Openness to canons beyond one's own

Thinking about canon means coming to grips with the fact that a large body of Jewish literature of the Second Temple period and of the first centuries of this era, though excluded from the Tanakh of mature rabbinic Judaism, functioned canonically in one or more historic Christian churches in antiquity. Subsets of this literature, alongside the writings included in the Tanakh and those included in the New Testament, rule faith and practice today in the Catholic and the various Orthodox traditions.

In what sense is it possible for Jews and Christians for whom said literature does not rule faith and practice, to accord it a place of honor? At the very least, one might propose that it be valued no less, but also no more, than other segments of tradition which have contributed to making Judaism and Christianity what they are today. As I understand it, this is Peter Kirk's position. The standard Protestant position is more dismissive. So is the standard Jewish position.

It is not difficult to detect that the tectonic plates of Protestantism and Judaism are shifting in relation to Jewish literature of the Second Temple period and the first century of this era. Chunks of that body of literature, for example, the sectarian texts of Qumran, the apocalypses of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, the writings of Josephus and Philo, receive sustained attention today by Jews and Christians as has not been the case, quite literally, for two millennia. The entire corpus of that literature is being studied as never before, for its own sake and to the degree that it can be shown that it develops earlier and anticipates later literature.

 Renewed interest in the deuterocanonical literature of the historic Christian churches is especially strong, with Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, and the "unattached," not just Jewish and Protestant scholars, leading the charge. Exhibit A: the Hermeneia Commentary series. Exhibit B: the HKAT series. Exhibit C: the new Bible project of the École Biblique, description here. As far as I’m concerned, the École Biblique project is an answer to prayer. 

Other signs of renewed interest include the volume entitled The Parallel Apocrypha (ed. John R. Kohlenberger III; New York: Oxford University Press, 1997). An invitation to read the contents of the volume is made by scholars representing a cross-section of points of view: Judith L. Kovacs (for the academy); Sarah J. Tanzer (the place of the apocrypha in the Jewish community); Demetrios J. Constantelos (an Orthodox view); John J. Collins (a Catholic view); Mary Chilton Callaway (an Anglican/Episcopalian View; Wallter J. Harrelson (a Protestant view), and D. A. Carson (an evangelical view). Curiously, the work is available from OUP in the UK, but not in the US.

A particularly interesting volume is entitled Christianity in Jewish Terms (ed. Tikva Frymer-Kensky [we mourn her passing], David Novak, Peter Ochs, David Fox Sandmel, and Michael A. Signer; Boulder: Westview Press, 2000). Reflections on the Philonic corpus, for example, in conjunction with the realization that Christianity is the heir of this extra-rabbinic form of Judaism, become a basis for deeper Jewish-Christian understanding.

As I pointed out in a prolegomenon to this series, rabbinic Judaism and Christianity are both heirs to the book of ben Sira. The book deserves to be transmitted to modern readers not only in a highly eclectic textual dress, as is now the norm, but in the forms in which it was transmitted in antiquity.

The deuterocanonicals of the historic Christian churches are a spiritual and theological bridge between older components of the Tanakh and rabbinic Judaism on the one hand and the New Testament and Christianity on the other. To the extent that tradition is understood as a developmental and cumulative process – which it is, though it is also more than this – the deuterocanonicals will be seen to develop earlier and anticipate later tradition. The deuterocanonicals deserve attention in their own right, but also as bridge documents between earlier and later components of both Jewish and Christian canons.

The standard Jewish and Protestant positions toward the deuterocanonicals are traditionalist in their own way. That is, commitment to a slice of later tradition (rabbinic tradition, the New Testament) is so single-minded as to disallow active appropriation of tradition that immediately preceded and anticipated it.

The valorization of one slice of tradition sometimes involves the suppression of another slice of tradition. For example, Peter Kirk appeals to the Anabaptist tradition (yes, it too is a tradition) against the tradition of creeds and councils and patristic tradition in general. That may be putting it too strongly, but that is what it feels like: as if one cannot do without Michael Sattler and Menno Simons but can take leave of Irenaeus, the Cappadocian Fathers, and Augustine. If it be part of the deontological code of an intellectual to give credit where credit is due, then it must be admitted: if you want to know what Christianity would look like without an organic relationship to patristic tradition, you need look no further than the Jehovah's Witnesses.

(Ed.: you keep on using that word "tradition"! Did you watch Fiddler on the Roof one too many times? Tradition is not to be understood in a static sense, but as a dynamic phenomenon, with mechanisms almost always built in by which innovation is possible despite a groundedness in precedent.)

How does the Anabaptist tradition relate to the deuterocanonicals? An all-time Anabaptist classic, an opus I cherish not least because it features figures of my own, the Waldensian tradition, concentrates on martyrs of the faith: The Martyr’s Mirror, online here. The first chapter of this work is entitled:

MARTYRS MIRROR: FIRST PART

THE BLOODY THEATER

-OR-

MARTYRS MIRROR OF THE

ANABAPTIST OR DEFENSELESS CHRISTIANS

WHO SUFFERED AND WERE SLAIN

FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, THEIR SAVIOUR,

FROM THE TIME OF CHRIST

UNTIL THE YEAR A. D. 1660

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM

OF THE MARTYRS IN THE FIRST CENTURY

Gruesome accounts follow of the martyrdom of, e.g., Vitalus Buried Alive at Ravenna (p. 99); Ignatius Devoured by Wild Beasts (p. 106); and Phocas Put to Death in a Lime Kiln (p. 108). Generations of Anabaptists have fed themselves spiritually on these accounts. Who are their precursors? Jews and Christians in antiquity who fed themselves spiritually on the accounts of martyrdom in the various books of Maccabees. The roots of the genre Martyr’s Mirror represents go precisely back to deuterocanonical Maccabean literature (see also Wisdom of Solomon and Psalms of Solomon).

A Martyr’s Mirror beginning with an account of the martyrdom of Abel and continuing on and on through the Maccabean martyrs (on the latter, see also the liturgy of Hellenistic Judaism as preserved in prayers redacted for us by Christians in the Apostolic Constitutions) before picking up with John the Baptist and continuing all the way to our own century, makes historical and spiritual sense. Mark my words: someday, someone will do it, and if done well, it will be a best-seller.

Jan Luykens’ original etchings for the second edition of Martyr’s Mirror are fabulous, by the way, and deserve to be better known.

Anabaptists are welcome to ignore the deuterocanonicals should they so choose. By so doing, however, they ignore the roots of a very important part of their own tradition.

In concluding this series on Thinking about Canon, I wish to extract three quotes from a post by Kevin Edgecomb. They reflect my thoughts, as well as his, in short compass:

There are two approaches:

1.) The canon is that of my church tradition only.
2.) The canon is that of all the churches: it includes every work that every tradition holds in its canon.

The second is purely my own ideal, but one that I think is valid philosophically, ecumenically, and kindly. To reject a book held sacred by another church is to reject that church. Whether one accepts that all of these are the Body of Christ or not, one cannot ignore them or their practices, traditions, arts and their canon. The result of learning the canons of the churches has been, for me, often surprising, and always enlightening.

* * *

I can see several approaches, all of which require a certain amount of dilgence:

 

1.) Extreme familiarity with ALL the books is required.
2.) Doctrinal arguments, in seeking scriptural referents, should seek them only in that group of books which is common to all (basically the Protestant canon of 39 OT/27 NT books).
3.) Books which we still possess (sadly, so many have been lost) and which at one time were held to be canonical, should be included in some way. Also, some books were approved for reading (church or private), though not canonized, and these too should be included in some fashion. Then, too, various manuscripts of the Bible include various books not usually canonical, and yet there they are! These, too, must play a role.
4.) I think that three levels are called for:

 

1.} Canonical—which refers to that canon with which one is most familiar in the church to which one belongs.
2.} Deutero-canonical, which is—all the various writings that are currently held canonical in other churches than one’s own.
3.} Trito-canonical—all the various writings which we still possess that were once canonical, or that were “recommended reading,” or that appear in biblical manuscripts.

* * *

[T]his leads to a very large number of books! 39 + 12 + 27 = 78, and this is simply the number of Old Testament + Apocrypha + New Testament books in the Ecumenical NRSV (not counting additions: Esther, Psalm 151, Letter of Jeremiah [included as chapter 6 of Baruch], Daniel [Prayer/Song, Susanna, Bel & Dragon]). All those are just to begin with! Some others to add are Jubilees and First Enoch (Ethiopian Church, and for Enoch, Jude), Psalms 152 through 155 (some Syrian manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls), First and Second Clement and the Apostolic Constitutions (Coptic Church), Odes of Solomon (some Syrian manuscripts, some Greek manuscripts), either the whole of Second Baruch or the Letter of Baruch (2Bar 78.1–86.1 or 87.1) [not sure about this one—definitely the Letter of Baruch, though], Apocalypse of Peter (formerly popular in the West), The Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and probably others.

Along with all these, there is the acknowledged necessity to familiarize oneself with the “literary context” of the Old Testament and New Testament, and thus, one takes up the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Charlesworth) and the New Testament Apocrypha (Schneemelcher) and the Apostolic Fathers (Lightfoot, in a handy edition edited by Harmer, then Holmes). All of the above-mentioned works will be found in one or more of those (except the Apostolic Constitutions, which can be found in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, translated by William Whiston, edited by Donaldson; I may, or rather, I intend to produce a new, modern English translation of the Apostolic Constitutions, the lack of which is perplexing). Though such a wealth of reading is a daunting task, think of the rewards one finds upon gaining a deeper understanding and appreciation not only for this body of various writings, but also, and perhaps especially more importantly, for one’s fellow Christian in addition to oneself, for one will find beliefs held dear in these writings. Though one may also shy away from reading “apocryphal” books, and may not accept, say, a Syrian Orthodox or Ethiopian Tawahedo Christian as a brother, that does not mean that such an attitude is correct. This whole “I am, they’re not” attitude is not a pearl before swine, but rather something falling immediately behind the swine (let the reader understand!).

End quote. I could not have said it better myself.

Comments

[Iyov]

The Parallel Apocrypha is in print for now in the UK, or at least Amazon UK has it, as I noted elsewhere.

The notion of the extended canon in normative Judaism is of a growing body, as I think you have noticed; so I have some trouble understanding your comment about the standard Jewish position. Of course, Ben Sira having been specifically declared heretical, it is not a work that can be consulted -- but this is certainly within the prerogative of any religion. (For example, one would hardly expect the Christian scriptures to be viewed as having religious authority within Judaism.)

However, a quick glance at Bar Ilan Collection reveals many works that were written in the last hundred years.

I'm afraid that I don't fully understand your criterion for inclusion in the extended canon. Certainly religions, by means of a formal authority (as in the case in many Christian Churches) or by means of a general consensus (as is the case in Judaism, for example) have the right to accord different status to, on the one hand, Letter from a Birmingham Jail and on the other hand The DaVinci Code.

[John Hobbins]

Thanks for the correction about the print status of the Parallel Apocrypha. It is only the hardcover edition, to judge from amazon.con, that is out of print.

What I notice among Jewish scholars is an interest in a range of texts that once were little studied for their own sake, and/or considered irrelevant to an understanding of the constantly growing canon of rabbinic tradition. No more.

On the other hand, study of extra-rabbinic Jewish tradition, and inclusion of it in the core curriculum of Jewish studies programs and theological seminaries, something that has begun to become more common (I'm thinking of Jewish institutions of higher learning who use textbooks like that of Schiffman or Shaye Cohen to introduce material as diverse as the DSS, the Apocrypha, Josephus, and Philo), may involve a change in viewpoint about what texts are to be considered authentically Jewish, but not a change in viewpoint about what texts should be considered part of rabbinic tradition. It could not be otherwise of course.

The concept of an extended canon, with gradations or tiers within it, is different again, as Kevin Edgecomb and I conceive it. It is a historical, ecclesiological, and theological concept specific to the situation of Christianity. The underlying rationale is close to that driving the Ecole Biblique project to which I link.

If I'm still not making myself clear, let me know.

[Iyov]

Well, I have a bit of trouble with the phrase "Rabbinic tradition", since it denotes something static, rather than the continually unfolding Oral Torah -- and my point concerns the ever expanding nature of the Oral Torah writings (forgive the apparent oxymoron -- it is not really an oxymoron).

Of course, academic scholars (such as Larry Schiffman or Shaye Cohen) need to have access to the full range of texts -- whether traditional or heretical -- and this has been the case for a long time. I think the question is: is it useful to provide this full range of texts to entire body of the faithful?

As an example of non-Torah texts being used by scholars, one can find articles in the Jewish Quarterly Review in the 19th century commenting on the New Testament writings; or Rabbi Shem -Tov's celebrated 14th century commentary on the Gospel of Matthew; or Rabbinic writings on Ben Sira. I do not see contemporary Judaism as a religion in which academics can suffer similar consequences to Father Jon Sobrino's fate at the hands of Rome's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

My point, again, is that the list of works of Oral Torah continues to grow in Judaism. The notion of a static written canon is not a Jewish notion.

Regarding the Ecole Biblique project you mention, of course it is highly intriguing. Still, this is not the first time I have seen an attempt to make a Christian (or ecumenical) virtual Mikraos Gedolos out of the Bible; some notable examples of this attempt include the Haydock Bible, Neale's Psalter, IVP's Ancient Christian Commentary series, a number of other notable commentary series, or even electronic Bible study packages. While these are all meritorious efforts that have produced highly useful works (works that have informed me), all of them have fallen short in various ways. (I would say that of all these, electronic databases such as the Bar Ilan Library or Logos or JSTOR or Google come the closest to our desired "hyperBible.") For these reasons, and because of the inherent difficulties of such a project, I think I will wait until we start to see volume appear before making a judgment on the Ecole Biblique project.

Regarding the Parallel Apocrypha, was there an edition printed other than the hardcover edition? (That is the edition I find at Amazon UK.)

[Kevin P. Edgecomb]

I could not have said it better myself.

Me, too! Oh, wait....

The Ecole Biblique Bible in its Traditions project
certainly looks interesting, but, like Iyov, I have reservations due to the usual shortcomings of these attempts. The problem is both that of finding consistent coverage of Biblical books throughout the OT, Apocrypha, and NT, and avoiding overreliance on only a handful of authors. We do not have a complete set of commentary works from any single author for any of those corpora in the patristic period, which these days is of such interest, and some books have perhaps never been commented upon historically (4 Ezra and 4 Maccabees spring to mind in that regard). But the size of anything close to being both representative and satisfyingly useful is also an issue. I have before me an interesting and enjoyable four-volume set, The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers: A Manual of Preaching, Spiritual Reading and Meditation (Ignatius Press, 1996), trans./ed. M. F. Toal. Included are commentary texts on the Gospels by 73 different Patristic and medieval writers, including the first English translation of Aquinas' Catena Aurea, all arranged according to the old Roman ecclesiastical year. The reading's text is presented, then any parallel gospel passages, then the commentaries. It's a presentation that's focused, however, on the commentary rather than the text, which is almost necessary for economy's sake (4 volumes of over 400 pages each), so the continuous text of the Gospels is omitted. Though it's a great read, you'll find the commentary often limited to "the usual suspects": Augustine, Chrysostom, and Origen, or at least their voices to predominate due simply to the preservation of their works. More variety is welcome, but then the size simply explodes. I don't think even the Ecole Biblique is willing to commit to a medievalesque multivolume panpatristic pandect that would be satisfying in that regard. We'll see.

In connection with the very interesting sounding articles in The Parallel Apocrypha mentioned above, I recommend The Apocrypha in Ecumenical Perspective, ed. Sigfried Meurer, UBS Monograph Series 6 (United Bible Societies, 1991). See the list of articles and authors here. It's similar, though restricted to Christian traditions.

Iyov, my scrawl on the extended levels of canons between Christian traditions is primarily usage-based. That is, there is the primary core of universally agreed caninical works, a secondary body of texts that are currently included by any tradition in addition to that first set (which would also included alternate versions of books, with expansions, deletions, reordering, etc), and a third category covering works that have historically been accorded canonical status, whether in theoretical lists, actual manuscript evidence (various "non-canonical" books included in Biblical pandects), or mentioned as such in other writings. The three levels together would thus present us with a kind of diachronic ecumenical Christian canon. I hope that clarifies it a bit.

[John Hobbins]

I see the point about the Ecole Biblique project. They expect to finish in 15 years, which seems terribly optimistic.

As far as the OUP Parallel Apocrypha is concerned, I rechecked the facts and revised the comment and links accordingly.

[Peter Kirk]

Subsets of this literature ... rule faith and practice today in the Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox traditions.

Not in the Anglican tradition. The Deuterocanonical books "(as Hierome [Jerome] saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine", from Article VI of the Thirty Nine.

[Peter Kirk]

I don't accept that my position is any different from the standard Protestant position. My position is that these books are to be valued no more than any other of the many religious books outside the Bible written over the millennia, that is, there are probably good things in them which can be read profitably, but also probably bad things.

As for my "appeals to the Anabaptist tradition", it would be fairer to say that I am reacting very positively to what I am reading coming from this tradition. But I attribute no more authority to this tradition than I do to that of the Catholic church. And I by no means reject the Creeds and Councils as you seem to suggest, in so far as these do not go against the Bible. I also deny that it is only the patristic tradition which keeps the church from going into the heresies of the Jehovah's Witnesses, which are clearly condemned in the Bible if properly understood.

(By the way, sorry to be slow responding to this, I have had a lot of blog posts to catch up on after a weekend away.)

[John Hobbins]

Thanks for your remarks, Peter.

You are right that the deuterocanicals do not rule faith and practice in the Anglican tradition. My bad. I'll fix that.

On the other hand, the number of passages from the deutercanonicals included in the Prayer Book Lectionary is now very large, especially since 1979. From your point of view, that is without justification. Or am I misreading you?

(The essay by Mary Chilton Callaway expressing "An Anglican/Episcopal View" in the Parallel Apocrypha is helpful on the history of attitudes towards the deuterocanonicals).

You tend to express yourself in terms of formal, abstract principles without giving examples. I find it difficult to figure out where you are heading now and then on this account. When you say something like, "I accept the creeds and the councils, but only insofar as they do not go against the Bible," you leave me wondering where you think they do go against the Bible.

If I understand you, the authority of the extra-biblical tradition is in direct proportion to its consonance with the contents of scripture properly so-called. As a formal principle, this is impeccable. I would argue that tradition before and after the New Testament is largely consonant with it, that in fact we continue to discover new ways in which both are consonant with it. I appeal to those who disagree to demonstrate the opposite.

[Peter Kirk]

I think you are now understanding where I come from. I agree with you that large parts of the tradition before and after the New Testament are consonant with it, but not all. For example, there are passages about women in the book of Ben Sira which are consonant neither with the New Testament nor with the revealed character of God, but which reflect the prejudices of a patriarchal age.

As far as I can judge this same principle applies to the Creeds, and to those Councils which are accepted by both the Eastern and Western churches. But I accept the authority of these only as derivative; they are not inerrant in principle, it is just that I don't think they did err, by God's grace. But I do think that large parts of the post-New Testament tradition have erred in other ways, not least in the way the church compromised itself by becoming closely identified with secular government.

I would personally prefer the church not to read from the Deuterocanonical scriptures. My own congregation never does so - we don't follow any Lectionary at all closely.