Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    One of the interesting issues concerning the Christian canon is that
    each of the major branches of Christianity (Protestant, Roman Catholic,
    and Orthodox) has a slightly different Old Testament.  As a result,
    perhaps it would be more appropriate to talk of the Christian canons,
    in plural, rather than just a single canon.

    The concept of a "canon" can be useful, I believe, as a way of defining
    those scriptures that can describe the normative traditions of the
    faith.  Where it tends to lose its usefulness, for me anyway, is when
    the distinction between the canonical and the non-canonical becomes a
    rigid and doctrinaire dualism.  In this dualism, the "inerrant,
    divinely authored" canon is distinguished from the errant and human
    scriptures that are not in the canon (in fact, this dualism typically
    doesn't assign the term "scripture" to the non-canonical).  I prefer to
    take a less dogmatic view toward both types of literature; to me, the
    canonical is not perfect, and the non-canonical is not worthless.

    The Anchor Bible Commentary on The Wisdom of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus)
    discusses at length the history of the canonicity of that book, as well
    as the other Apocryphal scriptures.  Without repeating all of it here,
    I would like to cite some interesting passages.  After discussing the
    traditional view that the differences in the Christian Old Testament
    and the Hebrew Bible stemmed from the existence of an Alexandrian
    Jewish canon that differed from the Palestinian Jewish canon, the
    author then continues:

        In several carefully researched publications beginning in 1958,
        A.C. Sundberg has successfully challenged the commonly accepted
        ideas with regard to the history of the Christian Old Testament
        canon, and in particular the hypothesis of the Alexandrian or LXX
        canon.  He has shown that there never was a Palestinian Hebrew
        canon in the days of Jesus, a canon that later in the first century
        A.D. was authoritatively defined by the rabbis.  Nor is it correct
        to distinguish in the first century A.D. between a shorter Hebrew
        canon in Palestine and a longer LXX canon in Alexandria.  It is now
        certain that at the turn of the era, and even before, many
        Greek-speaking Jews were living in the Holy Land, and that they
        used the LXX as a collection of undifferentiated religious writings
        long enough even to make a Palestinian revision thereof.  Thus
        there never was an actual Alexandrian (LXX) canon at all or a
        Palestinian (Hebrew) canon before ca. A.D. 90.

        The Jews, including those who spoke and read Greek, did not have
        any closed canon of sacred writings till the rabbis drew up their
        authoritative list near the end of the first century A.D. 
        Accordingly, the Church, which separated itself from Judaism before
        the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70), received from the Synagogue a
        group of undifferentiated writings that were considered in some way
        sacred.  Only after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 did the
        Jews begin in earnest to define which of their religious scriptures
        should be received as divinely inspired and which should not.  By
        ca. A.D. 90 the Pharisaic rabbis had defined and closed forever
        their official canon.

        It should be recalled that the Church "received 'scriptures' from
        Judaism, but not a canon."  For the final determination of the
        Christian Old Testament canon was an activity of the Church that
        took place in the West at the Council of Hippo (393) and two
        Councils of Carthage (397 and 419).  That ancient Christian canon
        included, in addition to all the books of the Jewish or Hebrew
        canon, all the books Roman Catholics call deuterocanonical, but it
        did not include 1-2 Esdras and Prayer of Manasseh, which
        Protestants also list among the Apocrypha. [footnote: the canonical
        list of Old Testament and New Testament books accepted by the
        Western Church was spelled out in Canon 47 of the Council of
        Carthage (397)...]

        Thus, Sundberg, who is himself a Protestant, concludes:

             Two different communities were involved in defining canons out
             of the common material of pre-70 Judaism.  And since the
             church did define her OT canon for herself, what historical
             claim does the Jewish definition of canon about the end of the
             first century have for the church?  Only that it was the
             assumed a priori claim of the Jewish canon, when it became
             known in the church following Origen, that pressured the
             church into defining its OT.  But that assumed a priori claim
             of the Jewish canon did not succeed in restricting the OT of
             the church to the Jewish canon.  This is true of the Eastern
             as well as the Western Church.  If Protestant Christianity is
             to continue its custom of restricting its OT canon to the
             Jewish canon, then an entirely new rationale and doctrine of
             canon will have to be described.  And any Protestant doctrine
             of canonization that takes seriously the question of Christian
             usage and historical and spiritual heritage will lead
             ultimately to the Christian OT as defined in the Western
             Church at the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth
             centuries.

        From what has been said, there can be no doubt that The Wisdom of
        Ben Sira has been part of the Christian Old Testament from the time
        that the canon was officially and formally defined and closed by
        the Church in antiquity.  (pages 18-19)

    The important point about this is that since Christianity claims to
    have superseded Judaism, the decisions that Jewish rabbis made *after*
    the Christian revelation should have no theological consequences to
    Christians.  Because the Jewish canonization of the Hebrew Bible and
    the Christian canonization of the Old Testament both occurred as
    independent processes involving a set of sacred writings, during a time
    after Christianity split off from Judaism, then the later decisions of
    those who rejected the Christian revelation should make no difference
    to Christian theology.  This is true whether we are talking of
    canonization, or any other rabbinical decision after the rise of
    Christianity.

    I believe that the value in opening myself up to writings beyond those
    of any specific canon is that I can benefit from the inspiration found
    in other works of literature.  I view this as a middle way between
    bibliolatry and Bible-bashing.  Also, having been brought up as a
    Protestant, I was never exposed to the "Apocrypha".  And yet, the book
    of Wisdom has some wonderful passages about Sophia, the feminine
    Wisdom; and Judith and Tobit are stories every bit as wonderful as the
    tales of Ruth and Esther.  For that reason, whenever I buy a Bible I
    always make sure that it is a version that includes the Apocrypha.
    
    Of course, the "Apocrypha" *is* canonical for Roman Catholics; moving
    beyond those works, I often find value in many other religious writings
    as well.  But encountering the "Apocrypha" for the first time was an
    enjoyable experience for me.

    -- Mike

re Note 117.1 by CSC32::M_VALENZA:

        Thanks, Mike, that was very interesting and informative.

        A few comments:

>     I prefer to
>     take a less dogmatic view toward both types of literature; to me, the
>     canonical is not perfect, and the non-canonical is not worthless.

        Even the term "perfect" does not necessarily imply
        "inerrant".  The canon could be "perfect" at what God intends
        it to be, and what it appears to be, without every text being
        correct.  The canon, as we know it, appears to be a
        collections of sacred writings by humans who have encountered
        God's presence in history.  A perfect "earthen vessel" will
        nevertheless have its defects, its limitations -- if it were
        truly perfect to all levels of examination, it would cease to
        be an "earthen vessel".



>     Because the Jewish canonization of the Hebrew Bible and
>     the Christian canonization of the Old Testament both occurred as
>     independent processes involving a set of sacred writings, during a time
>     after Christianity split off from Judaism, then the later decisions of
>     those who rejected the Christian revelation should make no difference
>     to Christian theology.  This is true whether we are talking of
>     canonization, or any other rabbinical decision after the rise of
>     Christianity.

        Well, we could take the opposite conclusion, that "the later
        decisions of those who rejected the Christian revelation
        should make no difference to Christian theology," if we are
        willing to consider ALL their decisions, and not just their
        choice of canon.  Perhaps we should reconsider the value of
        the extensive commentaries that the rabbis produced in the
        fifth and sixth centuries.

        Of course, I would object to ascribing divine authority to
        the commentaries, as I believe most Christians would also. 
        My basis for this objection would be different from that of
        most Christians, however.

        Most Christians, in common with many but apparently not all
        religious people, hunger and thirst for an earthly instrument
        of absolutely authoritative truth.  Conservative Protestants
        have their inerrant Scripture, Catholics have the Pope and
        the councils, and Mormons have their living prophets.  It is
        not considered sufficient to have a living Lord in heaven who
        describes himself as "the Truth" and whom those scriptures
        describe as "the Word".  It is not considered sufficient that
        that same Lord has sent his spirit to dwell within us.

        We still want more, and we humans define a Christian
        equivalent of the golden calf using our canons and councils
        and vicars.  Like the golden calf, as we use them they
        distract us from the true object of our attention.  It is no
        wonder that there is no agreement about these things among
        Christians, since we have no need for them as we use them.

        (This is not to say that Scriptures are useless, for they are
        indeed very useful.  This is not to say that councils and
        leaders are worthless, for they are necessary for resolving
        disputes and organizing action.  It is just that they are not
        needed as "earthly instruments of absolutely authoritative
        truth," because we have the Lord and the Holy Spirit.)

        Bob

    I think you hit the nail on the head, Bob.  People often want
    certainty, and fear uncertainty and mystery.  That is why, as you
    mentioned, conservative Protestants turn to the Bible as the ultimate
    authority, and Catholics turn to the Magisterium.

    Personally, I prefer mystery.  I think it is much more exciting to seek
    for answers out of the mystery, rather than to have them handed to me
    by some designated Authority.

    -- Mike

Re:  .1

Thanks, Mike, for entering that.

Collis

From "Foundations of Evangelical Theology" by John Jefferson Davis 

This is a book I have it home.  It references many other books which
go into much greater detail on the canon, none of which I have (and
unfortunately I am no longer close to a theological library).  I may
buy one of these books in the future to expand my knowledge on exactly
why John Jefferson Davis (who teaches at Gordon Conwell) has adopted
the position on the canon that he has

from pages 200-203

  In general, the canon of the Old Testament depends, in a theological 
  sense, on the witness of the New Testament.  

  From the beginning Israel had a conception of authoritative books.

  It is difficult to reconstruct in detail the various stages of the
  formation of the Old Testament canon.  ...  Nevertheless, there is
  considerable evidence for the view that the canon of the Old Testament
  was recognized as substantially complete by the Jews after the work
  of Ezra and Nehemiah.  Josephus, writing around A.D. 95 states that
  "from Artaxerxes [Persian king; reigned 465-425 b.c.] until our time
  everything has been recorded, but has not been deemed worthy of like
  credit with what preceded, because the exact succession of the prophets
  ceased...No one has dared either to add anything to them, or to take
  anything from them.  ...  Philo, as quoted by Eusebius, speaks in a
  similar fashion.  Thus Jesphus and Philo considered the Jewish canon
  to have been completed during the fifth century b.c.  Wenham has
  concluded that there is "no reason to doubt that the Canon of the Old 
  Testament is substantially Ezra's canon, just as the Pentateuch was
  substantially Moses' canon."

  That the Jewish canon was the same as our present list of thirty-nine
  books can be deduced from statements in the Talmud, Mishnah, and
  apocryphal writings.

  According to R.D. Wilson, "All the books of the Old Testament are
  cited as scipture in one or another tractates of the Mishna.

  A passage in the apocryphal book 2 Esdras, around a.d. 100, refers to
  twenty-four sacred books [which corresponds to our current 39].

  During the first century a.d. the use of the Old Testament by Christ
  and the apostles presupposes the recognition of a definite body of
  authoritative books by Jews.

  A second question involves the apocryphal books such as Tobit, Judith,
  Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and the story of Bel and
  the Dragon, found in codices of the Septuagint.  These were evidently
  popular amoung the Jews of Alexandria, found their way into the Vulgate,
  and were affirmed [my note: for the first time] in the face of
  Protestant criticism by the Council of Trent in 1546.  It should be noted
  that the codices containing these books date from the fourth or fifth
  century; what the first-century copies of the Septuagint may have
  contained is not clearly known.  

  Jerome, the greatest Old Testament scholar in the Latin church, clearly
  distinguished between the authority of the Palestinian canon and that
  of the apocryphal writings.  The Council of Trent had no Hebrew scholars
  and bypassed his criticisms.

  The apocryphal books contain teachings out of harmony with the rest of
  biblical revelation.  A doctrine of justification by faith plus works
  can be found in Topit 12:9 and 1 Macc. 2:52.  ... Creation out of 
  preexisting matteris found in Wisdom 11:17.

Collis

    Davis's reference to the apocryphal books as coming from the
    Alexandrian Jews coincides with the view that was common among scholars
    prior to the findings of A.C. Sundberg.  Davis's conception of
    Alexandrian and Palestinian scriptures reflects this view.  The works
    he cites that describe a fixed canon (the Mishna, the Talmud, 2 Esdras)
    were written after 90 CE, when the Palestinian Jewish canon was fixed
    (which occurred after the Christian split from Judaism).  Thus there
    are two boundary dates that apply here--when the canon was closed, and
    when the last work to be included in the canon was actually written.

    Naturally, the last work to be included in the canon would have been
    written prior to the decision to close the canon.  Once the canon is
    closed, the last included work to be written would, a priori, define
    the "last" canonical work to be written.  However, the date of the
    "last" work to be written cannot be fixed until the decision to close
    the canon is made in the first place; and this decision was not made by
    Judaism until *after* the Christian split from Judaism.  Once that
    decision was made, of course, Judaism could retrospectively point to
    the last written work among the included canon as defining the end of
    revelation in scripture.  However, as Sundberg's research showed, and
    as the Anchor Bible Commentary points out, there was not fixed
    Palestinian Jewish canon at the time of the formation of Christianity.

    In other words, because the decision to close the canon had been made
    by the time of those writings, even though the included works came from
    much earlier, these writings necessarily refer to the fact that no
    canonical writings (from the perspective of the Jewish canon) had been
    written for quite some time.  In addition, Davis's contention that the
    canon was complete at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah is curious, in
    light of the fact that the book of Daniel was written well after that
    time (around 167-164 BCE).

    Also, according to my calculations, the Council of Carthage in 397
    would have preceded the Council of Trent in 1546 by about 1149 years. 
    Give or take a few months.

    -- Mike

Since you state when the book of Daniel was written as fact (and not
conjecture) and base other conclusions upon that, I will respond.

The Bible is clear both in the Old Testament and the New Testament both
about who wrote the book of Daniel (which was Daniel) and when Daniel
lived (6th century B.C.)  You, of course, are free to believe differently.
(Those who do not accept prophecy as possible are generally credited
with the "late date" theory of Daniel - which, by the way, still does not
cover all the prophecy in Daniel).

The formation of the Old Testament canon certainly is something I would
like to be better informed about.  Thanks for entering that, Mike.

Collis

From the Antiquity conference:
                                 -< ANTIQUITY >-
================================================================================
Note 183.30               Bible Facts - Not an Oxymoron                 30 of 35
CUPMK::WAJENBERG                                     97 lines   6-APR-1993 07:38
                            -< New Testament Canon >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My father recently sent me an article entitled "How the Books of the New 
Testament Canon Were Chosen," from the April 1993 issue of "Bible Review."
The books were chosen, of course, to settle what written sources should be 
regarded as authoritative, but the issue was first raised as follows:

	The first specific proposal for a new canon for the Christian 
	movement was made in the mid-second century by Marcion, the owner 
	of a successful shipping business and the son of a bishop of the 
	Church in Asia Minor.  Marcion proposed that the Church reject 
	the Jewish Scriptures and embrace a new canon of its own.  That 
	canon was to be composed of only one gospel, Luke, and the 
	letters of one apostle, Paul.  Marcion argued that the Church, 
	for the sake of its unity and for the truth of its gospel, ought 
	to identify its own normative writings and cease its use of 
	Jewish Scriptures.  He contented that references to the God 
	worshipped by the Jews in Luke and Paul were corruptions of what 
	Luke and Paul originally wrote.  Marcion therefore expunged these 
	references from the versions of Luke and Paul that he included in 
	his proposed New Testament.

Marcion was, in fact, a gnostic or proto-gnostic and, like many gnostics,
regarded the God of the Old Testament as an evil being, since He was the
author of the world, the human body, and the Law, all of which gnostics 
abominate.

The Church rejected Marcion as a heretic, but he had raised a question that 
now had to be answered.  Over the next two hundred years, Church authorities 
sorted through the various documents in circulation.

	When Eusebius drew up his list in 325, ... [he] asks whether 
	writings had been mentioned by earlier generations of Church 
	leaders (a historical criterion), whether a book's style comports 
	well with those known to have been written early in the history 
	of the church (a literary criterion) and whether their content is 
	consistent with established orthodoxy (a doctrinal or theological 
	criterion).
	   Interestingly, none of the canonical lists mentions inspiration 
	as a criterion for determining which writings were to be included 
	in the canon.  The reason, apparently, is that since all Christians 
	were filled with the Spirit, a claim of inspiration would not have 
	been useful as a way of distinguishing canonical from extracanonical 
	Christian writings.

Eusebius's canon contained the bulk of the current New Testament.  67 years 
later, Athanasius recorded a canon identical to that used by all Christendom 
today (except for the Syriacs, who only add a few shoirt books to the Eusebius 
canon).

The article summarizes the development of the canon in a table, reproduced 
below:

Marcion		Irenaeus	Muratorian	Eusebius	Athanasius
c.140		c.180		Canon, c.200 	c.325		367

		Matthew		[Matthew]+	Matthew		Matthew
		Mark		[Mark]+		Mark		Mark
Luke		Luke		Luke		Luke		Luke
		John		John		John		John
		Acts		Acts		Acts		Acts
Romans		Romans		Romans		Romans		Romans
1 Corinthians	1 Corinthians	1 Corinthians	1 Corinthians	1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians	2 Corinthians	2 Corinthians	2 Corinthians	2 Corinthians
Galatians	Galatians	Galatians	Galatians	Galatians
Ephesians*	Ephesians	Ephesians	Ephesians	Ephesians
Philippians	Philippians	Philippians	Philippians	Philippians
Colossians	Colossians	Colossians	Colossians	Colossians
1 Thessalonians	1 Thessalonians	1 Thessalonians	1 Thessalonians	1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians	2 Thessalonians	2 Thessalonians	2 Thessalonians	2 Thessalonians
		1 Timothy	1 Timothy	1 Timothy	1 Timothy
		2 Timothy	2 Timothy	2 Timothy	2 Timothy
		Titus		Titus		Titus		Titus
Philemon							Philemon
								Hebrews
		James?						James
		1 Peter						1 Peter
								2 Peter
		1 John		1 John		1 John		1 John
				2 John				2 John
								3 John
				Jude				Jude
		Revelation	Revelation	Revelation?	Revelation
		Shepherd of	Wisdom of
		  Hermas	  Solomon
				Revelation of
				  Peter


* Marcion called Ephesians "Laodiceans"

+ The Muratorian Canon has not survived complete.  Luke is listed as
  the "third gospel," so it is assumed the first two are Matthew and Mark.

? It is not clear if Irenaeus considered James canonical.
  Eusebius classed Revelation as dubiously canonical.


Earl Wajenberg