Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: victor@concour.CS.Concordia.CA (Victor Krawczuk) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Compiling the Bible Message-ID: Date: 26 Aug 89 23:04:00 GMT Organization: Concordia University, Montreal Quebec Lines: 118 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu 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]