Another post in my series reviewing the recent issue of The Bible Translator. For previous posts in the series, see here.
Today's article:
Marijke H. de Lang, “The Reformation Canon and the Development of Biblical Scholarship,” The Bible Translator 67.2 (2016): 184–201.
Today's article:
Marijke H. de Lang, “The Reformation Canon and the Development of Biblical Scholarship,” The Bible Translator 67.2 (2016): 184–201.
This article begins promisingly when the author states that
the canon was not a contentious issue between Protestants and Catholics in the
early years of the Reformation, because the issue was debated more generally.
But the article is not quite right when it says that Jerome’s
promotion of the Hebrew canon was “contrary to what had been done before him
in the Latin-speaking world” (p. 185). Actually, there was disagreement in the
Latin-speaking world at the time. While the Mommsen Catalogue, the Breviarium
Hipponense, Augustine, and others affirmed the wider canon, the narrower
canon was affirmed by Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus of Aquileia, along with Jerome. Yes, all these latter
were more heavily influenced by the East than were the former, but the lack of
uniformity in the West suggests that Jerome did not see himself as overturning
church tradition, but rather calling the church back to its tradition. (As did Augustine, I'm sure. They just disagreed on what that tradition was, or, perhaps better, they disagreed on which parts of the tradition to emphasize.)
I also don’t think it is correct to say that Jerome “regarded
[the minor Catholic Episltes = not 1 John or 1 Peter] as less authoritative
than other New Testament books” (p. 186). He did note doubts about them, but he
seems to regard each of them as fully canonical. They all appear in his Epist.
53.9.
Also: “The canon of the Vetus Latina, which reflected the
canon of the LXX…” (p. 186). There was no such thing as “the canon of the Vetus
Latina” or “the canon of the LXX”. It’s a scholarly figment, but one that is
very widespread. And the author knows it (195n24).
We get back on the right track when we learn that at the
time of the Reformation, “the Catholic Church was divided over the issue of the
canon” (p. 186), with examples from Erasmus, Cajetan, and the disagreements
among the delegates at Trent (much like Kerber’s article).
Then we get to Luther (pp. 187–88), and again there is caricature. His treatment of the deuterocanonical books was different from his treatment of other books that he did not like: Esther, James, etc.
Subsequent Protestants more firmly rejected the
deuterocanonicals, omitting them from the Bible and forbidding them to be read
in church.
A section on the humanistic principle ad fontes, with
discussion of Erasmus and Reuchlin.
I think the article is exactly correct when it says: “The
decisions of Trent intensified the antagonism between the Catholic Church and
Protestantism” (p. 193).
5 comments:
its right before the canonical fixation by the synagogue in jamnia one can not speak of "canon" neither in Hebrew not in the Septuagint. one can only speak about Jews writings in Hebrew or Jewish writings in Greek, targums and Samaritan scriptures. all of them existed prior the fixation of the Hebrew canon/and masoretic readings by the farises at the end of the 1s. century. and become the basis of canon for post diaspora Jews and for the Christian church.
Dear Professor Gallagher:
I hope you are well when you receive this message. This time, I would like to ask you a few questions about the biblical canon (especially the NT canon) at the time of the Reformation. I recently heard a view according to which Luther did not accept the canonicity of 6 books in our NT, but he later admitted them in the canon due to the pressure exerted by the canon as defined in Trent and the opinions of Lutherans.
I quickly checked the summary of this period in history offered by Bruce Metzger in his “The Canon of the New Testament” (pp. 239 ff.) and found a totally, actually an opposite, view. To begin with, it was not 6, but four NT books, and it is not correct to affirm that he rejected their canonicity, but he, from the very beginning (and I would like to know if he ever changed this view), put those four books in a third category INSIDE the NT canon. He considered Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation less important than those in the other two categories. And this happened several years before Trent, but one can confidently say they were canonical for him anyway. Am I right?
It will be nice if you could offer a few comments about the reception/formulation of the NT canon in Luther and the Lutherans in the 16th century. Is there anything that gives support to that peculiar (I had never heard anything like that before) view that I mentioned in the first paragraph of this message?
In your article about the Latin Canon for the Textual History of the Bible, you quote or refer to, quite often, to a PhD. dissertation by R.A. Bohlmann on this topic (Metzger also refers to it). I would like to be able to have access to that document, but I do not know how. Is there a way to access that dissertation as an electronic document?
I hope you find time to answer this message and I hope you have a very good end of this week.
Blessings,
Eduardo
Eduardo,
Good to hear from you again. Yes, I am well.
In the Luther Bible, the Table of Contents for the New Testament counts 23 writings, and then Luther lists, without numbers, four additional writings: Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation. I think there is room for disagreement on exactly what Luther meant to convey about these four writings. I have had conversations with people who think that he treated them in basically the same way as he treated the deuterocanonical books, which he labeled "apocrypha" and said were non-canonical. As far as I can tell, Luther never actually said these four NT books were not in the canon, even if he did say sometimes that they had less value than other NT books. Whereas the Table of Contents does separate these books from the rest of the NT, the actual translation does not group these books separately in the way that the deuterocanonical books were separated from the OT into their own category. I'm not aware that he changed his mind on all of these NT books. But regarding Revelation, he wrote two prefaces to the book, years apart, and in the first one he expresses a very negative attitude toward the book, and in the later preface he is much more positive toward it. I believe you can find both of these prefaces online.
I can't really offer much comment on the reception of the NT canon among Lutherans in the sixteenth century. I believe that Luther's negative views on these four books had little influence on his followers, but I haven't researched the subject extensively. But Luther's views were not unique; his contemporary Erasmus also had some non-traditional views on some of the NT books, similar to Luther, and Erasmus' views elicited a rebuke from the scholars in Paris. I'm hoping to read later this year Jenkins and Preston, _Biblical Scholarship and the Church_ (2007).
The dissertation by Bohlmann is very helpful. I think I got a copy of it through ProQuest. I do not believe that it is available freely online.
Blessings,
Ed Gallagher
Dear professor Gallagher:
Thank you very much for your thoughtful response. The impression I have, after reading Bruce Metzger summary of this period, is that Lutherans followed Luther’s steps, instead of pressing him to accept the Roman Catholic NT canon.
Something else that I had just discovered, just by checking some key dates, is this: it is impossible that Luther had reacted to the official definition of the canon by Rome given the fact that Luther´s death occurred very near the date when the Council of Trent started to discuss this very topic (the canon of Scripture).
If you do not mind, I would like to take this opportunity to ask you something about the Septuagint. In your recent book on the Septuagint, you approach very briefly the once very common idea among scholars according to which the Jews of the second century A.D. abandoned the LXX due to the use Christians were making of it.
What is the state of the research on this particular topic? I read again an article (or chapter from a book) by E. Tov (“The Septuagint between Judaism and Christianity”) where he seems to cling to the old consensus. What I found a little puzzling is the fact that Tov only mentions G. Veltri’s research (Eine Tora für Köning Talmai), but does not really try give reasons for not taking it seriously. Do you have any further thoughts on this topic in additions to what you wrote in pages 121-122 of your Translation of the Seventy?
Thank you very much again. I hope I am not bothering you with my questions. If you find time and opportunity to answer, I will appreciate it very much. If not, I will understand.
Blessings,
Eduardo
P.S. I do not know Veltri’s research first hand, since I do not read German. I remember reading something about him a couple of years ago.
Eduardo,
On the idea of the abandonment of the LXX by Jews, the essential study now is the 2015 book by Nicholas de Lange, _Japheth in the Tents of Shem_. He shows that Byzantine Jews continued to use Greek translations of Scripture until early modern times, and sometimes these translations were a part of the Septuagint tradition, though they usually seem to have preferred Aquila or something like Aquila. (I wrote a review of de Lange's book for RBL. I'd be happy to send it to you via email.) There is another important book that addresses the "abandonment" hypothesis in the final chapter: Tessa Rajak, _Translation and Survival_ (2009). I think she shows pretty convincingly that the arguments favoring the abandonment hypothesis are not compelling, but she does not successfully argue for her view that Jews in the second century and beyond continued to use the LXX. For that positive argument, de Lange does a better job, but even he shows that Jews typically preferred Aquila. Veltri has a more recent book in English, _Libraries, Translaitons, and Canonic Texts_ (2006).
Post a Comment