Thread: Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical Lessons Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028274
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
Because of a tangent in another thread, I thought this will be handy before it sinks like a stone.
I personally don't mind them at all. Wisdom appears almost too frequently. I honestly have no idea why, but they still raises hackles.
One reader at church always says "Here ends the reading" instead of "(this is) the word of the Lord" because some priest says he told her too.
Some people say, "I started to buy a new Bible but it had the apocrypha in it so I just couldn't!"
The RCL includes the apocrypha, but unlike its predecessors, it invariably includes a lesson from the protocanonicals. This to me cheapens the apocryphal lessons so they become completely optional. This attitude isn't doing much for Christian unity!
Most mainline churches as far as I know don't mind them a bit, but Con Evos still balk at them and I really don't understand why. The CofE has always included lessons from the Apocrypha so I don't know why some people still pull back when hearing them read.
Why do people car about eliminating from worship so much I wonder?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Most mainline churches as far as I know don't mind them a bit, but Con Evos still balk at them and I really don't understand why.
Is this really so? In my experience, use of the Apocryphal writings in worship is limited to Catholics, Orthodox and some Anglicans. It certainly would raise eyebrows in a Presbyterian or Reformed church and I think it would in a Methodist church as well. (Lutherans I'm not as sure about.) The version of the RCL that we use omits the Apocryphal readings altogether.
FWIW, I prefer Bibles that include the Apocrypha, and I do read from it. But even as I do so, I respect the teaching of my tradition that while there is much of value in them, they are not authoritative and therefore should not be read in worship.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
When a bishop I know was asked by a lower church priest why the bishop suggested always taking the apocryphal option if two were given, he said 1. because the people need to be exposed to it was were the early Christians, and 2. because it is often more edifying than some protocanonical books. Surely Sirach is more "authoritative" than many of the lists in Chronicles!
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on
:
A nineteenth century Anglican cleric in Plymouth, the Rev. Charles Rose Chase, used to ask at bookshops for Bibles, and if presented with ones without all the books would say "I asked for a Bible, not extracts from the Scriptures".
He later became a Catholic and was the founder of the Catholic Missionary Society. The above story is recounted in his biography, "From Hussar to Priest".
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Surely Sirach is more "authoritative" than many of the lists in Chronicles!
An inapt comparison, I would say, comparing the value of one entire book to the value of a portion of another book. (Not to mention comparing a wisdom book to a historical book.)
But in any event, Jerome, as I recall, didn't particularly think it was more authoritative -- I believe his prologue to the Vulgate specifically noted that Sirach was not canonical.
The question, from our perspective at least, is not whether the writing is valuable; it is whether the book should be considered inspired. The people from whom we got it, the Jews, did not consider it inspired. Despite its inclusion in the Septuagint, which was indeed used by the early church, it is clear from Jerome and others that the early church was not of mind about its place in the canon.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Despite its inclusion in the Septuagint, which was indeed used by the early church, it is clear from Jerome and others that the early church was not of mind about its place in the canon.
Sorry, that should have been "of one mind . . . ," of course. Wish the edit window didn't close so quickly.
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
A nineteenth century Anglican cleric in Plymouth, the Rev. Charles Rose Chase, used to ask at bookshops for Bibles, and if presented with ones without all the books would say "I asked for a Bible, not extracts from the Scriptures".
I trust, then, that he was looking for an Orthodox Bible. I'd hate for him not to have gotten Psalm 151, 1st Esdras or 3rd Maccabees.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
If there is a reading from the so-called Apocrypha, I make a special effort to preach on it.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
Easy peasy.
If you call them the Apocrypha, then why would you include them in the divine service? Except perhaps, at the Hours, when non-canonical readings are included.
If you call the the Deuterocanonicals, then there should be no scruple at all about reading out the inspired word of God.
Either they are in the canon (deuterocanon) or they are not (apocrypha); once that choice is made, all the other decisions are made for you.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
Anglicans, though, usually call them "the apocrypha" even when we accept them as sacred scripture. But I think you're right--perhaps we SHOULD change our languge.
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
In the 19th century the Evangelicals in the Church of England had a concerted effort at getting the Deuterocanonical books removed from the 1871 Lectionary. They failed! However, their preference for not reading the Apocrypha in Church Bible remains in certain ConEvo circles. Illogical given that even Baptists study "inter-testamental literature" these days. That said, I have one very Con Evo friend who works on the principle if the 1871 Lectionary asks for it I read it, and is pretty well acquainted with the D-C books as a result.
PD
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
Funny, I was just pondering this issue last night while doing some light house cleaning.
quote:
Mama Thomas:
Most mainline churches as far as I know don't mind them a bit.
I'm afraid I must disagree with that. Although the reading citations may appear on the RCL version provided by most mainlines, mainline churches will invariably take the optional non-apocryphal reading. The one exception would be TEC.
Even my own denom, which is probably the most likely mainline (save TEC) to even think about using these, essentially has conceded that they are not used at all.
The bulletins we order with pre-printed readings never print the apocryphal reading, but always print the other. There is no option to purchase a bulletin with the apocryphal reading. The lectionary book we have prints the non-apocryphal reading with the other readings of the day, and relegates the apocryphal reading to an appendix at the back of the book. I doubt it is a concerted effort to discourage the apocrypha, but rather a resigned acknowledgment that it won't be used.
If I understand correctly, the presence of apocryphal readings appointed for the Great Vigil of Easter was one of the reasons the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod left the Lutheran Book of Worship development project in the 1970s.
We have used the RCL since the 1990s, I believe, and I've become quite accustomed to it. With RCL, it must be understood that if an apocryphal reading is appointed, it is the best fit for the occasion, and is to be taken as the preferred reading. Those who use the Complementary Track will notice the compatibility between the apocryphal reading and the Gospel of the day. The other reading is merely provided for those of squeamish constitutions.
All this talk about fixed canons and such is a bit over-the-top, methinks. Until the advent of the printing press, and eventually the Official Clarification of the canon at the Council of Trent, things were a bit more fluid. It wasn't exactly like today, where we the ordinary faithful can pull out our Bibles and hold them up as the One True Version.
Furthermore, in a church that only read Epistle and Gospel for the better part of a millenium, the public reading of anything Old Testament was not the big deal that it is now. It might have come up occasionally on a feast day that trumped the Sunday. Even then, not all feast days had apocryphal readings appointed.
I'd like to see more apocrypha read, but my denom will not push this. If they were to do so, it would push away even more people.
[ 28. July 2011, 16:46: Message edited by: Martin L ]
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
British Methodists use RCL so the deuterocanonical books appear, though as noted usually with an alternative. For similar reasons as those given above, I would always choose the deuterocanonical option rather than the alternative; we had a reading from Wisdom only the other week.
[ 28. July 2011, 19:42: Message edited by: seasick ]
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
I thought most mainliners really wouldn't mind these days, but with Martin L's post I am beginning to have me doots. I know most Anglicans probably don't think about it and will buy a Bible for various reasons, and simply not check to see if it has the Deuteros. Anglo-Catholics on the other hand invariably will check to see if the Bible in question is complete or is simply a collection of extracts from the Scriptures (thanks, Triple! You've given me another sermon anecdote).
Honestly, though, they were used by Christians without fail for 15 hundred years despite what Hierome saith, and they still are used by the vast majority of Christians.
No one can say the evil Catholics added them at a certain point just to be malicious. One can say that they were removed by a certain faction at certain point in time. And didn't Martin Luther himself accept Laodicians and want to exclude James?
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I thought most mainliners really wouldn't mind these days, but with Martin L's post I am beginning to have me doots.
It could very much be a pond difference, or perhaps I am simply mistaken. I would be happily corrected if an American Methodist, Presbyterian, or Lutheran were to post that they and the majority of churches in their denom use the apocryphal reading when appointed.
quote:
Anglo-Catholics on the other hand invariably will check to see if the Bible in question is complete or is simply a collection of extracts from the Scriptures (thanks, Triple! You've given me another sermon anecdote).[/QB]
For what it's worth, I check!
quote:
Honestly, though, they were used by Christians without fail for 15 hundred years despite what Hierome saith, and they still are used by the vast majority of Christians.
Used, perhaps, but were 73-book Bibles all bound together as one quite common before Trent?
quote:
No one can say the evil Catholics added them at a certain point just to be malicious.
Martin walks away, muttering to self about matters Tridentine...
Posted by uffda (# 14310) on
:
Martin L makes a good point. In our RCL the deuterocanonical lessons are printed in a separate section, not with the other readings of the day. The (proto)canonical reading is printed instead, followed by the other two readings.
I would say that placement at least discourages its use. I myself would not use it in the liturgy. But perhaps other Lutherans out there have a different view.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
I am getting an education. I honestly thought Lutherans used or at least didn't mind the Apoc/Deuteros! What with the "other" Ten Commandments and all...
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Metapelagius:
[QUOTE]Why the c16th reformers, supposedly so keen to go back to the uncorrupted ways of the early church, decided to ditch some bits of the OT with which the church had been happy for a millennium and a half because the Jews had decided that they didn't like the sound of them . . . .
Didn't like the sound of them? It was because the Jews determined that they shouldn't have been included in the Septuagint to begin with, given that the Septuagint was supposed to be a translation from the Hebrew and the Hebrew scriptures did not include them.
Reasonable arguments can be made for and against including the Apocrypha.
/Sorry, done with the tangent. Can we peg it on considerations about including the Apocrypha in the lessons? [Hot and Hormonal]
Nick Tamen
I hope that this is the right place to put this.
This is a thorny question. According to tradition Ptolemy Philadelphos, King of Egypt in the mid c3 BC asked for a translation into Greek of the Hebrew scriptures. The exact form (look at the LXX text of Jeremiah which is all over the place compared with the Massoretic) and extent of 'scripture' was more fluid then, but there is no reason to suppose that the translators inserted whole books into their translation that had not existed in Hebrew already. The result was the Septuagint, which became the 'bible' of Greek speaking diaspora Jews and then of the earliest Christians. Obviously some items were added later, given that certain books deal with later events - e.g. Maccabees, Wisdom and ?Baruch (I Maccabees and Baruch look to have been orginally written in Hebrew - Wisdom was almost certainly composed in Greek). And presumably Daniel as it refers to events in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (175 - 163). In about 100 AD a group of rabbis are suppposed to have got together at the 'Council of Jamnia' and decided to ditch certain works from the canon as they defined it - but apparently on the whole more because of their content than the language in which the texts were written. This process certainly happened, though whether there ever was an actual Council of Jamnia is dubious. So Tobit, Judith, chunks of Esther and Daniel &c. were excised.
So - the Hebrew texts are translated into Greek, expanded somewhat, and accepted as scripture by the nascent church, and continue to be more or less accepted for 1500 years. The Jews jettison some of them at a point well after the establishment of the church. What you can't say is that the deuterocanonical works should be discarded en bloc because "the Hebrew scriptures did not contain them". When the church started they did contain many of them - and why should the church change its stance because a group of rabbis decided to move the goalposts? It may have been part of the reasoning behind the teachings of the reformers, but it isn't wholly convincing.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
The United Church of Canada does not read from the Apocrypha and those lessons are not included our printing of the Revised Common Lectionary in the back of Voices United.
Bibles purchased for church use never include the Apocrypha. Some versions in the minister's study might have them, but just for the minister's academic interest.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I honestly thought Lutherans used or at least didn't mind the Apoc/Deuteros!
Well, think of them as our 39 Articles. They're printed somewhere in our worship materials, in practice we don't spend a lot of time objecting to their presence, but you'd be hard-pressed to see us using them to their full potential.
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The United Church of Canada does not read from the Apocrypha and those lessons are not included our printing of the Revised Common Lectionary in the back of Voices United.
Bibles purchased for church use never include the Apocrypha. Some versions in the minister's study might have them, but just for the minister's academic interest.
Hmm. The Book of Common Order of the Church of Scotland also includes the Revised Common Lectionary, with some modifications of its own. The 'thematic' OT lesson for the Sunday between June 26th and July 2nd in year B is taken from Wisdom. A quirk, or are the Kirk's censors not sufficiently eagle-eyed?
I was once asked to read a lesson at the opening worship of the meeting of a (UK) URC provincial synod. I did so, from the large lectern bible which I suppose was the one normally used in the church. The lesson that I read was from Ecclesiasticus. I don't recall the assembled company collapsing in horror at this. Perhaps puritanism isn't what it used to be, except, of course, in Canada .....
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on
:
No used in the Presbyterian Church in Canada either. My main study Bible has them but I would guess most of the people in the pews have only a vague idea that they even exist.
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
I hasten to add that I read the lesson that I was asked to read. It wasn't that I myself chose something taboo in order to be controversial / provocative / mickey-taking.
[ 28. July 2011, 21:46: Message edited by: Metapelagius ]
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
I hasten to add that I read the lesson that I was asked to read. It wasn't that I myself chose something taboo in order to be controversial / provocative / mickey-taking.
Or perhaps they thought it was Ecclesiastes?
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
What gets my goat is god-awful "pew Bibles" in Anglican/Episcopal Churches, donated by an evangelical charity or a some kind old woman. They never seem to have the whole Bible, but only the Protestant version. Good thing they are like Gideon Bibles in hotel rooms, you're glad they are there, but you never use them.
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
I hasten to add that I read the lesson that I was asked to read. It wasn't that I myself chose something taboo in order to be controversial / provocative / mickey-taking.
Or perhaps they thought it was Ecclesiastes?
Possible I suppose. It must have been about five years ago, but as far as I recall I was given an incipit, and that ran that the lesson was 'a reading from the Book of the Wisdom of Ben Sirach' (sic - I was specifically not to say 'Jesus Ben Sirach'). I think it was from chapter 20 something - certainly a higher number than the last chapter of Qoheleth.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But in any event, Jerome, as I recall, didn't particularly think it was more authoritative -- I believe his prologue to the Vulgate specifically noted that Sirach was not canonical.
And he was overruled by the Church. Sucks to be him.
BTW Sirach is dreadful. It's the only book of the Bible I couldn't force myself to finish.
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
why should the church change its stance because a group of rabbis decided to move the goalposts? It may have been part of the reasoning behind the teachings of the reformers, but it isn't wholly convincing.
Why indeed. That seems to be the bottomline question. Do we trust the infant church, or the rabbis whose ruling came after the church and the synagogue went their separate ways?
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
What gets my goat is god-awful "pew Bibles" in Anglican/Episcopal Churches, donated by an evangelical charity or a some kind old woman. They never seem to have the whole Bible, but only the Protestant version. Good thing they are like Gideon Bibles in hotel rooms, you're glad they are there, but you never use them.
Around the UCCan they tend to be NIV, Good News or NRSV. Usually by a combination of that's what the Session and Minister will permit and what's least expensive to purchase in bulk from book stores.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
What gets my goat is god-awful "pew Bibles" in Anglican/Episcopal Churches, donated by an evangelical charity or a some kind old woman. They never seem to have the whole Bible, but only the Protestant version. Good thing they are like Gideon Bibles in hotel rooms, you're glad they are there, but you never use them.
Easy there, Tiger.
Sometimes Mrs. Throckmorton and the Evos aren't really to blame.
It could be the case that the pew racks could only hold the "Extracts from the Scriptures." The thicker canonical book could have been to thick to fit. Or, it could have been something to do with the price.
And, be sure: When the preacher is in the pulpit misconstruing God's Holy Word, you can be sure that I am fulminating and have got my finger pointed at the pertinent text.
mousethief, what's so bad with Sirach? It's one of my favs.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Easy there, Tiger.
Sometimes Mrs. Throckmorton and the Evos aren't really to blame.
It could be the case that the pew racks could only hold the "Extracts from the Scriptures." The thicker canonical book could have been to thick to fit. Or, it could have been something to do with the price.
And, be sure: When the preacher is in the pulpit misconstruing God's Holy Word, you can be sure that I am fulminating and have got my finger pointed at the pertinent text.
mousethief, what's so bad with Sirach? It's one of my favs.
Thanks, TSA. You're always a voice of reason. Yeah, MT, Sirach is cool, better than Proverbs for the most part. So what's don't you like.
I think I've read every line of scripture except, I think, for "the rest of the book of Esther." I have never heard a word of it read in church, nor have I finished the book for some reason. The God bits irk me, as I was taught "Esther is the only book in the Bible that never mentions God." But then, with the "rest" it does!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It's an endless list of moral platitudes, most of which are demonstrably false.
It's like being lectured by your horrid Aunt Sally about things she knows nothing about.
[ 29. July 2011, 01:55: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
mousethief, thanks for the answer. I think differently about them, especially the demonstrably false part, but different strokes.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
The Eccles and Kerygmania hosts have been watching the thread for the balance between liturgical practice and scriptural discussion. The scale has tipped away from the former and into the latter, so we're going to do a lateral over to Kerygmania. Hang on to your Bibles...
Mamacita, Eccles Host
Posted by Try (# 4951) on
:
I'd say that US Methodists (and other North American mainline Protestants) think that it is OK to read and study the Apocrypha, and for that matter non-canonical Gospels and Epistles, for context when reading the canonical books, and for edification. But they are not read in public worship or preached on, any more than the Gospel of Thomas would be. But they are not evil.
Even quite moderate American evangelicals consider the Apocrypha to be pernicious popish nonsense- dangerous even to read on one's own. Initially, the publishers of the decidedly evangelical ESV Bible intended to publish an edition of the ESV including the Apocrypha only in the UK! That would seem to indicate clearly that the place of the Apocrypha in Protestant worship is very much a pond difference.
I think that the book of Wisdom is wonderful, personally. Considering it inspired is one of the draws of Anglicanism for me.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I've only heard lessons from the Apocrypha being read in a Lutheran church once or twice -- in a high-up-the-candle university parish. And even there, as the text was announced you could hear a nervous buzz: The Book of whaaaat???...
Of course, this is a place where, after our pastoral intern preached a brilliant sermon drawing not only from the Gospel texts but from sources ranging from The Color Purple to Lewis Thomas' Lives of a Cell , some cranky back-row Pietists were getting their knickers in a knot about "Preaching from the Bible, not 'words of men.'" There's just no pleasing heretic hunters.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
I won't say I've never heard a reading from the Apocrypha in a church that I have been a member of, but I will say that I don't remember ever hearing one.
And I've never heard a sermon preached on one, even in higher-up places that do use them now and again. And come to think about it the only readings I remember in those places are the same handful of verses from ben Sirach & maybe Wisdom of Solomon. As far as public worship in the Church of England is concerned - or 95% of the CofE at least - the Apocrypha is maybe five pages long. No-one ever uses any of the rest of it.
I've read discussions of Tobit in books about ancient Hebrew literature, and in loony books and websites obsessed with angels, and in quite sound books on Biblical interpretation, even ones written by evangelicals, I suppose because the little dog is cute. But I don't remember ever hearing it read or referenced in church.
Similarly I've read lots of Christian books that use 1 & 2 Maccabees as a historical source. Including ones written by evangelicals. But they are talking about the historical background to Scripture, or the social context in which Jesus was born, they aren't treating it as Holy Scripture in its own right.
Judith provides a great source for bloodthirsty paintings and oratorios.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But in any event, Jerome, as I recall, didn't particularly think it was more authoritative -- I believe his prologue to the Vulgate specifically noted that Sirach was not canonical.
And he was overruled by the Church. Sucks to be him.
Indeed he was, and indeed it does. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But that doesn't change the point I was trying to make -- that in the early church (pre-Jerome, pre-Nicene, etc.), the canon was more fluid, so that it becomes a little more difficult to say "this was accepted by The Church" and "this wasn't accepted by The Church."
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
why should the church change its stance because a group of rabbis decided to move the goalposts? It may have been part of the reasoning behind the teachings of the reformers, but it isn't wholly convincing.
Why indeed. That seems to be the bottomline question. Do we trust the infant church, or the rabbis whose ruling came after the church and the synagogue went their separate ways?
Well, the rabbis' ruling came when the church was in its true infancy, some time before the Church's decision. I understand it's not convincing to many, but it is to others.
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I thought most mainliners really wouldn't mind these days, but with Martin L's post I am beginning to have me doots. I know most Anglicans probably don't think about it and will buy a Bible for various reasons, and simply not check to see if it has the Deuteros. Anglo-Catholics on the other hand invariably will check to see if the Bible in question is complete or is simply a collection of extracts from the Scriptures (thanks, Triple! You've given me another sermon anecdote).
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
I'd say that US Methodists (and other North American mainline Protestants) think that it is OK to read and study the Apocrypha, and for that matter non-canonical Gospels and Epistles, for context when reading the canonical books, and for edification. But they are not read in public worship or preached on, any more than the Gospel of Thomas would be.
As I have read through this thread, I have wondered if there are two conversations going on, and I think Ty has picked up on them:
1. Whether mainliners would read or study the deuterocanonical writings (reflected in Mama Thomas's comments on buying a Bible with or without them), and
2. Whether mainlers would read from the deuterocanonical writings in worship or preach from them.
I think without a doubt that many, many mainlers read or study them without any qualm, and may even (like me) prefer Bibles that include them. It's the second question that's going to be answered almost universally negatively for mainliners outside TEC.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Does it have any relevance that Jesus seemed to quote from the Apocrypha on occasion without offering his own footnote saying "but understand, this isn't really true scripture I'm quoting from"?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Does it have any relevance that Jesus seemed to quote from the Apocrypha on occasion without offering his own footnote saying "but understand, this isn't really true scripture I'm quoting from"?
It does to us. Quotes from and allusions to the Deuts in the New Testament are legion. On the other hand, it could be argued that since James (or is it Jude?) quotes from a book that's not even in the LXX, that's not anything like a knock-down, drag-out argument for the inclusion of the Deuts in the canon.
Posted by LostinChelsea (# 5305) on
:
For the Service of Advent Lessons & Carols in our TEC parish, I encourage folks to invite friends by saying, "Tell them it's safe because there's no communion, no preaching, and no alms collection -- in other words, nothing weird, just Bible reading and singing!" Gave me a laugh, at least.
Last time a parishioner told me, "I brought a Baptist friend and told her what you said. Afterwards she said, 'There was a reading from Baruch. I thought that was weird!'"
I recently did a funeral for a retired college professor and chose a reading from Sirach on the nature and pursuit of Wisdom. Made for a wholly appropriate reflection.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Does it have any relevance that Jesus seemed to quote from the Apocrypha on occasion without offering his own footnote saying "but understand, this isn't really true scripture I'm quoting from"?
Eh? When?
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
Even the Golden Rule is a reworking of a verse from Tobit. The fact remains that the vast majority of Christians has always read these books in worship as sacred scripture. I can't imagine a someone thinking a stained glass window of Judith is somehow morally or theologically suspect while one of Deborah is not.
Remember the 80s classic "Chariots of Fire"? It begins with a world famous reading from Scripture, from the Deuts. I don't remember anyone ever saying "it's not really holy, you know."
I honestly don't know why some Protestant groups think these books are evil unless it is simply to be different from "the Catholics."
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Even the Golden Rule is a reworking of a verse from Tobit.
And many, many other ancient sources.
quote:
I can't imagine a someone thinking a stained glass window of Judith is somehow morally or theologically suspect while one of Deborah is not.
This seems like something of a straw man. Who said anything about "morally suspect." Why would a stained glass window of Judith be any more suspect than a stained glass window of a saint? (One could argue it would be much less suspect than a window of St. George.) If a tradition doesn't have a problem with stained glass depictions of people (or of non-biblical people) to begin with, I don't think Judith would raise any eyebrows.
quote:
Remember the 80s classic "Chariots of Fire"? It begins with a world famous reading from Scripture, from the Deuts. I don't remember anyone ever saying "it's not really holy, you know."
Perhaps because it was read as the introduction to a eulogy, not as a Scripture reading. (That is, assuming anyone gave thought to the source to begin with.)
quote:
I honestly don't know why some Protestant groups think these books are evil unless it is simply to be different from "the Catholics."
Who said anything about "evil"? Noncanonical and evil are hardly the same thing.
This may not be an apt analogy, but I'll give it a stab. Consider the Declaration of Indendence and the US Constitution. No American I know of demeans in any way the Declaration. It is honored, and probably is quoted more than the Constitution. ("When in the course of human events...." "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal...." "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.") We look to it as an exposition of the values we as a nation hold most dear.
But unlike the Constitution, the Declaration has no legal authority at all. No court will look to it to determine what the law requires and what it forbids. No cause of action can be stated for violation of the Declaration of Indendence.
In a similar way, most Prostetants would say the deuterocanonical books, may be valuable, but they are not authoritative. We do not look to them to establish the faith. To the extant they agree with the books that are considered authoritative, great! To the extent they do not, the books considered authoritative trump them. That's all -- no "evil," no "morally suspect."
Though I will concede, there may be a bit of "we're not Catholics" at play sometimes. (Cue Monty Python: "And what are we?" "Protestants, and fiercely proud of it!")
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I honestly don't know why some Protestant groups think these books are evil unless it is simply to be different from "the Catholics."
Whilst I agree completely with you, I think many proddies would say that it's because there's bits of the apocrypha that contradicts other teaching of the Bible. For example, they'll say that part of the apocrypha is about praying to the dead, which they see as "spiritualist".
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
I seem to recall that the ASB Lectionary was a bit light on readings from the Deuteros. These days I generally run into it at MP and EP - we are on the story of that well-know clan the MacCabes ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
at the moment. The old Eucharistic lectionary does not use them, or the OT very much, so if the congo heres the Apocrypha it is in the context of the "Pike Rite."
PD
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Does it have any relevance that Jesus seemed to quote from the Apocrypha on occasion without offering his own footnote saying "but understand, this isn't really true scripture I'm quoting from"?
Eh? When?
Matt. 6:19-20 - laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven cf Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.
Matt. 7:16,20 - "you will know them by their fruits" cf. Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 11:25 - "Lord of heaven and earth" cf Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.
Matt. 16:18 - "power of death" and "gates of Hades" cf Wisdom 16:13.
Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" cf. 1 Macc. 1:54 & 2 Macc. 8:17.
Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" cf. 1 Macc. 2:28.
Mark 4:5,16-17 - seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root cf Sirach 40:15.
Mark 9:48 - their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched cf Judith 16:17.
Luke 13:29 - men coming from east and west to rejoice in God cf Baruch 4:37.
Luke 21:24 - "fall by the edge of the sword" cf. Sirach 28:18.
John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven cf Baruch 3:29.
John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down cf. Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.
More examples here.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
Thank you, Leo!
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
Bypassing the nettlesome issue of the ipsa verba of Jesus, may I point out that the Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testamant helpfully provides a 35-page appendix of citations and allusions to the Old Testament and Pseudepigrapha (pp. 773-808).
About six pages of this are citations and allusions to the Deuterocanon and other sources (Book of Jubilees, Martyrdom of Isaiah, Enoch, Assumption of Moses, the Apocalypses of Baruch and Elijah, and seven of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs).
Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on
:
The Reformers' campaign to to jettison a considerable portion of the Christan scriptures can be traced to their intense prejudice against prayers for the departed. The passage which so offended their ears is found in 2 Maccabees 12: 40-46. They presumably found it easier to reject every book in the Septuagint which survived in Greek translation but not in Hebrew than to come up with a plausible reason to discard this one book. Rather ironically, Jewish worship continues to follow the example of Judas Maccabeus and includes prayers for the dead.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
That sounds so plausible! Can you provide a link on that? There has to be a reason why they rejected such a huge chunk of their Christian heritage. I always thought it odd they would base their canon on the Jewish canon of the middle ages rather than on the Christian canon of the ages. Your explanation also explains why they kept the order of the books of the OT sans Deutero and did not adopt the Jewish order of the books.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I honestly don't know why some Protestant groups think these books are evil unless it is simply to be different from "the Catholics."
Whilst I agree completely with you, I think many proddies would say that it's because there's bits of the apocrypha that contradicts other teaching of the Bible. For example, they'll say that part of the apocrypha is about praying to the dead, which they see as "spiritualist".
Yes because if you throw out the Deuts, there are no passages of scripture that contradict any other passages of scripture. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes because if you throw out the Deuts, there are no passages of scripture that contradict any other passages of scripture.
I love it! I love, "Thou shalt not kill." and "Go and slay the Canaanites."
Also the same people will call idolatrous a statue or icon of our Lady but think nothing of wearing an American Eagle pin and flag.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Does it have any relevance that Jesus seemed to quote from the Apocrypha on occasion without offering his own footnote saying "but understand, this isn't really true scripture I'm quoting from"?
Eh? When?
Matt. 6:19-20 - laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven cf Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.
Matt. 7:16,20 - "you will know them by their fruits" cf. Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
{and etc. etc....}
I thank you, too, leo. I wasn't sure how many examples to dig around for. I was rather surprised that this fact had gotten past ken. But then, he might protest that these were not really "quotations" but rather phrases and terms.
[ 29. July 2011, 23:53: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
The Eccles and Kerygmania hosts have been watching the thread for the balance between liturgical practice and scriptural discussion. The scale has tipped away from the former and into the latter, so we're going to do a lateral over to Kerygmania. Hang on to your Bibles...
Mamacita, Eccles Host
Ooops. I forgot to push the magic button. Here goes...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Would its not being quoted in the NT (if that were the case which it isn't) prove the Deuts aren't Scripture? Then the following OT books are not Scripture, as they are not quoted in the NT:
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
That argument therefore proves too much.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I thank you, too, leo. I wasn't sure how many examples to dig around for. I was rather surprised that this fact had gotten past ken. But then, he might protest that these were not really "quotations" but rather phrases and terms.
Or that most of Leo's quote are also found in the OT.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Which ones?
And how do we account for those epistles that also quote material from 'the apocrypha'?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Would its not being quoted in the NT (if that were the case which it isn't) prove the Deuts aren't Scripture?
Mo, of course not. There are pagan writings quoted in NT and OT, such as those letters from Persian kings, or the proverb "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you die" (supposedly a Persian proverb - one Greek writer says that "be merry" was a euphemism) or the famous quote from Epimenides about all Cretans being liars. That does not make those people into inspired writers.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Would its not being quoted in the NT (if that were the case which it isn't) prove the Deuts aren't Scripture?
Mo, of course not. There are pagan writings quoted in NT and OT, such as those letters from Persian kings, or the proverb "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you die" (supposedly a Persian proverb - one Greek writer says that "be merry" was a euphemism) or the famous quote from Epimenides about all Cretans being liars. That does not make those people into inspired writers.
But it DOES mean that Jesus heard the 'apocrypha' read as part of scripture in the synagogue and so was taught that they were 'inspired'. And he did say that they weren't.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Would its not being quoted in the NT (if that were the case which it isn't) prove the Deuts aren't Scripture?
Mo, of course not. There are pagan writings quoted in NT and OT, such as those letters from Persian kings, or the proverb "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you die" (supposedly a Persian proverb - one Greek writer says that "be merry" was a euphemism) or the famous quote from Epimenides about all Cretans being liars. That does not make those people into inspired writers.
You have mistaken the logic. It's not that I am positing, "these are quoted by the NT and therefore must be inspired" -- it's that I am positing that "these are not quoted by the NT an therefore are not inspired" is false.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But it DOES mean that Jesus heard the 'apocrypha' read as part of scripture in the synagogue and so was taught that they were 'inspired'. And he did say that they weren't.
Do you mean he DIDN'T say that they weren't? I don't recall Jesus ever saying anything about the Deuts not being inspired.
[ 30. July 2011, 15:47: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But it DOES mean that Jesus heard the 'apocrypha' read as part of scripture in the synagogue and so was taught that they were 'inspired'. And he did say that they weren't.
Do you mean he DIDN'T say that they weren't? I don't recall Jesus ever saying anything about the Deuts not being inspired.
Silly me - typing too fast - of course, it should've read 'didn't.'
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
This thread having been translated from Ecclesiantics to Kerygmania, it might be well to restate the implied questions from the opening post:- Should the Deuterocanonical Books / the Apocryphal Writings be read out during divine service?
- Are these books/writings part of the inspired canon?
Taking the second question first, there are two general traditions regarding the canonicity of these writing.
One, who is the elder and more diffuse, says yes, these writings are divinely inspired. This tradition is less eager to draw a bright line circumscribing precisely what is in and what is out. So, for both Catholics and Orthodox, the greater number of these writings are called deuterocanon; and, the Orthodox would extend beyond these to include 1 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, 3 Maccabees, and 2 Esdras. This tradition is willing to admit that the inspired writings come to us in a variety of versions, especially in the Hebrew Masoretic text and that of the Greek Septuagint.
This tradition generally favors the protocanon over the deuterocanon, though not as severely as the 6th of the 39 Articles.
The second, considerably younger, tradition is the one that says there are precisely 66 books (39 + 27) of scripture in the canon.
As to the first question, both traditions favor the reading of some of their canon over the other. The Orthodox don't read the Apocalypse to John at all, while the West rather relishes it. Both traditions don't spend much time in either book of the Chronicles.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
The synagogues Jesus and his disciples attended studied the Hebrew scriptures, not the Greek. That's our primary reason for accepting the Jewish canon. It was Jesus's Bible.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
Not so sure about that. The New Testament writers tended to quote from the Septuagint with which they were more familiar, and anyway the lines were not drawn in Jesus's earthly time.
The Church however DID use the Greek Bible with no real qualms AKAIK until Hierome. (waiting to be pounced on by those who know more)
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
WWJR? Jeepers.
We can't even with historical certainty ascertain what Jesus said, let alone what he and his buddies read.
Besides, there was no closed Jewish canon in Jesus' day. Some of the Deutorcanon was composed in Hebrew. The Qumran scrolls include some of the Deuterocanon.
Surely it is more to the point to assert that we know with historical certainty that Paul's scripture was the LXX. Further, that the scripture of the 1st century church (which was, not the NT) at least included the LXX.
[x-posted with Mama Thomas]
[ 30. July 2011, 22:16: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LostinChelsea:
I recently did a funeral for a retired college professor and chose a reading from Sirach on the nature and pursuit of Wisdom. Made for a wholly appropriate reflection.
There is a passage in the Apocrypha (I believe it's in Sirach) which begins, "Honor physicians". This has been read at the funerals of several doctors in my family.
Tobit 8:5b-8 is a suggested reading for a wedding in the 1979 TEC Prayer Book.
quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta
The Reformers' campaign to to jettison a considerable portion of the Christan scriptures can be traced to their intense prejudice against prayers for the departed. The passage which so offended their ears is found in 2 Maccabees 12: 40-46. They presumably found it easier to reject every book in the Septuagint which survived in Greek translation but not in Hebrew than to come up with a plausible reason to discard this one book.
Fragments of some apocryphal books in Hebrew have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Moo
[ 30. July 2011, 23:27: Message edited by: Moo ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Besides, there was no closed Jewish canon in Jesus' day.
There most certainly was! We aren't quite sure when the five megilloth were added, though it is almost certtain;y before Jesus's time and Esther is the only one there is any real historical doubt about so late, but the Law and the Prophets were as they are now, and had been a closed list for centuries.
quote:
Surely it is more to the point to assert that we know with historical certainty that Paul's scripture was the LXX.
But we really don't! There was no "The Septuagint" then. There were a number of different Greek versions, which settled down later. Its also very likely that copyists tended to conform NT text to the Greek they were used to.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
The Anglicans have always had readings from the deutero, even in the 1662 despite Puritan objection. Every lectionary has always had them, but lately there seems to be new acceptance of them from some quarters and new rejection from others.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
…and has always listed them not among the "Canonical BOOKS" but as "the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine…"
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its also very likely that copyists tended to conform NT text to the Greek they were used to.
I'm having a hard time with this one. What copyists? You appear to be projecting the medieval scriptorum back into the second/third century. Further, do we have any fragments of the NT that use a different version of the OT quotations than what is in, say, Codex Sinaiticus? We have some pretty old fragments. I've never heard of such a discrepancy. I don't think inventing copying modifications out of thin air really forwards the discussion.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm having a hard time with this one. What copyists?
Some of the very earliest ones, unless you think we have Paul's own writings. People who probably didn.t have the training or accuracy of those mediaeval monks - or the Jewish scribes who were doing the Hebrew scriptures. We have evidence of that in the apparent way that Mark (& to some extent Luke) seem to have been conformed to the wording of Matthew in places. Its not a huge effect but it seems to be there.
That's not the main point of course which is that Jesus and the first disciples were not among the Greek-using Jews of Egypt or parts of Syria they were synagogue-attending Aramaic speakers.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
…and has always listed them not among the "Canonical BOOKS" but as "the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine…"
Well, the ARTICLES made such a distinction, but in the text of the liturgy, viz. the Eucharist and Morning Prayer, no distinction. Tobit is listed with other verses, and the Benedicite is there along with the Benedictus. The Lectionary cites readings from the Deuteros. I think there may ha e been difference of opinion between the writers of the 39 Articles and the prayer book.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That's not the main point of course which is that Jesus and the first disciples were not among the Greek-using Jews of Egypt or parts of Syria they were synagogue-attending Aramaic speakers.
Evidence?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
The New Testament of course.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Um, ken, maybe you haven't noticed but the NT is in Greek. You're going to have to do better than that. Perhaps you mean certain verses in the NT? In which case it would be less passive-aggressive to actually name the verses you're thinking of.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
"passive aggressive"? Where did that come from?
And what exactly is it that I wrote that you disagree with? It looks pretty uncontroversial to me.
To make my point clear, Jesus and his disciples were Jews, living in Palestine, almost certainly brought up speaking Aramaic, and they studied the Scriptures in Hebrew. When in Jerusalem they attended the Temple, where worship was conducted in Hebrew. When at home in Galilee they were members of local synagogues, which were organised around the Hebrew scriptures. The canon of the Law and the Prophets was already fixed and it was the books later in the Hebrew scriptures as used by Jews to this day. The canon of the Writings was probably fixed but there is (small) room for argument about Ruth, Lamentations, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and perhaps more convincingly Esther - collectively known as the five megilloth Those books seem to have become accepted in the canon via their use in synagogue liturgy at annual festivals. If the canon in those days differed from that in the Tanakh nowadays it would have had fewer books, not more books.
That is as far as I know the standard view of the development of the canon. It would be easier to argue that Esther was not part of the holy scriptures of Jesus's time than that Tobit was.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
But Tobit of course was part of the canon for Jewish communities all over Mediterranean world, and certainly also in Palestine. From there it these books became the Christian Old Testament. Even the name Ecclesiasticus shows that it was accepted by the early Church and used a lot!
I know people today who will say these books are "inferior" to the rest of Scripture. I honestly think it is more anti-catholic prejudice than anything.
About whether they were used in Palestine, wasn't Sirach originally in Hebrew? Is there any evidence that the majority of Jews of the holy land eschewed that book at the time of Jesus Christ? We know they rejected it many decades later because Christians accepted it as canonical, as they all did for 1500 years.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Ah, ken, now you have given an argument.
My thought is that Jesus spoke with Roman soldiers and also with Pilate. I find it very hard to believe they spoke Aramaic. Very hard. Much easier to believe that a craftsman would be bilingual.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I think Ken's got a point. Although the text of the NT we have is in Greek, it strikes me as more probable that as far as the 4 gospels are concerned, they describe events that largely took place in Aramaic. It's unlikely to me, that Jesus addressed the crowds in Greek or that the arguments with the scribes and pharisees took place other than in Aramaic or possibly even in some version of Hebrew.
As for Latin, it's even more unlikely that many people in Judea were fluent in it. It's perhaps quite an interesting question whether as the Son of God, Jesus knew all languages, and could therefore speak to Romans in Latin. But I'd be surprised if any of the disciples could.
People who know more about these things than I do, are ready to point out that some of the writers of the New Testament have a better command of Greek than others.
We will all have to defer to anyone who's an expert on these things, but I can't help assuming that since everyone knew the LXX was a translation of the Hebrew original, there would have been a strong strain of thought in C1 Judaism, that if you knew Hebrew, the Hebrew text was the 'real' version, and the Greek one was derivative from it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As for Latin, it's even more unlikely that many people in Judea were fluent in it.
Did somebody mention Latin and I missed it?
quote:
We will all have to defer to anyone who's an expert on these things, but I can't help assuming that since everyone knew the LXX was a translation of the Hebrew original, there would have been a strong strain of thought in C1 Judaism, that if you knew Hebrew, the Hebrew text was the 'real' version, and the Greek one was derivative from it.
But of course we don't **have** the Hebrew text that was extant in Palestine in the First Century. We have the Masoretic Text, which is of unknown relationship to that text. We do know that it differs in some pretty big ways (in places) from the Hebrew texts found at Qumran, some of which are far closer to what we now have as the LXX than they are to what we now have as the MT. Accepting the MT as "the Bible of Jesus" requires some argumentation; after Qumran, it's no longer an easy position.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Sorry, for "easy" in that last sentence substitute "automatic."
[ 31. July 2011, 22:33: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Which ones?
The discussion has moved on since I posted this but FWIW - the one that caught my eye from memory was "Mark 9:48 - their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched cf Judith 16:17" which is a direct quote of Isaiah 66: 24.
By searching the other references most of them can be found (either exactly or the same idiom at least) in the Psalms and elsewhere.
None of this should hardly be surprising. If the Apocrypha and the NT were both written by Jews shaped by the OT we'd expect to see a lot of the same idiom. I quote everything from Shakespeare to Lady Gaga in my sermons (as MT says) no one thinks I take either as scripture. The question is how they are quoted.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
…and has always listed them not among the "Canonical BOOKS" but as "the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine…"
Well, the ARTICLES made such a distinction, but in the text of the liturgy, viz. the Eucharist and Morning Prayer, no distinction. Tobit is listed with other verses, and the Benedicite is there along with the Benedictus. The Lectionary cites readings from the Deuteros. I think there may ha e been difference of opinion between the writers of the 39 Articles and the prayer book.
And, I would argue, the use made of them is entirely consistent with the Articles - example of life and instruction of manners (perhaps a bit of a stretch for the Benedicite) - but, in an event, not to establish any doctrine.
[ 01. August 2011, 11:19: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Even the name Ecclesiasticus shows that it was accepted by the early Church and used a lot!
All depends on what you mean by "accepted." Hymnals are accepted and used a lot in churches, too. Does that make them canonical?
quote:
I know people today who will say these books are "inferior" to the rest of Scripture. I honestly think it is more anti-catholic prejudice than anything.
About whether they were used in Palestine, wasn't Sirach originally in Hebrew? Is there any evidence that the majority of Jews of the holy land eschewed that book at the time of Jesus Christ? We know they rejected it many decades later because Christians accepted it as canonical, as they all did for 1500 years.
What is your basis for saying that the Jews rejected Sirach because the Christians accepted it (especially with the witness of people like Jerome/Hierom that for some centuries there was not consensus about Christian acceptance of it as canonical)? As with your claim that Prostestant rejection of the deuterocanonical books is nothing more than anti-catholicism, you're taking things that may well be part of the historical equation and turning them into the entire answer for all time. None of it is that simple and it never has been.
You have a strong opinion about the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books that is grounded in a specific tradition of the church, and you have a strong opinion about the Scriptural poverty of rejecting the canonicity of those books. I respect your opinion without dismissing it as being based in anti-Protestant prejudice. I would appreciate it if you would respect that there are lots of us who nevertheless don't share your opinion and who have reasons other than anti-catholic prejudice for doing so.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
To make my point clear, Jesus and his disciples were Jews, living in Palestine, almost certainly brought up speaking Aramaic, and they studied the Scriptures in Hebrew. When in Jerusalem they attended the Temple, where worship was conducted in Hebrew. When at home in Galilee they were members of local synagogues, which were organised around the Hebrew scriptures. The canon of the Law and the Prophets was already fixed and it was the books later in the Hebrew scriptures as used by Jews to this day. The canon of the Writings was probably fixed but there is (small) room for argument about Ruth, Lamentations, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and perhaps more convincingly Esther - collectively known as the five megilloth Those books seem to have become accepted in the canon via their use in synagogue liturgy at annual festivals. If the canon in those days differed from that in the Tanakh nowadays it would have had fewer books, not more books.
ken, thanks for that post.
It seems that what you are saying is that it is okay for the Jewish canon to have been decided upon by Jews, but that Christians must abide by that Jewish canon, not deciding on their own canon.
However, lay aside the question of the text that was available to Jesus (as mousethief reminds us) and the question of when the Jewish canon was closed.
You have not made the case why what Jesus read ought to be determinative for the Christian canon.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
You have not made the case why what Jesus read ought to be determinative for the Christian canon.
Ken can answer for himself but FWIW here are my thoughts ...
The issue is not so much what Jesus quotes but how he quotes it. There are many occasions where Jesus cites things from outside scripture - e.g. proverbs about the weather. However, when he cites OT scripture he does so assuming it carries inherent authority.
For example, in Luke 4, he reads from Isaiah and then claims that he is the fulfilment of this scripture. The assumption is that the prophet Isaiah is speaking on God's behalf and that Jesus is the fulfilment of God's message. When in arguments with the TofL and the Pharisees Jesus frequently quotes scripture as if the words themselves carry decisive weight. When the Sadducees try to trick him on marriage Jesus rebukes them because 'they are ignorant of the scriptures' ... as if they settle the matter. Of course the scriptures are open to interpretation but the point is that they have authority.
Therefore, ISTM, it is significant that Jesus quotes from all of the Tanakh (he does not refer to every OT book but he does cover all three sections pretty well) without quoting from the Apocrypha.
Then (I'm not a great fan of proof-texting but if I'm pooling together evidence I'd include this) when Jesus sums up the OT prophets he ends well before the inter-testamental period.
e.g.
quote:
47 “Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your forefathers who killed them. 48 So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. 49 Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ 50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary.
Luke 11: 47-51
Why no reference to the Maccabees? I realise that they weren't prophets but why describe the A to Z of prophets as Abel to Zechariah?
As BroJames has said there is lots of helpful stuff in the deuterocanonical / apocrypha and Christians should be encouraged to read them but the example of Jesus points us to view them as a different category to the 'scripture' of the OT.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As BroJames has said there is lots of helpful stuff in the deuterocanonical / apocrypha and Christians should be encouraged to read them but the example of Jesus points us to view them as a different category to the 'scripture' of the OT.
The example of Jesus does no such thing. He does not say anything at all about how he views them.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The example of Jesus does no such thing. He does not say anything at all about how he views them.
This reminds me of the Reformation arguments over the Regulative Principle- is it a case of what is ruled out or what is ruled in?
When it comes to scripture if you take the 'only specifically ruled out' view then, presumably, you would also be keen on reading the Hindu Vedas (as scripture) in church?
[ 02. August 2011, 07:22: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
I'm a Prot, and my opinion is this: that the DC books being excluded from the Bibles was a matter of circumstance, practicality, and silliness.
We should swallow our pride and put them back in.
But then I have a more fluid understanding of 'inspiration' of scripture, rather than a binary one. There's a hierarchy to Scripture - some books are more important, and more inspired than others. It's how the Jews saw it too - the Torah was central, and then the prophets, then the other bits and bobs.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
When it comes to scripture if you take the 'only specifically ruled out' view then, presumably, you would also be keen on reading the Hindu Vedas (as scripture) in church?
I don't take that view. I don't appreciate your insinuation that I do.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
When it comes to scripture if you take the 'only specifically ruled out' view then, presumably, you would also be keen on reading the Hindu Vedas (as scripture) in church?
A better example might be something that like The Book of Enoch. Which isn't in any list of canonical books - except that of the Ethopian Orthodox Church. Yet is quoted in Scripture - and arguably a number of concepts which appear on the lips of biblical characters probably originate from it.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
Is the Canon of Scripture really so subjective? People are putting forward great arguments for the Deuteros and also against them, but honestly those who accept them do so on the authority of the tradition of the church, and those who reject them are also claiming the authority of their tradition. So it seems to boil down to preference. Which is perhaps unfortunate, even armed with great arguments, no one is going to convince people of the opposite belief.
Enoch, Psalm 151, and the rest, are not these written in in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
People are putting forward great arguments for the Deuteros and also against them, but honestly those who accept them do so on the authority of the tradition of the church, and those who reject them are also claiming the authority of their tradition. So it seems to boil down to preference. Which is perhaps unfortunate, even armed with great arguments, no one is going to convince people of the opposite belief.
I wonder if this shows up a sticking point. At least for my own part, I haven't been trying to convince anyone of my belief or convert anyone to my way of seeing things. (If it has seemed otherwise, I'm sorry, as that has not been my intent.) I've been trying to explain why my particular tradition takes the position on the deuteros that it does.
On something like this, I think we get nowhere fast if we try to convince others why they're wrong. I'd rather put the effort into really understanding the perspectives of others and in having them really understand my perspective. That's where common ground can be found (which includes the reality that we agree as to the canonicity of the vast majority of Scripture). And that's where common growth can happen -- which, on the Protestant side of things, can include increased appreciation for the value of the deuteros, even if their canonicity ultimately isn't affirmed.
But trying to convince others of the "wrongness" of their position on something like this only breeds defensiveness and hardening of positions.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
That's a beautiful way to put it, Nick.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
When it comes to scripture if you take the 'only specifically ruled out' view then, presumably, you would also be keen on reading the Hindu Vedas (as scripture) in church?
I don't take that view. I don't appreciate your insinuation that I do.
What NT & MT said.
I'm only insinuating something about you if you share those Reformation principles. The OP and TSA were asking how Protestants derive their position. I was just trying to answer.
(Anyone whose tradition clearly delineates the canon has an easy answer to my question.)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
We've got a book, see. And we got it from the generation before us, see. And they got it from the generation before them, see. And it goes back to the time of the Apostles, see, because at that time they had these manuscript(s) of books in Greek that were their Scriptures. So their children used them as their scriptures, and their children used them as their scriptures, and it comes down to the time of us.
How the FUCK do you think the Vedas could get in there?
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
Johnny S, it doesn't get my back up as it does mousethief's, but your post was carelessly offensive. Appealing to a Reformational Regulative Principle, or something, doesn't get you off the hook for an apology. Proposing clearly non-canonical scriptures from somebody else's religion was a stupid 'frinstance.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Proposing clearly non-canonical scriptures from somebody else's religion was a stupid 'frinstance.
But that's the point - if you have little regard for decisions made by the church in the past and instead use the teachings of Jesus as your touchstone it is an entirely reasonable question to ask. Those on the left of the Reformation (e.g. Anabaptists) have carried this through pretty much to its conclusion. Some Quakers would be happy for Hindu scriptures to be read a loud as worship in their meetings. This is not a stupid 'frinstance.
If your view of scripture is entirely an endeavour of reconstructing the world view of Jesus then (ISTM) that most people are going to end up by saying that they will only use the parts of the scriptures that Jesus quotes as scriptures - the Tanakh - i.e. they are more likely to rule out than rule in.
Again, read Nick Tamen's last post. I thought you were interested in why Protestants come up with the canon that they did? I'm not trying to persuade others who see tradition as the final say but rather explain the internal logic employed by many Protestants.
[ 04. August 2011, 01:29: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Some Quakers would be happy for Hindu scriptures to be read a loud as worship in their meetings. This is not a stupid 'frinstance.
This is errantly off point. We are discussing how the traditions derive the canon, not whether Quakers might read Hindu scriptures at a meeting.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I thought you were interested in why Protestants come up with the canon that they did?
I'm interested in civil discourse. To say to someone you know to be Orthodox quote:
When it comes to scripture if you take the 'only specifically ruled out' view then, presumably, you would also be keen on reading the Hindu Vedas (as scripture) in church?
isn't civil discourse, especially when you are called on it, you reply that, quote:
I'm only insinuating something about you if you share those Reformation principles
You could have backed away from the Vedas and disavowed the insult. But instead, you doubled down.
Let me say, again, You have not made the case why what Jesus read ought to be determinative for the Christian canon.
Your post here is no answer; it merely begs the question. In your last post you get closest to an affirmative answer that your: quote:
view of scripture is entirely an endeavour of reconstructing the world view of Jesus [only using] the parts of the scriptures that Jesus quotes as scriptures - the Tanakh
To which I ask, why Jesus and not Paul? Here I presume you mean the Masoretic Text of the Tanakh and I mean to ask why you exclude the LXX.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
Sigh. The 'you' was never meant to refer to MT - I thought that was clear from the reference to Reformation principles - the 'you' refers to someone who is using the teaching of Jesus (or the NT) to decide upon the canon. This is a real discussion that I have had within the left wing of my tradition (i.e. Anabaptists / Quakers etc.)
I thought that was clear. I used to use 'one' more commonly on the ship but it does come across as rather pretentious.
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Let me say, again, You have not made the case why what Jesus read ought to be determinative for the Christian canon. To which I ask, why Jesus and not Paul?
Baptists come from a Reformation tradition that places special emphasis on the teaching of Jesus within scripture. All the Protestant canon is seen as scripture but the teaching of Jesus is seen as the prism through which to view everything else.
We view Jesus as the second person of the trinity and Paul as just a human being. Hence, while we don't think that they particularly contradict each other, we give supreme authority to Jesus. The sense that Jesus, and he alone, is the head of the church is a significant doctrine in my tradition.
To put it rather simplistically Jesus is the high point of revelation - the OT scriptures point to him and the NT letters unpack what he did and said.
(Although, as it happens, I'm not aware of Paul quoting from the apocrypha either.)
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Here I presume you mean the Masoretic Text of the Tanakh and I mean to ask why you exclude the LXX.
Not necessarily. MT vs. LXX is another debate textually. I meant that since Jesus quotes from the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim we tend to view those three sections as the OT canon.
I think it highly likely that Jesus was aware (maybe even used) the LXX - but the fact that he doesn't quote any of the apocrypha is significant in my tradition. Because, as I keep saying, we operate on the basis of only using what Jesus ruled in rather than excluding what he ruled out. My example of the Hindu scriptures may have been rather reductio ad absurdum but it was meant to illustrate why we come to that criterion.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Sigh. The 'you' was never meant to refer to MT
For myself, thank you. Stating that clearly further upthread would have been helpful.
quote:
This is a real discussion that I have had within the left wing of my tradition (i.e. Anabaptists / Quakers etc.)
I'm probably being dense here, but what is the nub of this discussion? I'm ignorant to know you mean by left wing.
quote:
(Although, as it happens, I'm not aware of Paul quoting from the apocrypha either.)
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Here I presume you mean the Masoretic Text of the Tanakh and I mean to ask why you exclude the LXX.
Not necessarily. MT vs. LXX is another debate textually.
If I read ken correctly, he was excluding the LXX, which is the only reason I brought Paul up.
quote:
My example of the Hindu scriptures may have been rather reductio ad absurdum but it was meant to illustrate why we come to that criterion.
More like reductio ad left field. Reaching for Barnabas or Hermas would have been more helpful.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I'm probably being dense here, but what is the nub of this discussion? I'm ignorant to know you mean by left wing.
I'm using very broad-brush strokes here and therefore being probably highly reductionistic.
But FWIW on the debate over the continuity and discontinuity between the OT & NT one ( ) could draw a rough chart starting with Quakers and then Anabaptists through Baptists ... Anglicans on to the RC and Orthodox at the other end.
The left wing of that spectrum sees radical discontinuity between the testaments and as one moves towards the right one sees increasing continuity.
At the far left end one sees Jesus as basically starting over completely from the OT. Hence when considering anything to do with the OT (e.g. which laws still apply to Christians today) the criterion is very much only what Jesus specifically reiterates.
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
If I read ken correctly, he was excluding the LXX, which is the only reason I brought Paul up.
Ken can speak for himself ... and usually does.
When people talk about the LXX when debating the canon they usually mean the book of the LXX. IME most Protestants are happy to engage in the inevitable redaction criticism over the best probable translation of any given passage (and may rely on the LXX at times) but (for them) that does not mean that if they accept the text of the LXX they also have to accept its canon.
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
More like reductio ad left field. Reaching for Barnabas or Hermas would have been more helpful.
I'm ignorant to know what you mean by this left field? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
If you prefer Hermas , Barnabas or the Didache would fit. Although they were written after the NT. I deliberately picked the Hindu Vedas because they were written before the NT and therefore (at the time) analogous to the OT scriptures. (Agreeing again that it was a way out analogy yada yada...)
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
I don't understand when you talk about OT quotes from Jesus Christ. Do you mean the entire books from which the Jesus quoted, or just the quotes themselves? This would eliminate most of the Old Testament. Jesus quoted secular proverbs, so are they inspired or not?
But do we really know what Jesus actually said? I was under the impression that the four gospels each come from a certain tradition and that many of the quotes of Jesus are merely attributed to him, i.e. nothing is a verbatim transcription.
That doesn't make the unreliable as scripture however, but that the bible as we have received it is the book of the church and God still speaks through it.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
...on the debate over the continuity and discontinuity between the OT & NT...the criterion is very much only what Jesus specifically reiterates...
Thanks. It was the continuity/discontinuity bit that eluded me.
quote:
I'm ignorant to know what you mean by this left field?
"Out of left field" is Surprisingly, Out of nowhere. It's a baseball metaphor (and, surprisingly—for me—the fourth google hit). I felt obliged to add a bit of seasonal, New World colonial color to an otherwise turgid post.
Regarding Hermas , Barnabas or the Didache over the Vedas, I see wanted the antiquity in order to make your point.
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I don't understand when you talk about OT quotes from Jesus Christ. Do you mean the entire books from which the Jesus quoted, or just the quotes themselves? This would eliminate most of the Old Testament. Jesus quoted secular proverbs, so are they inspired or not?
It means the entire book is nominated as authoritative for Jesus has quoted from it, often with an introduction such as "it is written."
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
But do we really know what Jesus actually said? I was under the impression that the four gospels each come from a certain tradition and that many of the quotes of Jesus are merely attributed to him, i.e. nothing is a verbatim transcription.
I was happy to prescind from the question of what are the ipsa verba, for to ask it gashes open yet another ugly wound of suspicious contention. One can easily lay beside this question another one about the actual text that he read: It wasn't the Masoretic Text; we really don't have sure access to what it was.
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
[T]he bible as we have received it is the book of the church and God still speaks through it.
And, this is the ultimate difference between a certain scriptural canon of "66, and only 66," and the various other scriptural canons (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Syriac).
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
Of course it wasn't the Masoretic text. I thought they used it because of convenience rather than anyone thinking it is "more inspired" than any other. When did Western Christians start taking it to be "more inspired" than the Septuagint?
Is the reason why simply because some people in the Reformation era noticed it had fewer books than their Bibles? Including one that mentioned prayer for the dead? Perhaps it was mistakenly believed to be the ancient Jewish canon used by our Lord himself in the early first century I wonder?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
"Out of left field" is Surprisingly, Out of nowhere. It's a baseball metaphor (and, surprisingly—for me—the fourth google hit). I felt obliged to add a bit of seasonal, New World colonial color to an otherwise turgid post.
Apologies - my comment was a joke - it was mirroring your ignorance of the 'left wing'. I'm familiar with the expression left field.
Oh dear, I am being opaque on this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
It means the entire book is nominated as authoritative for Jesus has quoted from it, often with an introduction such as "it is written."
Agreed.
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
One can easily lay beside this question another one about the actual text that he read: It wasn't the Masoretic Text; we really don't have sure access to what it was.
Exactly. In answer to Mama Thomas the assumption is often that the MT better reflects the original Hebrew of the OT than the LXX. I'm not sure about that but I don't think relying on the Jews to best preserve the text of their scriptures is qualitatively different to the way the RC and Orthodox rely on the church to faithfully preserve the Christian tradition.
But that takes us into the territory of textual criticism where everyone starts arguing over the 'original' text.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm not sure about that but I don't think relying on the Jews to best preserve the text of their scriptures is qualitatively different to the way the RC and Orthodox rely on the church to faithfully preserve the Christian tradition.
Except we don't use their scriptures. We use ours. There is a good deal of overlap.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
In the past few years (couple of decades or more) it has been fashionable--can't see why not call it a fashion--in some liberal protestant circles of referring to the Old Testament as the "Hebrew Scriptures."
I really have never understood why though. The Old Testament is a part of the Christian scriptures. Thank you, Mousethief for saying so.
I suppose if we use the Masoretic text of the mediaeval Jewish canon, we are effectively cutting off the possiblility of using the same set of books used by the early Church as sacred scripture.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I suppose if we use the Masoretic text of the mediaeval Jewish canon, we are effectively cutting off the possiblility of using the same set of books used by the early Church as sacred scripture.
I'm not sure you've understood what has been said on this thread.
If you are going to dismiss the MT as 'mediaeval' then you must also categorise the RC and Orthodox canons as post-reformation.
[Cue outrage from the RC and Orthodox] - "... but those canons only reflect the tradition of the church dating back to the early church."
Yeah, that's the point. The argument (as far as it goes) from Protestants is that the MT better reflects the Hebrew OT that was used to translate the LXX. Whether it does or not is up for debate but (as for the RC and the Orthodox) the argument is that tradition has preserved it. (As it happens the Dead Sea scrolls have shown remarkable comparison between ca. 1st BC texts and the MT.)
Now, none of this proves that the Protestants (following the Jews) are right to make this call but my point is that both sides fall back on exactly the same basis - tradition; it is just Jewish tradition versus Christian tradition.
As it happens I think there are arguments for both sides in this debate (MT vs. LXX). However, as this thread ably demonstrates, us Protestants have the freedom to make that call. We have the freedom to assess which tradition is most likely to be accurate. Some have said that, as a result, they actually favour the LXX and its canon. This is a luxury which I can see the RC and Orthodox do not have. It has to be the LXX. End of. If future scholarly research ever came up with evidence to prefer the MT over the LXX they would have nowhere to go.
Again none of this necessarily proves anything. It just reiterates the wisdom of Nick Tamen's post. This all comes down to presuppositions.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you are going to dismiss the MT as 'mediaeval' then you must also categorise the RC and Orthodox canons as post-reformation.
Precisely
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I suppose if we use the Masoretic text of the mediaeval Jewish canon, we are effectively cutting off the possiblility of using the same set of books used by the early Church as sacred scripture.
To be honest I think that is an ahistorical myth concocted in post-Reformation times as a propaganda weapon against Protestants. And its a trick that can only be made by defining not only Jesus and the Apostles out of "the early church" but also the vast numbers of Jewish and Syrian Christians whose Scriptures were probably the Targums for the first century or more, which were later amended into the Syriac OT used now by the addition of the apocryphal books.
And the reason people have increasingly been saying "Hebrew Scriptures" is probably a desire not to seem anti-Semitic by claiming exclusive ownership of the OT.
[ 06. August 2011, 16:20: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you are going to dismiss the MT as 'mediaeval' then you must also categorise the RC and Orthodox canons as post-reformation.
Precisely
No. The MT is a text. The canons are lists. Completely unlike. Bzzzt. Fail.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
But surely, the MT is a text which reflects a canonical list (for which MT is used as shorthand in this discussion) just as the LXX is a text reflecting a canonical list (for which LXX is shorthand).
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
But surely, the MT is a text which reflects a canonical list
Yes. There were Rabbinical discussions as to which scrolls were part of the canon and which not. Mostly (but possibly not entirely) settled by the time of Jesus. Everyone accepted the Law and the Prophets and Psalms but some rabbis had different opinions on some of the Writings.
Which we find in the wonderful discussions about whether or not this book or that book makes the hands unclean which is to do with scroll-eating mice and food given to priests and weasels. Christians never seem to bring weasels into theological arguments. Except the Monophysite schism of course.
There are all sorts of
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
But surely, the MT is a text which reflects a canonical list (for which MT is used as shorthand in this discussion) just as the LXX is a text reflecting a canonical list (for which LXX is shorthand).
True. But Johnny S is playing a game wherein the canon of the OT was not made "official" until very late in the game in the East. The canon was not official, it is true. Which is what Johnny was comparing to the MT. The text of the LXX as used by the churches of the East existed all along. So if you're going to compare like to like you need to compare the MT to the text of the LXX, not to the official listing of the LXX which came much later.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
AIUI the argument is that both canonical decisions - those reflected in the MT and those in the LXX are much older than medieval. The appeal to antiquity, therefore, is of limited usefulness (and logically of small probative values for the quality of those decisions).
Actually it would be as well (IMO) to recognise that Christianity embraces (at least) two different historical decisions about the canon. These are not likely to be dislodged by argument today. It would be better to understand and respect the difference than to try and argue a case for one being better than another.
This is uncomfortable within the Anglican communion which (taken as a whole) is not sure whether it is catholic or protestant - or indeed both at the same time.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No. The MT is a text. The canons are lists. Completely unlike. Bzzzt. Fail.
I don't understand this - I'm well aware that the text and canon are different (albeit related) issues. I was responding to Mama Thomas' comments about the MT vs. LXX. If they are completely unlike then why has the issue been brought up in defence of the apocrypha?
All of this does is support this:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
AIUI the argument is that both canonical decisions - those reflected in the MT and those in the LXX are much older than medieval. The appeal to antiquity, therefore, is of limited usefulness (and logically of small probative values for the quality of those decisions).
Actually it would be as well (IMO) to recognise that Christianity embraces (at least) two different historical decisions about the canon. These are not likely to be dislodged by argument today. It would be better to understand and respect the difference than to try and argue a case for one being better than another.
Agreed, entirely.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No. The MT is a text. The canons are lists. Completely unlike. Bzzzt. Fail.
I don't understand this - I'm well aware that the text and canon are different (albeit related) issues. I was responding to Mama Thomas' comments about the MT vs. LXX. If they are completely unlike then why has the issue been brought up in defence of the apocrypha?
Huh? No, you said:
quote:
If you are going to dismiss the MT as 'mediaeval' then you must also categorise the RC and Orthodox canons as post-reformation.
Directly comparing a textual tradition with a list. I can scroll up. You were NOT comparing the MT to the LXX.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
I think Johnny S was specifically responding to Mama Thomas's "if we use the Masoretic text of the medieval Jewish canon" and intending to say that the canon represented by the MT is not a medieval canon, but is in fact an older canon than that represented by the LXX.
His use of metonymy in the first part of his statement ("If you are going to dismiss the MT as 'medieval'") and of reductio ad falsum/ridiculum ("you must also categorise the RC and Orthodox canons as post-reformation") in the second part probably made it less clear than he would have liked.
[ 09. August 2011, 05:09: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Directly comparing a textual tradition with a list. I can scroll up. You were NOT comparing the MT to the LXX.
But not far enough apparently:
quote:
Originally posted by my good self:
When people talk about the LXX when debating the canon they usually mean the book of the LXX. IME most Protestants are happy to engage in the inevitable redaction criticism over the best probable translation of any given passage (and may rely on the LXX at times) but (for them) that does not mean that if they accept the text of the LXX they also have to accept its canon.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
His use of metonymy in the first part of his statement ("If you are going to dismiss the MT as 'medieval'") and of reductio ad falsum/ridiculum ("you must also categorise the RC and Orthodox canons as post-reformation") in the second part probably made it less clear than he would have liked.
Thanks - much more gracious than my reply!?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
His use of metonymy in the first part of his statement ("If you are going to dismiss the MT as 'medieval'") and of reductio ad falsum/ridiculum ("you must also categorise the RC and Orthodox canons as post-reformation") in the second part probably made it less clear than he would have liked.
I'll say. At least, I hope he meant it to be clear.
But there is still a major thought burp in the idea that the Orthodox "canon" not being fixed until late means that the LXX is an amorphous blob with no shape until it was given shape post-reformation. Like in the RCC, canonization doesn't create, it only codifies what's already there. The Vulgate did not spring new-formed from Zeus's head at the Council of Trent, nor the LXX at the Synod of Jerusalem.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But there is still a major thought burp in the idea that the Orthodox "canon" not being fixed until late means that the LXX is an amorphous blob with no shape until it was given shape post-reformation.
I don't think Johnny intended to suggest that the LXX canon was only given shape post-reformation. What he was saying was that it is just as ridiculous to describe the MT canon as medieval as it would be to describe the LXX canon as post-reformation.
[ 09. August 2011, 06:00: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
What he was saying was that it is just as ridiculous to describe the MT canon as medieval as it would be to describe the LXX canon as post-reformation.
Exactly.
I'm not claiming perfect perspicuity here but I think it is rather telling that MT can see the fallacy when applied to the LXX but failed to notice it when Mama Thomas used exactly the same logic on the MT.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm not claiming perfect perspicuity here but I think it is rather telling that MT can see the fallacy when applied to the LXX but failed to notice it when Mama Thomas used exactly the same logic on the MT.
Or just that MT wasn't really paying close attention to MT's argument about the MT. "Rather telling" nothing about anything except about the person who uses phrases like "rather telling" to make insinuations they wouldn't put into plain text.
Posted by Bos Loquax (# 16602) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
One reader at church always says "Here ends the reading" instead of "(this is) the word of the Lord" because some priest says he told her too.
I've heard of this practice, probably first when I read a customary (that no longer appears to be online) for a seminary chapel and found that whoever wrote the customary disapproved of the distinction.
On the other hand, since I last searched some time ago, there are (slightly) more references online to making the distinction.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I don't understand when you talk about OT quotes from Jesus Christ. Do you mean the entire books from which the Jesus quoted, or just the quotes themselves?
The verses/quotes themselves are actually just a proxy for the ideas aren't they? And whilst some of these ideas are just general observations about lived reality, some clearly aren't.
So how many NT ideas seem to be traceable to extra canonical books? The view of the angelic/demonic realm (including verses like Matthew 18:10 on which a lot of pop theology is built) would seem to owe a lot to a book like Jubilees. Similarly, it appears that Paul in Corinthians accepts the Rabbinic view that the spring at Horeb rolled itself into a rock and followed the Israelites as they wandered in the desert.
Of course it's much more difficult attributing ideas than quotations on their own.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
bump
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0