written by one of your
community leaders. The most priviledged books (say, the Torah) would of
course be set aside in a special location in your place of worship. But
the other books are all kept in the community's library. How is the modern
scholar supposed to know whether you considered the Prophets the "inspired
Word of God" or just a helpful commentary on the Torah? If you used both
the Psalms and your book of Hymns in your communal worship, does that mean
that they were both "canonical", ie, authoritative for your community as
the Word of God (and not authoritative as a mere ritual document or
founding document would be)?
Fast forward four hundred years. Now, after the invention of the codex,
you can finally settle these questions: You can bind all of the books you
consider the most authoritative into one relatively compact series of four
or five volumes. You are a member of the same community. Which works do
you put copy into the codices and why? I would argue that much of the
early debate surrounding the Christian canon revolves around this question
raised at the time of the invention of the canon. The subsequent debate in
the Middle Ages and the Reformation are echoes of the Patristic debates...
I hope this sufficiently confuses things :) The history of the canon is
such a fascinating subject!!
With best wishes to all,
Donald Jacob Uitvlugt
=============================================
Donald Jacob Uitvlugt
[log in to unmask]
"Vis capere celsitudinem Dei? Cape prius humilitatem Dei."
-- S. Augustine, Sermo 117, 17
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|