E. Earl Ellis, "The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church," Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004) 678.
There is no evidence that elements of Diaspora or Palestinian Judaism had an expanded Septuagint canon distinct from the twenty-two book Hebrew canon, and the historical probabilities weigh heavily against such a supposition.
If even Greek-speaking Diaspora Judaism did not recognize the deutero-canonical writings as Scripture, then what was the basis for early Christians viewing them as inspired? I remember attending a debate between James White and a Catholic apologist on "Is the Apocrypha Scripture?" I vaguely recall that the Catholic said Judaism actually embraced the apocrypha--until the Council of Jamnia in 70 C.E., when Jewish leaders excluded it from the canon because the Christians accepted it. That sort of conspiracy theory probably wouldn't sit well with Nick Norelli, who says that there was no ‘Council’ of Jamnia!
Friday, June 5, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Lord alone knows who accepted what as scripture in second temple Judaism. The Qumran community seems to have had their own ideas, the Sadducees apparently stuck to a core canon, the proto-Christians seemed to draw on an expanded list ... no consensus.
My own observation is that some of the deuterocanonical stuff is of better value than some of the canonical material. I personally prefer to read a version that has the optional material included.
That's what one of my professors says: books didn't get into the canon because of their beauty! He was especially partial to Ben Sira.
I'm skeptical that there was ever a "Council of Jamnia" as well. David Aune wrote a really great article in JBL in the 90's about it.
I also think there's a need to understand upon what canonicity is predicated. If the Church had no choice in her Scriptures, how in the world could she have used the New Testament as Scripture (if they simply copied some canonical list from some Jews). I think Gavin also provides a good point - there was certainly no set canon in 2nd Temple Judaism. I think the Church's acceptance of any Scriptures as "canon" happened because of their liturgical usage. If the early Church used the Deuterocanon as part of their liturgy, then it makes sense that it became "canonical."
I think that, in the first century at least, there was some consensus about what to accept: the Torah, and I've heard the argument that even the Sadduccees did not exclude the prophets. So there was a canon, in a manner of speaking. Philo comments on the Torah, Josephus draws from the Bible, the New Testament quotes it. But there was some variety. Qumran, for example, tried to rewrite the Torah with the Temple Scroll. It also accepted some books that others did not (e.g., Enoch was in its library).
But I appreciate the point that both of you are making: there was enough diversity in Second Temple Judaism, so why should there be surprise that the Christians accepted books that others may not have?
I purchased the New American Bible, St. Joseph's Edition about five years ago, specifically to read the formerly forbidden (by Armstrongism) deuterocanonicals. Let's just say that my motivation was quite different then from what it is today. At that point in time, I would not have even considered reading any of the canonical Bible books.
Two things happened for me. One was that though reading the Maccabees, I realized that there was a gap in Biblical history from the immediate post-exilic period to the Hasmonean Kings, and the time of Jesus Christ. The Maccabees provide an insight into this time period, and also provide an example of martyrdom for one's faith. In fact, each of the apocryphal books seems to make note of some of the finer details of the Christian faith, such as the importance of almsgiving. The notes in the NAB actually point out that the church itself doesn't always accord the same level of inspiration to these books as they do the canonicals. As a personal observation, I don't know how much weight one can assign to the naming of additional archangels, such as Raphael, or demons, such as Asmodeus.
The second thing which happened for me as a result of purchasing the NAB was that I was exposed to what I feel are painfully truthful footnotes, based on history, archaeology, and science. When there are questions regarding a particular doctrine, conflict, or event, the notes attempt to honestly present this to the reader. The fact that an attempt is made to provide an honest witness is refreshing.
The deuterocanonicals do provide a bit of extra detail, although I'm not sure that they could be considered indespensable. I do have a problem with the credibility of the apocryphal gospels which are allegedly a companion to the canonical New Testament books.
BB
You may be right on how the Catholic Church views the deuterocanonical books, BB. Athanasius, for example, if I recall correctly, said that the DC books were good for the church services, but one couldn't establish doctrine on their basis. At the same time, it does seem as if the Catholic Church tries to establish some doctrines at least partly on the basis of the DC: purgatory, saints interceding (since Jeremiah does so in 2 Maccabees).
Post a Comment