Quote:
Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin
As if Nicea were remotely relevant to the Canon. ...
The Canon was already established in its essence by the time of Irenaeus. The NT Canon was assembled very slowly, and analysis of the scriptues quoted by the Patristic Fathers...
None of the Fathers ever relied on or considered the Gnostic pseudo-gospels to be canonical or authoritative. The only books from the Early Church which didn't make the cut were the Didache and Hermas' Shepherd. The Didache because it is simply a compression of the Synoptics into a synthetic text; Hermas because he had no apostolic authority (all the books of the NT canon were supposed to have been written by or under the supervision of an apostle: the chain of 'eyewitnesses' was considered crucial. In fact the earliest writers hold up "this is what John told me" as superior to any written text.).
As to the OT, the Christians had really nothing to do with it: first the (Jewish) Alexandrian Canon, and later the (Jewish) Jamnia Canon.
(Incidentally, Enoch and Jubilees are considered canonical by the Ethiopian Church)
|
all this is very enlightening in its bookish focus on particulars - but where are your erudite analyses of the social and political conditions of their "slow, accreted" production? as i said, there are politics involved in the production of any "authoritative" text (and in your case, the flippant disregard for the patriarchal social apparatus which gave rise to the widely accepted legitimacy of the "authoritative" texts. oh, and i do include Tolkien, given his topological deference to the Biblical codex in his masterful (to be sure) issuance of the Legendarium....
i'll let you Bend your..considerable
... Thought on the homologies which tie Nicea, the Bible codex, and the Legendarium. you may catch my Meaning in the meanwhile
Mithalwen, Grey Maiden - YOU ROCK!!!
