Another project I'm working on is putting up book reviews. These are works that I've read for fun or for a class and that I think may be of worth talking about.
Constantine's Bible
Introduction
History is written by the victor. This simple lesson must be kept in mind for all surveyors of the past. The shadows of truth however are still visible to the trained eye. Good scholarship can peel away the layers of propaganda and get to the heart of events. David L. Dungan attempts to do just that in his work, Constantine’s Bible. Tracing Greek ideology and early church scholarship, Dungan makes a case for Emperor Constantine as the architect of the modern Christian bible. Well written and at times fascinating, his work ultimately fails to support his hypothesis.
Overview
To evaluate David L. Dungan’s work, Constantine’s Bible, a brief overview of its content must be done. In chapter one, Dugan begins by comparing the terms ‘scripture’ and ‘canon.’ He contests that despite their interchangeability in modern terminology, they each have a much more specific and unique definition. Scriptures are “a semidurable, semifluid, slowly evolving[1] conglomeration of sacred texts”[2](2). Canon in contrast he argues should only refer to a closed, unchanging, enforced group of scriptures. Using these terms he then demonstrates their usage by evaluating Taoism and Judaism writings. This fundamental definition of terms sets the stage for the book.
In chapters two through four, Dungan moves on to examine the Greek Polis, their interest in accuracy, and how Greek culture spread and influenced Jewish and early Christian writers. In this discussion on how the Greeks came to strive for accuracy, he brings up the original definition of canon as a standard ratio for musical tones (15). From this origin, Dungan briefly reviews Alexander’s conquering of Tyre, and how through that conquest the Jews allied themselves with the Greeks. This alliance brought Greek influence in Judaism, and subsequently Christianity.
Chapter five begins the true meat of the book with a look at the works of Eusebius. In great detail the process in which Eusebius evaluated Christian scripture is examined. This work, Ecclisiastical History, is then tied into chapter six, and how the canon of Christianity came to be. In this chapter the life of Constantine is discussed as well as his influence on church councils and publication of an imperial bible. In the epilogue, chapter seven, Dungan concludes that Constantine through imperial might closed the Christian canon and followed Eusebius’ work to determine canonical works. He concludes by looking at how few future church leaders challenged the canon and that Christians need to liberate themselves from the idea of a closed canon.
Reaction
The initial reaction to this book was very positive. On the first read through it was very informative, well presented, and made a plausible case for the Constantinian closing of the Christian canon. His definition of scripture and canon were extremely helpful and rather unique compared to other sources. His history chapters, two through four, likewise were fascinating and fit well into classical understandings of Greece and Second-Temple Judaism.
Also of tremendous value is his overview of the work Eusebius did during the early 4th century. Explaining in detail the nature of Eusebius’ study, as well as its original intent, it offers great information. Surprising was the fact that Ecclesiastical History had an open nature of discourse. As Dungan says, “Like the good philosopher he was, Eusebius left the question of disputed[3] writings at that – open to the ongoing deliberations of fellow scholars and the providence of God” (92-93). Despite this fascination though, upon further reflection several of Dungan’s main themes are flawed.
Critique
The first place of contention is on Constantine’s closing of the canon. While many would completely agree that aspects of Christianity do draw from Constantine’s involvement, including liturgical rites[4] and moving the canon toward closing, it cannot be agreed that the canon completely closed under him. Looking at the book of Revelation, it was still under canonical debate well after this emperor’s life;[5] to argue that all canonical debate died out is inaccurate historically. A better solution for Constantine’s involvement falls in line with an author Dungan quotes in his book, M. Odahl, when he talks about Constantine hastening[6] (122) the closing of the canon. That Constantine did do, but he did not once and for all end the debate on it.
Second, there is his contrast of terms regarding Eusebius’ terminology: genuine, spurious and disputed, verses Constantine’s terminology: canonical (legal) and non-canonical (illegal). Dungan talks of Constantine hardening Eusebius’ work on authorship from scholarly debate to legal verses illegal works. The issue lies primarily in the fact that several books consider under dispute by Eusebius made it into the final canon. If Constantine, influenced by Eusebius, really wanted to take a hard line, why would a work like 2 Peter be brought into the canon. Again, Dungan is over simplifying what Nicaea did for the canon. Eusebius did not end up being the final word on canonicity, as one would expect if Constantine had heavy involvement. Nicaea certainly did drastically impact the canon discussion, but again it did not close it.
On one point though, there can be agreement with Dungan’s conclusion. Namely, that Constantine later in life did begin to set a dangerous president of exiling dissenting opinions within the faith. His banishment of heretics negatively affected the church in two ways. First, Dungan rightly points out that heretics had always prompted church fathers to codify theology in light these dissenting ideas. A similar theme is discussed at great length by Harold O.J. Brown in his book Heresies, where he says, “Note what orthodoxy owes heresy: in a sense, it owes its very existence”[7]. Secondly, the concept of throwing dissenting ideas out rather than debating to a common solution is a response seen time and again in church history. The Great Schism, the Reformation, denominationalism all draw from this precedent set by Constantine.
Sources
In evaluating Constantine’s Bible, attention should be paid to the sources and authors quoted in it. Does Dungan draw from a broad and differing base, or only a single vein of thought? Depending on the sub-topic, divided by him in his bibliography, different results are observed. Looking at the books devoted to the study of Constantine, only one[8] is from the past decade with another being from the 40s[9]. This lack of modern sources is a sign for caution. Another sign of caution is lack of positive peer reviews of his sources. For instance The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon has multiple[10] negative peer reviews of it, and may not be the best source of study on the topic.
In general several observations of Dungan’s sources can be made. First, only three works are from the 00s.[11] Even pushing back that date back, only eight of the 31 sources are more recent that the 90s. While a lack of recent sources in one area could point to a lack of community scholarship in that area, it is harder to justify with topics ranging from scripture canonization to Constantine to early church history. Second, a more positive observation can be seen despite the dating of the sources, that is, they do come from varied sources. From more liberal sources, like The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon,[12] to more conservative sources such as Constantine the Great and the Christian Church,[13] Dungan does draw from a reasonably balanced, if at times suspect, theological base.
Conclusion
Although flawed, Constantine’s Bible is still an interesting looking in to the formative years of the canon. His analysis of the tone that Constantine set for the imperial church is sobering, and Christians could take more notice of this effect. In addition Dungan also offers a wonderful overview of the works of Eusebius which will satisfy many a curious mind. However, ultimately Dungan cannot quite prove his case for Constantine closing the canon. Historical evidence and a miss-applying of terminology doom his thesis. Overall this is a read that can be beneficial, but should be approached with caution.
[1] Emphasis his
[2] Dungan does distinguish that scripture need not be written, however, for the purposes of this book Dungan operates as if it was.
[3] Emphasis his
[4] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity Volume 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (New York, HarperOne 2010), 143. Examples would be kneeling to pray, and the introduction of incense into church services. Both typically had been used before only in reference to the emperor.
[5] Paul D. Wegner The Journey from Texts to Translations (Grand Rapids, Baker 2004) 144. See his chart on the possible exclusion of Revelation even up till the Synod of Laodicea some 30 years after the death of Constantine. The continuation of councils to meet on canonical issues up till 419 in Carthage also lends weight to the fact that the canon was not completely closed.
[6] Quoted from: Charles Matson Odahl, Constantine and the Christian Empire (London, Routledge 2004), 281.
[7] Harold O.J. Brown Heresies (Garden City, Doubleday 1984), 4.
[8] Constantine and the Christian Empire, 2004
[9] The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome, 1948
[10] Davies, G.I. Vestus Testamentum 47, 4 (1998): 561. Also see footnote #12.
[11] In addition to footnote #8: The Canon Debate in 2002, and Eusebius and the Bishops. The Politics of Intolerance in 2000
[12] Harris, R. Laird. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41, 4 (1998): 690-692.
[13] Hardy Jr., Edward Rochie. Church History 2, 1 (1933): 57-58.
No comments:
Post a Comment