 |
 |
Donald, Thanks for a very helpful clarification on a great deal that wasn't clear to me. One question, though. I'm not understanding how it could be determined which translation is being followed in NT references to OT verses. At least in the KJV, NT authors rarely give exact quotes of OT material, and what they seem to give instead are fairly loose paraphrases. This is close enough for the reader to understand which verses are being mentioned, but not close enough, I thought, to specify which translation of the OT was being used. Many of these references come from speakers, who presumably weren't carrying around their preferred edition of the OT. Somebody later wrote down what transpired, and I don't even see any sign that the transcriber wanted to get the wording exact. I see the inexactness as an argument for historicity. It would be odd, and actually suspect, if, say, Luke seemed to have as sophisticated an understanding of the OT as the other Evangelists. pat sloane ===================================================== In a message dated 10-4-1999 3:50:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] writes: > (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 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%