Starting with the observation that the canon of the Bible differs among the Christian denominations (Lutheran, Reformed, Roman Catholic), and that definitive decisions on the canon were not made before the 16th century, the author gives a brief account of the process of the development of both the Jewish and the bipartite Christian canon. Due to more recent textual discoveries, earlier views of the making of the Jewish or the Christian canon have undergone significant changes. For the Jewish canon, the (...) discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran texts) provided the opportunity to study the making of the canon from manuscript evidence, and to alter the overall view from the pattern of a three stage canonization to the pattern of a “canonical process”, leading to the Hebrew canon and, later and in Christian circles, to the canon of the Septuagint. This pattern is also useful for studying the making of the bipartite Christian canon or the New Testament canon. Here, the author focuses on the challenge provided by Marcion’s “canon”, the early beginning of the canonical process and its late closure, and the various factors in the process, which can be studied by including the manuscript evidence and taking into account the character of several apocryphal texts and the context and intention of the various lists of canonical texts. The biblical canon as presupposed throughout the Middle Ages is the result of a complicated and variegated canonical process. But in spite of the problems of the criteria and factors involved, the biblical canon is theologically valuable and “well-chosen”. (shrink)

The development of the biblical canon in ancient Judaism and early Christianity. A brief account of the process of the development of both the Jewish and the bipartite Christian canon is given. It is argued that due to insights gained from recent textual discoveries, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls, earlier theories about the history of canonisation had to be reviewed. With the New Testament canon the authors focus on the influence of Marcion as well as the various other factors that (...) played a role in the process of canonisation. It is shown that canonisation was the result of a complicated and variegated canonical process. But in spite of the problems of the criteria used and other factors involved, the biblical canon is theologically valuable and ‘well-chosen’. (shrink)

This collection offers an extensive framework of comparative and individual studies assessing the place of Luke-Acts in the historiography of ancient Judaism and the Greco-Roman world, whilst also examining further developments in early Christian historiography up to Eusebius and Theodoret. Additional contributions concentrate on systematic questions concerning the literary genre and conception of Luke-Acts.