<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Who decided what books are in the Old Testament
Review: Andrew E. Steinmann, Lutheran Pastor at Lutheran Home in Westlake, OH and Adjunct Professor at Ashland University takes the reader through a detailed examination of the evidence for the `canon' of the Old Testament, that is, what was included or excluded and when. Was it as early as 500BCE or as late as 200CE? and who were the people or institutions responsible for deciding this? Steinmann examines evidence in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic from Jewish and Christian sources including the Talmud, Josephus, extant documents from the Qumran Caves and various Councils from 100 through 400 CE. The method of Steinmann's examination is to use this textual evidence to explain the organization of the Old Testament and to understand the books that were later grouped into the Apocrypha. The text is dense and intellectually challenging, requiring the layman and those unfamiliar with Hebrew and Greek to consult other sources when questioning the author's conclusions. Steinmann's conclusion speaks to a Christian scholarly audience, their scriptural tradition and religious acceptance of the Old Testament and its the Christian order of books. Some illustrations were printed upside down, otherwise, they are clear and readable.Miriam Kahn, Columbus, OH
Rating:
Summary: Who decided what books are in the Old Testament
Review: Andrew E. Steinmann, Lutheran Pastor at Lutheran Home in Westlake, OH and Adjunct Professor at Ashland University takes the reader through a detailed examination of the evidence for the 'canon' of the Old Testament, that is, what was included or excluded and when. Was it as early as 500BCE or as late as 200CE? and who were the people or institutions responsible for deciding this? Steinmann examines evidence in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic from Jewish and Christian sources including the Talmud, Josephus, extant documents from the Qumran Caves and various Councils from 100 through 400 CE. The method of Steinmann's examination is to use this textual evidence to explain the organization of the Old Testament and to understand the books that were later grouped into the Apocrypha. The text is dense and intellectually challenging, requiring the layman and those unfamiliar with Hebrew and Greek to consult other sources when questioning the author's conclusions. Steinmann's conclusion speaks to a Christian scholarly audience, their scriptural tradition and religious acceptance of the Old Testament and its the Christian order of books. Some illustrations were printed upside down, otherwise, they are clear and readable. Miriam Kahn, Columbus, OH
Rating: 
Summary: A Challenging Re-examination of a complex issue
Review: As someone who teaches in the area of canonization and textual history, I read Stienmann with great interest. He has shown, convincingly, that there was far less diversity with regard to the canon in the Greek and Roman periods that many have thought. The canon was in effect closed in the Persian period. This conclusion is scarely revolutionary. It is in fact very conservative. However, Steinmann arrives at it, not on doctrinaire grounds, but through a thorough examination of the evidence. Several of Steinmann's suggestions are more novel, e.g., his understanding of the canon as a temple archive, and, his view that the Jewish canon was originally bipartate (law and prophets) and not tripartate (law, prophets, and writings). The primary evidence is presented, in the original languages with accompanying translation. The book is well written in lucid style. The argument is presented in a compact but compelling way. I can see I will have to adjust my teaching in the light of this presentation.
Rating:
Summary: A Challenging Re-examination of a complex issue
Review: As someone who teaches in the area of canonization and textual history, I read Stienmann with great interest. He has shown, convincingly, that there was far less diversity with regard to the canon in the Greek and Roman periods that many have thought. The canon was in effect closed in the Persian period. This conclusion is scarely revolutionary. It is in fact very conservative. However, Steinmann arrives at it, not on doctrinaire grounds, but through a thorough examination of the evidence. Several of Steinmann's suggestions are more novel, e.g., his understanding of the canon as a temple archive, and, his view that the Jewish canon was originally bipartate (law and prophets) and not tripartate (law, prophets, and writings). The primary evidence is presented, in the original languages with accompanying translation. The book is well written in lucid style. The argument is presented in a compact but compelling way. I can see I will have to adjust my teaching in the light of this presentation.
<< 1 >>
| 
