|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Books Removed from the Bible 1684
|
John D. Ward
Shipmate
# 1378
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Right, let's take a look at Augustine of Hippo since that's come up...
Well he's one of the ones that was very specific about what he said for the Old Testament, listing 44 books (numbering is mine to keep up, but he does at the end say 44 and it matches what I can get out of the text:
1-5 Pentateuch
6 Joshua
7 Ruth
Does Augustine's canon exclude the Book of Judges?
Posts: 208 | From: Swansea, Wales, U.K. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Nope, because if you look carefully, I got so excited by the 4 books of Kings that I assigned them 5 numbers... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
This is somewhat tangential.
My Bible study group is reading the Apocrypha, and we've gotten to the Prayer of Manasseh. My favorite Bible translation is the New Jerusalem, which is an RC translation. This means that some books of the Apocrypha are incorporated into such canonical books as Daniel.
Unfortunately, I can't find the Prayer of Manasseh. Does anyone know where it is in the RC scriptures?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
According to wikipedia, the Vulgate has it at the end of 2 Chronicles.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The New Jerusalem Bible doesn't have The Prayer of Manasseh at the end of Chronicles, I checked. From the same Wikipedia article I got the impression that it was not part of the RC canon, so not in the NJB.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I'm fairly sure you're right in thinking Four Books of Kings correspond to 1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings. I haven't checked, but I seem to remember the headnotes to the books in old Bibles describing 1&2 Samuel as 'also known as 1&2 Kings' and then 1&2 Kings having 'also known as 3&4 Kings'.
It rather looks as though in the 100+ years between the 39 Articles and the Westminster Confession, the Apocryphal Books seem to have gone steadily down the theological social scale, or is it that the proddier you get, the further below the salt they go, with the CofE putting them more or less where the salt is, and the Presbyterians very definitely putting them further down the table?
I would always, if I could, buy a Bible which includes them. Whatever you think of their status, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom and 1 Maccabees alone are well worth the difference in price, and the whole is much, much better than a lot of the Christian literature we get exhorted to read. I also really enjoy Tobit.
It annoys me a lot that there are at least two widely used translations that have never bothered to translate them at all.
Incidentally, I have quite a strong feeling the Geneva Bible did originally include them, but am not sure where that impression comes from. If so, it will be those successors to that tradition who don't like those books who have dropped them from modern reproductions.
The JB always has them. The AV, NRSV, and REB are all available with them if you choose to buy that edition, the NRSV including additional books that are not in the western canon+. Back in the day, the RSV and NEB were also available with them. It is possible in the UK to get an ESV with them, but I think that's not available in North America. I have, which might be quite unusual, a Good News Bible with them in. It includes little line drawings in the same style as the more familiar version. There's a nice little one of Tobias grabbing the fish, with his dog watching. There isn't one of Judith actually chopping off Holofernes's head. She's shown creeping up on his bed, with a prayer for courage for what she's about to have to do.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, I have quite a strong feeling the Geneva Bible did originally include them, but am not sure where that impression comes from.
It did. It also had cross-references from the NT to the Apocryphal books.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
I have a recollection reading John Bunyan's Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, and I think in there he cites a verse from Ecclesiasticus that had a profound effect and impact on his condition. So I don't think it is necessarily A Protestant thing.
Didn't Steve Tonkins of this parish once publish an article in which he described how the Bible Society thought it would be cheaper just not to have them in the early 19th century, And this led to a presumption about their status in Protestant circles?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Back in the day, the RSV and NEB were also available with them. It is possible in the UK to get an ESV with them, but I think that's not available in North America.
I think the difference here is that in the case of the REB/NSRV the translation of the Apocrypha was planned ahead of time. Whereas the ESV PTB being more fundamentalist than thou belatedly realised that a Apocrypha would be useful in having themselves taken more seriously. AFAICT it's now available in North America also via an imprint of Collins.
quote:
I have, which might be quite unusual, a Good News Bible with them in. It includes little line drawings in the same style as the more familiar version. There's a nice little one of Tobias grabbing the fish, with his dog watching. There isn't one of Judith actually chopping off Holofernes's head. She's shown creeping up on his bed, with a prayer for courage for what she's about to have to do.
By some strange coincidence, I ended up with this Bible as a child - and spent a few happy hours reading Tobit, Judith, Susannah and Bel and the Dragon, all of which were considerably more racy than the bible stories in Sunday School. It does now occur to me to wonder who this edition was aimed at though.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
The peculiar ones, to my mind, are what the AV calls 1 and 2 Esdras, which were not considered canonical in the West before the Reformation AFAIK, but which were nevertheless apparently considered important enough by the translators to merit them a place alongside Maccabees and the others.
(To add to the confusion, I understand that 1 and 2 Esdras in the Vulgate refer to Ezra and Nehemiah respectively, and if you are referring to the AV 1 Esdras in Latin, you have to call it 3 Esdras. Whereas in the Septuagint, the AV 1 Esdras is called Esdras Alpha, and Ezra and Nehemiah are a single book called Esdras Beta.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The RSV was issued in a "Catholic Version" in which the deuts are included in their wonted places within the books they were found in in the LXX, rather than in a lump after the Hebrew OT, excised from context.
--------------------
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 Enoch:
I have, which might be quite unusual, a Good News Bible with them in. It includes little line drawings in the same style as the more familiar version.
The recent ecumenical prison chaplaincy Bible I mentioned earlier is the French Parole de Vie version, which is an excellent, very recent, "basic French" yet accurate translation (it's all in the present tense, which really makes the text jump out at you) - complete with those illustrations by Swiss artist Annie Vallotton.
So if anyone else wants access to the Deuterocanonical Vallotton drawings, simply get imprisoned in France ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Eutychus, thanks for that.
Meanwhile, a thought has occurred to me overnight. Might there be a trail that leads from the Westminster Confession approach to the deuterocanonical books,
'these are the REAL scriptures, and those are, well, just books',
to some of the rather rigid and doctrinaire takes on the nature of scriptural authority, the way it works and a rather narrow approach to the way we should engage with scripture that one can encounter in some fundamentalist groups?
Might a historical and ongoing tacit acceptance that some bits of scripture might be more authoritative than others make it easier also for people to accept that different bits of scripture work in different ways?
As an example, I once encountered what sounds like a daft question - except with that background it isn't.
quote:
Ps 119;105 (AV - after all, these people tend to be KJV only)
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Is that one light or two? i.e. As a matter of doctrine, does that mean 'thy word' is one light or two? And if it's two, presumably, what are they?
That isn't, by the way, the message that the word can light both the ground just in front of us, and further along the path. That's a valid snippet for a sermon that I suspect was a midrash well before even the time of Jesus.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The New Jerusalem Bible doesn't have The Prayer of Manasseh at the end of Chronicles, I checked. From the same Wikipedia article I got the impression that it was not part of the RC canon, so not in the NJB.
Right I checked, you might like to read this answer.
We seem to have a hierarchy among Apocryphal texts and that hierarchy depends on known historical validity.
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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Ps 119;105 (AV - after all, these people tend to be KJV only)
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Is that one light or two? i.e. As a matter of doctrine, does that mean 'thy word' is one light or two? And if it's two, presumably, what are they?
The Psalms are Hebrew poetry, and one characteristic of Hebrew poetry is paraphrase. e.g.: Psalm 102:1 quote:
Hear my prayer, Lord; let my cry come unto thee.
C. S. Lewis pointed out that this characteristic makes it much easier to translate the psalms into other languages. If rhyme had been an important part of Hebrew poetry, they would not translate so easily.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As an example, I once encountered what sounds like a daft question - except with that background it isn't.
quote:
Ps 119;105 (AV - after all, these people tend to be KJV only)
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Is that one light or two? i.e. As a matter of doctrine, does that mean 'thy word' is one light or two? And if it's two, presumably, what are they?
No, it's a daft question, for the reason Moo gives. It betrays a shocking lack of knowledge of Hebrew poetry for a preacher preaching on Hebrew poetry.
___
(ETA one word)
[ 31. May 2017, 12:51: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Of course it's a daft question. My point is that if you choose to have a very narrow and grammatical understanding of how scripture is authoritative, you take on scripture causes it to cease to be a daft question.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Of course it's a daft question. My point is that if you choose to have a very narrow and grammatical understanding of how scripture is authoritative, you take on scripture causes it to cease to be a daft question.
But the people who consciously follow the WCF are largely happy with the idea of genre. This even applies to the conservatives who came up with things like the Chicago Statement.
It's how the non-confessionals evangelicals who adopt an approach with similar characteristics who are more likely to adopt that kind of approach.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Of course it's a daft question. My point is that if you choose to have a very narrow and grammatical understanding of how scripture is authoritative, you take on scripture causes it to cease to be a daft question.
I'd say that makes it a reductio ad absurdum for that understanding.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Moo
quote:
...paraphrase...
I think you meant 'Parallelism'??
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
