“There are many lists of canonical Old Testament books from various church fathers and councils. The lists from the Eastern churches tend to support a restricted canon very much like that of the Hebrew tradition. In several cases (Origen, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Epiphanius) Baruch and the Letter to Jeremiah are included as parts of Jeremiah-Lamentations, with no other apocrypha mentioned.”
--Daniel J. Harrington, S.J.
------------------------------------------------
More information:
*Also take a look at Melito, Gregory, Amphilochius and note the different lists for Epiphanius
--Daniel J. Harrington, S.J.
------------------------------------------------
More information:
*Also take a look at Melito, Gregory, Amphilochius and note the different lists for Epiphanius
*Origen only includes the "Letter of Jeremiah"
*See previous posts for a brief defense of the Hebrew canon (2/29/08)
Sources:
* The Canon Debate: The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Early Church and Today Daniel J. Harrington, S.J. (Ch.12 p.199).
*See previous posts for a brief defense of the Hebrew canon (2/29/08)
Sources:
* The Canon Debate: The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Early Church and Today Daniel J. Harrington, S.J. (Ch.12 p.199).
* The Canon Debate Appendix by Lee McDonald p.585-586.
*The Canon of Scripture F.F. Bruce p.74-75.
*The Canon of Scripture F.F. Bruce p.74-75.
7 comments:
*The Hebrew canon has the same content as the Protestant.
Catz--
1. What do you think this implies about the canon?
2. If you think that this implies the smaller canon is binding on us to believe in, then why?
3. Do you think that many early Christians agreed about the inspiration of the Septuaigaint?
1.
More like, what this implies about the Eastern Orthodox canon. What do you think this implies MG?
2.
I am pointing out: 1) The earliest and most dependable Eastern sources (not merely because they are early) have an extremely conservative canon that most resembles the Hebrew and Protestant canon. 2) This is contrasted with later on when other books move into the category of inspiration.
3.
When you use the term "Septuagint" what are you saying? What tradition or collections are you talking about?
3. continued:
the 7(2) myth?
You wrote:
"1. More like, what this implies about the Eastern Orthodox canon. What do you think this implies MG?"
I asked the above question hoping for clarification. The reply you gave doesn't seem to be a very helpful response to my request for clarification. Could you clarify your position first, please?
You wrote:
"2. I am pointing out: 1) The earliest and most dependable Eastern sources (not merely because they are early) have an extremely conservative canon that most resembles the Hebrew and Protestant canon. 2) This is contrasted with later on when other books move into the category of inspiration."
Are you saying that the smaller canon is universally binding on all Christians to believe in? It seems that the statements made above are not sufficient to show this. At the very least, one would need to add premises such as
1b. If the earliest and most dependable eastern sources have an extremely conservative canon that most resembles the Hebrew and Protestant canon, then the Hebrew canon is binding on all Christians to believe.
or
2b. If the early conservative canon is contrasted with the later placement of more books into the category of the OT, then this implies that the early conservative canon is binding on all Christians to believe.
The points 1) and 2) you gave may be necessary conditions and part of the set of sufficient conditions for the truth of the conclusion "the Hebrew canon is binding on all Christians to believe". But they are not by themselves sufficient. These factual statements need to be somehow translated to have normative implications (because such is the case, therefore things should be this way)
So again, what do you think this stuff implies about the canon?
You wrote:
"3. When you use the term "Septuagint" what are you saying? What tradition or collections are you talking about?"
Lets say: any Greek translation of a collection of books understood (whether rightly or wrongly) to be the Old Testament that was being circulated starting three-someodd centuries BC.
So the question then is this:
Do you think that many early Christians agreed about the inspiration of any Greek translation of a collection of books understood (whether rightly or wrongly) to be the Old Testament that was being circulated starting three-someodd centuries BC?
I asked the above question hoping for clarification. The reply you gave doesn't seem to be a very helpful response to my request for clarification. Could you clarify your position first, please?”
I am putting this forward to show that the Eastern church’s earliest tradition accepted a more limited canon than they do now…this implies something specific about the Easter canons. As for the implications for the whole canon (what the canon should or shouldn‘t be)… that is a bigger question that goes beyond the evolution of the Eastern Orthodox canon and into other historical claims, questions of authority, Ecumenical councils…ect.
Instead of answering a question that is bigger than one quote (and condition of early eastern Christendom) I will keep things limited to the question of why the Eastern canon is the way it is and ask: “Within your system, on what grounds do you have the canon you do?”
“Are you saying that the smaller canon is universally binding on all Christians to believe in?”
I would hold to this claim but this is not what I have said here.
“At the very least, one would need to add premises such as”
Thanks for the help but these go towards a claim that has not been made. I was interested in seeing what those in the Eastern Orthodox churches claim about their canon and early tradition in light of this reality.
“These factual statements need to be somehow translated to have normative implications (because such is the case, therefore things should be this way)”
Sure, but first the facts must be known and understood. I take it that you are not disagreeing with the facts? Or don’t want to bring in some other facts that would deem these ones unimportant?
“Do you think that many early Christians agreed about the inspiration of any Greek translation of a collection of books understood (whether rightly or wrongly) to be the Old Testament that was being circulated starting three-someodd centuries BC?”
Since you have an idea you are trying to put forward here why don’t you go ahead and make your case. Cite what you think is relevant and I will gladly discuss how it might help or harm the Eastern canon.
"Or don’t want to bring in some other facts that would deem these ones unimportant?"
**I want to hear them.
Post a Comment