Thank you, Lee, for the reference. I don't agree with Leiman's conclusion,
but I haven't read the book, so I can't address it. I would like to point
out, though, that Leiman is not the only person to have treated the topic,
and the assumption that the Hebrew canon was NOT fixed before a point near
the end of the first century is fairly widespread among New Testament
scholars.
I would like to address the issue of applicability of discussions of canon
to b-greek. I share your concern that the question of canon is not normally
germain to the purpose of b-greek, and therefore should not normally be
discussed here. I brought the topic up, though, because it IS germain to
the issue of what the New Testament writers meant by GRAFH. That is a Greek
language question, and is absolutely within the scope of b-greek. We cannot
seriously hope to determine what GRAFH means in 2 Timothy 3:16 if the
question of canon is not at least addressed.
Of course, if we assume that 2 Timothy is very late (and there is good
evidence for that position--though we don't need to start that argument
over again!), then the issue may be moot, since the Hebrew canon would be
settled by the time 2 Timothy was written, though I'm still not *sure* that
it would be moot, because the term GRAFH may not have yet taken on the
meaning it clearly has later for the church fathers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micheal W. Palmer
Religion & Philosophy
Meredith College
mwpalmer@earthlink.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------