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

Re: [lxx] Re: LXX/OG and early technology

Expand Messages
  • Robert Kraft
    Thanks for butting in, Sara, with this timely update. May I add that the new Academic Catalog 2007 from Hendrickson Publishers arrived this morning, with the
    Message 1 of 75 , Jan 10, 2007
      Thanks for butting in, Sara, with this timely update. May I add that the new
      "Academic Catalog 2007" from Hendrickson Publishers arrived this morning, with
      the announcement that a book on "The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission,
      and Authority" is forthcoming (this month), by Lee Martin McDonald. Hopefully it
      will further update us on all these issues -- although the old theories die hard,
      especially in an age of online reprints of out of copyright materials.

      On the questions about Greek Jewish scriptural papyri and related materials,
      people should feel free to use what I've compiled at

      http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/earlylxx/jewishpap.html and

      They may not contain the final word, but are better than the best that was
      available a generation ago (or earlier). See also Emanuel Tov's recent studies
      mentioned at the start of the second link given above (which doubtless needs
      updating, since the rivers are still flowing!).


      > > The Hebrew canon was decided before the NT era � many today say the
      > Council
      > > of Yavneh only ratified what was already in place, and that there was no
      > > dispute.
      > Hi, Ashley.
      > I feel I must butt in, since you're working on a dissertation on this
      > topic.
      > To put it briefly, "WHAT 'council of Yavneh'"?! I suggest you check
      > out recent (and even not-so-recent) work on this, since (given recent
      > scholarship), the onus of proof seems to lie with anyone who wishes to
      > believe a Yavneh even occurred, before one can use it as evidence for
      > an alleged "decided Hebrew canon"! Even if you disagree with the bulk
      > of recent work, you'll need to include your arguments as to *why*, at
      > least in a footnote!
      > I would at the very least incorporate the following secondary sources,
      > which all provide great springboards into primary sources:
      > See the comprehensive recent collection of essays on canonization:
      > L.M. McDonald and J.A. Sanders, eds. The Canon Debate: Current Issues
      > on the Origins of the Bible. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002.
      > For the dismantling of the Jamnia/Yavneh myth specifically, see R.
      > Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand
      > Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 274-77; S.Z. Leiman, The Canonization of
      > Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (Transactions of
      > the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 47; Hamden: Archon,
      > 1976), 120-124; and J.P. Lewis, "What Do We Mean by Jabneh?" JBR 32
      > (1964): 125-32.
      > (VanderKam refers to the above 3 authors as having "pulverized the
      > thesis that a `council' of Jamnia/Yavneh closed the third and final
      > division of the canon"!) James VanderKam, From Revelation to Canon:
      > Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (Leiden:
      > Brill, 2002), 11.
      > Further: "With the failure of the three-stage canonization theory, at
      > least in its traditional form, the origin and meaning of the
      > tripartite division of the Hebrew Bible remain very open questions."
      > E.E. Ellis, "The Old Testament Canon in the Early Church" in Mikra:
      > Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in
      > Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. Martin Jan Mulder; Assen:
      > Van Gorcum, 1990), 685.
      > Hope this is of some use.
      > Best,
      > Sara Parks Ricker
      > Yahoo! Groups Links

      Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
      227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
    • fivefree@aol.com
      In a message dated 1/13/2007 12:31:34 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, BillRoss@norisksoftware.com writes: I am decidedly not a Marxist but I should think that
      Message 75 of 75 , Jan 18, 2007
        In a message dated 1/13/2007 12:31:34 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, BillRoss@... writes:

        I am decidedly not a Marxist but I should think that you would agree that historically religion has served the interests of authorities.

        That's what Marx said. Evil uses any convenient argument to do its will. Some have done this. The parable of the wheat and the weeds.   

        While 2 Tim is disputed, note that he does not say “what is written in certain books is canon” – rather that they were profitable.

        EVERYTHING is disputed. Yes, he also said it was God breathed. Perhaps part of the statement assumes you know which ones are God breathed and what is not.   

        In Corinthians Paul says that the letter kills but the breath gives life. The breath is, in Biblical thought, actually that which imparts life – per the original animation of the man.

        I'm not sure where this comes from. Higher criticism? It is of course referring to the Holy Spirit (Timothy).     

         Jesus says “the words that I speak to you – they are  breath and they are life.”

        Paul and the others seemed to have a doctrine of “hearing” and “proclamation” by the witnesses.

        Actually, they worked miracles to confirm the life and mission of Jesus.  

        Second Tim may have been written later to allow for Christianity to continue after the death of Paul. If so then it was important to indicate that they were “breathed” out by the god.

        My my. What a dry, lifeless conclusion. You sure sound like a disciple of Marx. A typical Marxist conclusion.  

        Bill Ross


        Jack Jackson
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.