homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » The Apocrypha - what's the deal? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The Apocrypha - what's the deal?
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

Tangent: number of books in the Bible. Presumably there's a difference between RC bibles - where the additions to Esther and Daniel are included in the original book - and the Authorized Version, where they form four different books in the Apocrypha.

Well, the Apocrypha as defined in the 39 Articles and published in the AV and NRSV includes books not considered (deutero)canonical by the Roman Catholic Church or included in Bibles bearing its imprimatur. So the categories don't overlap perfectly, and the numbers would be different.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533

 - Posted      Profile for Pancho   Author's homepage   Email Pancho   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Douay Rheims Bible was first published between 1582 and 1610 so its language is authentically Elizabethan and Jacobean.

--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"

Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The NJB lists 46 (43*) OT books (cf 39 in my RSV), 27 NT - so 73 (70*) in all. It includes:
  • Susanna and Bel and the Dragon in Daniel
  • Tobit and Maccabees 1 and 2 are in the Deuteronomic histories,
  • Wisdom and Sirach at the end of the Wisdom books and
  • Baruch is found in the Prophets between Lamentations and Ezekiel.

* The NJB lists the Books of Chronicles, Samuel and Kings, rather than Chronicles 1 and 2, Samuel 1 and 2 and Kings 1 and 2 (so counting the list of books gives 70).

Aren't there Orthodox Bibles that include a few more books?

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Aren't there Orthodox Bibles that include a few more books?

There is a handy table on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Old_Testament

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And a prettier, but less exhaustive one here.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you goperryrev and chris stiles, but I was aware of the Wikipedia list at least. What I was wondering was which editions of Bibles include which books, having compared the RSV against the NJB. I did own a NRSV with Apocrypha as a central section between the Old and New Testaments, but I gave it to someone attending some training I suggested would help her and struggling with the cost.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669

 - Posted      Profile for venbede   Email venbede   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've been reading the Common Bible - RSV from 70s with Orthodox and Catholic approval.

I'll type out the relevant bit. The Greek and Slavonic Bibles are slightly different and the Vulgate has an Appendix.

1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh seem to be in the King James Apocrypha but not in the Vulgate. 2 and 3 Maccabees vary too.

(I've read 1 Maccabees today so I'm having a break here.)

--------------------
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
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Thank you goperryrev and chris stiles, but I was aware of the Wikipedia list at least. What I was wondering was which editions of Bibles include which books, having compared the RSV against the NJB. I did own a NRSV with Apocrypha as a central section between the Old and New Testaments, but I gave it to someone attending some training I suggested would help her and struggling with the cost.

My NRSV sorts the Apocrypha into four categories:

*(a) Books and Additions to Esther and Daniel that are in the Roman Catholic, Greek, and Slavonic Bibles [all of the Deuterocanonical books recognizes by Rome]

*(b) Books in the Greek and Slavonic Bibles; not in the Roman Catholic Canon
[I Esdras, which is II Esdras to the Slavs; the Prayer of Manasseh (both from the Appendix to the Vulgate); Ps 151; and III Maccabees]

*(c) In the Slavonic Bible and in the Latin Vulgate Appendix [includes only 2 Esdras aka 3 Esdras (in Slavonic) aka 4 Esdras (in the Latin Vulgate, where Ezra-Nehemiah = I & II Esdras]

*(d) In an Appendix to the Greek Bible [includes only IV Maccabees]

[ 14. August 2015, 19:10: Message edited by: Knopwood ]

Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669

 - Posted      Profile for venbede   Email venbede   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That is precisely what I've got in The Common Bible and was going to write out.

The interesting thing is that the Vulgate doesn't include 1 & 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh other than in an appendix and they are in the Apocrypha of the Authorized Version (or King James, if you are American.)

--------------------
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
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, the Apocrypha of the AV is not coextensive with the RC Deuterocanon.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Part of the problem is that LXX is not a single ancient manuscript with precisely-defined contents. Different chunks of LXX MSS have different books.

It is also my understanding that when Jerome (or Paula under Jerome's supervision) was translating the Vulgate, he wanted to leave the deuts out entirely but was overruled by the higher-ups. Nevertheless he (or she) didn't translate them, so the translation of the deuts in the Vulgate is actually the older Latin translation, the one the Vulgate was meant to supersede.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Aren't there Orthodox Bibles that include a few more books?

There is a handy table on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Old_Testament

That's really very interesting, there seem to be a few odd additions that are very specific for particular churches.

I think most of us would be quite surprised to find the Book of Enoch or the Ascension of Isaiah turning up on a Sunday morning (although it's also worringly possible that nobody would notice [Ultra confused] )

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669

 - Posted      Profile for venbede   Email venbede   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
2 Esdras does turn up in the C of E lectionary when All Saints Day is celebrated on a weekday in addition to the Sunday. I was present when Archbishop George Carey preached on such an occasion, remarking that 2 Esdras described liturgical splendour as would be the envy of the vicar of All Saints.

2 Esdras isn't in the RC Bible, as far as I can make out.

--------------------
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
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I for one think that everybody but the Protestants (who are simply hopeless in that regard) should sit together in a big council and hammer out a final consensus canon of the bible. In one sense the biggest change would be for the RCC, who is the current "minimalist" (but for the hopeless Protestants). In another sense it might be easiest for the RCC, since she will only need to add, but would not need to remove anything. But I do think that it is a necessity for the RCC to update her OT canon to a "full Septuagint" of some description, ideally using that occasion for a truly ecumenical agreement with in particular the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. The current RC canon is inconsistent as a halfway house, and the Protestant "Masoretic only" half thereof makes no historical or theological sense whatsoever. I have no doubts that in this particular case RCs should mostly learn from their Eastern brethren.

--------------------
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
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Thank you goperryrev and chris stiles, but I was aware of the Wikipedia list at least. What I was wondering was which editions of Bibles include which books, having compared the RSV against the NJB. I did own a NRSV with Apocrypha as a central section between the Old and New Testaments, but I gave it to someone attending some training I suggested would help her and struggling with the cost.

I think in general the NRSV translation is the most complete in terms of 'standard' English translations - and it is possible to buy the Apocryha (both with and without annotations) as a volume on its own. It will - of course - be missing books like Enoch and Jubilees.

If you are looking for something more exhaustive there's a two volume work of pseudopigrapha edited by James Charlesworth

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I for one think that everybody but the Protestants (who are simply hopeless in that regard) should sit together in a big council and hammer out a final consensus canon of the bible. In one sense the biggest change would be for the RCC, who is the current "minimalist" (but for the hopeless Protestants). In another sense it might be easiest for the RCC, since she will only need to add, but would not need to remove anything. But I do think that it is a necessity for the RCC to update her OT canon to a "full Septuagint" of some description, ideally using that occasion for a truly ecumenical agreement with in particular the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. The current RC canon is inconsistent as a halfway house, and the Protestant "Masoretic only" half thereof makes no historical or theological sense whatsoever. I have no doubts that in this particular case RCs should mostly learn from their Eastern brethren.

Concerning the Protestants, I agree. There is no reason why East and West should necessarily agree. There are differences between Churches in the East also. All it points to is that any canon of a product of local custom and that they more-or-less agree shows that it is the work of the Holy Spirit.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The ongoing Bible study group at our local Methodist church is deciding which books of the Apocrypha we want to study this year. I've been looking at various editions and translations, and for our uses I have been quite impressed with this ESV edition. The ESV translation reads considerably more naturally than some of the translations that I have examined, and the notes are geared toward the kinds of questions a Protestant might have when reading the text. FWIW

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025

 - Posted      Profile for Helen-Eva   Email Helen-Eva   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Everything was so simple when I thought there was only one version of what books go in the Bible... [Hot and Hormonal]

--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.

Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
The ongoing Bible study group at our local Methodist church is deciding which books of the Apocrypha we want to study this year. I've been looking at various editions and translations, and for our uses I have been quite impressed with this ESV edition. The ESV translation reads considerably more naturally than some of the translations that I have examined, and the notes are geared toward the kinds of questions a Protestant might have when reading the text.

If you simply want to have a cheap but decent version of the ESV with Apocrypha, OUP publishes a reasonable hardcover version for (at the time of writing) US$19.

--------------------
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
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you simply want to have a cheap but decent version of the ESV with Apocrypha, OUP publishes a reasonable hardcover version for (at the time of writing) US$19.

Good to know. Thanks for the lead.

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I for one think that everybody but the Protestants (who are simply hopeless in that regard) should sit together in a big council and hammer out a final consensus canon of the bible.

Hopeless in what regard? On having a common mind of what constitutes the canon of Scripture? Because I don't know of any variation on that within the different Protestant groups - although I admit we can sometimes be woefully inadequate in actually reading and expounding all of the canon with (say) an overemphasis on the Epistles compared to the minor Prophets.

Or simply in regard to engaging in big ecumenical councils? In which case the obvious question would be when was the last time the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches got together for an ecumenical council of any significance?

Yours etc,
Alan
Hopeless Protestant

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If there's going to be a more authoritative text for the Apocrypha, there is an issue that needs to be addressed which wasn't around before. Until recently, there was only the LXX Greek version of Ecclesiasticus, which the grandson of Ben Sirach the original writer translated from Hebrew into Greek. Over the course of the last century or so, quite a lot of the original Hebrew text has turned up in various places.

The question is, what therefore do we now regard as the authentic text? Ad Orientem would, I suspect, simply say the Greek one as received. It isn't, though, quite as simple as that. The Greek version quite openly starts with an apology that this is only a translation and an imperfect one at that.

With the New Testament, virtually everyone except the KJV only people recognise that one should try to translate from the most reliable of the ancient manuscripts. With Ecclesiasticus, now we have access to what Ben Sirach's grandson translated from, which is the most reliable source? What intellectual tools does the collective wisdom of the church use to decide that?

Incidentally
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
... The only bad thing in the deuts, IMO, is Sirach. What an interminable load of unreadable twaddle.

Never heard therm called 'the deuts' before. Come what may, though, I could not disagree more. If one were forced to choose between Proverbs or Ecclesiasticus, Proverbs is the better book. Nevertheless, Ecclesiasticus is a lot more readable, and I suspect edifying, than quite a lot of Ezekiel, yet alone some of the more minor prophets.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
With the New Testament, virtually everyone except the KJV only people recognise that one should try to translate from the most reliable of the ancient manuscripts. With Ecclesiasticus, now we have access to what Ben Sirach's grandson translated from, which is the most reliable source?

Do we know that THIS Hebrew MS is the one BenBenBen Sirach translated from? Some of the Hebrew MSS found in Qumran have significant differences from the MT, at least in some places. Perhaps this is another such MS, in at least that it is different from the MS that the LXX Sirach was translated from.

It's quite a leap from "this is a Hebrew text of Sirach, and Sirach was translated from a Hebrew text" to "this is the Hebrew text that Sirach was translated from." Do we know that? How?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If Wikipedia be believed, the Qumran MSS are among a handful of Hebrew copies of parts of Ecclus, and broadly agree with the others.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Hopeless in what regard?

In tying their fortunes exclusively to the Masoretic scripture, over and against the clearly much wider traditional Christian usage, including that of Christ Himself (or at least of the evangelists compiling the NT). It is unclear just what scripture exactly was used by our Lord, the apostles, the evangelists and the first few generations of Christians. It is however clear that it wasn't just the later "Jewish standard" of the Masoretic scripture, and it is clear that the Septuagint is an important snapshot of the much larger scriptural diversity that went into the making of the NT. Furthermore, I personally believe that in the same way as the Latin Vulgate has been proven to be "inspired enough" by the usage among the Latin Church, so the Septuagint has been proven to be "inspired enough" by the usage among the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. It would be nice if we could actually reconstruct what OT scripture Christ et al. were using. But chances are that we never will. The Masoretic tradition is just one shard though of that earlier fullness, which has the advantage of being in Hebrew. But the Vulgate and the Septuagint are other shards. They may have the disadvantage of being available only in translation but they clearly provide important complementary information, since the NT frequently agrees at least as much or more with them than with the Masoretic text. And what I mean with "inspired enough" is that the value both of the selection and the translation has been proven through well over a millennium of usage by Christians, including many saints.

Let's be clear here: I'm not simply dissing Protestants, though I firmly believe that their position makes least sense of them all. I do not think that the RCC has it right just yet. And I do not think that the Orthodox have it right either. "The Bible in its Traditions" project comes closest to what I consider to be a reasonably "reconstructive" approach to the text of scripture from all "traditional" sources. And I do think that while the RCC has been too minimalist in establishing an official canon, it is necessary that an official canon is agreed upon ecumenically, contrary to the co-existence of variations among the Orthodox.

Basically I think a final agreement should be reached between the RCs and the various Orthodox groups on what is "the" canon of scripture, and what is to be counted as apocryphal. I expect that this will require an extension of the RC canon, but a reduction of some of the canons of some of the Orthodox. And then the text of OT and NT should be reconstructed as much as we can by using complementary information from all relevant textual traditions, even if this means listing parallel variations. As far as the OT is concerned, Masoretic only is as inappropriate and insufficient as Septuagint only or Vulgate only. The former would establish the fixed canonical framework, the latter would be the proper way of filling it (which is open to some change if new discoveries are made).

--------------------
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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
If Wikipedia be believed, the Qumran MSS are among a handful of Hebrew copies of parts of Ecclus, and broadly agree with the others.

"Broadly agree" is kinda vague. Thee LXX Isaiah broadly agrees with the MT, but violently disagrees in a couple of places.
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Hopeless in what regard?

In tying their fortunes exclusively to the Masoretic scripture, over and against the clearly much wider traditional Christian usage, including that of Christ Himself (or at least of the evangelists compiling the NT). It is unclear just what scripture exactly was used by our Lord, the apostles, the evangelists and the first few generations of Christians. It is however clear that it wasn't just the later "Jewish standard" of the Masoretic scripture, and it is clear that the Septuagint is an important snapshot of the much larger scriptural diversity that went into the making of the NT.

I don't think this was all one-way traffic, was it? After all, there is St Jerome.

The Catholic Encyclopedia puts it this way.

quote:
St. Jerome owes his place in the history of exegetical studies chiefly to his revisions and translations of the Bible. Until about 391-2, he considered the Septuagint translation as inspired. But the progress of his Hebraistic studies and his intercourse with the rabbis made him give up that idea, and he recognized as inspired the original text only. It was about this period that he undertook the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew. But he went too far in his reaction against the ideas of his time, and is open to reproach for not having sufficiently appreciated the Septuagint. This latter version was made from a much older, and at times much purer, Hebrew text than the one in use at the end of the fourth century. Hence the necessity of taking the Septuagint into consideration in any attempt to restore the text of the Old Testament. With this exception we must admit the excellence of the translation made by St. Jerome.
The original dispute was not at all between Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants. It was between 4th Century Jewish and Christian scholars about the accuracy and faithful transmission of the LXX.

Note I am not saying Jerome was right, simply that he illustrates that the ancient historical nature of the controversy concerning the Hebrew and Greek OT scriptures had nowt to do with Protestants.

--------------------
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
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
St Jerome went "native", incidentally on a Hebrew text which was not quite the Masoretic one. It is a rather understandable error in a translator who is caught up in the seminal importance of what he is doing, and who is necessarily relying on Jewish teachers for his information on the language and the appropriate text. The Church corrected St Jerome back then. This does not really motivate what Luther did over a millennium later.

It is noteworthy that apart from relegating the Deuterocanonicals to be Apocrypha, Luther also put into question seven NT books as "Antilegomena": Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation, four of which (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) he put at the end of the NT as particularly questionable. This clearly mirrors the treatment of the OT "Apocrypha", and certainly would have resulted in their omission, just like the "Apocrypha" were dropped eventually after being moved out of place, by cheapskate publishing down the track. It should perhaps be mentioned that Luther also tried to remove Esther from the OT completely (rather than just its deuterocanonical parts).

The scriptural "hack and slash" of Luther concerning the NT (and concerning Esther in the OT) was resisted by other Protestants and luckily did not become normative. I think it is pretty clear that Luther's own motivation was from his doctrines to what scripture can possibly count as "proper". He didn't like James on faith and works, so it gets the chop, he didn't like Maccabees on the prayer for the dead, so it gets the chop, too. The difference is quite simply that other Protestants defended the integrity of the NT, but not of the OT (except for some of Esther). And the reason for that is indeed a repetition of St Jerome's mistake, only this time based on going "native" on the available Hebrew text of the then contemporary Jews, the Masoretic we are still stuck with today.

Protestants could have and should have known better back then, precisely because the Church had corrected St Jerome (presumably at a stage before the purported wholesale corruption of the Church they were protesting against!). It is however a mystery how Protestants cannot know better now. There simply is no doubt possible now that the "Christian scripture" used by Christ and his followers in the first few centuries was broader than the Masoretic text, and that the best source currently available for what is missing is the Septuagint (and there is a good possibility that some Septuagint version was in fact used in writing the NT).

We can now say with confidence that the RCC the Protestants protested against indeed had adopted some "traditions of men" rather than of God. The debate there is merely about whether the RC core was touched, or only the "outward facing" side, i.e., its Protestantism vs. Counter-Reformation-ism. All contemporary RCs (including the "trads") are children of the latter. I think we can now also say with confidence that the Protestant OT canon is due to "traditions of men" rather than of God. The debate there is merely whether only liminal cases were mishandled or whether the scriptural core was touched, i.e., its the inclusion of the Deuterocanonicals as separated out "Apocrypha" vs. their full integration. I think it is strange however that Protestants stubbornly maintain a reduced OT canon. If they feel that they cannot adopt the Deuterocanonicals outright, then they should at least go "full Apocrypha". It's the Christian thing to do, it really is. Our OT scripture simply is not just that of the Masoretic Jews. We are not a branch of Rabbinic Judaism. There should not be a single Protestant bible on the market that does not have the "Apocrypha" IMNSHO.

--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
St Jerome went "native", incidentally on a Hebrew text which was not quite the Masoretic one. It is a rather understandable error in a translator who is caught up in the seminal importance of what he is doing, and who is necessarily relying on Jewish teachers for his information on the language and the appropriate text. The Church corrected St Jerome back then. This does not really motivate what Luther did over a millennium later.

True. But that doesn't get round the premise that those early Jewish scholars had a point. Opinions differ (and again nothing can be proved with certainty) about both the accuracy of the first translation and the faithfulness of its transmission.

And true also that the prophetic NT references are found more literally transposed from the Septuagint than from the Masoretic text.


Here's a brief quote from the Wiki article on the Septuagint.

quote:
Since Late Antiquity, once attributed to a Council of Jamnia, mainstream rabbinic Judaism rejected the Septuagint as valid Jewish scriptural texts. Several reasons have been given for this. First, some mistranslations were ascertained. Second, the Hebrew source texts, in some cases (particularly the Book of Daniel), used for the Septuagint differed from the Masoretic tradition of Hebrew texts, which was affirmed as canonical by the Jewish rabbis. Third, the rabbis wanted to distinguish their tradition from the newly emerging tradition of Christianity.
I think that is a fair summary. Nobody is arguing that the rabbis with whom Jerome conversed didn't have an axe to grind. But mixed in with that were genuine concerns about the LXX purely on textual grounds.

I don't think either the Masoretic text, as we have it, or the Septuagint, as we have it, will always give definitive answers about the textual content. There's great value in looking at both. Purely as a matter of translation (rather than authority) I don't see the value in discounting either. And of course there is a massive amount of common ground and minimal differences in meaning.

--------------------
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
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I always thought the very existence of a council at Jamnia was questioned, that it is most likely mythical.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's why the Wiki article says "once attributed". I'm pretty sceptical about the historicity of a Jamnia council, from all I've read.

It's not central to the undoubted point that there was a reform process concerning the Masoretic text and that 4th C Jewish scholars were involved in that. Whatever you may think of his views, Jerome's discourses with rabbis are not disputed and provide evidence for both the reform of the Masoretic text and the concerns over the accuracy of the LXX.

[ 20. August 2015, 10:36: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
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
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There are relatively clear errors in the Masoretic text:
  • Masoretic 2 Chronicles 9:25 and 1 Kings 4:26 contradict each other on how many stalls of horses Solomon had (4k or 40k). The Septuagint has consistently 4k.
  • Masoretic 1 Kings 12:2-3,12 is inconsistent with 1 Kings 12:20, Jeroboam apparently returns twice from Egypt. In the Septuagint, Jeroboam is not interacting until the return in 1 Kings 12:20.
  • In Jeremiah 11:15, there is a "many" in the Masoretic that is hard to place, in the Septuagint it is "vows" instead, that together with sacrificial flesh appeases God.
  • Psalm 145 is an acrostic poem, yet there is clearly a missing line for the 14th letter (nun) in the Masoretic. This line ("The Lord is faithful in His words and holy in all His works.") is present in the Septuagint, and found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
There probably are more cases where an error can be convincingly demonstrated in the Masoretic (rather than just a difference to the Septuagint).

Furthermore, the Talmud explicitly refers to Sirach as scripture. Jesus celebrates Hanukkah (Feast of Dedication, John 10:22-23), but it is established in 1 Macc 4:52-59. There is a very clear prophecy in the Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20 of Christ and His crucifixion, including a precise statement of the deadly test that the Jewish scribes and elders apply in Matt 27:41-43. The Ethiopian Jews maintain Deuterocanonicals as part of their scripture in the Ge'ez language. There are good indications here that the Deuterocanonicals were part of the "scriptural framework" of ancient Jewish life, just like the other books of the OT. There almost certainly were variations among various Jewish groups, but I think it is pretty clear that the group that became the Christians was not clearly "proto-Masoretic".

--------------------
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
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Ethiopian Jews maintain Deuterocanonicals as part of their scripture in the Ge'ez language.

But no Lamentations - fascinating, never knew that.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

The scriptural "hack and slash" of Luther concerning the NT (and concerning Esther in the OT) was resisted by other Protestants and luckily did not become normative. I think it is pretty clear that Luther's own motivation was from his doctrines to what scripture can possibly count as "proper". He didn't like James on faith and works, so it gets the chop, he didn't like Maccabees on the prayer for the dead, so it gets the chop, too.

IngoB, what are you talking about? Luther most certainly did translate James--heck, he wrote a whole commentary on it too--and it's in the Luther Bible--no "chop" of any sort. Sheesh, he makes one crack about the book and suddenly you have him revising the canon! And I'm 90% sure the Apocrypha is in there too.

Despite your impression, Luther was really not a total lunatic.

--------------------
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
Philip Charles

Ship's cutler
# 618

 - Posted      Profile for Philip Charles   Author's homepage   Email Philip Charles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The World English Bible (WEB) includes sufficient Deuterocanonical books to satisfy most people. WEB (USA) or WEB (Proper English)
The WEB is a public Domain on line version which DV will replace the on line truncated version of the AV (King James) Bible.
Want the Septuagint? Here it is

Some shipmates might like to review these WEB versions. Being public domain there is no restriction on its use and it can be freely quoted. [Biased]

--------------------
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Posts: 89 | From: Dunedin, NZ | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Philip Charles

Ship's cutler
# 618

 - Posted      Profile for Philip Charles   Author's homepage   Email Philip Charles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ooops. LXX link faulty.
Should be [URL= Here it is ]Septuagint[/URL]

--------------------
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Posts: 89 | From: Dunedin, NZ | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669

 - Posted      Profile for venbede   Email venbede   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And I'm 90% sure the Apocrypha is in there too.

I'm no fan of Luther, but he did include the d-c books, but put them together between the OT and the NT, as followed in all protestant translations until probably 1599 with a Geneva version.

I find Ingo's post often very interesting and worthwhile. I just wish he could learn to be A eirenic and B succinct.

--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IngoB

More or less across the board, there is agreement amongst bible scholars that textual errors can be found in the Septuagint, the Masoretic text, the Greek NT. I think the typical approach these days is to look in detail at whatever versions are available, to see what the textual differences illuminate and to try to make some fair and considered judgments about text, context and meaning as a result.

The macro-level argument (this is inspired, that is not, this is better than that) has largely been left behind. In general, modern scholars replace that by approaches which say we have, and in many ways are fortunate to have, these different sources, preserved by different means. Let's see what we might learn from all of them.

Personally, that's the approach I prefer. Included in that is my view that discounting the deutero-canonicals for dogmatic reasons is pretty silly. I'm not sure how typical that view is amongst protestants. More generally, I think my interests in church history and my beliefs in the value of historical-critical approaches probably put me in a smallish minority in the nonco-evo clan in which I was raised. But I'm not alone in those interests.

--------------------
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
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Barnabas62

All that is fine with me as such, but I do think it remains insufficient. The idea that there is one central text, to be corrected by the other available manuscripts, is in my opinion mistaken. And that's so whatever you choose for your central text. The actual text we want does not exist any longer, we must reconstruct it best we can from what is left. And this means not just error correction, but also accepting actual differences as staking out an area of textual possibility.

--------------------
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
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oddly, in addition to there being books in the LXX that the Hebrew Bible doesn't contain, there are also passages, but not complete books, which are in the Hebrew but not in the LXX. As far as I know, nobody in the west has ever suggested those bits aren't scripture or shouldn't be read.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Barnabas62

All that is fine with me as such, but I do think it remains insufficient. The idea that there is one central text, to be corrected by the other available manuscripts, is in my opinion mistaken. And that's so whatever you choose for your central text. The actual text we want does not exist any longer, we must reconstruct it best we can from what is left. And this means not just error correction, but also accepting actual differences as staking out an area of textual possibility.

We may have a Host around our necks for getting too Purgatorial but I think you are right on this point as well! There is no doubt that the doctrine of scripture must be integrated with the doctrine of the church. I think the notion of a recoverable "paper Pope" is a mistaken understanding which arose as a result of the Reformation disputes.

[ 21. August 2015, 22:03: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
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
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As I've said on previous threads, we do not read,
"And the Word became paper and dwelt among us".

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As I've said on previous threads, we do not read,
"And the Word became paper and dwelt among us".

Quotes file.

Host note: fixed code

[ 22. August 2015, 20:57: Message edited by: Moo ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The deal is ever increasing circles of decreasing 'authority'.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools