|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: The Apocrypha for dummies (and/or Protestants)
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek
Historically (IIUIC) the Deuterocanonical books were originally written in Greek, so they date from a later time than the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures...
Until recently it was assumed they were all written in Greek because there were no Hebrew manuscripts. The Dead Sea Scrolls, however, have fragments of at least some of the Apocryphal books in Hebrew, which means they may have originally been written in that language.
Moo
This isn't true of ben Sira. Until the early 20th century, our earliest manuscripts were all in Greek, but the prologue states that the work is the author's grandson's translation of his grandfather's Hebrew work into Greek.
In the early C20th, 5 Hebrew mss were found in the Cairo Geniza dating from the 10th-12th century. All are incomplete; B is the most complete.
In the 60s, fragments were found in Masada dating from the early C1st BCE with much of chap.s 39-44 (in stigometric form). This shows that Geniza witnesses Hebr text; it’s not a Hebr translation of a Gk version.
We do have some fragments in the DSS (including a part of Sir 51 in a psalms scroll -- 11QPs^a), but not much.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I also think it's a bit more than a shibboleth. Not ascribing the same authority to the Church means protestants attach more authority to the Scriptures. I can hear the clattering of deceased hoofs from here, but I think it's plain that attaching more relative importance to the scriptures themselves means it's only natural that protestants are (or should) be more vigilant about what goes in them.
Indeed. Particularly because "the church (or some part of it) officially endorsed this at the council of X" does not by mere churchly authority cancel out whatever doubtful issues originally concerned us with regards to the text itself. It would be so much easier if it did ... but we don't have that "get out of doctrinal difficulties free" card to play.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I don't follow all that, lc. I almost get the impression that you are saying the Apocrypha was foisted on the faithful by ill-advised authorities. (I'm sure you weren't saying that, but that is a crude sense I got.)
The Lutheran scholar, Oskar Skarsaune in In the Shadow of the Temple suggest the opposite, that the Apocrypha was taken as part of the Bible by the mass of faithful, while the scholarly authorities, such as Jerome, realised its limitations. "We meet two effective Old Testament canons in the early church, one "folkish" including the Apocrypha, one "learned" excluding them."
I don't think Orthodox theologians would agree.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
the scholarly authorities, such as Jerome, realised its limitations. "We meet two effective Old Testament canons in the early church, one "folkish" including the Apocrypha, one "learned" excluding them."
That certainly corresponds to my speculative intuition, and provides a good argument for not providing them ex aequo in Bibles to be handed out to the masses, as is the protestant wont.
I think one really has to bear in mind the way that protestants and particularly non-conformists are liable to interact with their bibles much more spontaneously than catholics.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Surely it is better to have the complete text, and readers to use their critical faculties (or the guidance of the Spirit) to judge what is helpful?
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
That might be true in absolute terms. However, not only has protestant tradition inherited a more restricted canon than everyone else, in the absence of a magisterium it has assigned much more importance to the authority of that canon (and thus less authority to what's not in it).
I realise that for a lot of people, particularly the more erudite, it makes little difference what exactly is inside the bound covers of a Bible and that for others (e.g. IngoB) it's a source of annoyance when some bits are left out. But there needs to be a recognition that for a lot of other people, suddenly finding bits added in with no explanation might shake their faith to the roots, so it's not a decision to be taken lightly.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
But there needs to be a recognition that for a lot of other people, suddenly finding bits added in with no explanation might shake their faith to the roots, so it's not a decision to be taken lightly.
I admire your sensitivity. Personally, I expect that most folks wouldn't realize that anything had happened if you suddenly inserted a passage from Shakespeare into the scriptures.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
This thread must be affecting me subconsciously... Last night I had a dream that I was looking at a Bible in French that had its books in a really strange order - and as I examined it, I found it to contain incomplete texts for some of the books, plus additions from the Book of Mormon! Someone who didn't read French had given it to me to look over before they passed it on to someone (not unlike the OP), and I was urging them, "Please, don't give this to anyone!"
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
savedbyhim01
Apprentice
# 17035
|
Posted
I am not so familiar with it. Some parts have contradictions with the Canonical Bible from what I understand. I have heard that the idea of purgatory and other false doctrines come from the apocrypha. As for the ones you have, I would chuck them and get a Bible without it.
--------------------
Matthew 28:18-20
My Inductive Bible Study Notes
Posts: 31 | From: China | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
The doctrine of Purgatory is not specified in the Apocrypha. One incident in Maccabees mentions the custom of praying for the dead as "a holy and pious thought". I naturally prayed for the departed when I was a child and I still do so. I didn't need scripture to tell me to do what my charitable instincts and sense of the awesomeness of death prompted.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Eutychus, have you actually read any of the books of the Apocrypha? If you have and think there is a danger of confusing people, that's one thing. However, if you haven't you should try some and make sure there really is a problem.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Yes I have.
The position of many if not all protestants is that irrespective of whether they are edifying, the deuterocanonicals are not recognised as being inspired (or, to quote the (RC) Jerusalem Bible, "sacred") in the same way as the canonical books. They are not seen as having the same value or authority as the latter.
I'm not enough of a theologian or a historian to be able to have an opinion informed enough for this board, but I think it's clear that a big chunk of christendom doesn't recognise the deuterocanonicals as having the same status as the rest of the canon. In the light of this state of affairs, I think that including them in bibles, particularly ones designed to be used in an ecumenical context, without any indication at all of this is unhelpful.
The issue lurking behind this one is that of the doctrine of inspiration and/or degrees of inspiration.
Another one is what Johnny S referred to on one of the earlier threads as the Regulative Principle ie the debate about whether one should be ruling bits of scripture in or out. The thread went downhill rather sharply at that point when he suggested that some christians might be happy reading the Hindu Vedas as Scripture...
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The issue lurking behind this one is that of the doctrine of inspiration and/or degrees of inspiration.
I avoid dead horses, so I won't say much more here.
I'm sure that not only the issue of inspiration is behind much discussion here, but that of historical accuracy. Since for me the historical accuracy of Genesis 1, Ruth, Daniel or the Book of Job is the least important aspects of those texts, I can't see any problem in including Tobit or Judith. They're not vital, mind. But more edifying than much of Judges or Chronicles.
The RC Bible won't include Esdras, which is at the start of the protestant Apocrypha. I've never read it since hearing the Congregational biblical scholar, George Caird, dismiss it.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I avoid dead horses, so I won't say much more here.
For my part I already acknowledged the threat of a dead horse issue here.
quote:
I'm sure that not only the issue of inspiration is behind much discussion here, but that of historical accuracy. Since for me the historical accuracy of Genesis 1, Ruth, Daniel or the Book of Job is the least important aspects of those texts, I can't see any problem in including Tobit or Judith.
I don't see how this works.
While I understand that historical inaccuracy has been an argument in ruling out books that purport to be historical in nature, I've never heard the case made for including anything purely because it was historically accurate.
Similarly, I don't think that simply deciding a book is edifying is enough grounds for ruling it in or out.
What criteria are you suggesting for deciding if a book is canonical or not?
quote:
The RC Bible won't include Esdras, which is at the start of the protestant Apocrypha.
Apart from anything else, that points up the simple fact that there is disagreement among christians about the perimeter of the canon, including disagremeent about what should be in the deuterocanonicals.
To me, that militates in favour of acknowledging a "common core" (is there any branch of christianity that thinks parts of the protestant canon are non-canonical?*) and marking anything published in the same volume in addition to that as being different in status.
==
*Actually Pentecostal scholar Gordon Fee spends quite a bit of time arguing that 1 Cor 14:34-35 is not canonical, apparently mostly because it doesn't fit his theology, but at least he doesn't throw out the entire book...
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
While I understand that historical inaccuracy has been an argument in ruling out books that purport to be historical in nature, I've never heard the case made for including anything purely because it was historically accurate.
I’m sorry I didn’t make myself clear. I meant that the fact that a text is not literally and historically accurate is no reason why a text cannot be part of the canon. Whether or not there was a man in the city of Uz named Job or not, is irrelevant to the power of text.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:What criteria are you suggesting for deciding if a book is canonical or not?
The usual ones. The experience of the orthodox people of God in life and worship under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit endorsed by the ecumenical councils of the Church.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
the fact that a text is not literally and historically accurate is no reason why a text cannot be part of the canon. Whether or not there was a man in the city of Uz named Job or not, is irrelevant to the power of text.
I agree with that. Which I suppose is why I can engage in this debate without getting all hot under the collar about it in the way a biblical inerrantist would.
(Although as I intimated upthread, I think that decent non-inerrantists should be aware this issue could be a very real stumbling-block to the faith of many and so should not be taken lightly - which is what I think my garage bibles do).
My personal and uneducated view is that I assume the texts within the (protestant ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ) canon that present themselves as history are accurate (with variable values of "history" and "accurate"). I expect Chronicles, say, to be essentially true in a way that the appendices to Lord of the Rings aren't (I suspect this might be related to the Writing and the intentional fallacy debate currently on Page 1 of Purgatory, but the little I have read of that has made my head hurt).
quote:
quote:
What criteria are you suggesting for deciding if a book is canonical or not?
The usual ones. The experience of the orthodox people of God in life and worship under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit endorsed by the ecumenical councils of the Church.
OK. So can we have a protestant canon with the other bits included in the volume but marked distinctly with appropriate introductions?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I hope the thread doesn't get derailed.
The Lord of the Rings is an not important issue here, nor, I believe, to the whole church, since nothing in the gospels gets distorted without it.
(source).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Want to register my interest in keeping this going per Kerg. ethos - ran out of time on last weekend to post - and will have to wait for another weekend to come alive again!
One issue that could be discussed (knew that would happen) - the 'intentional fallacy' debate is an intentional fallacy; the original promoters of that debate were referring to something different to that engaged in with biblical hermeneutics (or what should be engaged in...).
Another (dang) - there was never just one 'LXX'; there were several, with refinements made in comparison with Hebrew texts. From here discussions should include the role of the Jerusalem temple complex in collecting, copying, disseminating, and teaching from, texts that commanded respect within the community.
And (blast) - much hinges on the reaction Jesus and his first disciples had to those authoritative texts among God's people at the time, those which drove understanding about God and the way he wanted his people to live.
Then (go to bed) - we might have a reason for reacting to other texts: does one cut the textual line with Jerusalem Judaism, or Alexandrian Hellenistic Judaism, or some other?
I'll come back in a few days (hopefully) if the thread is still here!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
My hope is that we can stick with the apocrypha here and keep debate on inspiration elsewhere. I'll try to think of a good OP but unfortunately my brain is also engaged elsewhere.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
On Sunday the preacher informed us that the 39 Articles forbid Anglicans from using the Apocrypha. Silly bat.
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Just to say, eutychus, you have my sympathy being treated as a book depot when you weren't expecting it.
Not fair.
Otherwise I've said all I've got to say on the subject. (Shibboleth is still the word in my mind - as much on Ingo B's views as anyone's - although on consideration I see his point.)
[ 15. May 2012, 07:45: Message edited by: venbede ]
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Yes, especially as bibles with apocryphas are bulkier and heavier ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My hope is that we can stick with the apocrypha here and keep debate on inspiration elsewhere. I'll try to think of a good OP but unfortunately my brain is also engaged elsewhere.
Quite right. Neither subject is served by the diffusion of focus.
K.A., Kerygmania host.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How is the apocrypha or deutero-canonical books or whatever you want to call them viewed in your faith tradition? Do you personally approach these bits in a different way to the canonical books?
This subject has been lying on the “Hmmm, that's interesting” spike for some time and, happily, there are plenty of routes off from there that do not go via inspiration as a topic, or at least not 'inspiration' as defined on threads elsewhere.
My personal 'faith tradition' is of those whose upbringing has been rather eclectic (i.e., those who don't have just one traditional background), having something of a close match to the experience expressed in Hebrews 1:1 “God spoke at many times and in various ways...”
One reasonably common denominator in my upbringing was that the Bible of choice consisted of two parts: the Jewish background followed by a Christian revision, and the former restricted itself to a minimalist Jewish canonical background. I gathered at the time this was called 'Protestant', though that term didn't really feature too much among Christians I was brought up with – being rather too militaristic for comfort. Later I learnt that these Jewish scriptures were written in Hebrew (the Aramaic bit was a later discovery for me) and that some Christians took their cue from Greek Scriptures instead. In those days the OT of choice was pretty simply: one either opted for the Hebrew canon or the Greek. Quite simple, really.
Then two major things happened: the post-structural debate, and the dead sea scrolls. Both these 'happened' over a period of a few decades, so it was only gradually that it dawned upon me that the glib veneer of traditional historical-critical findings matched the equally glib veneer of religious assumptions around 'canon' and that there was work to do. A lot of it.
Thus I find that research into the religion and history of that rather exciting period – c. 200 BC to AD 1500 – is more complex and at the same time more open than had been the case just a few decades ago. The post-structural (and its successor, post-modern) debate has opened the eyes of researchers to that fact that their first findings (since, say c. 1750) were woefully insubstantial and that much more evidence-based rigour was required in view of the vast field of data out there. The dead sea scroll findings added to the impetus to dig much deeper through archives and sand to throw more light on 'stuff'.
So now I find that, just as with the Hebrew scriptures, there is no single Greek version translated from the Hebrew; there were/are many; thus both sets of writing groups needed text-critical work. There may never have been just one single translated Greek version, with its additional original Greek books. The early church Fathers struggled with this issue and came to no agreed position. Ironically, we seem now to have arrived, after much work, to the same point they stood at in their day, with much the same set of questions. Happily, though, with more data to work from.
I also see that the interaction between Greek-speaking (Hellenic) Jews and Aramaic/Hebrew speaking (Palestinian – or better, Jerusalem) Jews led both to productivity and also to tensions. The authority lay apparently in Jerusalem at the Temple library, where the theologians determined which texts should be deemed authoritative and which not. The first class set of texts was copied and distributed, and any translations brought back to be revised if necessary. What Christianity seems to have inherited is the product of that tension between base and periphery, between Aramaic Jerusalem and Hellenic Alexandria (and her sister cities in the diaspora). If Christianity had remained a predominately Jerusalemic-Jewish sect for a few decades longer, it seems it would never had taken the tension over, because Judaism would have completed its project of text determination that had been underway before the time of Jesus and a Hebrew/Aramaic bible would be the 'given'. The fact that Christianity seems to have flourished among Greek-speaking (Hellenistic) Jews, first in Palestine and then further afield, meant that a Greek translation was needed. Versions abounded.
All this interests me, because I find myself asking questions on the back of this, such as: Do I take my lead from the likely scripture-set available to Jesus and his primary followers / hearers? If I do, then I am likely – on historical grounds (backed up by inferences from the record of Jesus in the NT) to restrict myself to the smaller Jewish canon. If not, should I opt for the larger set of texts available to Greek-speaking believers – and if so, which one?
The easiest answer for me would be to restrict myself to the smaller set if only because that has definition above the text-critical level and gives me more time to get my head round it all! In any event, the larger set of texts do throw some additional light on concerns at the time of writing and so at least do have historical value. They bring out the role of faith in particular circumstances and could thus be regarded as being of use and profit to the faithful (as the 1973 Interorthodox Commission put it – somewhat similar to Luther's 'useful and good to read' conclusion). Perhaps these additional writings form part of the “God spoke at many times and in various ways...” set.
I assume they will be disseminated from the garage pallet at many times and in various ways, too.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Thank you for that summary, some of which I even understood ![[Biased]](wink.gif) and particularly for throwing light on how the debate between the two (at least) traditions has been made more complex by recent critical approaches and other discoveries.
For me at least, it gives me some sort of sensible rationale for the smaller canon that is familiar to me, even if this can be debated.
Hebrews 1:1 has been in my mind in this debate too - and following it, I have long made a point of not referring to the Bible (of any size) as "the Word od God": God's ultimate Word is his Son.
For the pallet Bibles, as I mentioned, yes I am giving them out. I have to confess that I have slanted their distribution to inmates I think more likely not to notice the difference, though.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Thanks for the great link, Tom. Have to say that my opinion of Augustine has lowered somewhat (conversely, muchos respect to Jerome).
Oh, Jerome is much better than Augustine on anything to do with language, translation, critical reading, or the canon of Scripture. In fact he's better than all the well-known ancient Fathers on those things, except maybe Origen, who was An Heretick and so doesn't count.
Augustine is better on everything else though ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I expect Chronicles, say, to be essentially true in a way that the appendices to Lord of the Rings aren't
Samuel and Kings, cos they are Former Prophets. Chronicles is mere Writings ;-)
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Until recently it was assumed they were all written in Greek because there were no Hebrew manuscripts.
IIRC Sirach was always supposed to be a translation of a Hebrew original.
The books are not non-canonoical because they are in Greek (so is the entire NT) they are in Greek because they are non-canonical - they were not preserved in the synagogues, so the Hebrew, if it existed, was lost.
quote:
Originally posted by savedbyhim01:
I have heard that the idea of purgatory and other false doctrines come from the apocrypha.
And the notion that angels and little puppy dogs like each other. We wouldn't know that if it wasn't for the apocrypha.
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
All this interests me, because I find myself asking questions on the back of this, such as: Do I take my lead from the likely scripture-set available to Jesus and his primary followers / hearers? If I do, then I am likely – on historical grounds (backed up by inferences from the record of Jesus in the NT) to restrict myself to the smaller Jewish canon. If not, should I opt for the larger set of texts available to Greek-speaking believers – and if so, which one?
I think this is the nub of it. As Christians, we follow Jesus. Jesus and the first apostles were Aramaic-speaking, Temple-worshipping, Syngagogue-member Jews, mostly if not all identified with the Pharisees rather than the Saducees, part of the same religious movement that also became Rabbinical Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem. (Contemporary Orthodox Judaism is not an ancestor religion of Christianity, they are sister religions, both descended from Secondf Temple Judaism). When the New Testament describes conflict between "Hebrews" and "Hellenists", whether among Christians or among non-Christian Jews, it is obvious that Jesus and the first disciples fall on the Hebrew side. One of the main themes of the New Testament is how the apostles were persuaded to take the word of God first to Jerusalem, then to Judea, then to the Hellenist Jews, then to the Gentiles. But the origin of Christianity is in the Aramaic/Hebrew Judaism of Palestine and Syria, that is where Jesus was born and that is who he was.
It is overwhelmingly more likely that the Scriptures Jesus used were Hebrew, not Greek. It is very probable that the texts he was familiar with in the synagogues were very similar to, and maybe almost identical to, the later Masoretic texts.
The canon of scripture would almost certainly have been the same as the one we have now for the OT, and if it was different it would be because it lacked Esther (and some might still have rejected the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes). The canon would not be a list published by some council or the Temple, it would be visible in every synagogue because it would be a collection of real scrolls, kept in a special place, apart from all other books or writings, and treated with special reverence. Literally holy writings.
There were also many different Greek translations available at the time, differing widely from each other as well as from the Hebrew, and, unlike the Hebrew scrolls, there would have been no single collection of books exactly corresponding to what we think of as the Septuagint, because such scrolls or books would not have been kept in the synagogues. Those who owned and used them would each have their own collection.
If we are to use the Scriptures that Jesus used, the nearest we can now get to them are Hebrew texts preserved by the Jews.
There's a sort of theological point too. Jesus is the Word of God incarnate, given to us through the peopel of Israel. God's chosen people, formed by divinely guided history into the people that God himself chose to be born as one of. In a sort of paralel, the words of God, spoken through the prophets, aslo come down to us through Israel, and through the historical processes that formed the Jewish people of Jesus's time. They were and are, literally, the divinely appointed guardians of the written Law and the Prophets and the other writings, just as they are the divienly appointed community into which God himself chose to be born.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I expect Chronicles, say, to be essentially true in a way that the appendices to Lord of the Rings aren't
Samuel and Kings, cos they are Former Prophets. Chronicles is mere Writings ;-)
I don't really understand how your answer connects to my statement. What I was trying to say is that even if Chronicles is not as accurate as Kings or indeed in a different class of literature, I don't take it as a contrived list of fictitious characters like the LoTR appendices or assorted railway histories thereof .
Besides, it being less accessible than LoTR is not enough of a reason for chucking it out of the canon - which is what leo seemed to be intimating upthread.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think one really has to bear in mind the way that protestants and particularly non-conformists are liable to interact with their bibles much more spontaneously than catholics.
They do, in fact, interact with their bibles much more casually. I try not to hold it against them. The reformation battle cry of "every man a biblical scholar" (or whatever the exact words are) has led to disarray on a grand scale. I can't see any cause for praising it. In practice it makes every [wo]man an ecumenical council, and the natural result of smorgasbording the central principles of the faith is plainly evident.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
To me, that militates in favour of acknowledging a "common core" (is there any branch of christianity that thinks parts of the protestant canon are non-canonical?*) and marking anything published in the same volume in addition to that as being different in status.
This rather smacks of "Let's compromise and do it my way." You are basically saying, your group disagrees with my church on the perimeter of Scripture (nice phrase by the way), therefore we should differentiate between what you call a "common core" (which basically means the subset of the whole that you lot decided to accept) and what we call "the stuff you guys didn't throw out." I'm gabberflasted by this attitude.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The reformation battle cry of "every man a biblical scholar" (or whatever the exact words are) has led to disarray on a grand scale
Whether it has led to more or less disarray than other methods, is however, well beyond the scope of this thread.
Either way, I doubt if either of us are in a position to change the fact that protestants (and others) tend to approach Scripture more directly than those of other traditions, and I suspect that the ever-increasing availability of the printed word is pushing that trend.
My reason for pointing this out here is not that it's inherently superior, but that to my mind it provides grounds for exercising more caution about what goes in that perimeter than might be self-evident to those used to Scripture being mediated in some way.
quote:
This rather smacks of "Let's compromise and do it my way."
Do you have a better compromise suggestion? Note that IngoB at least is happy with mine, and that in practice I have been handing out my garage Bibles, indistinguishable deuterocanonicals or not.
quote:
You are basically saying [...] we should differentiate between what you call a "common core" (which basically means the subset of the whole that you lot decided to accept)
You must have missed the part where I asked quote:
is there any branch of christianity that thinks parts of the protestant canon are non-canonical?
Which is to say that if I'm mistaken in that, then that's not a good basis for a common core. Am I mistaken? And if not, why not recognise it for the common ground it is?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You must have missed the part where I asked quote:
is there any branch of christianity that thinks parts of the protestant canon are non-canonical?
Which is to say that if I'm mistaken in that, then that's not a good basis for a common core. Am I mistaken? And if not, why not recognise it for the common ground it is?
Indeed, why not delete the New Testament, and leave ourselves with the common core of Judeo-Christian scriptures?
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Indeed, why not delete the New Testament, and leave ourselves with the common core of Judeo-Christian scriptures?
Because that is not an option which christianity has inherited?
I'm trying to be practical here. Christians are carting Bibles around which turn out not all to have the same content in terms of books. Is there a constructive way of addressing this that enables us to express our common faith better than we do at present?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
You are basically saying [...] we should differentiate between what you call a "common core" (which basically means the subset of the whole that you lot decided to accept)
You must have missed the part where I asked quote:
is there any branch of christianity that thinks parts of the protestant canon are non-canonical?
That is implicit in what I said -- the common core is what's left after you guys trashed the canon. That quite clearly implies you didn't add anything.
Which is rather like coming home to find your roommate had thrown out a tenth of your clothes, and their saying, "Well at least I didn't buy you any new ones."
quote:
Which is to say that if I'm mistaken in that, then that's not a good basis for a common core. Am I mistaken? And if not, why not recognise it for the common ground it is?
Oh I have no problem saying, "We both have in common the bits you didn't throw overboard" (although our use of them, and interpretation of them, are poles apart). I'm just not sure (a) that this is the place to start in our scripturology (is there a word for that?), or (b) that that should be enshrined between the covers of Holy Writ as The Way The Bible Is. Inside those covers should be Scripture, not post-biblical politics.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
the common core is what's left after you guys trashed the canon.
What I love about this is your ecumenical, eirenic style ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) So much in the spirit of BroJames' hope for a way to quote:
understand and respect the difference [rather] than to try and argue a case for one being better than another
Such a compelling advert for your side of the street...
quote:
That quite clearly implies you didn't add anything.
Just to ensure there's no attacking the person going on here, merely attacking the issue, might I rephrase that in my attempt to clarify by removing the "you", thus:
Are you claiming protestants added to the canon of Scripture as it was immediately prior to the Reformation? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:
Oh I have no problem saying, "We both have in common the bits you didn't throw overboard"
Thank you. That's good to know.
quote:
(although our use of them, and interpretation of them, are poles apart).
I'd be delighted if you were to expand on this - on the Understanding the inspiration of Scripture thread.
quote:
Inside those covers should be Scripture, not post-biblical politics.
Where do you think the one ends and the other begins, and why?
And why do you think whatever it is the Orthodox have between those covers (and I'm sorry, I'm not entirely clear even now what Russian Orthodox have in there, perhaps my stay in an Orthodox monastery in a few weeks' time will enlighten me) is Scripture, nothing more nothing less? I'm not trying to pick a fight or be proselytised, I'm trying to understand.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Is there anything unique to the Apocrypha which is significant in the development of the Creeds?
I write as someone who personally has no difficulty in accepting the long tradition that the Apocrypha had significance and value for the worship and teaching of the church. I'm reasonably familiar with the Apocrypha.
But, off the top of my head, I can't think of a Creedal statement which owes its inclusion solely to Apocryphal texts.
Perhaps it's also worth adding that I'm quite happy to look at arguments from the viewpoint that Tradition contains the scriptures, rather than the viewpoint that scripture should control the Tradition.
It's really a question of the extent to which the Apocrypha have great significance for the doctrines of the church, and in particular the Creedal statements (over which there was such great debate during the Ecumenical Councils).
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Just to ensure there's no attacking the person going on here, merely attacking the issue, might I rephrase that in my attempt to clarify by removing the "you"...
That's a good thing to clarify. And a good word to remove, IMO.
[ 26. May 2012, 03:22: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Are you claiming protestants added to the canon of Scripture as it was immediately prior to the Reformation?
In the clear light of day I now realise mousethief was not claiming this, rather he was re-emphasising that in his view protestants didn't add anything. At least I think that's what he's saying.
To further clarify, what I am trying to ascertain here is whether any major branch of christianity rejects any part of the current protestant canon of 66 books (and not, at this point, whether this should be viewed as an "inferior" canon. Of course those with a larger canon are going to see it that way!).
I know some books were disputed by Luther, and ken in his excellent post explains which OT books or parts of books might not have been in "the OT Jesus read", but as of today is there anybody out there with a Bible that doesn't have those 66 books in? I thought I read somewhere on one of these threads that some Orthodox had their doubts about Revelation, which is why I was seeking clarification from mousethief.
[ 26. May 2012, 06:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Fair enough, but I also think it is fair to point out that phrasing things in "you statements" tends to put people on the defensive. I respect your efforts to avoid that reaction, Eutychus.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Thanks. I was originally reacting to the phrase "trashed the canon", which I still think is inflammatory. I was half way through composing a much more incensed post on the back of that plus the "you" later on when I realised that the "you" might not have been intended personally, so I pulled back a bit and wrote what I wrote.
The issue of whether protestants added Scripture was a separate, additional misunderstanding which I think I've clarified above.
I am still, however, genuinely interested in the other on-topic questions I've raised in those posts.
Normal service may now (hopefully) be resumed.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
There is an excellent overview chart about the different canons in use here. Note that it is interactive, you will get some additional information by hovering over letters in the boxes.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Thanks IngoB, I'll have to study that.
I'm just back from my week in an Orthodox monastery in Romania (which was hosting a not specifically Orthodox conference, although we did have a session explaining icons to us...) during which I cornered a long-suffering English-speaking Orthodox priest.
His take on the canon was as follows:
The Orthodox prioritise the Scriptures in line with their place in the liturgy and what tradition told them about where, physically, the different books were kept in the church. Within this scope he said, for instance, that Revelation was a little lower down the list than the epistles and that in the NT, the Gospels not unsurprisingly took top slot.
On the OT deuterocanonicals, without setting down a list, he took the view that unlike what IngoB has been saying here about the Catholic position, the Orthodox do not see them as having equivalent value to the earlier books.
When quizzed about his own Bibles, he said that his Bible of choice at home was a protestant one, mainly because he liked the translation (he also agreed with my suggestion that what is actually between the covers is a bigger deal for protestants than those with a stronger tradition of intermediaries).
Finally, I also investigated the Bibles on sale in the monastery bookshop. These turned out to have the Deuterocanonicals - in a separate section.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Do you recall what the translation was, or who the publisher?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Interesting, Eutychus. This accords pretty well with what I found when I attended an Orthodox study weekend in Manchester led by Bishop Kallistos Ware a few years ago. They didn't appear to have any problem whatsoever with Protestant Bibles - and several converts still used the NIV without the sky falling in or anyone taking them outside and bashing them over the head with it ...
The view of the Apocrypha was also as you describe from your Romanian monastic experience.
All that said, there were clear differences and my rather Protestant questions were quite bluntly rebuffed once or twice, but not in a way that could cause offence.
It was all very ... well Orthodox though ... as one would expect ...
Intriguingly, I also attended an RC Lenten Bible Study group once and found the way that they handled scripture to be much less eisegetic than I'd seen in our own Anglican parish with its charismatic wannabe pretensions ...
But that's another story ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Do you recall what the translation was, or who the publisher?
I can probably find out as far as the priest I spoke to goes, but the answer will be a Dutch one, because he was from Holland.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Eutychus, I remember squiggle Andrew (font of wisdom on orthodoxy!) saying a similar thing about the Orthodox view of scripture. That, although there is the binary concept of canon, there definitely is a hierarchy to scripture, with the gospels taking centre stage. That kind of fits into the Jewish view too, surely, with the Torah, then the Prophets, then the rest.
Oh, and thanks for the fantastic link, Ingo. It got me thinking, we seem to conflate "what's in the bible?" with "what's in the canon?", but it seems to me that they are two different questions. Because although there have always been different viewpoints on the canonicity of the DC's, up until recently they've always been included in Bibles whatever.
So surely, for the honest Protestant, the answer to 'how many books are in the canon' is 66, but the answer to 'how many books are in the bible' should be 79. Yes, I know that in practice most of our prot bibles only have 66, but we also have many NT&psalms editions, but that doesn't mean that we'd answer '28'.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Eutychus, I remember squiggle Andrew (font of wisdom on orthodoxy!) saying a similar thing about the Orthodox view of scripture. That, although there is the binary concept of canon, there definitely is a hierarchy to scripture, with the gospels taking centre stage.
This is definitely true. Only the gospel book sits on the altar. Only deacons and priests can read from the gospel book during Divine Liturgy, unlike the Epistles which in many jurisdictions can be read by lay readers.
As far as I can tell the Scriptures can be divided into these chunks:
NT:
Gospels
Acts*
Epistles
(Revelation)**
OT:
Psalms
Other OT***
--------
*The Acts are in the Epistle book, but have pride of place. On Pascha night, for instance, it is the Acts that are read in vigil. (Similarly: at the vigil before a funeral and burial, it is the Psalms that are read over the body through the night as it lies in the church. At our church people sign up to take a "shift.")
**This is not part of the regular rotation of readings for parish worship. I'm told the lectionary was formalized before the canon, and we only accepted Rev'n as a quid pro quo to get the Latins to accept Hebrews. Almost certainly apocryphal, but hey, that's the story I heard.
***I'm not sure if the Pentateuch has a special place apart. The OT is somewhat downplayed in parish worship. If anything, based on our worship, I'd say the book of Daniel has a pretty exalted place in the OT.
-------------
Be all that as it may, the huge rock stars of Orthodox worship are the Gospels and the Psalms. Taken together I believe they make up the plurality of the words in the Sunday Divine Liturgy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Thanks, that correlates nicely with what the priest I talked to said.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Just a little sidebar that Martin Luther did not leave the Apocrypha out of his Bible translation; he just put them in their own subcategory as "good and useful reading." Redactors at the more radical end of the Reformation were the ones who actually created the Apocrypha-less Bibles most contemporary Protestants are used to seeing.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
