|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: All scripture is given by inspiration of God.
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
AIUI the point of the Apocrypha/deuterocanonicals was that they were NOT regarded as Scripture by the Jews, but were included in the Septuagint which was effectively sponsored by a pagan patron as not just scripture but a collection of Jewish writings.
The Greek-speaking early church tended to use the LXX whole including these 'extras', the Reformers realised what had happened and downgraded those 'extras' while still considering them valuable (and I agree we should value them more than we generally do)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by goperryrevs
quote:
Same with the Filioque. We should drop it. Not for any theological reasons
There is a lot in the old creeds that should be dropped simply because the terminology was very much 'of its time' and many of the philosophical ideas used are now way outdated. The creeds are decidedly NOT scripture but human summaries and need to be rethought from time to time, not to change what was ultimately intended, but simply to make sure it is well expressed for our times.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
The issue with the NT apocrypha seems to be that those who insist on the 66 books are looking to authority figures who determined the canon. Which is problematic when these all seem to trace back to Origen-the-heretic and/or Marcion-the-heretic Even if one finds some way to explain this away, one is still left with the reality that the early lists of the NT canon almost always include the Shepherd of Hermas, which by any estimation is a stupid book.
If one is going to do much rely on age and authority, I don't really understand why one would reject the Orthodox canon.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The creeds are decidedly NOT scripture but human summaries and need to be rethought from time to time, not to change what was ultimately intended, but simply to make sure it is well expressed for our times.
Haha. #facepalm
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well, the way I would see it is that for the RCC or Eastern Orthodox to justify their inclusions.
We use the Bible the Church has used from its infancy. You do not. The OT canon was not fixed in the 1st century CE. The LXX contained certain books -- which the Anglicans call "apocrypha" and the Catholics call "deuterocanonical" and we call "books of the Bible." You are factually incorrect that the LXX did not contain Maccabees. It most assuredly did, and Tobit, and Sirach, and the rest.
You seem to be referring to the Masoretic Text, or MT, which was selected by a bunch of rabbis in I believe Jamnia after the fall of Jerusalem. As such it was created after the Church and the Synagogue went their separate ways, and there is no reason at all to think it is binding upon the Church.
Jerome the Smartass wanted to pare down the canon from the LXX canon (as it appeared in Rome) to the MT canon, but was slapped down by the Church. Do you have evidence that it was because of Purgatory? Please produce it. His reasoning was that only books written in Hebrew should be in the OT, and only (as he supposed) the books of the MT were written in Hebrew. (As it turns out, copies of two of the other books were found in Qumran in Hebrew originals -- how that fucks up the "Hebrew originals only" argument!) The church countered that the LXX was always its OT and it saw no reason to change it now, TYVM.
No, the Orthodoxen and the Catholics are using the Church's bible from of old (modulo a couple of books, no doubt because of different extant copies of the LXX east and west of the Adratic, a discrepancy left as-is, no doubt, because it doesn't really matter).
We did not add any books. Let me repeat that. We did not add any books. We used the books handed down to us from second Temple Judaism.
The Church's Bible remained that way until the Reformation. It is the job of those who deface a document to explain why they have defaced it.
[ 15. February 2018, 16:43: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Mousethief : We use the Bible the Church has used from its infancy. You do not. The OT canon was not fixed in the 1st century CE. The LXX contained certain books -- which the Anglicans call "apocrypha" and the Catholics call "deuterocanonical" and we call "books of the Bible." You are factually incorrect that the LXX did not contain Maccabees. It most assuredly did, and Tobit, and Sirach, and the rest.
You seem to be referring to the Masoretic Text, or MT, which was selected by a bunch of rabbis in I believe Jamnia after the fall of Jerusalem. As such it was created after the Church and the Synagogue went their separate ways, and there is no reason at all to think it is binding upon the Church.
Tanakh
Well, my understanding may indeed be sketchy but it seems that the OT as accepted by Israel as their Bible corresponds to what we commonly accept as the OT canon. (See above). That reference mentions 3500 years as the point at which their collection was decided. I cannot check that of course but I would say that since the earliest church was Jewish in its origin, at that point of history, the OT canon was closed and that any later inclusions by church fathers or whoever, would be suspect.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
That reference mentions 3500 years as the point at which their collection was decided.
It does no such thing. It says the Tanakh chronicles 3500 years of history. If you are going to evince a Web page as support of your position, it behooves you to make sure it supports your position. Quick, unturored googling is letting you down here.
You are historically wrong. The Jewish canon was not closed when the church and the synagogue split. The LXX was the Bible of the nascent church. If you don't know the history, Google will not educate you in a 5-minute search.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
That reference mentions 3500 years as the point at which their collection was decided.
It does no such thing. It says the Tanakh chronicles 3500 years of history. If you are going to evince a Web page as support of your position, it behooves you to make sure it supports your position. Quick, unturored googling is letting you down here.
You are historically wrong. The Jewish canon was not closed when the church and the synagogue split. The LXX was the Bible of the nascent church. If you don't know the history, Google will not educate you in a 5-minute search.
Well, yes, exactly! It does say the Tanah references 3500 years of history. And then goes on to say what the Tanah is! I doubt either of us is in a position to definitively tell what the Jewish canon was in apostolic times. It seems to me that as one digs there is strong evidence that they endorsed the same books the KJV does though obviously respecting the other writings as part of their history.
[ 15. February 2018, 19:51: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
The letters between Jerome and Augustine are interesting.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html
It’s definitely a language thing that’s the issue between them. Augustine sounds like one of those KJV-only zealots (only for the LXX), and Jerome is more interested in the differences between the more ancient Hebrew and more recent Greek texts. In terms of translation, it’s an interesting discussion. I think Jerome was right as an academic to want to understand more, whereas Augustine is the traditionalist (small t), who doesn’t want to rock any boats.
But yeah, MT is well read on this stuff, and he’s worth listening to, Jamat. He’s right, and a quick google to justify your position ain’t enough.
Either way, the issue of the Bible That Jesus Read has to be part of it. I think I’m right in saying he’d have used the LXX as well as a number of Hebrew versions, (correct me if I’m wrong), and the fact he quotes a bunch of the Deuterocanonical books must be taken into account.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
But yeah, MT is well read on this stuff, and he’s worth listening to, Jamat.
I respect that but it seems to be one of those areas where agenda determines opinion. As a former Catholic I am well aware of theirs.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
. quote:
the issue of the Bible That Jesus Read has to be part of it. I think I’m right in saying he’d have used the LXX as well as a number of Hebrew versions, (correct me if I’m wrong), and the fact he quotes a bunch of the Deuterocanonical books must be taken into account.
If he does quote a bunch of non scriptural books please enlighten.
The only reference Jesus makes that I am aware of that could be reference non canonical books is his the reference to the festival of lights or Purim in John but that is also traceable to the book of Esther.
The other NT reference by Jude 6-9 could be to the book of Enoch but the most obvious link within scripture is to Genesis 6.
The NT mentions Jannes and Jambres who were thought to be Pharoah's magicians but these are not given names in Exodus so this could be from apocryphal sources as well.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
This is a list of references to the Deuterocanonicals in the New Testament. Personally, I think some of them are a bit tenuous - or present elsewhere in the undisputed canon. But there’s enough there to show that it was part of the cloud of scripture and culture that Jesus and the apostles were aware of and drew from.
But more generally, in the vast majority of places the NT quotes the OT, it’s the Septuagint - the Masoretic text is also quoted but less frequently.
Therefore, the fact that the Septuagint included the Deuterocanonicals, but the Masoretic didn’t is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that the Bible Jesus used (some, if not most of the time) included those books. We have no record of him having a problem with that. He had no campaign to reduce the Jewish canon or reject any of those books, and nor did the earliest church, as far as I know.
But I will admit here that I am stretching my knowledge of this stuff now, as an enthusiastic amateur; and I am happy to cede to those more knowledgable than me. There are plenty of those here on the Ship, and I’m happy to be corrected!
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
This list has a more useful/objective introduction, explaining the difficulty of ascertaining what is a reference and what is not.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
This is a list of references to the Deuterocanonicals in the New Testament. Personally, I think some of them are a bit tenuous - or present elsewhere in the undisputed canon. But there’s enough there to show that it was part of the cloud of scripture and culture that Jesus and the apostles were aware of and drew from.
But more generally, in the vast majority of places the NT quotes the OT, it’s the Septuagint - the Masoretic text is also quoted but less frequently.
Therefore, the fact that the Septuagint included the Deuterocanonicals, but the Masoretic didn’t is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that the Bible Jesus used (some, if not most of the time) included those books. We have no record of him having a problem with that. He had no campaign to reduce the Jewish canon or reject any of those books, and nor did the earliest church, as far as I know.
But I will admit here that I am stretching my knowledge of this stuff now, as an enthusiastic amateur; and I am happy to cede to those more knowledgable than me. There are plenty of those here on the Ship, and I’m happy to be corrected!
Point of order Mr. Chairman, the Masoretic Text wouldn't exist for at least another 500 years. The NT can't quote it.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Sir! See - enthusiastic amateur reporting!
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
I guess the word should have been proto-Masoretic. I took that from here.
quote:
Of the places where the New Testament quotes the Old, the great majority is from the Septuagint version. Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).
So yeah, I guess they meant proto-Masoretic, ie. not the same as the LXX, and closer to the language of the Masoretic text.
Either way, the LXX was the NT Greek scripture of choice, so the wider point still stands.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Goperryrevs : and the fact he quotes a bunch of the Deuterocanonical books must be taken into account.
Well this plays fast and loose with the word ‘quotes’. Those sites you quote are Catholic. I kinda smell the incense.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well this plays fast and loose with the word ‘quotes’. Those sites you quote are Catholic. I kinda smell the incense.
I'm curious to know where you think those quotes came from.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Critiquing the content I'm fine with. And I'd agree that some are more dubious than others. But dismissing it just because it's Catholic, not so much.
Either way, according to your worldview as you've stated it thus far, it would only take one authentic quote from the NT to legitimise the Deuteros.
Tell me the difference between these statements, and why the former is valid and the latter not:
"In Matthew 12:40, Jesus refers to the story of Jonah. Therefore Jonah is Scriptural and historical."
"In Hebrews 11:35, the author refers to the story in 2 Maccabees 7. Therefore Maccabees is Scriptural and historical."
The first you assert as if it's totally evident and obvious and needs no justification. The second you dismiss out of hand as if it's irrelevant. You need to back that up with more than "the website's Catholic".
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well this plays fast and loose with the word ‘quotes’. Those sites you quote are Catholic. I kinda smell the incense.
I'm curious to know where you think those quotes came from.
To be fair, I think the issue is less where they came from than what qualifies as a quote. The first site goperryrevs links to includes things that "sound a bit like" parts of the deuterocanonocals, or are their opposite, or use similar imagery, or have one word in common.
[x-post with goperryrevs]
[ 16. February 2018, 09:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
To be fair, I think the issue is less where they came from than what qualifies as a quote. The first site goperryrevs links to includes things that "sound a bit like" parts of the deuterocanonocals, or are their opposite, or use similar imagery, or have one word in common.
[x-post with goperryrevs]
Ok, well it seems to me that taking out things which might be dubious, you still apparently have direct quotes.
Which makes me think of another reflection I was thinking about the other day.
In the epistles we have examples of ideas from Greek philosophy. Sometimes even quotes from philosophers and poets.
The strange thing for me is that few - if any that I've ever noticed - of those who want to claim scripture is straightforward seem to have spent much time thinking through the point that is being discussed (sometimes with approval) from Greek philosophy and poetry.
A similar thing is happening with regard to the quotes in the NT from noncanonical books: those who say that the scriptures only lie within the 66 books and that inspiration only comes from there are using a standard that the NT itself doesn't use.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I was thinking myself of where Paul quotes a pagan poet in Acts 17.
I don't think the inclusion of the quote magically makes it "inspired" or "inerrant" or denotes endorsement of the entirety of the source.
I think the "inspiration" of Scripture refers to Scripture as a whole and the mosaic it depicts. Of course we can argue about what "as a whole" means, but I think the idea of a corpus, handed down by the community of believers, is what's important.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't think the inclusion of the quote magically makes it "inspired" or "inerrant" or denotes endorsement of the entirety of the source.
Quite, but that's a double-edged sword for Jamat, because it shows up his justification that "Jesus refers to Jonah therefore Jonah is XYZ" as woefully inadequate.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think the issue is less where they came from than what qualifies as a quote.
The second site states this:
quote:
...many are not so clear as there may be only a single phrase that echoes one in a deuterocanonical book (and this may not be obvious in the translation, but only the original languages)
And so, this is where I'll admit this is way above my pay-grade, and it'd be down to a battle of the expert geeks.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't think the inclusion of the quote magically makes it "inspired" or "inerrant" or denotes endorsement of the entirety of the source.
Quite, but that's a double-edged sword for Jamat, because it shows up his justification that "Jesus refers to Jonah therefore Jonah is XYZ" as woefully inadequate.
That's not quite the same as ascribing magical "inspired" status to extra-biblical quotes either, though.
Goperryrevs having made me preach on Jonah (chapter 2 next!) I've had to look at this a bit more.
If you look at Mt 12:40-42 you'll see that Jesus refers to Jonah and the Queen of Sheba in the same breath. The argument goes that since the Queen of Sheba is a historical figure and is referred to just as Jonah is by Jesus (in the book of Jonah, not just in 2 Kings), Jonah must be too.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I was thinking myself of where Paul quotes a pagan poet in Acts 17.
I don't think the inclusion of the quote magically makes it "inspired" or "inerrant" or denotes endorsement of the entirety of the source.
No. But to me I think it shows the place that the writers of the scriptures saw it to be: and that wasn't that they were writing things on behalf of the deity which were to be digested alone and only in association with (ideas from) other parts of scripture. I'm not even convinced that the writers even understood that the things they were writing should be considered to be scripture.
Instead, I think - in the most charitable light - I think the authors of the NT understood that there were interesting ideas floating around from various sources and wanted to add to them. And they did that by adding to them, engaging with them, commenting upon, and quoting from a bunch of things that many of us have been brought up to understand are dubious. My view is that it is basically impossible to understand the conversation that the NT writers are seeking to have with Greek philosophers without reading Greek philosophy. One can't hope to understand the engagement the NT has with the deutocanonicals without reading them.
Those who therefore wave the 66 books and say "that's it, this is all you need to know" are missing the point. And are mistaken in the context of which the writers saw what they were writing - never mind how the developing understanding of the early church saw the canon, which is a whole other thing in and of itself.
quote:
I think the "inspiration" of Scripture refers to Scripture as a whole and the mosaic it depicts. Of course we can argue about what "as a whole" means, but I think the idea of a corpus, handed down by the community of believers, is what's important.
But that still doesn't explain why this corpus rather than any of the other available libraries. Some of which are a lot bigger than the 66 books, including I think I remember reading, the Copts who have a whole load of other stuff beyond that which is often labelled as apocrypha.
Partly, I think, it is to do with the quality of the other stuff. The Shepherd of Hermas is garbage, nobody is ever going to persuade me otherwise. The Acts of Paul and Thecla are fun but don't really contain a whole lot more content than you'd see in a cheap movie.
But there are other things that are interesting. The Protestant squeamishness about what is or isn't scripture seems pretty unhelpful in that context and the attitude of other theological traditions seems to me to be, well, liberating.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The Protestant squeamishness about what is or isn't scripture seems pretty unhelpful in that context and the attitude of other theological traditions seems to me to be, well, liberating.
The historical and theological details are probably above my pay grade too, but as I said before, on a pragmatic basis I think it's a tradeoff between how much you let individuals read the Scriptures for themselves and highlight their authority, and how much you want to dictate to your flock what they should be thinking, highlighting the authority of your Church.
The more you let the Scriptures out into the wild, the more pressure to nail down/ring-fence the content.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If you look at Mt 12:40-42 you'll see that Jesus refers to Jonah and the Queen of Sheba in the same breath. The argument goes that since the Queen of Sheba is a historical figure and is referred to just as Jonah is by Jesus (in the book of Jonah, not just in 2 Kings), Jonah must be too.
Hmmm, okay. That is a better argument. The stuff I've heard isn't usually that well-thought-out (for example, I've heard creationists say that Mark 10:6 confirms their view of Genesis as vindicated by Jesus).
I still think it's a bit of a stretch. So, staying in Matthew 12; there's the story of Jesus' disciples picking grain and eating it on the Sabbath. In Mark's version of this story, Jesus says "In the days of Abiathar the high priest.."; only turn to the story in 1 Samuel 21, and it's clearly Ahimelech (Abiathar's son) that was High Priest.
ISTM the simplest answer to that contradiction is that Jesus just got it wrong. He remembered the wrong High Priest.* And you know what, it doesn't matter. It doesn't nullify his point. I don't have a problem with Jesus believing that Jonah was a historical character, but being wrong about it. He (or Mark, recalling Jesus' words) might have just been mistaken, as he was about Abiathar.
But I don't even think that the argument above holds enough weight, anyhow. If I say, "He was a beast - like Goliath or the Incredible Hulk", the fact that one is (maybe) historical, and the other fictional is irrelevant to the point I'm making, which is about the physical size of someone.
Likewise, in Matthew 12, Jesus point is about signs, and whether the Jews really need another sign, when they've had loads and the Gentiles have had but a few. It's not about historicity, it's about signs.
* Of course, for the inerrantist, this is a huge problem, so they have to go through lots of awkward justifications to show that Samuel, Mark & Jesus were all consistent, even though one of them must have got it wrong somewhere.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Jonah is proving to be an interesting test case.
On the one hand, there are an abundance of elements pointing to a fictional tale. In addition to the parody aspects you pointed out, there's the fact that the book's dating is some 150 years after the reign of Jeroboam II when the historical Jonah is said to have lived.
(A crucial point is that in 3:3 Niniveh is referred to in the past tense, which apart from any linguistic aspects dates it after the eventual fall of the city, which is known to the day).
On the other hand, while it apparently stretches even Jamat's credulity to think Jonah penned the "psalm" of chapter 2 in stylish poetry in the belly of the fish, I find myself agreeing with him that it loses something of its force if it doesn't draw on the writer's actual, personal emotional experience - although of course that experience needn't be in the belly of a fish.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Maybe the author had a particular painful romantic break up, and drew on those experiences to give 'Jonah' a voice? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
"Jonah as revenge porn" would certainly make for an eye-catching Bible college dissertation title...
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
It's Hosea that's actually revenge porn, IMHO.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Goperryrevs : "In Hebrews 11:35, the author refers to the story in 2 Maccabees 7. Therefore Maccabees is Scriptural and historical
I read that as referring to 1 Kings 17:22 where Elijah restored the woman’s son to her.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
* Of course, for the inerrantist, this is a huge problem, so they have to go through lots of awkward justifications to show that Samuel, Mark & Jesus were all consistent, even though one of them must have got it wrong somewhere.
Or perhaps even a copyist of either Mark or Samuel (more likely Mark), the copy having survived but the original lost. Or Mark's amanuensis having misheard.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
I am not in any way seeking to dismiss the significance of textual and historical detail (I am a Classicist by training) but I have often found myself thinking that the inspiration lies in the telling of a story rather than in the verifiable details of a story.
Do we perhaps confuse truth with fact?
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
“I'll make my report as if I told a story, for I was taught as a child on my homeworld that Truth is a matter of the imagination.”
― Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness
A perfect quote from a brilliant book.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
But yeah, MT is well read on this stuff, and he’s worth listening to, Jamat.
I respect that but it seems to be one of those areas where agenda determines opinion. As a former Catholic I am well aware of theirs.
There's a tidy little ad hominem.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Really, Jamat, your argument boils down to, if it agrees with Rome, it can be summarily dismissed. Which is no argument at all, just an admission of irrational bias.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well, yes, exactly! It does say the Tanah references 3500 years of history. And then goes on to say what the Tanah is!
So you admit you read it wrong. Good.
quote:
I doubt either of us is in a position to definitively tell what the Jewish canon was in apostolic times.
I know which one of us has done a hell of a lot more study into it. Nobody can definitively tell. So that's a meaningless benchmark. So one goes with the preponderance of evidence. About which I know a great deal, and some others on this thread, near enough to fuck-all as makes no difference.
quote:
It seems to me that as one digs there is strong evidence that they endorsed the same books the KJV does though obviously respecting the other writings as part of their history.
Seems to me one should actually do some digging before making pronouncements about it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
Do we perhaps confuse truth with fact?
With regularity, I think.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Goperryrevs : "In Hebrews 11:35, the author refers to the story in 2 Maccabees 7. Therefore Maccabees is Scriptural and historical
I read that as referring to 1 Kings 17:22 where Elijah restored the woman’s son to her.
Pretty much every commentary I’ve looked at says it’s a reference to both the Kings and the Maccabees passages.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Really, Jamat, your argument boils down to, if it agrees with Rome, it can be summarily dismissed. Which is no argument at all, just an admission of irrational bias.
I don't know about Jamat, but I don't think the original Reformers/Protestants "summarily dismissed" the deutero-canonical books just because of Rome.
The Reformation kicked off not just because of RC abuses like the purgatory/indulgences thing, but also because of considerable gains in learning resulting from Western Europe's exposure to the East - both to the Orthodox church and to Islamic learning. This led to what we call the 'Renaissance' including for example the availability of a more reliable Greek NT which called into question some of the Latin 'Vulgate' translations.
It was realised both that Jewish scholarship did not necessarily recognise the deutero-canonicals, and that many of the RC abuses were supported only by texts from those works. With also awareness that the circumstances of the LXX translation might have resulted in not-strictly-scriptural intrusions, this led Protestants to reject them and accept what they understood to be the Jewish canon.
One wonders - did those texts truly support the questionable RC positions or had they been misinterpreted? That might enable a reconsideration....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The Reformation kicked off not just because of RC abuses like the purgatory/indulgences thing, but also because of considerable gains in learning resulting from Western Europe's exposure to the East - both to the Orthodox church and to Islamic learning.
Wait, what, so the benefits of new (for the time) critical insights from advances in scholarship and cultural development are OK (in their day) when it comes to kicking out the Deuterocanonicals, but not when it comes to modern critical approaches to the Bible?
[ 17. February 2018, 11:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well, the way I would see it is that for the RCC or Eastern Orthodox to justify their inclusions.
We use the Bible the Church has used from its infancy. You do not. The OT canon was not fixed in the 1st century CE. The LXX contained certain books -- which the Anglicans call "apocrypha" and the Catholics call "deuterocanonical" and we call "books of the Bible." You are factually incorrect that the LXX did not contain Maccabees. It most assuredly did, and Tobit, and Sirach, and the rest.
You seem to be referring to the Masoretic Text, or MT, which was selected by a bunch of rabbis in I believe Jamnia after the fall of Jerusalem. As such it was created after the Church and the Synagogue went their separate ways, and there is no reason at all to think it is binding upon the Church.
Jerome the Smartass wanted to pare down the canon from the LXX canon (as it appeared in Rome) to the MT canon, but was slapped down by the Church. Do you have evidence that it was because of Purgatory? Please produce it. His reasoning was that only books written in Hebrew should be in the OT, and only (as he supposed) the books of the MT were written in Hebrew. (As it turns out, copies of two of the other books were found in Qumran in Hebrew originals -- how that fucks up the "Hebrew originals only" argument!) The church countered that the LXX was always its OT and it saw no reason to change it now, TYVM.
No, the Orthodoxen and the Catholics are using the Church's bible from of old (modulo a couple of books, no doubt because of different extant copies of the LXX east and west of the Adratic, a discrepancy left as-is, no doubt, because it doesn't really matter).
We did not add any books. Let me repeat that. We did not add any books. We used the books handed down to us from second Temple Judaism.
The Church's Bible remained that way until the Reformation. It is the job of those who deface a document to explain why they have defaced it.
Excellent.
I hearby unconditionally repent of all bias against the Septuagint and to any Reformation or other Western defacing.
Being a Jewish chippie, what TaNaKh did Jesus use? In synagogues it would have been Hebrew surely? I fully accept that the apostles majorly, 95% approx. of the 190? NT OT quotes, used the LXX in the NT.
Bel and the dragon here we come.
[ 17. February 2018, 15:08: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
When discussing the Deuterocanonicals, can I reiterate a plea I made in 2012? quote:
I hope that a new, possibly simpler [thread] may be in order (one major headache in the old one is "MT" being used interchangeably for "Mousethief", "Mama Thomas" and "Masoretic Text" by the protagonists...)
Thank you.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It's really quite simple. Use "mt" for me and "MT" for the Masoretic Text.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Thanks Mousethief for your longer text and in particular the comment that it does not really matter. In the long run, that's what counts.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
We came across an interesting verse in the context of this thread in our church's epoch-long Bible study on Romans this week. Romans 15:4 says (NASB): quote:
For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope
Paul is pretty obviously referring to the OT with "whatever was written", although it's not explicit as some translations suggest.
More intriguingly, and contra what I've been arguing, it suggests the Scriptures in and of themselves provide encouragement and hope, indeed the word translated by "encouragement" is parakleseos which surely brings to mind the related word used of the Holy Spirit.
However, before I had to recant from my "the Bible is a dead letter absent the work of the Spirit" position, somebody pointed out that the passage concludes in verse 13 with the blessing quote:
May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
In Paul's mind at least, it seems that any encouragement and hope we derive from the Scriptures is indeed ministered to us by the "Holy Paraclete".
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
About 6 months after my conversion, I had a discussion with a local high church CofE vicar about the inspiration of scriptures. He just asked me what I thought. I said "well, I don't know about anyone else, but they inspire me! And confuse me. Seems to depend on where I look"
He chuckled. "Yes", he said. "But that's not at all what I expected you to say."
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
