Although the evidence is sparse and open to debate, on balance it seems likely that the canon (i.e., the authoritative list of books) of the OT was closed well before the time of Jesus. While some scholars contend that the library of OT books remained fluid until the latter part of the first century AD, the earliest surviving evidence suggests that the books of the OT, or the Hebrew Bible as it is sometimes called, were viewed as an authoritative collection of writings by about 150 BC at the latest. In the prologue of Ecclesiasticus (in the Apocrypha), a Greek translation of a Hebrew book known as Sirach, the translator, writing about 132 BC, refers to the OT using the following expressions: “the Law and the Prophets and the others that followed them”; “the Law and the Prophets and the other books of our ancestors”; “the Law itself, the Prophecies, and the rest of the books.” This threefold division reflects the later Jewish custom of referring to the Hebrew Bible as the Law, Prophets, and Writings. Unfortunately, no ancient texts survive to explain how the process of canonization happened and what criteria were used to determine which books should be included. The process itself may well have occurred in stages over several centuries, and individual books were probably viewed as special long before the different sections of the canon were finally closed. Although some Christian traditions hold that various other Jewish writings should be viewed as canonical, the earliest evidence, including the authoritative testimony of the NT, suggests that only those books that comprise the Hebrew Bible are divinely inspired. On the inspiration and authority of the NT, see Introduction to the New Testament.
Zondervan (2015-08-25). NIV, Zondervan Study Bible, eBook: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message (Kindle Locations 1674-1675). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Zondervan (2015-08-25). NIV, Zondervan Study Bible, eBook: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message (Kindle Locations 1670-1674). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Zondervan (2015-08-25). NIV, Zondervan Study Bible, eBook: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message (Kindle Locations 1666-1670). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Zondervan (2015-08-25). NIV, Zondervan Study Bible, eBook: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message (Kindle Locations 1663-1666). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
3 comments:
http://www.brill.com/products/series/textual-history-bible#.WFLEz2qj2zM.twitter
Another one to think about.
Looks interesting and worth exploring. Thanks!
The prologue of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) indeed refers to the Law, Prophets, and other writings, but this does not imply that the canon was closed by the second century BC. In fact, Jewish communities at the time did not have a universally agreed-upon canon. Various Jewish sects, such as the Essenes, included books like Tobit and Sirach in their sacred texts, indicating a broader understanding of Scripture than the later Rabbinic canon. Additionally, the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures widely used by Jews in the Hellenistic world, included the Deuterocanonical books. This was the version of the Scriptures most commonly quoted in the New Testament, further suggesting that early Christians viewed these texts as authoritative.
The claim that the "earliest evidence, including the authoritative testimony of the NT, suggests that only those books that comprise the Hebrew Bible are divinely inspired" is flawed. The New Testament writers frequently quoted from the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanonical books. For example, Hebrews 11:35 references the story of the Maccabean martyrs, found in 2 Maccabees. This suggests that the New Testament authors did not limit themselves to a narrow Hebrew canon but considered the wider Septuagint collection as authoritative.
The assertion that the Old Testament canon was closed well before the time of Jesus lacks definitive evidence. The often-cited Council of Jamnia (around 90 AD) is frequently mentioned as a decisive moment in the closure of the Jewish canon, but modern scholars increasingly reject this view, noting that Jamnia did not formally establish the Hebrew canon. Instead, the Jewish canon remained somewhat fluid, with ongoing debates about certain books well into the second century AD. This fluidity challenges the notion of a fixed and closed canon in Jesus' time.
Early Christian writings and Church Fathers, including Augustine and the councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD), recognized the Deuterocanonical books as part of the canon. These councils affirmed the inclusion of these books as inspired and authoritative for the Church. The later Protestant rejection of these texts does not reflect the consistent practice of the early Church, which saw these books as integral to the faith.
While it is true that Athanasius referred to a canon in 367 AD, it is misleading to suggest that this was the first use of the term in a "list" sense. The Church had been discerning and recognizing the inspired books for centuries, and Athanasius' Festal Letter was part of a broader, ongoing tradition of recognizing these texts, rather than a sudden innovation. His list does not reflect the definitive closure of the canon but rather his specific position within the context of the wider canonical discussions of his time.
Post a Comment