![]() ![]() Eusebius’s Historia ecclesiastica was the first Christian Church history to quote actual sources and gives us a perspective on what it was like to live under the threat of persecution and how the church birthed, formed, and fought over the books that would become its living testament of what God had done and will continue to do to bless the Church. Thirdly, I will address the topic of the gospels and writings and which books were part of the “status quo” and which books were under dispute.3 And lastly, I will look at the way Eusebius viewed the canon and what implications it may have for us in the present day Christian Church. Secondly, I will look at his view of what was starting to be classified as “Holy Scripture” at the time and how Christians approached and debated over this discussion. First, I will look at the various views about Eusebius both during his time, post his death, and into the modern period. In this paper I will piece together Eusebius’s thoughts on the Scriptural canon from his work Historia ecclesiastica. The confusion arising from Jerome’s comments may be explained as a consequence of a multi-faceted plan to realign the church’s Old Testament with the Hebrew Bible, a plan that Jerome articulates only partially on any given occasion. While Jerome consistently regarded the books labeled “apocrypha” in the Prologus Galeatus as outside the canon, he chose to propagate an especially harsh judgment against these books especially in this preface. This paper examines the evidence for these claims and finds them wanting. Jerome’s seemingly inconsistent attitude toward some books he classifies as “apocrypha” has led scholars to posit a development in Jerome’s canonical theory, such that his earlier position was accepting of books that he later excluded, and to suppose that Jerome’s use of the word “apocrypha” in the Prologus Galeatus relied on a neutral definition of the term. ![]() However, Jerome elsewhere maintained a more neutral or even positive view of some of the non-canonical books, even accepting their use within the ecclesiastical liturgy. In his Preface to Samuel and Kings (the Prologus Galeatus), Jerome sets forth a theory of the Old Testament canon that allows for no room between the canonical books and the apocrypha. With regard to the ‘Apostolic’ Fathers (especially Hermas) we observe that they were as widely read as canonical literature up to the fourth century and only in the fifth slightly less. Accusations by Church Fathers that heresy is connected with the reading of uncanonical writings are not complete inventions. This might be connected to the rise and diversification of new movements in Egypt (Melitians, Arians, monasticism). In the fourth century, an increased interest in apocryphal literature (1Enoch, Jannes and Jambres, Acts of Paul) can be noted. ![]() ![]() This development is, however, not linear. This has lead to the following results: Based on Athanasius’ list of canonical books, apocryphal writings are less and less read while the ratio of canonical books increases from century to century. A quantitative analysis of this data provides access to the literary predilections of ancient Christian readers of all brands, not necessarily ideological leaders of orthodox complexion. The present article tries to circumvent this trap by approaching archaeological artifacts whose survival is more dependent on chance: the Christian and Jewish papyri from 2nd to 5th century Egypt. The process of canonization has usually been analyzed via sources themselves subject to a process of canonization – Patristic sources. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |