Customer Reviews

The Canon Debate

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

McDonald and Sanders have done an excellent job of convoking the best and brightest to discuss issues around the formation and understanding of the biblical canon.(Their use of the word "debate" for the title may be a bit of an overstatement considering the respectful collegiality of the participants.) Every contributor is a highly credentialed major player in the field. The editors express disappointment that Bruce Metzger, Roger Beckwith, Earle Ellis, Brevard Childs, and Gerald Sheppard were unable for various reasons to contribute articles. While their thoughts would have been interesting, the 31 Jewish and Christian scholars who did contribute are not to be considered second string (many of whom quote and reference the five absent giants anyway).

My enthusiasm for the thought contained in this 662-page book is based on having read the introduction and five randomly selected articles: "The Notion and Definition of Canon" (Eugene Ulrich), "Jamnia Revisited" (Jack P. Lewis), "The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Early Church and Today" (David J. Harrington, S.J.), "The Codex and Canon Consciousness" (Robert A. Kraft), and "The Problem of Pseudonymity in Biblical Literature and Its Implication" (Kent D. Clarke). As far as I can tell, these are new papers, not reworkings of existing materials. Harrington's thoughts on the Apocrypha, for instance, go far beyond anything he expressed on this subject in his own excellent book, INTVITATION TO THE APOCRYPHA (1999). Clarke's article on Pseudonymity answered a lot of questions I've had about this issue and I felt it did a good job of showing how a person's assumptions about a biblical book's pseudonymity (whether the practice is honorable, innocent, and licit or dishonorable, deceptive, and illicit) affects how a person is likely to judge that book's status within the canon. So far I've been impressed with everything I read. I look forward to savoring the remaining 26 articles.

Editor McDonald provided four interesting appendices and the bibliography is worth the cost of the book (they seem to identify English translations of scholarly works created in other languages when possible, though I noticed they did not do so with Trobisch's FIRST EDITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, Oxford, 2000; otherwise, the bibliography seems to be quite current).

If you're at all curious about how the Bible came to be and why different religious traditions have different Bibles, THE CANON DEBATE will give you lots to mull over. Accessible, but challenging.

The word "debate" well summarizes the character of the vast scholarly output of the past half-century dealing with the Jewish and Christian biblical canons. It is probably not accidental that the burgeoning interest in canonical issues coincided with the discovery (beginning in 1947) and publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in which "canonical" and "non-canonical" writings appear in great quantity in the same location. Indeed, of the 511 items in the bibliography of this book, 471 were published after 1950. This collection of 32 essays traces the contours of the contemporary debate in admirable detail.

Even the section titles hint at the unsettling of old conventions. Following the introduction, part two is labeled "The Old/First Testament Canon," and part three is "The New/Second Testament Canon." In the essays themselves, however, only James Sanders adopts these neologisms, and he only partially; even the Jewish contributors to the volume continue to use the conventional designations, "Old Testament" and "New Testament."

In the introduction McDonald and Sanders outline eight major questions in the debate, which can be collapsed into five: 1) What is the relationship between "scripture" and "canon"? 2) What is the scope of the respective OT and NT canons? 3) In view of the high profile of some non-canonical gospels in research on the life of Jesus, should the gospel canon be expanded? 4) Which form of the text is canonical, i.e., the most ancient form (as critically reconstructed), the final form (as known at the time of closure), or some other form? 5) What were the criteria for determining canonicity, and how should these criteria be evaluated by contemporary Jewish and Christian communities? These and related questions are central to the 15 essays on the OT canon and the 16 on the NT. The references that follow illustrate how lively and controversial the discussion remains.

Eugene Ulrich ("The Notion and Definition of Canon") claims that three elements are essential to the definition of canon. "First, the canon involves books, not the textual form of the books; secondly, it requires reflective judgment; and thirdly, it denotes a closed list" (34). But Eldon Jay Epp asks, "When two meaningful variants occur in an authoritative writing, which reading is canonical, or are both canonical? (512). That is, is the "reflective judgment" that yields canonical authority for a book different somehow from the reflective judgments that have given us variant forms of biblical texts? The status of the Septuagint in both Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity shows that Epp's question goes far beyond the issue of individual variant readings. Essays by Albert Sundberg ("The Septuagint: The Bible of Hellenistic Judaism"), Emmanuel Tov, ("The Status of the Masoretic Text in Modern Text Editions of the Hebrew Bible: The Relevance of Canon"), and Craig Evans ("The Scripture of Jesus and His Earliest Followers") all point to the indissoluble connection between text and canon.

With respect to the criterion of a "closed list," some contributors suggest that the canon is much more about process than product (James Sanders, "The Issue of Closure in the Canonical Process," Joseph Blenkinsopp, "The Formation of the Hebrew Bible Canon: Isaiah as a Test Case"). The relevant importance of closure separates those who view the decisive period of canon formation as the second century (Everett Ferguson, "Factors Leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon," Peter Balla, "Evidence for an Early Christian Canon [Second and Third Century]) from those who judge the fourth century as the crucial era (Albert Sundberg, "The Septuagint . . . ," Geoffrey Mark Hahne-man, "The Muratorian Fragment and the Origins of the New Testament Canon"). In sum, however much we may wish, with Ulrich, to "formulate and agree upon a precise definition of the canon of scripture for the sake of clarity, consistency, and constructive dialogue" (35), this is probably too much to hope for.

Nevertheless, this collection does offer much constructive dialogue and advances the debate about the canon in several particulars: 1) It subjects conventional arguments to fresh and vigorous re-examination (Steve Mason, "Josephus and His Twenty-Two Book Canon," John Barton, "Marcion Revisited"); 2) It underscores the vital relationship between textual criticism, codicology, and canon formation (Robert Kraft, "The Codex and Canon Consciousness," Daryl Schmidt, "The Greek New Testament as a Codex," Eldon Jay Epp, "Issues in the Interrelationship of New Testament Textual Criticism and Canon,"); 3) It provides up-to-date surveys of scholarship on a number of ancillary issues (James VanderKam, "Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls," Pheme Perkins, "Gnosticism and the Christian Bible," Kent Clarke, "The Problem of Pseudonymity in Biblical Literature and Its Implications for Canon Formation"). Best of all, it offers the mature scholarship of the most seasoned veterans of canon research. A good two-thirds of the contributors are either emeritus faculty or senior scholars; and they represent an international, interconfessional, and theologically varied field. They are not only willing to engage each other in dialogue but to respond to and carry forward their own earlier research and reflections (Jack Lewis, "Jamnia Revisited," James Dunn, "Has the Canon a Continuing Function?").

The end matter is almost worth the price of the book. Lee McDonald has assembled appendices in which are collected primary sources for canon study and lists of catalogs for both the OT and NT canons. In addition to the generous bibliography, there is a subject index, an index of modern authors, and an index of ancient and medieval sources.

Although not a reference work in the usual sense of the term, the range and depth of discussion of canonical concerns assure that this book will be used as a standard reference work for many years to come.
Robert F. Hull, Jr.

The Canon Debate is a collection of 32 articles by various scholars. One article deals with introduction, fifteen articles with the OT canon, and sixteen with the NT canon. The present review will focus primarily on those articles concerning the NT canon.

Lee M. McDonald and James A. Sanders, "Introduction," propose eight major questions that the volume addresses: (1) What is a biblical canon and when did it begin to flourish? (2) Why did canon debates last for centuries? (3) Does citation of a writing indicate the writing's canonicity? (4) Do biblical or non-biblical sources most accurately reflect the earliest traditions of Jesus? (5) If the agrapha are genuine, can and should they be canonized? (6) What form of the text is canonical? (7) What manuscript evidence is there for collections of biblical writings? and (8) What criteria were employed to decide which writings were to be canonical? They also discuss the issues involved in the meaning of Scripture and the meaning of "canon."

Steve Mason, "Josephus and His Twenty-Two Book Canon" (110-27), argues rightly that passages from Josephus's Against Apion are not specific enough to be used to argue for a two-part or three-part OT canon. If anything, evidence from Josephus's Antiquities would indicate rather a division-less body of Scripture in Josephus's mind. If Josephus represents a common first-century view, then neither an open canon nor one recently closed is consistent with the language he uses. Arguments to the contrary are therefore highly circumstantial. Josephus's C. Ap. 1.43 cannot indicate a major canonical division.

Chapter 17 features Harry Y. Gamble's "The New Testament Canon: Recent Research and the Status Quaestionis" (268-94). Gamble briefly surveys and interacts with recent literature on the NT canon and the smaller collections within it, views Trobischs's proposal generally unfavorably, and argues that the canon's development had more to do with the early church's social, theological, and liturgical life than with fighting heterodox movements.

Everett Ferguson's article, "Factors Leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon: A Survey of Some Recent Studies" (295-320), surveys the literature, including many primary sources, on both the internal dynamics and external influences of canon development. Sections include discussions on authority, memory, and scripture; early regard for the Gospels; early terminology for authoritative writings; Marcion; gnosticism; Montanism; and the conciliar decisions in the age of Constantine.

The Canon Debate has the distinction of publishing the late William R. Farmer's last article, "Reflections on Jesus and the New Testament Canon" (321-40), submitted to the editors only a few days before his death. Farmer argues that the concept of canon lies deep within the heart of the gospel message itself, including the revolutionary interpretation that the Messiah would not kill wrongdoers to mitigate God's wrath but rather himself be sacrificed in the place of wrongdoers. Thus the concept of canon began with Jesus and was continued by his disciples and close followers. In effect, NT canon origination began in the first century.

Chapter 20, "Marcion Revisited" (341-54) by John Barton, questions whether Marcion's influence on the NT canon was as great as many claim. Barton agrees with Sundberg's and Hahneman's arguments for a fourth-century date for the text of the Muratorian Fragment. The documents and literary heritages of Marcion and the Christians developed independently, and by the time the church drew boundaries around the NT, Marcion's influence had long since diminished.

Pheme Perkins, "Gnosticism and the Christian Bible" (355-71) shows how gnostic writings are derivative of the form of writings in the NT canon, and argues that gnostic leaders were not composing alternative "Bibles." Perkins also suggests that single words and phrases, often subtle, are more important for indicating citations than so-called citation formulae. Perkins's article includes six tables noting the number of known biblical references in early gnostic literature.

Peter Balla, "Evidence for an Early Christian Canon (Second and Third Century)" (272-85), discusses mainly ancient lists and manuscript evidence that indicate canonical writings were grouped together very early. Balla also discusses claims of authority within the NT writings themselves and references to canonical books by writers in the second century. He suggests that canonical writings questioned in the fourth century may well have been unquestionably received in the second century, and therefore questions whether the fourth century is the best place to start in reconstructing the history of the canon.

Chapter 23, "The New Testament Canon of Eusebius" (386-404) by Everett R. Kalin, argues that Eusebius's antilegomena (disputed writings) and notha (spurious writings) belong to the same category and that the notha were not intended by Eusebius to be included in the canon. Eusebius's evidence is therefore only for a 21- or 22-book canon. He also argues that Eusebius's ''' ''''''''''' means "not in the New Testament." If Kalin is correct that the church's tradition of what the apostles wrote and handed down was paramount, one wonders how the "majority" in Eusebius's day came to receive the notha as authoritative. Perhaps Eusebius was as baffled as Kalin seems to be on this point.

Geoffrey M. Hahneman, "The Muratorian Fragment and the Origins of the New Testament Canon" (405-15), continues the case against Ferguson, Henne, and Hill that the Muratorian Fragment represents a fourth-century text. He wonders how the terms "very recently, in our times," three words in Latin, could form the cornerstone of Hill's argument, and then proceeds to invalidate the argument on historical and internal grounds relating to the Shepherd of Hermas. Furthermore, the absence of lists before Eusebius and the abundance of them in the fourth and fifth centuries suggest that only then did a closed canon reach relative consensus.

Lee M. McDonald, "Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church: The Criteria Question" (416-39), focuses on how Scripture came to be identified. McDonald discusses the criteria of apostolicity, orthodoxy, antiquity, and use, and additionally the adaptability or long-lastingness and non-exclusive inspiration of the NT documents. He also affirms the late date of the Muratorian Fragment, i.e., ca. AD 350.

Chapter 26 has Kent D. Clarke's "The Problem of Pseudonymity in Biblical Literature and Its Implications for Canon Formation" (440-68). Clarke discusses pseudonymity as forgery and the notion of deceit, the motives for producing pseudonymous literature, pseudonymous literature's abundance in Greco-Roman, Jewish, and even Christian antiquity, and the current views that pseudonymity was either acceptable or unacceptable. Clark takes a mediating position, and suggests that apostolicity was not the only or even the most important determining factor for accepting writings into the canon. While "forged" documents are in the canon by modern standards, ancient standards of authorship would not consider such documents to have been "forgeries."

Daryl D. Schmidt, "The Greek New Testament as a Codex" (469-84), discusses the fifty or so manuscripts that currently or originally contained the entire NT. Most manuscripts put the Catholic Epistles before the Pauline, and Hebrews before the Pastoral Epistles. Athanasius's list became a kind of table of contents for manuscripts not until around the twelfth century. Schmidt includes a large table with information on all the manuscripts considered to contain the entire NT.

Eldon J. Epp, "Issues in the Interrelation of New Testament Textual Criticism and Canon" (485-515), focuses first on the grouping variations among NT manuscripts, then the presence of unexpected books and the absence of expected books among the manuscripts, then a lengthy discussion on the disputed contents of P46, favoring an agnostic approach, and finally the varying order of books one may find in the manuscript tradition. After discussing the "Marcionite" prologues, indicators of textual problems within manuscripts, and the codex format, Epp finally argues that most if not all competing variants were held to be canonical, and thus we should not accept any one text as authoritative.

Chapter 29, "The Canonical Structure of Gospel and Apostle" (516-27) by François Bovon, argues that the theological structure that dominated the early church, i.e., Gospel and Apostle, naturally influenced the form of the canon. From this structure, namely, Christ's ministry and apostolic works and proclamation, naturally flowed the canonical form of Gospels and Epistles. Non-canonical works also copied this inherent pattern.

Robert W. Wall, "The Significance of a Canonical Perspective of the Church's Scripture" (528-40), follows Childs's approach in many ways. The NT must be read as an act of faith and according to its later canonical integrity, not as individually deconstructed writings grouped together by chance. Exegesis must always be collaborative with a community of believers, and the literal sense must always have contemporary meaning before it can function as scripture. Focusing on canonical context, canonical content, and canonical conversations, Wall suggests, for instance, that the "mutual criticism" of dissonant views among the Epistles complement and balance the whole.

Robert W. Funk, "The Once and Future New Testament" (541-57), radically suggests the creation of a plethora of new NT canons in light of the obsolescence of the traditional NT canon. Partly because the early fathers were deluded that the canonical writings were produced by apostles and partly because the orthodox were too narrow-minded in what they considered orthodox, the canon the orthodox produced has become increasingly irrelevant. Canonical authority has been eroded by historical-critical scholarship, Darwin, Einstein's theory of relativity, the collapse of the world's belief in myths (= miraculous birth, miracles, resurrection, etc.), the demise of the pope's authority, and the historical Jesus "quest." NT scholars must now create new New Testaments in order for Christianity to remain relevant.

Chapter 32, "Has the Canon a Continuing Function?" (558-79) by James D.G. Dunn, presents parts of his 1990 work Unity and Diversity in the New Testament with reflections on what he might have said differently. Dunn suggests that the continuing function of the canon is its consistent testimony to Jesus despite its diversity; this is the canon within the canon, without which Christianity ceases to exist. The diversity in the canon also affirms the diversity of Christianity, i.e., the support of wider ecumenism. Dunn rejects calls by Koester, Funk, and others that the NT is invalid or that other documents should be added to it, for the NT canon was not decreed but acknowledged. Dunn also reaffirms the importance of scripture for shaping one's portrait of Jesus, but also gives more allowance to tradition than he used to.

The final eighty pages of The Canon Debate contain appendices of primary sources, lists and catalogues, a select bibliography of 24 pages, and indexes of subjects, modern authors, and ancient/biblical and medieval sources.

The Canon Debate is valuable in that it brings together thirty-two contemporary and scholarly articles on the biblical canon in a single location. With as many articles as are present in the volume it is amazing how little they overlap. Current debates, leading voices, and important issues concerning the biblical canon are all covered in these articles. For these reasons The Canon Debate is a valuable tool that should not be overlooked.

I purchased this book in 2005 because I saw it seemed to cover a lot of important issues regarding the canon of the bible. Well, this book has lots of technical language to the scholars in the area. Also a lot of views or theories perhaps are expressed here so I would definitely say prior knowledge of the bible's history and history outside of the bible is a must. I gave this book 5 stars although I really would've left it unrated if i had the option. I say that because this book was too advanced for me to read, at least for now it is.

If you have ever wanted to get a very intimate look into the 'canon debate' this book has it all. It has a very good amount of disagreement (which makes it fairly unbiased) and it has a good amount of unity. This is, for sure, a MUST READ. Any serious person will own this book (it is worth its weight in gold). The arguments are persuasive (be prepared to change your precious beliefs). The debates are very technical too, but highly readable. You will enjoy this book. I am sure of that.