Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

[XTalk] Re: Dates of non-canonical texts (was Canonicalpreju dice)

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... For some useful summaries and presentations of the data of who stood where with respect to what was in the canon before and after the third cent. ce. have
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 7, 1999
      Willi Braun wrote:

      > For Jimi Fosdick and whoever, a few quotes from one the earliest Christian
      > discussions of the NT canon and some thoughts about them:
      >
      > >From the fragmentary ms. (ca. mid 2nd century according to some) known as
      > the Muratorian Canon: it contains a pretty candid motive both for selection
      > and canonization – that "one church is made known to be diffused throughout
      > the whole globe of the earth". The entire document is a wonderful example
      > of early Christian classification for the purpose of "orthodox" hegemony.
      > Insofar as historicity of the content of the good (vs the bad) writings
      > comes up at all (and it really doesn't – no claim is made that the
      > canonical gospels preserve the goodies of the HJ any more reliably than
      > other gospels) it is to argue that the *authors* of the good gospels were
      > more trustworthy seers and hearers "of all the wonderful things of the
      > Lord" than the likes of Marcion, Valentinus et. al. (I take the sensory
      > language of seeing and hearing in this document as metaphorical: perceiving
      > theological/christological truth congenial to the hegemonic motive
      > mentioned above.). Good writings are referred to as "honey", bad ones as
      > "gall". The two don't mix, the author claims, but what distinguishes the
      > two is not so much arbitrated with our modern notion of historicity as with
      > the cui bono question – whose agenda does the text benefit? If it serves
      > the "heresy of Marcion," for example, it is rejected. Also not really
      > discussed is the early vs. late (dating) issue. Presumably if Marcion made
      > hay with an early text, it would be gall to the author of the Muratorian
      > fragment, who, in turn, might rather go with a later text that serves his
      > hegemonic interests. It seems to me that it is precisely this argument for
      > canon that makes canon entirely irrelevant in adjudicating the historical
      > value of texts with respect to the HJ.
      > ___________

      For some useful summaries and presentations of the data of who stood where with
      respect to what was in the canon before and after the third cent. ce. have a
      look at the data the following URLs

      http://www.best.com/~gdavis/ntcanon/lists.htm

      http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ45.HTM

      http://www.qtm.net/~trowbridge/contents.htm

      http://www.qtm.net/~trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm

      http://www.qtm.net/~trowbridge/canons.htm

      Yours,

      Jeffrey

      --
      Jeffrey B. Gibson
      7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
      Chicago, Illinois 60626
      e-mail jgibson000@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.