Questions over the history of the formation of the New Testament canon continue to occupy researchers. While Dan Brown continues to promote the popular view that the Council of Nicaea or similar council determined the canon of scripture (see my post here on the history of this myth), scholarship has not submitted to such reductionism. Instead, scholars continue to study canon lists, early Christian citations, manuscript contents, and other kinds of testimonia such as early Christian statements on their own biblical theory in order to assess the historical formation of the canon. Given the state of research on these questions, a recent article in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism by Michael Dormandy entitled, “How the Books Became the Bible The Evidence for Canon Formation from Work-Combinations in Manuscripts,” is a welcomed addition to the growing body of literature.
Showing posts with label New Testament Canon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Testament Canon. Show all posts
Monday, November 26, 2018
Evidence of Canon Formation from Work-Combinations in NT Manuscripts?
Questions over the history of the formation of the New Testament canon continue to occupy researchers. While Dan Brown continues to promote the popular view that the Council of Nicaea or similar council determined the canon of scripture (see my post here on the history of this myth), scholarship has not submitted to such reductionism. Instead, scholars continue to study canon lists, early Christian citations, manuscript contents, and other kinds of testimonia such as early Christian statements on their own biblical theory in order to assess the historical formation of the canon. Given the state of research on these questions, a recent article in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism by Michael Dormandy entitled, “How the Books Became the Bible The Evidence for Canon Formation from Work-Combinations in Manuscripts,” is a welcomed addition to the growing body of literature.Thursday, October 12, 2017
What hath Codex to do with Canon? A Rejoinder to Michael Kruger
UPDATE: this conversation is inching along with Michael Kruger’s response to my post here. I probably won’t pursue the matter any further with him presently due to time constraints. I do think matters have been well presented on both sides, even if there are lingering questions we may have for one another. Overall, I have appreciated the conversation with Kruger and think it has highlighted different aspects of method for determining and describing the ancients’ biblical theory.
My post a few days ago has attracted some attention; most significantly, it has prompted Michael Kruger to respond, which you can read on his own blog here.
Before I reply to him, I do want to affirm what Kruger says in his last paragraph: we probably do agree on more than we disagree. However, I think I have read Kruger carefully, and I restrict my response to method and the Shepherd.
My post a few days ago has attracted some attention; most significantly, it has prompted Michael Kruger to respond, which you can read on his own blog here.Before I reply to him, I do want to affirm what Kruger says in his last paragraph: we probably do agree on more than we disagree. However, I think I have read Kruger carefully, and I restrict my response to method and the Shepherd.
Monday, October 09, 2017
The New Testament Canon and Manuscripts
UPDATE: Michael Kruger responds to my post on his own blog here.
In this post, I briefly lay out some of Michael Kruger’s argument for the NT canon from the MSS to evaluate its worth for determining early canonicity of NT books. This is a pilot post, not finished research. I welcome your feedback in the comments.
In Canon Revisited, ch. 7, Kruger treats the “potentially fruitful” but often overlooked “study of the New Testament manuscripts themselves” (233) to discern what they might tell us about the formation of the NT canon. This chapter is divided into (1) The Quantity of Early Manuscripts, (2) Early Manuscript Collections with subsections treating the Gospels, Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles/Acts, Revelation, (3) The Early Christian Use of the Codex, and (4) Public and Private Manuscripts. Kruger notes that the first three areas focus on the broad features, while the last area treats internal features of early Christian MSS, noting the difficulty in attempting to separate public from private use (254).
In this post, I briefly lay out some of Michael Kruger’s argument for the NT canon from the MSS to evaluate its worth for determining early canonicity of NT books. This is a pilot post, not finished research. I welcome your feedback in the comments.In Canon Revisited, ch. 7, Kruger treats the “potentially fruitful” but often overlooked “study of the New Testament manuscripts themselves” (233) to discern what they might tell us about the formation of the NT canon. This chapter is divided into (1) The Quantity of Early Manuscripts, (2) Early Manuscript Collections with subsections treating the Gospels, Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles/Acts, Revelation, (3) The Early Christian Use of the Codex, and (4) Public and Private Manuscripts. Kruger notes that the first three areas focus on the broad features, while the last area treats internal features of early Christian MSS, noting the difficulty in attempting to separate public from private use (254).
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
How the New Testament Came Together
Just to announce a new 28 page booklet which I hope some readers may find useful: Peter Head, How the New Testament Came Together (Cambridge: Grove, 2009).The blurb: How did twenty-seven ancient Christian documents come together as the New Testament? How were they recognised, read and bound together as one half of the Christian Bible? Beginning with Jesus and the documents which arose from the apostolic testimony to him in the first century, this booklet traces how Paul’s letters and the four gospels came to be grouped together and how the basic shape and contents of the New Testament emerged by the end of the second century.
It can be ordered (as a book or an e-book) from Grove Books (£3.50).
The aim in writing it was to offer something relatively readable on the history of 'how the NT came together' (i.e. NT canon formation but without using or defining 'canonical' or offering a theological analysis of the history). It is meant to be "popular" in level - to address issues of concern for thoughtful Christians without a theological education and busy clergy who might read a booklet but wouldn't wade through something like Metzger on the subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)