Thread: 39 articles question 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=029319
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :
 
It would appear his views on the subject were nuanced (or inconsistent) enough for scholars to spill some ink over them.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
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.

 
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Protestant AND Catholic, in my humble O. But many here disagree with me.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I believe the CofE's standard formulation is "both Catholic and Reformed".
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
Knopwood and BroJames, your links were very helpful. Thanks much. The discussion as a whole has been most enlightening. Thanks to all.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
The Roman Catholic Church says that Anglicans are Protestant.
Well, they would, wouldn't they?
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Yes but the only ones who say Anglicans are Catholic are Anglicans. Go figure.

Jengie
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
No one else cares!
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Well obviously they do it the Roman Catholic Church bothers about the Anglican being Protestant.

Jengie
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
Well, for a start they're not "apocrypha".
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
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
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
AIUI fragments of some of the deuterocanonical books have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Moo
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Amanda in the South Bay (# 18185) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
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 :


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
 
Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Amanda in the South Bay (# 18185) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
And there are Herodians to fit in there somewhere.
 
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
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?)
 
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :
 
I should readily admit here that I don't think there is anywhere near universal agreement on a dating for the Jewish canon and that I am picking up on hints here and there, rather than anything substantial. So perhaps 'hypothesis' is a better word to use than 'theory'. It's also why 'canon' is a term better avoided when it comes to discussing the state at the time of Jesus; hence the idea instead of a collection of accepted texts that had gained currency, if not yet formally slapped into bookends.

Still...

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
By "trained in" do you consider that Jesus had received formal rabbinic instruction? Or are you willing to go for a less formal approach?
A few hints that caught my attention here.

[1] Luke's reference to Jesus as being presented to God and as growing in stature and wisdom. Being the first born, Jesus was dedicated to – set apart for – God's service. That on its own might not say much, but it could suggest he was being primed for real practical service in the temple complex
[2] Jesus hit the ground with his feet running when his public mission began. He knew what he wanted to say and had his message / theology already worked out. Now he could have received divine inspiration at his baptism, or he could have studied on his own while he grew up, but again this could suggest he had had a formal training period at the hands of teachers
[3] Jesus engaged with the Jewish authorities on their own terms; he understood their debating techniques. This suggests he had spent some time listening to debates and even taking part in them
[4] Jesus being addressed as 'Rabbi'. This formal title is an indication that he had earned his stripes somewhere before beginning his mission.
[5] John the Baptist's reply to the Jerusalem authorities when they asked him who he was (John 1:19-27), when he said “One among you...”, which implies that Jesus was one of the questioners who had come down with the Pharisees from Jerusalem

Individually each of these could be explained differently, but together they suggest to me at any rate that we could be looking at a Jesus who had received formal training in Jerusalem at the hands of Rabbis.

In respect of the Galilee location, I wouldn't be surprised if synagogues had quite a bit in common with Jerusalem. The priests who were not doing their turn of duty at the Temple would have served locally, so there was a link between the two. I would think also that there was a perceived need in Jerusalem to ensure consistency across the nation. Control of the copying and dissemination of Hebrew texts would assist with this.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
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?
Jesus' teachings do seem to be at odds with what is known about Essene practices and beliefs. If Josephus is right about them, I doubt they would have approved of Jesus' treatment of Sabbath or the purity laws. Additionally, although I know there is a debate around whether the sectarian texts from the Dead Sea scrolls came from the Essenes, if they did, then those texts' antipathy towards the Jerusalem temple inhabitants would have put them at odds with Jesus if he had trained there.

The lack of a mention of the Essenes in the NT (noted by Oscar the Grouch above) would, I think, be further evidence of a disparity between Jesus' teaching and theirs. Jesus' mission was much more outward looking and non-partisan (of sorts!) compared to the Essene beliefs.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
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.
I'd draw a distinction between the Galileans who were Hellenised, and those who stuck to their ancestral beliefs - despite what was going on around them. The latter would more likely be synagogue members and exposed to traditional Jewish teachings.

The status of the Septuagint (LXX) is an interesting topic. There is evidence that the Jerusalem authorities were not best disposed to the Greek texts. They were suspicious of the translation activity. Hebrew was more likely to be the language of the synagogue readings even if attenders were able to converse in Greek.

Incidentally I agree that Jesus and his followers were most likely polyglots: Hebrew for formal talk, Aramaic for the mother tongue, and Greek for the lingua franca. However I am not so sure that the LXX was in common currency among Jesus' followers. The NT passages that quote in Greek a text from the Jewish scriptures are notable in that not many actually agree word for word with the versions we have of the LXX. More likely, I think, the NT writers just translated as they went along without need to refer to the LXX.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0