Beckwith 01

8/9/2019 Beckwith 01

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/beckwith-01 1/5

Challenges to biblical theology

replacing, the historical approach with alter-natives based on the literary and socialsciences.

Robert Morgan has reflected on the prob-lems involved in biblical theology, and espe-cially NT theology, in numerous works, themost comprehensive of which is Biblical

Interpretation. According to Morgan, 'acts of God cannot be spoken of, let alone established,

by historical research' (p. 70). Since history isnot capable of conveying theological judgments (cf. also p. 119), other approachesare needed (cf. also pp. 123, 197-198). Ac-cording to Morgan's survey, recent devel-opments in biblical interpretation suggest thatthe religious message of the text can be identi-fied by interpreting the Bible within a literaryframework (see e.g. pp. 143, 199). Sometimesthe historical approach may even become`subordinate' to the literary one (p. 287).

Morgan defines the literary approach asfollows (p. 221): 'The literary frame of refer-ence can be characterized as a shift in the fo-cus of interest from past persons, events,traditions, literary forms, and conventions, tothe now available texts and their impact uponpresent-day hearers and readers.'

However, there are good reasons for re-taining a historical frame of reference for bib-lical theology. First, Morgan himself acknow-ledges that historical criticism has made`positive contributions to constructive theo-logical restatement' inasmuch as its 'negativetheological role' forced theologians to 'restatethe traditional faith' (p. 288). Secondly, his-torical study can control arbitrary interpret-ations. Consigning the historical approach toa secondary role and introducing non-historical approaches can undermine theaccuracy of biblical interpretation. Morganhimself concedes that there may be occasionsin theological work where 'the historicalframework of research co-ordinates all themethods used' (p. 287). He also acknow-ledges that literary methods were used along-side historical ones in the past (e.g. byWellhausen, p. 82).

It follows that the historical and the liter-ary approaches do not exclude one another. Itis best to combine them in the way suggestedby Morgan (cf. p. 215).

In Biblical Interpretation Morgan identifiessignificant differences between the disciplinesof history and sociology: 1. 'history attends tothe individual and particular, sociology to

26

what is general or typical' (p. 139); 2. historyis diachronic, sociology is synchronic (pp.139-140). For Morgan, these differences im-ply 'that the disciplines are complementary'(p. 140). Since in biblical theology we aremore concerned with the 'unique' than withthe 'typical', it follows 'that history ratherthan sociology should provide the framework for studying the biblical past'. A 'sociological

theory', that is 'based on empirically groundedgeneralizations' such as might be discoveredby 'observing many societies' may helpfullycomplement the insights of historical study.Morgan also argues that 'Since religion is asocial phenomenon, the history of religionmust be social history' (p. 140).

However, a distinction should be drawnbetween extending historical inquiry to in-clude the societies of biblical times and usingtheories based on present-day sociologicalanalysis. A historical framework for studyingthe Bible's theology may incorporate a socialdimension without making use of modernsociological theories.

So it is possible to complement historicalstudy with a sociological theory within thediscipline of biblical theology, but this is onlyan option for the scholar. The validity of thehistorical approach to biblical theology is notdependent upon its being supplemented bysociology.

ConclusionThe foregoing argument suggests the termtheology' can reasonably be retained as adescription of the Bible's content. It may beused to refer to the biblical authors' (andcharacters') thoughts about God. Biblical the-ology is essentially historical, and may be

justified as such, though the biblical theolo-gian may also adopt frames of referencedrawn from literary theory or the social sci-ences.

Judgments on the validity of the enterprisedepend upon the presuppositions of scholars,the interpretation of key biblical passages andthe exegetical reconstruction of historicalevents related in the Bible. For example, evenif we find that much early Christianity shareda basic theology (perhaps expressed in shortcredal statements), we may still acknowledgediversity in the details with which earlyChristians filled out that theology.

It is likely that Christians with differenttheological views formed different canons

from the 2nd century onwards. The orthodoxgroup also formed a canon. The Christians of the 1st century may have written with a cer-tain 'canonical awareness'. If as historians wefind that the NT 'canon', in the form of a 'ca-nonical process', is a historical fact of the firsttwo Christian centuries (and not just the re-sult of a decision made at a later date), and if we find that the NT claims authority for it-self, perhaps even that of a 'canonical' text,then it is legitimate to look for the theologycontained in the NT writings.

We do not have to move 'beyond' biblicaltheology. The discipline can be justified bothin its focus on the canonical writings, and inits aim of describing the theology contained inthe Bible.

BibliographyP. Balla, Challenges to New Testament

Theology: An Attempt to Justify the Enterprise (Tubingen, 1997; repr. Peabody,1998); J. Barr, The Scope and Authority of the Bible (London, 1980); idem, 'Etymologyand the Old Testament', in A. S. van der

Woude (ed.), Language and Meaning: Studiesin Hebrew Language and Biblical Exegesis(Leiden, 1974), pp. 1-28; W. Bauer, Ortho-doxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (ET,Philadelphia and London, 1971, 1972); J. J.

Introduction: canonicityEvery book has a text, but not every book hasa canon. Only a book like the Bible, which isalso a collection of books, has a canon. Thecollection can be listed, and indeed needs tobe listed for the avoidance of confusion anddoubt, especially in a period like the biblicalperiod, when the collection cannot yet be em-bodied in a single scroll or codex. 'Canon' isby origin a Greek word, denoting a straightrod or rule, and thus a criterion, and (to-gether with its cognates 'canonical' and 'can-

The canon of Scripture

Collins, 'Is a critical biblical theologypossible?' in W. H. Propp, B. Halpern, D. N.Freedman (eds.), The Hebrew Bible and Its

Interpreters (Winona Lake, 1990), pp. 1-17;H. Koester and J. M. Robinson, Trajectoriesthrough Early Christianity (Philadelphia,1971); L. M. McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon (Peabody,1995); R. Morgan and J. Barton, Biblical

Interpretation (Oxford, 1988); J. C. O'Neill,Who Did Jesus Think He Was? (Leiden,1995); H. Raisdnen, Beyond New Testament Theology: A Story and a Programme (Londonand Philadelphia, 1990); idem, 'Die friih-christliche Gedankenwelt: Eine religions-wissenschaftliche Alternative zur "neutesta-mentlichen Theologie"', in Ch. Dohmen, Th.Riding (eds.), Eine Bibel – zwei Testamente:Positionen biblischer Theologie (Paderborn,1995), pp. 253-265; idem, ' New TestamentTheology?' in J. Neusner (ed.), Approaches to

Ancient Judaism, vol. 9 (Atlanta, 1995), pp.197-210; W. Wrede, 'The Task and Methodsof "New Testament Theology"', in R. Morgan(ed.),

The Nature of New Testament

Theology: The Contribution of WilliamWrede and Adolf Schlatter (ET, London,1973), pp. 68-116.

P. BALLA

onize') it began to be applied by Christianwriters of the later 4th century AD to the cor-rect collection and list of the Scriptures. Thiswas a new usage; the common idea that thislanguage had earlier been used by the Alex-andrian grammarians for the select lists(pinakeis) of classical writers and artistswhich they drew up is a mistake. Such listsdid exist, both among the Greeks and perhapsamong the Babylonians, but calling them acanon' is a practice dating only from the18th century, and was based upon the biblicalcanon, not the other way round.

27

The Canon of Scripture

Beckwith, Roger T. "The Canon of Scripture." In NEW DICTIONARY OF BIBLICALTHEOLOGY, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, 27-34.Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000.




It is interesting that this language firstarose just at the time when it was at last be-coming possible to put the Scriptures into asingle volume. The great 4th-century codices,Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, arethe earliest known examples. Among theJews, the Pentateuch seems not to have beenembodied in a single scroll before the Chris-tian era, and at Qumran each biblical book

(or regular and manageable combination of books) had its own scroll. The scrolls of theGreek OT, being made of papyrus notleather, seem to have been even less capa-cious. So lists were of great importance. Theearliest Christian lists of the OT and NT,those of Melito and the Muratorian Fragmentrespectively, both date from the 2nd centuryAD, and the earliest Jewish list of the HebrewScriptures, found in a primitive tradition orbaraita quoted in the Babylonian Talmud(Baba Bathra 14b), is probably older still.Before the term 'canon' was invented, a vari-ety of names were already used by Jews andChristians for the collection of their sacredbooks, some, such as 'the Holy Scriptures',

going back to the 1st century (Rom. 1:2; 2Tim. 3:15; Philo; Josephus), and others, suchas 'the Holy Books' and 'the Law andthe Prophets', being even more ancient(1 Macc. 12:9; 2 Macc. 15:9). The t erms 'OldTestament' and 'New Testament' began to beapplied by Christian writers to collections of Scriptures in the 2nd and early 3rd centuries.What the language of 'canonicity' added wasthe idea of correctness; this correctness couldnow be embodied, for the first time, not justin lists but also in one-volume copies.

The biblical canon is not, of course, pri-marily a collection or list of literary master-pieces, like the Alexandrian lists, but one of authoritative sacred texts. Their authorityderived not from their early date, nor fromtheir role as records of revelation (importantthough these characteristics were), but fromthe fact that they were believed to be inspiredby God and thus to share the nature of revela-tion themselves. This belief, expressed atvarious points in the OT, had become a set-tled conviction among Jews of the inter-testamental period, and is everywhere takenfor granted in the NT treatment of the OT.That NT writings share this scriptural andinspired character is first stated in 1 Timothy5:18 and 2 Peter 3:16. Pagan religion alsocould speak of 'holy scriptures' and attribute

28

them on occasion to a deity (see J. Leipoldtand S. Morenz, Heilige Schriften [Leipzig,1953], pp. 21f., 28-30), but the Jewish andChristian claims were made credible by thedifferent quality of biblical religion and bibli-cal literature.

In a dictionary of biblical theology, thecanon provides both boundaries and a basis.We are not engaged in producing a general

survey of ancient Jewish and Christian reli-gious ideas; if we were, all the surviving lit-erature from the period would have an equalclaim to our attention. Rather, we are en-gaged in interpreting the revelation of God,and for this the books which are believed toembody that revelation, and their text, arealone directly relevant. The accepted ways of arranging the canonical books are also signi-ficant, in so far as they highlight the historicalprogression of revelation and the literaryforms in which it was given.

The history of the OT canonThe origin of the canon may be dated fromthe time that revelation first started being

given in written form and being recognizedfor what it was. In both covenants, revelationwas initially given through spoken words andoutward signs, and in the new covenantthrough the person of the Lord Jesus Christduring his ministry on earth, but for the sakeof permanence it soon started to be put intowritten form, The materials mainly used werebooks, viz. scrolls of papyrus or leather, andin NT times perhaps also small papyrus co-dices, but in OT times writing tablets mightsometimes be used (Is. 30:8; Hab. 2:2), of which the tablets of the Ten Commandments,written by the finger of God and deposited inthe ark of the covenant, are an illustrious ex-ample. Writing was used as a 'memorial'(Exod. 17:14) and as an abiding 'witness'(Deut. 31:26) which would last until 'the gen-eration to come' (Ps. 102:18) and indeed 'forever' (Is. 30:8). The finding of the law-book by Hilkiah in the temple showed vividly whathappened when the written form of revelationwas lost; the revelation itself was forgotten (2Kgs. 22 — 23; 2 Chr. 34). In the NT one findsLuke writing a careful record of Jesus' lifeand work for the sake of his readers"cer-tainty' (Luke 1:3-4.) and John correcting inwriting a corrupt oral report (John 21:23).

On three great occasions in Israel's history,we see a smaller or greater part of the Penta-

teuch being recognized as having divineauthority, and being accepted as a writtenrule of life for the nation: at the giving of thecovenant at Sinai (Exod. 24:4, 7), at the ref-ormation of Josiah (2 Kgs. 23:1-3; 2 Chr.34:29-32) and at the re-establishment of thenation after the exile (Neh. 8:9, 14-18; 10:28-39; 13:1-3). Deuteronomy contains pro-visions for the book to be regularly read, sothat its laws may be known and obeyed(Deut. 17:18-20; 31:9-13).

There are many other references in the OTto the written law of Moses as a God-givenrule (Josh. 1:7-8; 8:31; 23:6-8; 1 Kgs. 2:3; 2Kgs. 14:6; 17:37; Hos. 8:12, etc.) and also tothe written form of oracles uttered by theprophets (Is. 30:8; Jer. 25:13; 29:1; 30:2;36:1-32, etc; Ezek. 43:11; Hab, 2:2; Dan.7:1). In the later books of the OT, referencesstart to be made to the earlier books with theexpression 'as it is written', but without fur-ther explanation as to where 'it is written' (2Chr. 30:5, 18; Ezra 3:4; Neh. 8:15; cf. Ps.149:9), the meaning of the phrase being 'as itis written in the well-known and authoritative

Scriptures'. This usage becomes common inthe intertestamental literature, and also in theNT, especially as a way of introducing quota-tions. Every book of the Hebrew OT exceptperhaps the little Song of Songs is attested asauthoritative in the intertestamental literatureand the NT taken together, most of them sev-eral times over; there is no need to appeal tothe rabbinical literature to demonstrate theirauthoritative status.

The fullest evidence is provided by theJewish historian Josephus (late 1st centuryAD). He numbers the sacred books as twenty-two, a common variant on the standard Jew-ish number twenty-four (first attested aboutJosephus's time in 2 Esdras 14:44-48). TheJews reckoned Samuel, Kings, Chronicles,Ezra-Nehemiah and the twelve Minor Proph-ets together as one book each, giving a totalof twenty-four books (instead of the familiarthirty-nine). But this figure was often reducedto twenty-two, to assimilate it to the numberof letters in the Hebrew alphabet, by ap-pending Ruth to Judges and Lamentations toJeremiah. For the benefit of his Greek readers,Josephus provides a simple arrangement forthe twenty-two books, putting all those withhistorical content into Moses and the Proph-ets (consisting of five and thirteen booksrespectively), and leaving just 'hymns to God


and precepts for human life' in the final sec-tion of four books (Against Apion 1:7f., or1:37-43).

It has been widely believed that the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria had a largercanon, including the books (found in manu-scripts of the Old Greek or Septuagint trans-lation) which we call the Apocrypha. Thistheory arose from the assumption that the

large 4th- and 5th-century Christian codicesof the Greek Bible, in which the Apocryphaare found, went back to others, much olderbut equally capacious, produced by Jews. Wenow know that this assumption is mistaken.A contributory cause of the theory was thebelief that the Apocrypha were mostlycomposed in Alexandria, and that theiroriginal language was Greek. These claimstoo are now widely doubted. Ecclesiasticustells us that it was translated from Hebrew,and many believe that all the Apocryphaexcept Wisdom and 2 Maccabees weretranslated from a Semitic language andoriginated in Palestine. We can now explainthe strange silence of Philo (early 1st century

AD), the greatest of Alexandrian Jewishwriters, in his voluminous works, where hequotes as divinely inspired many of the OTbooks but not one of the Apocrypha. TheJews of course read these books, and so didthe early Christians, but the idea that theywere Scripture is a purely Christianphenomenon, of slow and irregular develop-ment, and always opposed by the greatestscholars, such as Origen and Jerome. The NTnever quotes the Apocrypha as Scripture, andthe earliest Christian OT lists and biblicalmanuscripts contain few or none of them.

A better case could be made out for thecanonicity of the so-called Pseudepigrapha(books under false names), such as 1 Enochand Jubilees, which were cherished by theEssenes at Qumran; two of which are men-tioned in the NT epistle of Jude. The DeadSea Scrolls, however, never actually treatthese books as Scripture, and the Essenesseem to have regarded them as an inter-pretative appendix to the standard canon, notas part of it. Jude's use of such books is bestregarded as an argumentum ad hominem forreaders influenced by them, i.e. an argumentdesigned to take advantage of the readers'ideas (whether right or wrong) for a goodpurpose.

In the rabbinical literature there are dis-

29



The canon of Scripture The canon of Scripture

cussions of the canonicity of five OT books —Ezekiel, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs and Esther. Some rabbis propose thatthese books should be withdrawn from use orshould even be regarded as uninspired. Thegrounds they offer, such as contradictions, arealso offered in the rabbinical literature againstmany other canonical books, including thebooks of Moses, and are refuted, but thebooks listed evidently presented specially in-tractable problems. It follows that the matterunder discussion was that of removing booksfrom the canon, not that of adding them to it,and the objections to these five books wereeventually answered or dismissed. The theorythat a synod at Jamnia about AD 90 addedthem to the Jewish canon is pure imagination.The academy at Jamnia did once discuss twoof the books, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, and confirmed their canonicity, butthat is all.

The closing of the OT canon can hardly bedated later than the time of Judas Mac-cabaeus, in the second quarter of the 2ndcentury BC. Some books were probably rec-

ognized as Scripture more slowly than others,and the evidence of Ecclesiasticus (c. 180 BC)may indicate that the last to be recognizedwere Daniel and Esther. Ecclesiasticus seemsto reflect a knowledge of Daniel, but the factthat its great catalogue of the 'famous men' of Scripture (Ecclus. 44 — 49) does not includeeither Daniel and his companions or Estherand Mordecai may indicate that there was notyet agreement to include Daniel and Estheramong the Scriptures. By the time Ecclesiasti-cus was translated into Greek (c. 130 BC), the

f i c Scriptures had been organized in three sec-tions and translated into Greek, as theprologue by the translator of the book shows,and the principles on which the threefold or-ganization was made involved the arrange-ment of the books in order and a potentialnumbering of them (cf. The shape of thecanon' below), so Daniel and Esther must bythen have been included. These final stepsmay have been taken when Judas collectedthe scattered Scriptures after the Antiochenepersecution (1 Macc. 1:56-57; 2 Macc. 2:13-15).

The history of the NT canon

Since the OT canon was closed more than twocenturies before the NT canon was opened, itprovided a model to which the NT canon

30

could be conformed. By the 1st century, it wascustomary to think of all the authors of the OTbooks as prophets, but prophecy (in the fullsense of the word) had ceased in the inter-testamental period, as 1 Maccabees, Josephusand the rabbinical literature all bear witness.With the gospel, however, the long silence of prophecy was broken (Matt. 11:9; Acts 2:16-18; 11:27-28; 13:1; etc.), and written proph-ecy also was revived (Rev. 1:3; 10:11; 22:6-7,9-10,18-19). With the NT prophets werelinked the apostles (Luke 11:49; 1 Cor. 12:28-29; Eph. 4:11), as joint recipients of the mys-tery of the gospel and joint foundation stonesof the Christian church (Eph. 2:20; 3:5), andthe greatest Christian prophet of all was Jesushimself, the expected prophet like Moses(Mark 6:4; Luke 13:33; 24:19; Acts 3:22-23;7:37).

At first the sayings of Jesus and the writingsof the apostles were often quoted alongside theOT Scripture as having a similar authority butnot as themselves constituting Scripture. Theidea of scriptures in any language exceptHebrew was alien to the Semitic mind, but the

high reputation of the Septuagint must havemade Greek Scriptures less unthinkable, andPaul's command that his epistles should bepublicly read in the congregation (1 Thess.5:27; cf. Col. 4:16) suggests that in his viewthey have scriptural status; the author of Revelation makes the same claim, more clearly,for his work (Rev. 1:3; 22:18-19.). In 2 Peter3:16 Paul's epistles are actually called`Scriptures', and a gospel is identified as 'theScripture' in 1 Timothy 5:18. The use of `Scripture(s)' to denote NT writings becameincreasingly common through the 2nd centuryand by the end of it was normal. By that datethere was widespread agreement to accept asScripture the four Gospels, the Acts of the

Apostles, the thirteen epistles of Paul, 1 Peterand 1 John. The remaining seven books (theso-called Antilegomena', books spokenagainst) were still the subject of disagree-ment, and general agreement to include themwas not reached until the end of the 4thcentury. A few extra books (notably the

Apocalypse of Peter and the Shepherd of Hermas) were under consideration for a shorttime, but by the early 4th century it was agreedto exclude them. The three general criteriawhich the Fathers are known to have appliedwere origin in the apostolic circle, continuoususe and orthodoxy.

There was already strong support for He-brews and Revelation in the 2nd century, oreven the late 1st, and a fair degree of supportfor Jude and 2 John. 3 John seems to havebeen little known, however, and James and 2Peter, though rather better known, were sel-dom regarded as canonical. An internationalbody like the Christian church would bebound to take time in reaching agreement on

the canon, but the reason why it took longerwith these seven books than with the others isthat they all presented particular problems. Infive cases there was doubt about apostolicauthorship. Hebrews was anonymous andstylistically different from the acknowledgedPauline epistles. 2 Peter was stylistically dif-ferent from 1 Peter, and Revelation from theother writings of John. The author of 2 and 3John called himself 'the elder'. There was asecond problem with Revelation: the Mon-tanists claimed its support. (They also claimedthe support of the Gospel of John, whichcaused some opponents of the Montanists toattack it, but it was so well established thatthe church simply brushed these criticisms

aside.) Jude quoted the book of Enoch. Theproblem with James is not clearly recorded,but it probably related to the teaching givenon justification in chapter two.

The church did not in the long run findthese problems insuperable; nor need we. He-brews is probably by an associate of Paul (cf.Heb. 13:23), though not by Paul himself. Thestylistic differences between 1 and 2 Petercould be due to Peter's use of differentscribes, and those between Revelation and theother Johannine literature due to John havingno help with his Greek when in exile on Pat-mos. The use of 'the elder' does not excludethe possibility that the author of the Johan-nine letters was an apostle (cf. 1 Pet. 5:1).Revelation does not really give support toMontanism; Jude does not really recognize 1

Enoch as Scripture; and James does not reallyagree with the Pharisees or disagree with Paulon justification.

Probably all these books were accepted asScripture from an early period in some quar-ter of the church, even those whose ac-ceptance is not recorded. Otherwise we wouldhave to suppose that, at the end of the 4thcentury, some of them sprang suddenly frombeing canonical nowhere to being canonicaleverywhere, an implausible supposition.

The shape of the canon

The Hebrew OT is differently arranged fromthe Christian OT with which the English Bi-ble has made us familiar. It is in threesections: the Law, the Prophets and the Hagi-ographa or Scriptures (probably meaning 'theother Scriptures'). The division is at first sightperplexing, especially with respect to the

books assigned to each section, and until re-cently it was widely held to be a merehistorical accident, due to the books havingbeen recognized as Scripture (so it was sup-posed) at three different periods. However,the ancient order of the books, found in theTalmudic baraita, corrects this view. The ar-rangement is subtle, but fully intelligible. It isas follows (the five books of the Law, Genesisto Deuteronomy, being taken for granted):`Our rabbis taught: The order of the Prophetsis Joshua and Judges, Samuel and Kings,Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Isaiah and the Twelve... the order of the Hagiographa is Ruth andthe Book of Psalms and Job and Proverbs,Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs and Lam-

entations, Daniel and the Scroll of Esther,Ezra and Chronicles' (Baba Bathra 14b).

An inspection of this list shows that eachof the three sections contains narrative litera-ture, covering three successive periods, andthat each contains literature of another kind,differing from section to section. In the Law,the narrative runs from the creation to thedeath of Moses. The other kind of literature islaw, but it is introduced into the context of the narrative, and the sequence is chrono-logical t hroughout.

In the Prophets, the narrative books aredistinct from the others; they are the firstfour, and they carry on the history, inchronological order, from where Deut-eronomy leaves it, beginning from the deathof Moses and ending with the end of themonarchy, at the start of the Babylonian Ex-ile. The other four books in the Prophets areoracular literature, and they are arranged, notchronologically, but in descending order of size.

In the Hagiographa, there are four narra-tive books covering the period of the Exileand the return, and they are put after the oth-ers, probably so that the canon can beginwith creation and end with the return, thebeginning and end of biblical history. Chroni-cles, which recapitulates the whole of it,

31



The canon of ScriptureThe canon of Scripture

starting with Adam and ending with the re-turn, is for that reason put last, after and notbefore Ezra-Nehemiah. Daniel, because of itsfirst six chapters, is reckoned to be a narrativebook. Ruth, which is really a narrative book relating to a quite different period, is treatedin the Hagiographa as a preface to the Psalter,ending as it does with the genealogy of thepsalmist David. The other six books are

books of lyrics and wisdom, and once againthey are arranged not chronologically but indescending order of size, a slight liberty beingtaken with the Song of Songs (which is reallyshorter than Lamentations, not longer), so asto keep the books relating to Solomon to-gether.

This is by no means the only order inwhich the books of the Hebrew Bible havebeen arranged, but it is the oldest and mostilluminating. In a modern printed HebrewBible, the three sections, with the books as-signed to them, are maintained, but one willoften find the oracular Prophets rearrangedchronologically and the Hagiographa re-arranged liturgically (with the five little books

now read at Jewish festivals put together),though still ending with Chronicles.

Whether the Alexandrian Jews who trans-lated the Septuagint made any alteration tothe Hebrew arrangement we do not know,since no list that they produced has survived,though the way that Josephus simplifies thearrangement for the benefit of Greek readers,in his list mentioned earlier, is interesting. Butwhen Christian lists and manuscripts of theOT begin to appear, we again find the subtleHebrew arrangement simplified, and thebooks rearranged, according to literary char-acter and chronology, as law, histories,poetical and wisdom books, prophecies(though not always in that order, and withthe histories sometimes subdivided). The maindifference is that, whereas Josephus put allthe narrative books into the Prophets, Chris-tians took all the narrative books out of theProphets, and created a fourth section. This isthe sort of arrangement that is found in Greek and Latin Bibles, and from there it was trans-ferred to the English Bible. When books of the Apocrypha are included in Greek andLatin Bibles, they are usually assigned to thevarious standard categories in the same way.Following the Reformation, they were takenout and printed as a separate section betweenthe Testaments in the English Bible. Among

modern English Bibles it is only those of Ro-man Catholic origin that still interminglethem with the canonical books.

The way Christians arranged the books of the NT was similar to the way they re-arranged those of the OT. In ancient lists andmanuscripts, as in modern printed Bibles,they are normally arranged as follows: thefour Gospels; the Acts of the Apostles; two

groups of epistles (either the Pauline epistlesor the catholic epistles coming first); and theRevelation of John. The most basic bookscome first, another narrative book follows,and a prophetic book comes last, much as inthe OT. The epistles take the place of the po-etical and wisdom books, and it is here thatthe correspondence between the lists is mostapproximate.

Divergent forms of the canon

1. The Samaritan canon, The Samaritans have,from antiquity, recognized as canonical onlythe Pentateuch. This was at one time thoughtto indicate that when the Samaritans separ-ated from the Jews in the time of Ezra and

Nehemiah, the Jewish canon consisted simplyof the Pentateuch. The Dead Sea Scrolls,however, have provided evidence that theSamaritans remained closely in touch with theJews and conformed to most of their customstill the latter part of the 2nd century BC, whenthe Jews caused a permanent estrangement bydestroying the Samaritan temple on MountGerizim, The Samaritans, it appears, reactedby rejecting the Prophets and Hagiographa,because of the recognition they give to thetemple at Jerusalem.

2. The Syrian canon. When the standard Sy-riac translation of the Scriptures, the Peshitta,was made in the early 5th century, debateabout the seven NT Antilegomena was stillcontinuing in Syria, and only two of them,Hebrews and James, were included in thetranslation. The linguistic and political isola-tion of the Syrian churches was greatlyaccentuated by the Nestorian and Mono-physite schisms of the 5th century, in whichlarge parts of Syrian Christianity became sep-arated for doctrinal reasons from the catholiccommunion of East and West. As a result, thestatus of the remaining five Antilegomena hascontinued to be doubtful in the Syrianchurches.

The Ethiopian church, which was foundedby missionaries from Syria, was further sepa-

rated even from the other Monophysitechurches for about 600 years, between the7th and the 13th centuries, because of theMoslem domination of Egypt and Arabia. Asa result its canon is quite eccentric, and todayincludes all the books generally recognized inEast and West, with one possible exception,but also many of the Apocrypha, 1 Enoch,

Jubilees and certain late works, mainly of Ethiopian origin, which have been mistakenlyidentified with ancient books not available inEthiopia.

3. The Roman Catholic canon. The Coun-cil of Trent, at its fourth session (1546), re-acted to the Reformation by endorsing the listof the Scriptures first found in the 6th-centurypseudo-Gelasian decree, and obliteratingJerome's distinction between the Hebrew Bi-ble and the Apocrypha. Though later RomanCatholic writers sometimes speak of theApocrypha as deutero-canonical', this is con-trary to the official teaching of Trent, oftenreaffirmed since, most recently in the Cate-

chism of the Catholic Church (120, 138). Thechurch which really regards the Apocrypha as

deutero-canonical (authoritative, but less so)is the Eastern Orthodox.Bodies which have a defective canon obvi-

ously lack something of the full biblical mes-sage, but bodies which recognize additionalbooks are probably in greater danger of goingastray. Some books of the Apocrypha coun-tenance a weaker view of original sin and of the need for salvation (Tobit 12:9; Wisdom8:19-20; Ecclus. 1:14; 3:3, 30; 35:3); one rec-ommends prayer for the forgiveness of thosewho have died in their sins (2 Macc. 12:39-45).

Text and versionsThe language of the OT is Hebrew (and to asmall extent Aramaic) and that of the NT isGreek. These were the languages in which theinspired authors wrote, and what they wroteis our starting point for study, faith and obe-dience. Thus the original text of what theywrote, in so far as it can now be recovered, isour starting point. But although it is ourstarting point, it is not therefore all that weneed.

Well before the NT was written, the OTwas translated into Greek, and the Septuaginttranslation has deeply affected the NT, both inits OT references and in it s general religiousphraseology. This fact shows the feasibility and

legitimacy of translating the Scriptures intoother languages, and the importance of theSeptuagint t ranslation in particular.

Then again, the use that the NT makes of the OT shows that a transmitted text canhave authority, and not just the original text.The NT writers quote the OT as it was intheir day, and in translation, but even so at-tribute to it final authority. This indicates that

the transmission of the text is firmly con-trolled by the providence of God, and that,though we should study all indications of what the original text may have been, we canhave confidence that it has not been changedout of all recognition, so as to frustrate God'spurpose of guiding his people through Scrip-ture. These considerations would not apply toevery aberration of an individual scribe, butthey do apply to standard forms of the trans-mitted text, such as the Massoretic text of theHebrew OT and the 'traditional' text of theGreek NT, and probably also to standardtranslations of them. At the same time, theydo not give the transmitted text exclusiveauthority, or imply that it is identical with the

original text.As regards the original text itself, oursearch for it, though proper and important, iscircumscribed in various ways. Even the old-est and most carefully written manuscripts areseparated from it by a period of decades orcenturies, and the study of them has con-vinced textual critics that they do not at everypoint correspond to the original. To get back further, conjecture is necessary, and thoughcertain agreed procedures are employed bytextual critics, they are such as can yield onlypossible or probable results and leave plentyof scope for disagreement. What is more,there is scope for disagreement as to what isbeing sought. Many of the biblical booksshow signs of having been edited or supple-mented, sometimes by the original author,sometimes by another. Even when anotherhand has been at work, we seldom have theright to say that the changes it made wereunnecessary. The edited text is often the onlytext for which we have manuscript evidence.What, then, are we looking for? The work asit originally left the hand of the primaryauthor, or as it left the hand of the editor,whether the author or another? These doubtsabout the original text should make us hum-ble enough to treat the transmitted text with aproper respect.

3332



Scripture

Since both the canon and the text are theforms in which it has pleased God to clothehis revelation, we accept them as his preciousgifts, given to make us wise unto salvation,and use them with the confidence of believers.

BibliographyR. T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon

of the New Testament Church (London and

Grand Rapids, 1985); idem, 'A modern the-ory of the Old Testament canon', VT 41,1991, pp. 385-395; F. F. Bruce, The Canonof Scripture (Glasgow, 1988); S. Jellicoe, TheSeptuagint and Modern Study (Oxford,1968); S. Z. Leiman, The Canonization of

Introduction

DefinitionsWhen Christians refer to the Bible as 'Scrip-ture', they express their conviction that theBible is the written word of God. The term`holy Scripture(s)' was used by Jews to denotean established body of writings of divine ori-gin, possessing authority for the people of God as well as for the individual (cf. Epistleof Aristeas, 155, 168; Philo, Quis Rerum Di-vinarum Heres Sit 106, 159; MishnahYadayim 3, 5). The early Christians sharedthis view: the (0T) Scriptures are 'utterancesof God' (Rom. 3:2; cf. 1:2), even when thespeaker is not God himself (cf. the quotationof Is. 28:11-12 in 1 Cor. 14:21). Jewish andthe early Christian tradition agree that 'whatScripture says, God says'. Jewish and Chris-tian interpretations of various statements inthe Hebrew Scriptures differed, but the divineorigin and the normative nature of Scripturewere acknowledged by both groups. The firstChristians extended the notion of the 'wordof God' to the apostolic account and explana-tion of the person and ministry of Jesus Christ(cf. 1 Thess. 2:13), just as specific words of

34

Hebrew Scripture (New Haven,2 1991); J. P.

Lewis, 'What do we mean by Jabneh?', JBR32, 1964, pp. 125-132; B. M. Metzger, The

Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 21968);idem, The Early Versions of the New Testa-ment (Oxford, 1977); idem, The Canon of the

New Testament (Oxford, 1987); J. D. Purvis,The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect (Cambridge, 1968); A. C.

Sundberg Jr., The Old Testament of the EarlyChurch (Cambridge, 1964); E. Tov, TextualCriticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis,1992).

R. T. BECKWITH

Jesus were regarded as authoritative (cf. 1

Cor. 7:10), and soon the term 'Scripture' wasused for letters of the apostles (cf. 2 Pet.3:16). The conviction that Scripture is theword of God was the undisputed tradition of the church until the 17th century.

ChallengesIn the 17th century, philosophers and theolo-gians began to challenge the truthfulness andauthority of Scripture with reference to hu-man reason (which was increasingly regardedas an independent source for truth about theworld) and the nature of history (which wasregarded as contingent, particularly in rela-tion to the supposedly 'absolute' truths estab-lished by reason). Rene Descartes's method of establishing truth fundamentally changed theway 'progressive' theologians viewed Scrip-ture, particularly its truthfulness and rele-vance. If on the one hand the insights of hu-man reason are regarded as a priori correctand certain; if on the other hand the possi-bility of a contradiction between theology andphilosophy is excluded; then Scripture mustbe open to criticism, unless such criticism isforbidden by clear dogmatic statements (K.Scholder). As such statements were soon re-

garded as inadmissible in an academic 'scien-tific' context, the appropriateness of thetraditional concepts used to describe the na-ture of Scripture – word of God, revelation,inspiration, authority, canon – was chal-lenged.

Today some critics abandon the traditionalmodels for Scripture altogether, e.g. by at-tenuating the notion of an authoritativecanon on the grounds that texts other thanScripture can mediate God's presence, and bysuggesting a new view of how the Bible func-tions today (J. Barr). Others seek to redefinethe traditional terms: revelation is seen as anoccurrence' which happens within peopleand changes their self-understanding (R. Bult-mann); the term 'word of God' is reserved forJesus Christ (K. Barth); inspiration becomesthe human experience of being inspired bysomeone to do something (W. J. Abraham),or a process whereby traditions are formu-lated, reshaped and transmitted within believ-ing communities (P. J. Achtemeier), or an en-hancement of one's understanding of Godwhich is effected by the Bible (K. R. Trem-

bath); biblical authority is limited to thesaving purpose and effect of the Bible (D. K.McKim).

The problem with many of these ap-proaches is that of establishing a clear anddefinite 'location' where humans may findtruth, particularly truth about God. In thecontext of postmodern thinking, some schol-ars explicitly repudiate any appeal tonormative 'readings' (of the Bible, or of anyother text). More conservative scholars seek to preserve the notion that God speaks to hu-mans; however, as some reject the traditionalidentification of Scripture as the word of God, and do not want to accord authority toan historical document, it is not clear whichcriteria might be used to establish where wemay hear God's voice, unless one appeals totradition, reason or experience. These alterna-tives all rely on the exercise of human reasonin one form or another. As the history of hu-mankind has made many people ratherpessimistic concerning the competence of hu-man reason to establish truth, the intrinsicsubjectivity of these options does not givemuch ground for hope. As human reason isaffected by the fall and thus by the malaise of sin, it cannot be the source of truth. If truthabout God is not revealed to us, we have toremain agnostic. Without revelation we can-

Scripture

not know God. This is the reason why ourunderstanding of Scripture as the word of God has to be derived from Scripture itself.

Consequences for biblical theologyThe refusal to regard the Bible as Scripture,i.e. as the word of God, reflects the belief thatthe biblical documents, being historical innature and diverse in outlook, do not con-stitute a coherent and established canon. As aresult, biblical theology is thought to be im-possible. The programmatic essay of W.Wrede (1859-1906) on 'The tasks and meth-ods of NT theology' (in R. Morgan [ed.], The

Nature of New Testament Theology [London,1973], pp. 68-116) illustrates this view withreference to the NT. Wrede asserted that since`logical thinking' cannot arrive at the conclu-sion that Scripture is a collection of inspiredwritings which constitute the revealed wordof God, the traditional 'biblical theology of the NT' should be replaced by a 'history of early Christian religion and theology' whichdeliberately ignores the canon or any consid-eration of the question of revelation; the

scholar who wants to deal with the NT in ascientific way must be guided by 'a pure, dis-interested concern for knowledge, a concernthat accepts every result that emerges', as thetask of theology is not to serve the church butto pursue truth.

Today many critical scholars dismiss thepossibility of biblical theology because theyregard the Bible as a collection of diverse his-torical texts; they contain information andrepresent theological positions which are mu-tually contradictory, and revelation cannot beidentified with historical documents anyway(cf. P. Pokorny, in HBT 15, pp. 83-94). Bibli-cal scholars must work with a complexdiversity of texts, sources, traditions and posi-tions. Some believe that only confessionallybound 'scholars of the church' can attempt toformulate a biblical theology in the sense of asynthesis of 'early Christian thought' or anoutline of the theologies of the whole Bible(H. Raisanen, Beyond New Testament Theol-ogy, p. 121).

The task Biblical theology seeks to present a synthesisof the message of Scripture. It presupposestherefore a coherent and established canon of biblical books. It is precisely for this reasonthat the nature of the Bible as Scripture is of

35

Scripture

Beckwith 01

Documents

Transcript of Beckwith 01