Ship of Fools: Scripture/s

Thread: Scripture/s 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=028403

Posted by Motylos (# 18216) on :

The New Testament uses the term Hai Graphai (‘Άι Γραφαι) — ‘The Writings’; literally ‘the letters’ — to mean Scripture. In the original it is plural — Scriptures, as it were — and is assumed to mean the Old Testament scrolls: Jesus’ ‘the Law and the Prophets’. But equally — for example in the (‘Letter’ to the) Hebrews and the Letter of James — extra-biblical material is quoted, such as Enoch.

What are ‘The Scriptures’ for us? Christians include Tanakh within the Bible as the Old Testament. Muslims adopt and adapt the biblical record (Kitab) into the Qu‘ran. We have the extra-biblical books known as the Nag Hammadi Library, probably buried after Athanasius’ push for canonical works, and there are the Didakhe — perhaps a one-to-one teaching manual for a non-Pauline Christian community — and Hermas, now non-canonical NT works while the later (spurious) ‘2 Peter’ and the very late Revelation are included.

There are also other scriptures — far older and contemporary — to the biblical record: the Vedas and Avesta, for example. Is God revealed in these? If so, how do we use them?

Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch, we know that the inherited Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Tanakh is not only highly redacted but also specifically biased.

Should we be more open in our approach to Scripture as ‘The Scriptures’?
[Angel]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Motylos:

Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch, we know that the inherited Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Tanakh is not only highly redacted but also specifically biased.

Do we? I had the impression that the Dead Sea Scrolls tended to support the Masoretic Text over the Septuagint, but I could be wrong.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Motylos:
Should we be more open in our approach to Scripture as ‘The Scriptures’?

Definitely. "The Bible" isn't a book, it's a library of works by a few dozen very different authors operating over a span of about a thousand years. To believe that the author of Joshua was trying to convey the same general message as the author of Jonah is a mistake.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Motylos: Is God revealed in these?

To me, God is revealed in just about anything. More especially in the Bible of course, I'm a Christian after all. But that doesn't mean we can't learn anything from the other scriptures.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

The canon of Scripture is what our ancestors in the faith agreed to use. It's not meant to say God isn't revealed in anything else.

ETA:

Also, a "canon" is a "rule," so the canon of Scripture allows us to test what is revealed about God in other writings, in the world, in our experience, etc. Thankfully, it's diverse enough to make that process challenging and interesting. And, whether we admit it or not, I think many if not most of us actually believe that some parts of our Scriptures don't hold to the standard of the canon as a whole.

[ 15. October 2014, 13:28: Message edited by: churchgeek ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I believe that there is a lot of wisdom in 'other' scriptures such as the vedas and the upanishads but I also accept that the canon, as defined by the Church, is what we should stick to as far as preaching is concerned.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

This is a good thread, and I think it might get more responses in Kerygmania, so if those of you who are interested will please follow it there.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

Posted by Motylos (# 18216) on :

quote:
Do we? I had the impression that the Dead Sea Scrolls tended to support the Masoretic Text over the Septuagint, but I could be wrong.

Among the Dead Sea Scrolls there is Psalm 151, which is also in the LXX/Septuagint but not in the MT. Also some of the scrolls of the Pentateuch follow the Samaritan rather than the MT version.
[Smile]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Also, a "canon" is a "rule," so the canon of Scripture allows us to test what is revealed about God in other writings, in the world, in our experience, etc.

I wish I had more tie to contribute to this thread right now as I have just had a couple of days' training on the canon.

One thing I did learn was that the "rule" connection refers not to what one can measure by the canon but that the books in the canon were those held to comply with the "rule" (measure) of acceptability - not the other way round.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Motylos:

quote:
Do we? I had the impression that the Dead Sea Scrolls tended to support the Masoretic Text over the Septuagint, but I could be wrong.
Among the Dead Sea Scrolls there is Psalm 151, which is also in the LXX/Septuagint but not in the MT. Also some of the scrolls of the Pentateuch follow the Samaritan rather than the MT version.

My understanding is that the majority of the texts are consonant with the MT, but a substantial minority are in line with LXX and a small percent are Samaritan or other. Apparently, most of the texts that are not MT were found in a single cave. Some scholars have postulated that this may have been a place where "trafe" literature was stored, but AFAIK this suggestion is only that.

Given that we really don't know how heretical the group that collected the scrolls were seen as being by the rest of Judaism, even that suggestion wouldn't shed much light on how LXX was seen by mainstream Judaism. And the routine quoting of LXX throughout the NT seems to carry more weight on its importance among early Christian Jews anyway. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Motylos (# 18216) on :

The Samaritan ‘overlap’ would necessarily be more limited as they preserved only the Law-Torah-Pentateuch as part of their sacred works (there is a Book of Joshua, but nothing to do with the biblical book).

It is interesting but also frustrating that the focus of the discussion thus far is only about Scripture not Scriptures. Is this because of our (Christian and Christian--influenced) culture and a lack of knowledge and/or experience of other scriptures (Scripture?)?

I recently read the Hymns of Zarathrustra and looked into Zoroastrianism, and I am reading the Mahābhārata (albeit in a simplified form). These books have led to me asking the question that led to starting this thread.
[Help]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Almost by definition, Christians will hold the Christian scriptures in higher regard than scriptures from other religions.

There is, of course, plenty of discussion within the Christian traditions about our own scriptures. Ranging from "Only the Bible, in the King James Version" being of any value, through acceptance of the value of other early Jewish/Christian writings (deutero-canonical works, other letters from early church leaders, Didache etc) or later Christian writings (Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, CS Lewis etc) that may, or may not, approach canonical status in some cases - I know of places where sections of the Westminster Confession is read every Sunday in the same way as sections of the Bible are.

I suppose it's only natural when there is plenty of scope for discussion of the status and value of scriptures from within the Christian tradition that scriptures from other traditions get put in second place. From one end of the perspective where later Christian writings only have value in helping us to understand and apply Biblical texts then any writing that does not set out to do that (which includes a lot of stuff written by Christians, of course) has no value in guiding our Christian development. From other perspectives where other scriptures have value in their own right, rather than simply having value in illuminating the Bible, then the range of what is of value and benefit becomes larger. Certainly in that situation writings from other faith traditions my be useful in understanding God as perceived by others.

Which is a rather long-winded way of saying I've not really thought much about other faith traditions and how they might inform my Christian faith. There's more than enough within the Christian tradition to keep me occupied. Although, currently living in a Shinto/Buddhist culture I'm likely to become more informed about some of those traditions.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0