victor@concour.CS.Concordia.CA (Victor Krawczuk) (08/27/89)
Greetings.
Recently I have had an interest in learning how the Bible, as we
know it today, was compiled. In otherwords, how did the books
get chosen, why, and by who.
I was wondering if anyone can recommend a book on the subject or
has some opinion on the subject. I know the Bible was inspired
by God. What I would like to find out is the lower level
mechanics which brought it about, if anyone knows.
Thanks in advance,
Victor.
[The question of how the Bible came to be can be discussed on at least
three different levels, which are normally referred to as textual
criticism, literary (or "higher") criticism, and canonical criticism.
Textual criticism deals with how the text was transmitted, and
particularly with recovering the original text based on the variety of
documents now available to us. We now have many manuscripts of
varying age and type, as well as ancient translations. Modern
translations combine all of these in a judicious fashion to arrive at
the most probable text.
Literary criticism deals with understanding how the books were put
together, particularly with whether they used earlier sources, with an
understanding of the specific historical circumstances that led to
their composition, and with analysis of the literary styles and
methods used by the author. All of these aspects can be important for
understanding the meaning properly. This is probably the most
controversial of the areas. There is little data outside the texts
themselves, so much of this work is speculation.
Canonical criticism deals with the question of how these particular
books were chosen to be in the Bible. There were a number of other
books that could have been included, and some of the books that are in
our Bible were not considered canonical by various gorup. For the OT,
we know very little about the early process. There are some
discussions in rabbinical times about which books "make the hands
unclean", a concept related to our concept of canonical. For the NT,
we have snapshots at various times, showing who considered which books
canonical, with some discussions of why. But we certainly don't have
a complete picture of how the decisions were made. The issue of
canon: what it is and how it came to be, is also a controversial one.
Now, how to find out about this subjects. One problem is that there
are various points of view. There is greatest concensus in the area
of textual criticism. In the other areas, there are splits along
roughly "liberal" and "conservative" lines. Liberals believe
information contained in the Bible went through a number of stages,
from verbal to written sources, to the final documents. In each of
these stages changes were made due to differing perspectives and the
needs of their communities. Also, it is assumed that the Biblical
writers followed normal ancient practice, and made up speeches for
Jesus to say. Probably not out of whole cloth. But for example the
Sermon on the Mount may be the result of an editor combining things
that Jesus had said at various times, and words that are generally
consistent with what Jesus said but which he didn't say in exactly
that form. It is pointed out that the ancients didn't have tape
recorders, and their idea of accuracy was less literal than ours now.
Conservatives emphasize the ancient ability to pass on large bodies of
information from one generation to the next with little or no change,
as well as the great reverence for the spoken word within the Jewish
tradition. Although they too understand that there is a pre-history
to the texts that we have, they believe that the information was
passed on accurately. They are less enthusiastic about speculations
involving sources and literary dependency, pointing out that there is
very little evidence for many of these. In order to get a complete
picture, you really should read some things from each perspective.
I am in the best position to make recommendations from a "moderate
liberal" perspective. I suggest that you start first by looking at
one of the one-volume commentaries. They generally have supplementary
articles at the end on all of these topics. The Interpreter's
One-Volume Commentary (not the Interpreter's Bible, which is something
else) has several hundred pages of background articles, covering all
of these areas, as well as historical background. A good place to
start would be to read through those articles. I have also heard of a
new one-volume commentary produced in cooperation with the Society for
Biblical Literature, Harper's Bible Commentary. It would contain more
recent information, but from the chapter titles I'm not sure whether
it covers all the same subjects. (I haven't seen the book itself.)
Intervarsity Press publishes a one-volume commentary which is roughly
the "moderate conservative" equivalent of this. Unfortuately, I have
forgotten its name. The articles contain bibliographies, which are a
place to go for more information.
There is another class of books which would be a good second step.
These are generally called "Introduction", either to the NT or OT.
They are generally written for one-semester college courses in NT and
OT. They normally start by giving historical background, and then
talk about what is known about various books or classes of books: how
they came to be and how they are interpreted. If you have a serious
interest in the Bible, I recommend reading one of these introductions
(or better, enrolling for an OT and NT course in a local university).
My list of introductions is now somewhat dated. I have recommended
Kee, Young, and Froehlich, "Understanding the NT". However there may
be better recent books. You should probably go to the nearest
university bookstore, and see what they are using. (Be careful what
the theological orientation is of the institution, however. I would
feel safe with a State institution or a church school run by a major
denomination.) Introductions are normally strongest on historical
background and literary criticism. They may say something about
textual criticism. For more information, Bruce Metzger's book "The
Text of the New Testament" is now considered definitive for the NT.
On canonical criticism, there are a number of recent books. I
recommend a book by Barr, which I have somehow managed to mislay. It
should have the word "canon" in its title. There is also a good
summary of what is known about the development of the canon in
Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity. In general if you
don't have some background in church history, you'll probably want to
read something like that before persuing specialized historical issues
such as the history of the canon.
--clh]cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (08/29/89)
In article <Aug.26.19.03.59.1989.16489@athos.rutgers.edu>, victor@concour.CS.Concordia.CA (Victor Krawczuk) writes: > Greetings. > > Recently I have had an interest in learning how the Bible, as we > know it today, was compiled. In otherwords, how did the books > get chosen, why, and by who. According to Jewish tradition, the first five books are the literal word of God. The remaining ones were considered works of man, with various degrees of divine inspiration, historical fact, etc. It is unlikely that any of the books was originally produced as a single work. During the days of the Second Temple, there was an organization of religious scholars known as the Great Assembly. This body, over quite a long time (about two centuries), discussed the various manuscripts, legends, editions, etd., and selected those which they felt should be included in the Jewish Bible. There were definitely discussions, differences of opinion, arguments, and votes. Only a small amount of the precise nature of their debates is known. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)
jamesa@amadeus.wr.tek.com (James Akiyama) (08/29/89)
Our moderator writes: > There is greatest concensus in the area of textual criticism. I'm not really sure about this. Today, there exists two types of Greek New Testaments. The first, and by far the most common, are two based on the Westcott and Hort theory. These two are the Nestle-Aland text (published by the German Bible Society) and the United Bible Society Greek New Testament (I should add that my church support's the Westcott and Hort theory). The Nestle-Aland Greek text (26th edition) and UBS text (3rd edition, corrected) are nearly identical. A second group exists, however, that believes in the Majority text. Note that the majority text more closely follows the Textus Receptus (published by Oxford in 1825) which was the text used to translate the King James Version. The Majority text is now out in 2nd edition by Nelson press. It was edited by Hodges. The major thrust of the argument has to do with whether the New Testament should be based on the relatively few, oldest Greek text we have (namely, the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Sinaiticus) or the reading from the majority of Greek manuscripts found. A long time ago (around the time of King James), we used the majority text. Then later, two people (Westcott and Hort) published a paper (actually two books), proposing that the text should really be based on the most ancient version we have; that the other, newer versions, probably represent changes or "revisions" to the manuscript. The publication also included a "new" rendition of the Greek New Testament based on the above three with an emphasis on the Codex Vaticanus. This theory was (and is today) very widely accepted. People who support the Majority text argue that the "oldest" manuscripts are all from Egypt. Preservation there is due to the unique climate of Egypt. They argue that the differences in reading are due to differences which are unique to Egypt; not a period of time. I should also note that some of these differences are quite substantial (e.g. the ending of Mark). For the New Testament I would encourage interested user to read the works of Westcott and Hort, and the preface to the Nestle-Aland and UBS editions. For the counter arguments, you can read the preface to Hodges Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text (Copyright 1985, second edition). One thing you'll want to note is that most commentaries and modern day Translations are based on the Westcott and Hort theory. As far as the Hebrew Old Testament goes, some newer research is questioning the exactness of our Masoretic text (published as the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, by the German Bible Society in cooperation with the United Bible Societies). There is now mounting evidence that the Septuaginta and Latin Vulgate were translated from a much older Hebrew manuscript and that many of the differences between the Masoretic text and Septuaginta (and Vulgate) may need re-thinking. Again, some of these differences are significant. There has been a large amount of effort, known as the Goettingen project in Cambridge, to create a critical apparatus of the Septuagint (its probably worth noting that the Goettingen project is following the principles of Westcott and Hort; it is mainly relying on the Codex Vaticunus, Alexandrinus, and Sinaiticus). Over the past few years there has been a renewed interest in the Septuagint as a whole (partly because of the above, partly because it was the most probable translation during the time of Christ; this is evident in that much of the New Testament quotes from the Old Testament follows the Septuagint, not the Masoretic text). I think the reason the Latin Vulgate is not also being considered has more to do with christian politics (i.e. the Vulgates heavy use in the Catholic church). My own belief (probably not supported by my church) is that the Vulgate needs to also be considered here. The Vulgate has always been considered "historically" important to the Protestants, but usually not widely used (again, I believe, due to its heavy use and endorsement by the Catholics churches). It is another, independent source for trying to determine, "most probable reading". A lot of the reason why the Masoretic text has remained unquestioned is because there exists very few "second" copies of the text. Thus, in the past, there was little to compare our current Hebrew text to. The only time the Septuagint and Vulgate were consulted was when our Masoretic text was incomplete (e.g. Genesis 4:8). Now, many are starting to wonder whether we should be consulting the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate renditions, when considering passages in Hebrew. Note that the Greek Orthodox churches use the Septuagint rather than our Masoretic Hebrew. Also note that the pointing (vowels) and accents in our Masoretic text was not done until about 200-300 BC (prior to that vowels had not yet been invented, at least in Hebrew). The pointing was done by the scribes because Hebrew was beginning to die out as a language. There are questions on the accuracy of the pointing done by the scribes of that time. In Exodus, for example, there are known inconsistencies, such as a single consonant containing both, a Dagesh (which is used to indicate consonantal doubling), and the Rape (which is used to indicate the consonent is not doubled). This seems to indicate that the pointing done by the scribes, or at least our copies of that work, is not inerrant (or, perhaps, that it is trying to convey a secondary usage which has been lost over time). Now I'm not suggesting that our current versions are unreliable. In spite of the age, our rendition of the Bible is probably much more assured than the writings of Shakespeare and other old text. Still, much work needs to be done. James E. Akiyama jamesa@amadeus.WR.TEK.COM UUCP: ....!uunet!tektronix!amadeus.WR.TEK.COM!jamesa ARPA: @RELAY.CS.NET:jamesa%amadeus.WR.TEK.COM