|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 39 articles question
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Kerygmania seems the closest to the right place for this question. If not, I'm confident it will be moved to the right board. I was reading the 39 articles of the Church of England (oh, sure, your life is so much more interesting...) and the sixth article introduces the apocryphal books this way: "And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not apply to them to establish any doctrine: such are these following..."
What caught my eye was the parenthetical expression. My questions are two-fold. First, is Heirome Jerome, as in the translator of the Vulgate, and second, what is the source of this supposed quote? TIA
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Yes, Blessed Jerome is meant. It's quite possible that this opinion is taken from some letters between him and Blessed Augustine. I think it's debatable whether his opinion of the deuterocanonicals matches that of the Protestants.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
If I recall correctly from previous discussions of this sort, no one could come up with an obvious quote from Jerome that would obviously be the "as Jerome says", though certainly his translation of the Hebrew OT did result in some extra books he'd already translated from the LXX which he partially relegates in importance.
More interestingly about the 39 Articles is that it list the books of the OT and Apocrypha (albeit bundling the prophets as four greater and 12 lesser). But, it doesn't bother listing the books of the NT, simply leaving it "as they are commonly received". Well, I find it interesting anyway.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, Blessed Jerome is meant. It's quite possible that this opinion is taken from some letters between him and Blessed Augustine. I think it's debatable whether his opinion of the deuterocanonicals matches that of the Protestants.
Of all Protestants you would be correct, of some Protestants particularly those who read the Reformers you would be wrong. For instance you cannot read Calvin's Institutes and not be aware how much he engages with the Church fathers. I expect the Reformers in the English Church were no less engaged with them.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
It would appear his views on the subject were nuanced (or inconsistent) enough for scholars to spill some ink over them.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Something remarkably like the statement in the sixth article appears in Jerome's Prologue to the Books of Solomon quote:
Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls [Jesus son of Sirach, The Wisdom of Solomon] for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Yes, Blessed Jerome is meant. It's quite possible that this opinion is taken from some letters between him and Blessed Augustine. I think it's debatable whether his opinion of the deuterocanonicals matches that of the Protestants.
I thought the CofE was catholic? Not Roman Catholic, of course, but catholic.
Did we suddenly become Protestant when I wasn't looking? Who says so?
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Protestant AND Catholic, in my humble O. But many here disagree with me.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I believe the CofE's standard formulation is "both Catholic and Reformed".
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Knopwood and BroJames, your links were very helpful. Thanks much. The discussion as a whole has been most enlightening. Thanks to all.
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
I thought the CofE was catholic? Not Roman Catholic, of course, but catholic.
Did we suddenly become Protestant when I wasn't looking? Who says so?
The Roman Catholic Church says that Anglicans are Protestant.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Yes but the only ones who say Anglicans are Catholic are Anglicans. Go figure.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
No one else cares!
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Well obviously they do it the Roman Catholic Church bothers about the Anglican being Protestant.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
Hosting
OK, enough. Whether the Church of England is Protestant, Catholic, or whatever, is not a topic for Kerygmania. Please take it elsewhere.
Mamacita, Keryg Host
Hosting Off
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
The BCP lectionary includes readings from the Apocrypha. So does the CW one, but when it does, it offers one from somewhere else as an alternative. The BCP includes a Canticle from it, and CW includes some more.
Personally, I've come over the years to deprecate the practice of selling Bibles without the Apocryphal books. I particularly disapprove of the fact that there are some widely used versions of the Bible that have never translated them at all. You'd think from the way some people speak of them, that they are subversive, even dangerous in some way. Have they ever read Ecclesiasticus, say, or Wisdom?
The Apocryphal books may not be as authoritative, but they are a great deal more edifying than a lot of other material we are exhorted to read. Furthermore, the small difference in price between versions 'with' and 'without', makes those 'with' very good value for money.
It seems, though, quite difficult to find any worthwhile commentaries on them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Well, for a start they're not "apocrypha".
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
As a matter of curiosity, whatever one chooses to call these books, does any shipmate know why some translations of the Bible neglect to translate them? The AV does. The RSV and NRSV do. The NEB and the REB do. The ESV does, but I think the full version may only be available in Britain. The Good News Bible does. As far as I know none of the various versions of the NIV do.I don't think the Message does.
It can't be something to do with being more Puritan than other people because the Geneva Bible included these books.
So why?
[ 27. April 2015, 22:25: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
There does seem to be a tendency among (some) evangelicals to dismiss the deuterocanonical books - the odd occasion I've had to discuss it was with reference to Ecclesiasticus, and the inclusion of the phrase "let us sing the praise of famous men", which the person I was speaking to objected to. I got the impression that they'd been fed this phrase as a nugget of information by which to dismiss the book and had not read it themselves. NIV's evangelical leanings would seem to bear out this connection.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Although the bookshelves of evangelicals are usually straining under the weight of biographies of inspirational Christians, singing the praises of famous men. Which makes that verse an odd one on which to base a rejection of the deuterocanonical books.
Usually IME the argument is more along the lines of the important thing about the Bible is that it's our source for sound doctrine, and guide for our lives. Then out comes a phrase like that of the 39 articles of them being edifying but not useful for the formulation of doctrine. In which case, why go to the trouble of making them widely available?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Usually IME the argument is more along the lines of the important thing about the Bible is that it's our source for sound doctrine, and guide for our lives. Then out comes a phrase like that of the 39 articles of them being edifying but not useful for the formulation of doctrine. In which case, why go to the trouble of making them widely available?
Because people need edification?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I agree with Moo.
Besides, the are plenty of works one hears widely recommended that aren't impeccable on sound doctrine. And where in the deuterocanonical books are the alleged unsound doctrines? How unsound are they supposed to be? As Alan has said, praising the repute of our fathers that begat us and other respected men of the past is hardly heresy.
Can anyone answer my question about why some translations don't bother to translate these books at all?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Because people need edification?
Of course they do. But, does that mean they need to have a set of ancient writings translated into the style of their favourite Bible translation and available in a single volume with the Bible? There are already plenty of stories in the Bible. If more are needed wouldn't stories of people in more contemporary situations be more relevant, and hence more effective? And, if someone really felt they needed to read the deutero-canonicals for their edification there are several translations available.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
And where in the deuterocanonical books are the alleged unsound doctrines? How unsound are they supposed to be?
I can't find the passage offhand, but somewhere in Maccabees 1 or 2, it tells of the Jews praying and/or making sacrifices to atone for the dead who had sinned.
For those who think it's wrong to pray for the dead, this is a no no.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are already plenty of stories in the Bible. If more are needed wouldn't stories of people in more contemporary situations be more relevant, and hence more effective?
There are passages in the deuterocanonicals which give nice succinct statements of how life should be lived. Here is a passage from Tobit 8:5-8 quote:
Tobias began by saying,
‘Blessed are you, O God of our ancestors,
and blessed is your name in all generations for ever.
Let the heavens and the whole creation bless you for ever.
You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve
as a helper and support.
From the two of them the human race has sprung.
You said, “It is not good that the man should be alone;
let us make a helper for him like himself.”
I now am taking this kinswoman of mine,
not because of lust,
but with sincerity.
Grant that she and I may find mercy
and that we may grow old together.’
And they both said, ‘Amen, Amen.’
If it were not in the Apocrypha, I would probably never have come across this.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
I would just add that there is a lot of non-canonical gnostic crap that is being read nowadays. Certainly, the deuterocanonicals are worth reading before we descend to that level...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
There are passages in the deuterocanonicals which give nice succinct statements of how life should be lived.
There are also good statements of how we should live in the writings of the Church Fathers, assorted Medieval saints and monastics, Reformers and counter-Reformers, and so on. That's a reason to put them in a recommended reading list. Surely there has to be a better reason than that to include the deutero-canonicals within the same volume as the Bible.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
There are passages in the deuterocanonicals which give nice succinct statements of how life should be lived.
There are also good statements of how we should live in the writings of the Church Fathers, assorted Medieval saints and monastics, Reformers and counter-Reformers, and so on. That's a reason to put them in a recommended reading list. Surely there has to be a better reason than that to include the deutero-canonicals within the same volume as the Bible.
The deuterocanonicals were accepted by most Christians, give or take a few minor variations in their number in different local Churches, for the last two thousand years. That should be enough to at least take notice of them. I suspect it also has much to do with Septuagint v Masoretic.
[ 29. April 2015, 16:00: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I think that is correct. What has historically made the deuterocanonical books deutero is that they only exist in Greek, not Hebrew. Some are thought never to have existed in Hebrew, to have been written in Greek by Hellenistic Jews of the inter-testamentary period. I believe though that most of the Hebrew original of Ecclesiasticus has now been found/reassembled.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
AIUI fragments of some of the deuterocanonical books have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The deuterocanonicals were accepted by most Christians, give or take a few minor variations in their number in different local Churches, for the last two thousand years. That should be enough to at least take notice of them.
Actually, I agree. But, I might not be the most representative evangelical. On the question of why evangelicals aren't particularly interested in getting the NIV translators to work on the deutero-canonicals, an appeal to (non-evangelical) tradition isn't going to have much in the way of legs.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda in the South Bay
Apprentice
# 18185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, Blessed Jerome is meant. It's quite possible that this opinion is taken from some letters between him and Blessed Augustine. I think it's debatable whether his opinion of the deuterocanonicals matches that of the Protestants.
Of all Protestants you would be correct, of some Protestants particularly those who read the Reformers you would be wrong. For instance you cannot read Calvin's Institutes and not be aware how much he engages with the Church fathers. I expect the Reformers in the English Church were no less engaged with them.
Jengie
Do hard core Protestants (I guess typically of th e Reformed/Calvinist persuasion, since that's the norm for Anglican Evangelicals) quote *any* Father other than Augustine? Or least to the same frequency as Augustine is quoted? He's like the one person Reformed Protestants can always quote and agree with their doctrine.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
On the question of why evangelicals aren't particularly interested in getting the NIV translators to work on the deutero-canonicals, an appeal to (non-evangelical) tradition isn't going to have much in the way of legs.
ISTM that this understates the evangelical response by half. The translators of the NET Bible also translated the Apocrypha, which is available online. They were going to release a hardcopy version that would include the Apocrypha, but AIUI, the strong anti-Catholic strain within their constituency scuttled the project. Perhaps that problem does not exist among UK evangelicals, but it is a sorry stain on those in the US.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
... The translators of the NET Bible also translated the Apocrypha, which is available online. ...
I think they only translated Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Azariah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh and Psalm 151. That isn't anything like complete and is rather an odd selection.
[ 30. April 2015, 12:05: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
My understanding was that it was a work in progress. They announced their intention to publish it when completed, and all Hell broke loose among their supporters, which resulted in their stopping the project and only posting the part that they had completed online. I do not have any first-hand knowledge of the group and their deliberations, so it is possible that I am being unfair. But that is my understanding of events. FWIW
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I would also be interested in an NRSV-ised translation of some of the important early Christian documents, that almost made it into the New Testament. I have a copy of the Penguin version of the Early Christian writings, which I have owned since I was at university. It would be interesting to see if a "modern" translation made any significant differences to these writings, which I continue to find interesting and helpful (The letters of Ignatius of Antioch, the Didache, the Martyrdom of Polycarp etc).
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda in the South Bay:
Do hard core Protestants (I guess typically of th e Reformed/Calvinist persuasion, since that's the norm for Anglican Evangelicals) quote *any* Father other than Augustine? Or least to the same frequency as Augustine is quoted? He's like the one person Reformed Protestants can always quote and agree with their doctrine.
Right from my standard text copy of John Calvin's Institutes which has an Author and Source index lists the following :
- Anselm
- Ambrose
- Pseudo-Ambrose
- Athanasius
- Basil of Cesearea
- Bernard of Clairvaux
- John Cassian
- John Chrysostom
- Clement of Alexandria
- Clement of Rome
- Cyprian
- Cyril of Alexandria
- Cyril of Jerusalem
- On through D to Z
The problem with Augustine is that it is a mark of the times not of the Reformers. All theologians in the late Medieval period had a tendency to reference Augustine to settle debates.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I think that is correct. What has historically made the deuterocanonical books deutero is that they only exist in Greek, not Hebrew. Some are thought never to have existed in Hebrew, to have been written in Greek by Hellenistic Jews of the inter-testamentary period. I believe though that most of the Hebrew original of Ecclesiasticus has now been found/reassembled.
It's begging the question to call the period inter-testamentary when some of us very much believe the Old Testament was still being written!
Moo is right: almost the entirety of Sirach (in Hebrew) has been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is more than you can say for many books of the Hebrew Bible.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I get the impression that those who reject the deuterocanonicals regard the Masoretic as more authentic, which means rejecting the deuterocanonicals because, apparently, the first century Jews rejected them. Of course I would argue against that, that even if first century Jews rejected them what is more important is that the early Church didn't, the Septuagint being the authoritative text.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda in the South Bay
Apprentice
# 18185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I get the impression that those who reject the deuterocanonicals regard the Masoretic as more authentic, which means rejecting the deuterocanonicals because, apparently, the first century Jews rejected them. Of course I would argue against that, that even if first century Jews rejected them what is more important is that the early Church didn't, the Septuagint being the authoritative text.
Well, *Palestinian* First Century Jews rejected it, not so much Greek speaking Jews in the diaspora. It just so happened the descendants of those Palestinians created the normative Judaism of the 16th century.
[ 04. May 2015, 11:31: Message edited by: Amanda in the South Bay ]
Posts: 26 | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda in the South Bay:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I get the impression that those who reject the deuterocanonicals regard the Masoretic as more authentic, which means rejecting the deuterocanonicals because, apparently, the first century Jews rejected them. Of course I would argue against that, that even if first century Jews rejected them what is more important is that the early Church didn't, the Septuagint being the authoritative text.
Well, *Palestinian* First Century Jews rejected it, not so much Greek speaking Jews in the diaspora. It just so happened the descendants of those Palestinians created the normative Judaism of the 16th century.
And presumably the normative Judaism of a certain Rabbi from Nazareth?
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
And presumably the normative Judaism of a certain Rabbi from Nazareth?
Given the existence of more than one form of Judaism in Palestine at the time (at least 2, 3 if you count Samaritanism are attested in the Gospels) at least one of which had a different view of the canon of scripture I don't think we can presume that at all.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
The Gospel evidence seems to suggest that Jesus didn't view Samarian Judaism as normative.
Are you making the Pharisees and the Saducees your 2 forms?
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
The Gospel evidence seems to suggest that Jesus didn't view Samarian Judaism as normative.
Are you making the Pharisees and the Saducees your 2 forms?
I don't think we can so easily dismiss Samaritan Judaism as "non-normative". And in addition to the Pharisees and Sadducees, we should not forget the Essenes, who had their own collection of scriptures. So that's at least 4 versions of Judaism in the 1st Century.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And there are Herodians to fit in there somewhere.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I'd love to be able to delve deeper into this area - it's an interesting question, that of a possible Palestinian (for want of a better word) canon, or agreed set of texts, that Jesus and his followers might have drawn on. Time may be against this, but I thought I would throw out a theory and then see if it can be substantiated. So...
* Jerusalem was a centre of Jewish studies by the time of Jesus (in fact, had always been so when Jerusalem was the administrative centre for Judaism)
* More specifically, the temple had become the focal point for establishing normative Jewish theology
* The scribes and priests were responsible for collating teaching, including accepted Jewish texts, for discussing these texts as a route for establishing answers to life-questions (political and religious)
* These authorities were suspicions of any text that came from outside Judea - including the Samaritan and Greek texts
* Jesus was trained in the Jerusalem-temple ways of studying
* Jesus was familiar with the Hebrew-Jewish texts
* In particular, Jesus was familiar with a collection that matched that of the Jewish bible, bounded by Genesis and 2 Chronicles
Not sure whether that collection was a 'canon' by that stage in the sense we think of it today, but Jesus' teaching was based on an understanding of God's message in that collection.
OK - so that's the theory... Off to work!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
* Jesus was trained in the Jerusalem-temple ways of studying
OK, here's some questions on that point (mainly because I couldn't really pick any holes in the others). By "trained in" do you consider that Jesus had received formal rabbinic instruction? Or are you willing to go for a less formal approach?
Certainly, Jesus would have grown up exposed mostly to the teaching in the local synagogue. Would a synagogue in Galilee have been close enough to Jerusalem to be dominated by teaching and study methodology from the Temple? Or, would it be far enough away that other styles would have been common? The influence of the synagogue would have been His earliest introduction to the Scriptures and their study. It may have been His only significant influence.
If there were other influences, what is your opinion of suggestions that He spent time with the Essenes? And, if so, is there anything to indicate a substantive difference in the Scriptures and their study between the Essenes (or any other group operating outside the Temple) and the Temple system?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Weren't the Galilee Jews considered almost semi-pagan by the Jerusalem Jews on account of Galilee being heavily Hellenised? If that's true then it's quite conceivable that he was familiar with Greek and maybe even the Septuagint.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
* Jesus was trained in the Jerusalem-temple ways of studying
OK, here's some questions on that point (mainly because I couldn't really pick any holes in the others). By "trained in" do you consider that Jesus had received formal rabbinic instruction? Or are you willing to go for a less formal approach?
Certainly, Jesus would have grown up exposed mostly to the teaching in the local synagogue. Would a synagogue in Galilee have been close enough to Jerusalem to be dominated by teaching and study methodology from the Temple? Or, would it be far enough away that other styles would have been common? The influence of the synagogue would have been His earliest introduction to the Scriptures and their study. It may have been His only significant influence.
If there were other influences, what is your opinion of suggestions that He spent time with the Essenes? And, if so, is there anything to indicate a substantive difference in the Scriptures and their study between the Essenes (or any other group operating outside the Temple) and the Temple system?
Good points.
I think it extremely unlikely that John the Baptist was not influenced in some way by the Essenes. And in turn, Jesus seems to have drawn upon John's teachings, even if he didn't have any contact with the Essenes himself (although I personally think that we know so little about the life of Jesus before his baptism that we cannot rule this out).
I also think that places like Galilee were far enough away from Jerusalem that there would have been a diversity in (unofficial) practices and scriptures.
(Adding a tangent... Does anyone have a suggestion why there is no mention of the Essenes in the New Testament? They seem to have been an influential grouping at the time and John's teachings were certainly closely aligned with theirs. And yet there is no mention. Is it because, by the time the NT books were written, the Essenes had ceased to exist and so had become irrelevant?)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
