Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Text and Canon
I have an interview at Tyndale House tomorrow regarding issues of "text and canon." I've found it difficult to read older authors discussing canon issues, because their terminology seems to be different from mine (and I think others). Zahn believed the NT was canonical by the end of the first century because it was used in the worship and church fathers quoted it; Harnack believed the NT was canonical by the end of the second century because church fathers were now using the quotation formula: "it is written" (gegraptai); Sundberg aptly distinguished between Scripture and canon by describing Scripture as the authoritative text of a community while canon was an exclusive list of these texts. Therefore, he considers the NT canonical in the 4th century, based on Athanasius' Easter letter, the Muratorian canon, and the councils.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Canon is a tricky concept. The problem you need to consider is which canon. Many lists throughout the second and third century do no include revelation, and many include shepherd of hermas and the didache. Keep in mind i'm not a theologian and know basically nothing about theology. But I think the ancient concept of canon was more open than it is among modern christians.
Although regarding modern canon I've always wondered how christians deal with the fact that the modern canon includes at least 5-6 books of the new testament that were canonized under false pretext. By that i mean Colossians, Epesians, 1-2 Tim, Titus, and 2 Thess were all canonized because they were believed to be Pauline, and they are most certainly not Pauline (although i heard someone argue for colossians and 2 thess being pauline and they made a few good points). Even the modern concept is a bit odd especially when 5 books are canonized under an entirely erroneous premise. But i digress.
I've argued multiple times with Martin Abegg about the concept of the ancient view of canon. I helped him edit his concordance of the dead sea scroll, and he solidly divides manuscripts into biblical and non-biblical. Which means he puts Jubilees along with the community rule (1QS) (although in his book he does with Ulrich he interestingly puts it under the section Torah). Yet there are so many manuscripts of Jubilees it is obviously the people of Qumran viewed the book as scripture, not as re-written bible.
I think it is a pretty difficult task to track down one specific canon or one specific view of canon among ancient christians and/or jews.
I don't think i've helped. I just had some thoughts on the matter.
Thanks for the digressions Dana--they are thoughtful. I guess part of the issue is how much stake one puts in the church fathers and the councils versus higher criticism (not that the two always are or need to be at odds with one another) but when it comes to the contested Pauline letters, I still side with the early church, the rule of faith, and their accuracy in reporting the tradition versus some forms of higher criticism. This brings up a host of other questions--presuppositions, worldviews, the value of some forms of higher criticism, and the testimony of the church fathers.
Like I mentioned before, there are a lot of different definitions of canon and Scripture, but the church fathers considered numerous texts "Scripture" that were not included in the canon. That is part of my issue and I guess the issue of canon criticism--how and why did the church choose the texts that it did when it made a closed canon, essentially distinguishing some Scriptures from others.
I guess this is an area we have to agree to disagree on. I have about 0% faith in anything the church fathers said, and ever less in the councils.
By that I mean that the council of Nicea, and thus the current form of canon as well as the nicean creed all came to be for 1 reason. The council was an attempt by Constantine to gain imperial control over the church. Disagreement between the sects of christianity caused strife and division throughout an already threatened empire. The council was called and presided over by a roman emperor (Constantine) and was more a political event than a religious one. So I see no need to trust the idea of canon, nor the creed, that came out of that particular council.
We will probably have to agree to disagree here. I am not a christian, nor do I consider myself a man of faith. I have chosen to put my faith in reason over and above faith.
I respect your views as a scholar, as a christian, and as a friend. But we'll have to disagree when it comes to canon. And honestly it is an area outside of my expertise.
p.s. How did it go in cambridge?
You are in good company with Bauer, Ehrman, Pagels, and King who all seem to think that the seperation between orthodoxy and heresy is the result of political domination. However, I don't buy it because it still begs the questions: How did this political overthrough happen? Was the Church that powerful of an institution in the early centuries that Constantine needed it on his side to advance his political intentions? More theologically, why did the Church choose to conclude that Jesus was both divine and human and select the texts that conform to this rule of faith, instead of choosing texts that said just one of these viewpoints (which would have potentially solved two millenia of theological headaches)? These continue to be some of the questions I have and I think needs further work on. Whatever the role Constantine played, I don't think he was the driving force behind the canon.
P.S. Things in Cambridge went well, except for the fact that I'm still not sure what College I'm in, nor do we have a place lined up to live. My supervisor (Simon Gathercole) is a great guy, so it was nice to spend some time with him. Also, I got the studentship from Tyndale House for the Text and Canon Project, so hopefully I'll be able to get some of these questions answered.
Post a Comment