Some notes on Canons and translations

The notion of “canon”.

The English word “canon” is ultimately derived from an Akkadian word (the language of ancient Mesopotamia), and comes to us via Hebrew and Greek. Initially it meant “measuring rod, something used to give a straight line.” In Greek and later traditions it was used metaphorically for “a norm, rule or standard” in several fields. It was also used for a list or table (e.g. in mathematics or astronomy). In church circles it has come to indicate the list of books comprising the rule of church doctrine. Our “canon” of scripture is the list of books recognised as authoritative in some way for ordering the life and doctrine of the community of faith.
 

Notes on the determination of the various canons:
 

• The Jewish canon was not “fixed” until the early New Testament period. The canon of the Christian Old Testament was not settled until the 4-5th centuries CE. So for the early centuries of the Christian era the canon of the Old Testament was open (as was the canon of the New Testament). Most Christians in the first few centuries of the Christian era had a Greek version of the Jewish Hebrew Bible  as part of their canon. This Greek version of the Hebrew is what we call the Septuagint, LXX.
• The longer Old Testament canon, which we see reflected today in Catholic or Orthodox canons, was promoted by Augustine in the late 4th to early 5th centuries. Athanasius of Alexandria and Jerome (4th cent.) both retained the shorter Jewish canon.
• Athanasius was responsible for placing the prophets after the writings, contra to the Jewish order. The early church saw prophecy in the Hebrew Bible as pointing to Jesus Christ, often in a predictive sense. They saw much of the Hebrew Bible as prophecy, even books that we would not associate with the term, e.g. Psalms.
• In the Jewish canon, the order of the books is Law - Prophets – Writings. This represents a hierarchy of collections. The most important, and first to be recognised as authoritative, the Law or Torah, comes first. The Christian order of the Hebrew Bible reflects a supposed historical or “prophetic” order, past present and future predicted the prophets.
• Within Judaism, books were accepted as canonical if they were considered:
• To have been written in the prophetic age;
• To be consistent with other works; and
• If they were accepted widely and hence of use to many.
• In the case of the New Testament canon, four external standards were used by the Church, especially Irenaeus, in the determination of canonicity:
• apostolicity, i.e. the book was deemed to have been written by or closely associated with one of apostles;
• universality, i.e. the book was considered to be addressed to the whole church;
• the book was consistent in message with the other canonical books;
• the book was considered to be an ancient text.
• The rule of faith played a significant role in the development of the New Testament canon. This was a short summary of what church believed. Eventually it came to be the creed of the Church.  It was the “real” canon of the very early church, and was called the “canon of truth.”

Some further points:
 

• The value of books to promote and develop faith within a community is the benchmark for canonisation. K. Aland, says that canon grew “from the bottom up” and not “from the top down.” The ‘canon’ is not so much the result of decrees filtering down from a hierarchy to the people of faith but rather the case of various hierarchies ratifying as canonical books that the people had long found useful.
• Periods of crisis in the life of the communities of faith have proved most determinative for the development of a ‘canon’.
• A canon is in one sense the product of human decisions, not only in terms of writing the books which are included but in terms of which books are recognised as scripture.  Various communities of faith in the past have held up before later communities the “authority” or “inspiration” that has been recognised in the various books of the community’s canon.
• So, on the one hand Scripture gives rise to the community of faith. That is, the Church comes into being because the people sense they are being called by God within certain books. Those books are canonised as Scripture for that community. On other hand, Scripture arises out of the community of faith, out of its experiences, its reflection and its decisions. People within the community write the books that will later be canonised as Scripture, again by the community itself.
• It is not so much a question of which precedes the other, Scripture or the community of faith. It is rather a matter of both/and. Scripture gives rise to the community of faith at the same time that Scripture arises out of the community of faith. Both together capture something of the mystery of Scripture, of the mystery of God’s address to God’s people.

Thoughts on the implications of canons and translations:

• Old Testament/Hebrew Bible (OT/HB) is not a single, fixed entity, that is the same for all communities which have it as part of their tradition. The canon varies from one community of faith to another, as well as over time.
• The OT for Christian communities over most of Christian history has actually been the LXX, via the Vulgate. This is the longer of the two major Christian canons of the OT. The development of the Protestant canon in line with the Jewish  Tanak is a relatively late development (from the Reformation).
• The canon of the OT/HB cannot simply be regarded as 'given from heaven' even though many communities would regard it as 'revelatory'. Communities of faith have had a significant part to play in the development of the canon in terms of what books are included as well as what is to be included in an individual book.
• The canon of the OT/HB which we study has come to us by way of a particular community of faith, or group of communities. It has been shaped by that community. We need to recognise this even if that community is not our own.
• In addition our OT/HB comes to most of us in the form of a translation into English (or some other modern language). Even where the text of the HB is clear, that is, there are no varying ancient witnesses to it, or spelling mistakes, or very rare words or phrases, there can be differences in translation and interpretation from one scholar to the next (e.g. Gen 1:1). In places where the Hebrew text is not clear the situation can be very complex. In many places the theological leaning of the translator or their community of faith will influence the translation (sometimes considerably). In some places the Hebrew text may not be clear, or can have various additions or omissions depending on the ancient manuscript or witness consulted. Most of these difficulties and variations are slight, but there is still a considerable number which we would describe as major.
• It is important to recognise also that OT/HB can be regarded and studied (quite properly) just as any other ancient, religious work can be regarded and studied. It can be studied as a work of human writers, collectors, editors, copyists, translators etc. It is open, as is any other human literary product, to interpretation or critique (in the best sense of the word). This is an important point to recognise. Further, as a human work it is also open to argument, rebuttal, ridicule, and ultimately rejection.

• While we recognise the points above we might also want to talk about the OT/HB as Scripture, sacred, “Word of God” etc. We can do so only by acknowledging first the active participation by faith communities in the development of the OT/HB, and secondly that when we call the OT/HB Scripture etc., we are making a faith statement.
• If we read the OT/HB as Scripture, Word of God etc., then we do so within a faith community and as an act of faith. Moreover, we have to think carefully what we mean by such terms.
• Our biblical reading and our interpretation of the biblical text, will always be undertaken in the context of a community of faith, or at least be influenced by a community with which we have had considerable contact. It will influence our reading and interpretation in a number of ways - theologically, politically, sociologically, economically, geographically, historically, philosophically, etc..
• The task for members of a community of faith is to read the text as Scripture and as human word, and to use all the tools at their disposal in the task of literary interpretation of the text as human word, yet at the same time to recognise that as Scripture the OT/HB stands over against them, and they are not the sole arbiters of the meaning of the text.

Most of our work this semester will focus on approaching the biblical text as a human religious document. At the same time we will bear in mind that the OT/HB is also Scripture for various communities. We will constantly ask questions about how these two perspectives can be kept in balance. As you might already realise from the brief look at canons and translations, the matter of reading the text of the OT/HB, and of interpreting it, will not be a task without ambiguity, and assumptions and choices will need to be made from time to time. You will find there are cases for different understandings of the texts we will read in the OT/HB, just as there are cases for different views on what books we read as the OT/HB. You need to be aware of these things, and ready to engage them in your study of the OT/HB.

H. Wallace
March '05

Return to Materials for courses index