|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: All scripture is given by inspiration of God.
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure ...
I'll stop pushing the peanuts through the bars ...
Meanwhile, yes, Steve Langton, you are right that Bunyan was under arms briefly in his pre-Baptist days.
But Baptist principles and pacifism don't always go hand in hand. Consider the so-called Baptist War or Christmas Uprising of 1831-32, a slave revolt on the island of Jamaica led by Baptist preacher Samuel Sharpe and his followers.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_War
I certainly wouldn't be that quick to condemn the slaves for trying to take matters into their own hands. It was an initially peaceful strike that became violent.
'I would rather die among yonder gallows than live in slavery,' were Sharpe's last words before he was hanged.
I'd generally opt for a pacifist approach but wouldn't condemn Baxter for his role as a military chaplain, Bunyan for serving briefly as a soldier nor Samuel Sharpe for resisting slavery and oppression.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
Yet for all that, in the context of his (Baxter's) times, he was remarkably eirenic.
He'll have had his faults like everyone else but on the whole I tend to see him as one of the good guys.
I agree. The trouble here is that you've been using one of his faults as a main point in dismissing - well actually something that strictly speaking he can't have been talking about anyway in that historical context. I'd rather be discussing what is actually true than be dealing with a dubiously relevant evasive soundbite....
As for 'context of his times' the Anabaptists had been much more practically eirenic for about a century already; they wouldn't have been fighting the ECW.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, it's not a dubiously relevant evasive soundbite.
Baxter was highlighting something that is a matter of observation and considered opinion, namely that people of a Baptistic persuasion can act in a holier than thou fashion.
Of course, it's not limited to Baptists or Anabaptists. Other people do it as well.
And yes, it would have been fairer if he'd highlighted issues and besetting sins within his own expression of Christianity - rather than simply the 'Papists', 'Greeks' and 'Anabaptists'.
He clearly thought the first two were exclusive and the last one somewhat fanatical ...
Unlike his own moderate Presbyterian party ...
We all find it easier to take the speck out of other people's eyes than the planks in our own. Baxter was no exception.
Heck, I've come across Baptists who consider Anglicans to be 'insincere' because they use set prayers and liturgies rather than their own extemporary prayers - as if extemporary prayer in and of itself is a sign of sincerity.
Of course, not all Baptists are that daft, far from it.
Neither were all Anabaptists fanatical nut-cases as at Munster. I've never said they were. Menno Simmons and others were as far from Munsterite fanaticism as it is possible to be, although I'd imagine we'd all have found some 16th century Anabaptist practices somewhat odd.
I'm not dismissing the Anabaptist contribution at all. They've contributed a great deal with their principled witness.
All I'm saying is that none of these things fit into some kind of black-and-white binary mould ...
But never mind ...
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
But Baptist principles and pacifism don't always go hand in hand. Consider the so-called Baptist War or Christmas Uprising of 1831-32, a slave revolt on the island of Jamaica led by Baptist preacher Samuel Sharpe and his followers.
Did you miss the bit where I said....
by Steve Langton;
quote:
Yes English Baptists did fight in the ECW - as in recent years NI Baptists were involved in the fighting on the Protestant side in the Troubles. The English Baptists, like the Southern Baptists in the US, have often been in that curious halfway position of 'no established church but a Christian country of some kind'. The Munster events ensured that the continental groups saw the pacifist light quicker than the UK Baptists where the Puritans so nearly won the ECW and in many ways did win the long term aftermath.
Modern UK Baptists can still be ambivalent on this kind of issue.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
people of a Baptistic persuasion can act in a holier than thou fashion.
Of course; and the temptation is considerable when the other side are being rather noticeably unholy and unscriptural....
But you really need to stop using that quote about the Continental Anabaptists and their modern successors when it is clear that Baxter was talking about the significantly different English Baptists.
And you need to recognise that 'holier than thou' is a pejorative description used generally by people faced with others who are trying to be more faithfully Christian than they, or simply Christian at all. It is not always a true accusation. It can indeed be a way to evade the challenge of a greater holiness. As such it should surely not be used in serious discussion of the actual truth of positions such as we at least *should* be doing here.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Pleeeassse don’t let this become another thread about Anabaptism vs Constantianism...
Seconded.
Sigh...
It was a nice thought, while it lasted.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
It was a nice thought, while it lasted.
It’s still a nice thought. It’s just not likely to ever be more than a nice thought, I’m afraid.
Too bad.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
We can but try.
No wonder this thread is in Dead Horses though.
I think I may start my Lenten Ship Fast a day earlier ...
No Steve Langton, 'holier than thou' isn't an unjust accusation against people who are more 'biblical' or more Christlike than us - there are always going to be those - rather it's ...
Oh never mind ...
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Baxter dismissing Anabaptists as 'holier than thou' instead of discussing the truth of their position would be Bulverism rampant!
No. No, it would not. It would be ad hominem. You clearly don't know what Bulverism is.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Please either get back explicitly to inerrancy or go somewhere else to discuss whatever else has popped into your minds. (And no more Anabaptism from anybody, if you want to discuss Anabaptism, go to Purgatory or Hell, otherwise I'll just lock the thread until I think you've all got the message.)
Thanks
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
OK
How about my belief that Jesus used the scriptures as stories to reveal wider truths and we should do the same?
A good preacher can use a story from old or new testaments and extrapolate from there. Preaching truth, extorting Jesus-like behaviour and encouraging the faithful.
Surely none of it has to be factually true?
‘Ah yes’, you say, ‘but then why not just use Shakespeare or some other writings to illuminate the truth?’
My answer - indeed, why not? If God is going to speak through you then she will, whatever the vehicle.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
I dunno if none of it has to be factually true, Boogie. I think Paul's right when he says that a lot hangs on the resurrection. But I definitely don't think that all - or even most of it HAS to be factually true.
I think that, along with what you're saying, though, mystery is underestimated. We can want to put things into boxes and categories and understand how they all work and fit in together.* But there's a lot to be said for an unknowing shrug, and an attempt to engage into the mystery in our own ignorance.
The other really pertinent thing that was touched on earlier on in the thread by G Dee and others (pages 6 & 7 or so of this thread), regarding the canon. I strongly think that if you're going to make assertions about the infallibility / inerrancy / Divine power of the bible, you should be able to have a good grasp and argument as to WHICH bible it is you're talking about. When G Dee was asking Jamat about it, Jamat seemed to think it was a red herring. But the fact that the three main church streams (Protestant, Catholic & Orthodox) have slightly different canons (and of course there are other canons too) should give the confident Protestant pause for thought (after all we're the youngest of the churches).
It's amazing how some evangelicals can hold in one hand a hand-wavey dismissal of the Deuterocanonical books, and in the other hand a confident assertion of the inerrancy of the rest (yet, I was once one of those confident evangelicals). It only takes a little research into the history of the canon, from Jerome & Augustine to the Reformation, to muddy these confident waters, but the mainstream evangelical remains sadly ignorant of it.
* Both the liberal and the conservative can do this. The conservative in ways that we've discussed on this thread, of course. But, I always felt uncomfortable with the confidence that Marcus Borg had as he'd say "This bit happened, this bit didn't quite happen as it says. This bit didn't happen, but was post-written by the early church". To an extent, all of us are speculating.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Boogie - indeed, why not? If God is going to speak through you then she will, whatever the vehicle.
How do you measure who or what is using the vehicle?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
goperryrevs, that's exactly what I was saying. How can you start to debate a topic headed "All scripture" unless you define what the "all" is. Jamat has yet to grasp this and the failure to answer your post (despite time to deal with Boogie's) is telling.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
, you should be able to have a good grasp and argument as to WHICH bible it is you're talking about. When G Dee was asking Jamat about it, Jamat seemed to think it was a red herring. But the fact that the three main church streams (Protestant, Catholic & Orthodox) have slightly different canons (and of course there are other canons too) should give the confident Protestant pause for thought (after all we're the youngest of the churches).
Well, if you apply the tests that were applied to the canonical books to the apocrypha, they fail.
The LX was really a Jewish affair so one tends to trust their wisdom with regard to Maccabees Judith,Esdras. It is interesting that they had the test of antiquity so that eliminates the book of Enoch.
In the NT you have some obviously gnostic texts like the gospel of Thomas. It seems Jerome wanted to leave out Maccabees but was not permitted to as it vaguely justifies the doctrine of purgatory.
The NT books really demand apostolic authorship or influence which is why Revelation made it.
Really, I do think that issue is settled for all time. Much as Luther hated James,he couldn’t remove it.
So,what is there to answer?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Really, I do think that issue is settled for all time. Much as Luther hated James,he couldn’t remove it.
So,what is there to answer?
Really, I don't think the issue is settled for all time. The Roman Church and many of those in communion with Rome, include in the Bible what we Anglicans call the Apocrypha. Most of the Reformation and later churches follow the same pattern as the Anglicans. So that's an immediate difference. The canonical list of the Ecumencal Patriarch and those in communion with him is AIUI a bit different to that of Rome. Again AIUI, at least some of those in the Oriental Orthodox tradition have a different list again.
So what is the test? How can you say that Maccabees is only there because not Jerome was permitted to as it vaguely justifies the doctrine of purgatory? You really have not grappled with the problem.
[ 15. February 2018, 01:29: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Gee D: Roman Church and many of those in communion with Rome, include in the Bible what we Anglicans call the Apocrypha. Most of the Reformation and later churches follow the same pattern as the Anglicans. So that's an immediate difference. The canonical list of the Ecumencal Patriarch and those in communion with him is AIUI a bit different to that of Rome. Again AIUI, at least some of those in the Oriental Orthodox tradition have a different list again.
So what is the test? How can you say that Maccabees is only there because not Jerome was permitted to as it vaguely justifies the doctrine of purgatory? You really have not grappled with the problem.
Well, the way I would see it is that for the RCC or Eastern Orthodox to justify their inclusions. The OT canon was decided before any church council by rabbis, by the sopherim and the tannarim. The LXX fixed the OT canon. They omit the apocrypha and the deuterocanonicals. I think you will find that Jerome was required not to ditch the apocrypha and was wanting to when the vulgate was produced. It is what I understand occurred. I have nothing I need grapple with. Rather, the nay sayers have the burden of proof.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
At the request of two bishops,[58] however, he made translations of Tobit and Judith from Hebrew texts,[59] which he made clear in his prologues he considered apocryphal. But in his prologue to Judith, without using the word canon, he mentioned that Judith was held to be scriptural by the First Council of Nicaea.[60] In his reply to Rufinus, he affirmed that he was consistent with the choice of the church regarding which version of the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel to use, which the Jews of his day did not include:
What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. (Against Rufinus, II:33 [AD 402]).[61]
Michael Barber asserts that, although Jerome was once suspicious of the apocrypha, he later viewed them as Scripture. Barber argues that this is clear from Jerome's epistles. As an example, he cites Jerome's letter to Eustochium, in which Jerome quotes Sirach 13:2.,[19] elsewhere Jerome also refers to Baruch, the Story of Susannah and Wisdom as scripture.[62][63][6
Jerome from Wikipedia which suggests he was ambivalent but yielded to church authorities and later,naturally justified his choices. If the RCC wanted them in, the question is why did they?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well, the way I would see it is that for the RCC or Eastern Orthodox to justify their inclusions. The OT canon was decided before any church council by rabbis, by the sopherim and the tannarim. The LXX fixed the OT canon. They omit the apocrypha and the deuterocanonicals. I think you will find that Jerome was required not to ditch the apocrypha and was wanting to when the vulgate was produced. It is what I understand occurred. I have nothing I need grapple with. Rather, the nay sayers have the burden of proof.
Most assuredly no. You are asserting something and it is therefore for you to prove. That's the rule in law (with some minor variations we need not go into), it's the rule in debating, it's the rule in day-to-day life. You cannot wriggle away from the point I've made. Even if you be right about the Roman position, what about Constantinople and then the churches further east?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It's amazing how some evangelicals can hold in one hand a hand-wavey dismissal of the Deuterocanonical books, and in the other hand a confident assertion of the inerrancy of the rest (yet, I was once one of those confident evangelicals).
I think these two issues go hand in hand.
Inerrantists obviously tend to claim the "66 books of the Bible" (often referred to as such in their confessions of faith) are their sole authority in isolation, to the exclusion of anything else, so obviously they have a vested interest in ring-fencing that authority.
It was discussion on the Ship that helped me realise that those not from nonconformist traditions didn't see this ring-fenced authority as such a big issue because they also saw an authoritative role for the Church, not least in mediating people's reading and understanding of Scripture.
In practice, all traditional forms of Christianity have a "canon within the canon" - just look at the lectionary readings and what's left out.
But the fact is, so do all inerrantists. So do we all. Nobody actually takes even the 66 books as being all equally authoritative. Take a look at the Bible of anyone in any church with that confession of faith and see how well-thumbed the NT is compared to the OT and how unsullied the pages of, say, Song of Songs or most of Ezekiel are. Take groups well towards the inerrantist end like the Gideons and notice they only give out New Testaments, excising 39 other books right there!
Where I've landed up as a result of these musings is:
1. that inspiration is a dynamic process in which attention should be paid to the historic legacy of the Church
2. a pragmatic decision to include the deutero-canonicals into an edition of the Bible co-produced by the Protestant and Catholic prison chaplaincies on the basis that having a common edition with the Catholics was a lot better than having a different one as the Jehovah's Witness chaplains do.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Boogie - indeed, why not? If God is going to speak through you then she will, whatever the vehicle.
How do you measure who or what is using the vehicle?
I don't understand the question: could you not ask the same thing about who or what is using the Bible?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well, the way I would see it is that for the RCC or Eastern Orthodox to justify their inclusions.
Once again, yours is the default/reasonable/obvious position that needs no justification, but others must back their positions up.
You know that all the churches that have larger canons are more ancient than ours? That means that ours is the novel position, and the onus is on us to justify it. You need to justify their exclusions more than they need to justify their inclusions.
Besides, there is a subtle difference between arguments on canonicity, and inclusion in the Bible. Up until relatively recently, the deuterocanonicals were included in the Bible, regardless of whether they were seen as ‘canon’, ‘second canon’, or ‘hidden’ by the reader. For various reasons, we started excluding them. That’s a new policy, so it requires justification.
Earlier your argument was that by referring to Jonah, Jesus was confirming its status and historicity. Well, Jesus refers to Sirach, Tobit and Judith. Surely by your own reasoning Jesus is justifying those books too? If not, why not? Because they’re not ‘scripture’ like Jonah? Do you not see how circular the whole thing is?
Eutychus, definitely. I’ve long thought that we should include the deuterocanonicals in all our Protestant Bibles. Not as any statement on the canon, but for the inclusivity with our Christian siblings. Same with the Filioque. We should drop it. Not for any theological reasons (the theology was not the primary motivation for including it in the first place), but, again, for inclusivity.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The filioque is a good example. The arguments for and against are voluminous and formidable. I can't understand them and doubt if any others on board can honestly say that they do. I take the view that the clause was not in the creed agreed at Nicea. It's addition was not approved at any other council of the entire church. So I don't say it and won't until there is such agreement.
There's no agreement on what constitutes the Bible. I'm a Good Little Anglican and so will follow the teaching that the deutero books are good for edification but not to the extent of what is in fact approved. At the same time, I note that the teaching of Rome and Constantinople (to use a shorthand way) is otherwise and that they constitute the 2 largest bodies of Christians, the Anglicans coming in only as 3rd. So while I take the Anglican position, I quite happily note that there is a range of other opinions across the wider Church and I respect those others.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
AIUI the point of the Apocrypha/deuterocanonicals was that they were NOT regarded as Scripture by the Jews, but were included in the Septuagint which was effectively sponsored by a pagan patron as not just scripture but a collection of Jewish writings.
The Greek-speaking early church tended to use the LXX whole including these 'extras', the Reformers realised what had happened and downgraded those 'extras' while still considering them valuable (and I agree we should value them more than we generally do)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by goperryrevs
quote:
Same with the Filioque. We should drop it. Not for any theological reasons
There is a lot in the old creeds that should be dropped simply because the terminology was very much 'of its time' and many of the philosophical ideas used are now way outdated. The creeds are decidedly NOT scripture but human summaries and need to be rethought from time to time, not to change what was ultimately intended, but simply to make sure it is well expressed for our times.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
The issue with the NT apocrypha seems to be that those who insist on the 66 books are looking to authority figures who determined the canon. Which is problematic when these all seem to trace back to Origen-the-heretic and/or Marcion-the-heretic Even if one finds some way to explain this away, one is still left with the reality that the early lists of the NT canon almost always include the Shepherd of Hermas, which by any estimation is a stupid book.
If one is going to do much rely on age and authority, I don't really understand why one would reject the Orthodox canon.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The creeds are decidedly NOT scripture but human summaries and need to be rethought from time to time, not to change what was ultimately intended, but simply to make sure it is well expressed for our times.
Haha. #facepalm
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well, the way I would see it is that for the RCC or Eastern Orthodox to justify their inclusions.
We use the Bible the Church has used from its infancy. You do not. The OT canon was not fixed in the 1st century CE. The LXX contained certain books -- which the Anglicans call "apocrypha" and the Catholics call "deuterocanonical" and we call "books of the Bible." You are factually incorrect that the LXX did not contain Maccabees. It most assuredly did, and Tobit, and Sirach, and the rest.
You seem to be referring to the Masoretic Text, or MT, which was selected by a bunch of rabbis in I believe Jamnia after the fall of Jerusalem. As such it was created after the Church and the Synagogue went their separate ways, and there is no reason at all to think it is binding upon the Church.
Jerome the Smartass wanted to pare down the canon from the LXX canon (as it appeared in Rome) to the MT canon, but was slapped down by the Church. Do you have evidence that it was because of Purgatory? Please produce it. His reasoning was that only books written in Hebrew should be in the OT, and only (as he supposed) the books of the MT were written in Hebrew. (As it turns out, copies of two of the other books were found in Qumran in Hebrew originals -- how that fucks up the "Hebrew originals only" argument!) The church countered that the LXX was always its OT and it saw no reason to change it now, TYVM.
No, the Orthodoxen and the Catholics are using the Church's bible from of old (modulo a couple of books, no doubt because of different extant copies of the LXX east and west of the Adratic, a discrepancy left as-is, no doubt, because it doesn't really matter).
We did not add any books. Let me repeat that. We did not add any books. We used the books handed down to us from second Temple Judaism.
The Church's Bible remained that way until the Reformation. It is the job of those who deface a document to explain why they have defaced it.
[ 15. February 2018, 16:43: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Mousethief : We use the Bible the Church has used from its infancy. You do not. The OT canon was not fixed in the 1st century CE. The LXX contained certain books -- which the Anglicans call "apocrypha" and the Catholics call "deuterocanonical" and we call "books of the Bible." You are factually incorrect that the LXX did not contain Maccabees. It most assuredly did, and Tobit, and Sirach, and the rest.
You seem to be referring to the Masoretic Text, or MT, which was selected by a bunch of rabbis in I believe Jamnia after the fall of Jerusalem. As such it was created after the Church and the Synagogue went their separate ways, and there is no reason at all to think it is binding upon the Church.
Tanakh
Well, my understanding may indeed be sketchy but it seems that the OT as accepted by Israel as their Bible corresponds to what we commonly accept as the OT canon. (See above). That reference mentions 3500 years as the point at which their collection was decided. I cannot check that of course but I would say that since the earliest church was Jewish in its origin, at that point of history, the OT canon was closed and that any later inclusions by church fathers or whoever, would be suspect.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
That reference mentions 3500 years as the point at which their collection was decided.
It does no such thing. It says the Tanakh chronicles 3500 years of history. If you are going to evince a Web page as support of your position, it behooves you to make sure it supports your position. Quick, unturored googling is letting you down here.
You are historically wrong. The Jewish canon was not closed when the church and the synagogue split. The LXX was the Bible of the nascent church. If you don't know the history, Google will not educate you in a 5-minute search.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
That reference mentions 3500 years as the point at which their collection was decided.
It does no such thing. It says the Tanakh chronicles 3500 years of history. If you are going to evince a Web page as support of your position, it behooves you to make sure it supports your position. Quick, unturored googling is letting you down here.
You are historically wrong. The Jewish canon was not closed when the church and the synagogue split. The LXX was the Bible of the nascent church. If you don't know the history, Google will not educate you in a 5-minute search.
Well, yes, exactly! It does say the Tanah references 3500 years of history. And then goes on to say what the Tanah is! I doubt either of us is in a position to definitively tell what the Jewish canon was in apostolic times. It seems to me that as one digs there is strong evidence that they endorsed the same books the KJV does though obviously respecting the other writings as part of their history.
[ 15. February 2018, 19:51: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
The letters between Jerome and Augustine are interesting.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html
It’s definitely a language thing that’s the issue between them. Augustine sounds like one of those KJV-only zealots (only for the LXX), and Jerome is more interested in the differences between the more ancient Hebrew and more recent Greek texts. In terms of translation, it’s an interesting discussion. I think Jerome was right as an academic to want to understand more, whereas Augustine is the traditionalist (small t), who doesn’t want to rock any boats.
But yeah, MT is well read on this stuff, and he’s worth listening to, Jamat. He’s right, and a quick google to justify your position ain’t enough.
Either way, the issue of the Bible That Jesus Read has to be part of it. I think I’m right in saying he’d have used the LXX as well as a number of Hebrew versions, (correct me if I’m wrong), and the fact he quotes a bunch of the Deuterocanonical books must be taken into account.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
But yeah, MT is well read on this stuff, and he’s worth listening to, Jamat.
I respect that but it seems to be one of those areas where agenda determines opinion. As a former Catholic I am well aware of theirs.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
. quote:
the issue of the Bible That Jesus Read has to be part of it. I think I’m right in saying he’d have used the LXX as well as a number of Hebrew versions, (correct me if I’m wrong), and the fact he quotes a bunch of the Deuterocanonical books must be taken into account.
If he does quote a bunch of non scriptural books please enlighten.
The only reference Jesus makes that I am aware of that could be reference non canonical books is his the reference to the festival of lights or Purim in John but that is also traceable to the book of Esther.
The other NT reference by Jude 6-9 could be to the book of Enoch but the most obvious link within scripture is to Genesis 6.
The NT mentions Jannes and Jambres who were thought to be Pharoah's magicians but these are not given names in Exodus so this could be from apocryphal sources as well.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
This is a list of references to the Deuterocanonicals in the New Testament. Personally, I think some of them are a bit tenuous - or present elsewhere in the undisputed canon. But there’s enough there to show that it was part of the cloud of scripture and culture that Jesus and the apostles were aware of and drew from.
But more generally, in the vast majority of places the NT quotes the OT, it’s the Septuagint - the Masoretic text is also quoted but less frequently.
Therefore, the fact that the Septuagint included the Deuterocanonicals, but the Masoretic didn’t is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that the Bible Jesus used (some, if not most of the time) included those books. We have no record of him having a problem with that. He had no campaign to reduce the Jewish canon or reject any of those books, and nor did the earliest church, as far as I know.
But I will admit here that I am stretching my knowledge of this stuff now, as an enthusiastic amateur; and I am happy to cede to those more knowledgable than me. There are plenty of those here on the Ship, and I’m happy to be corrected!
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
This list has a more useful/objective introduction, explaining the difficulty of ascertaining what is a reference and what is not.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
This is a list of references to the Deuterocanonicals in the New Testament. Personally, I think some of them are a bit tenuous - or present elsewhere in the undisputed canon. But there’s enough there to show that it was part of the cloud of scripture and culture that Jesus and the apostles were aware of and drew from.
But more generally, in the vast majority of places the NT quotes the OT, it’s the Septuagint - the Masoretic text is also quoted but less frequently.
Therefore, the fact that the Septuagint included the Deuterocanonicals, but the Masoretic didn’t is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that the Bible Jesus used (some, if not most of the time) included those books. We have no record of him having a problem with that. He had no campaign to reduce the Jewish canon or reject any of those books, and nor did the earliest church, as far as I know.
But I will admit here that I am stretching my knowledge of this stuff now, as an enthusiastic amateur; and I am happy to cede to those more knowledgable than me. There are plenty of those here on the Ship, and I’m happy to be corrected!
Point of order Mr. Chairman, the Masoretic Text wouldn't exist for at least another 500 years. The NT can't quote it.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Sir! See - enthusiastic amateur reporting!
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
I guess the word should have been proto-Masoretic. I took that from here.
quote:
Of the places where the New Testament quotes the Old, the great majority is from the Septuagint version. Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).
So yeah, I guess they meant proto-Masoretic, ie. not the same as the LXX, and closer to the language of the Masoretic text.
Either way, the LXX was the NT Greek scripture of choice, so the wider point still stands.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Goperryrevs : and the fact he quotes a bunch of the Deuterocanonical books must be taken into account.
Well this plays fast and loose with the word ‘quotes’. Those sites you quote are Catholic. I kinda smell the incense.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well this plays fast and loose with the word ‘quotes’. Those sites you quote are Catholic. I kinda smell the incense.
I'm curious to know where you think those quotes came from.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Critiquing the content I'm fine with. And I'd agree that some are more dubious than others. But dismissing it just because it's Catholic, not so much.
Either way, according to your worldview as you've stated it thus far, it would only take one authentic quote from the NT to legitimise the Deuteros.
Tell me the difference between these statements, and why the former is valid and the latter not:
"In Matthew 12:40, Jesus refers to the story of Jonah. Therefore Jonah is Scriptural and historical."
"In Hebrews 11:35, the author refers to the story in 2 Maccabees 7. Therefore Maccabees is Scriptural and historical."
The first you assert as if it's totally evident and obvious and needs no justification. The second you dismiss out of hand as if it's irrelevant. You need to back that up with more than "the website's Catholic".
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well this plays fast and loose with the word ‘quotes’. Those sites you quote are Catholic. I kinda smell the incense.
I'm curious to know where you think those quotes came from.
To be fair, I think the issue is less where they came from than what qualifies as a quote. The first site goperryrevs links to includes things that "sound a bit like" parts of the deuterocanonocals, or are their opposite, or use similar imagery, or have one word in common.
[x-post with goperryrevs]
[ 16. February 2018, 09:19: 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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
To be fair, I think the issue is less where they came from than what qualifies as a quote. The first site goperryrevs links to includes things that "sound a bit like" parts of the deuterocanonocals, or are their opposite, or use similar imagery, or have one word in common.
[x-post with goperryrevs]
Ok, well it seems to me that taking out things which might be dubious, you still apparently have direct quotes.
Which makes me think of another reflection I was thinking about the other day.
In the epistles we have examples of ideas from Greek philosophy. Sometimes even quotes from philosophers and poets.
The strange thing for me is that few - if any that I've ever noticed - of those who want to claim scripture is straightforward seem to have spent much time thinking through the point that is being discussed (sometimes with approval) from Greek philosophy and poetry.
A similar thing is happening with regard to the quotes in the NT from noncanonical books: those who say that the scriptures only lie within the 66 books and that inspiration only comes from there are using a standard that the NT itself doesn't use.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I was thinking myself of where Paul quotes a pagan poet in Acts 17.
I don't think the inclusion of the quote magically makes it "inspired" or "inerrant" or denotes endorsement of the entirety of the source.
I think the "inspiration" of Scripture refers to Scripture as a whole and the mosaic it depicts. Of course we can argue about what "as a whole" means, but I think the idea of a corpus, handed down by the community of believers, is what's important.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't think the inclusion of the quote magically makes it "inspired" or "inerrant" or denotes endorsement of the entirety of the source.
Quite, but that's a double-edged sword for Jamat, because it shows up his justification that "Jesus refers to Jonah therefore Jonah is XYZ" as woefully inadequate.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think the issue is less where they came from than what qualifies as a quote.
The second site states this:
quote:
...many are not so clear as there may be only a single phrase that echoes one in a deuterocanonical book (and this may not be obvious in the translation, but only the original languages)
And so, this is where I'll admit this is way above my pay-grade, and it'd be down to a battle of the expert geeks.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't think the inclusion of the quote magically makes it "inspired" or "inerrant" or denotes endorsement of the entirety of the source.
Quite, but that's a double-edged sword for Jamat, because it shows up his justification that "Jesus refers to Jonah therefore Jonah is XYZ" as woefully inadequate.
That's not quite the same as ascribing magical "inspired" status to extra-biblical quotes either, though.
Goperryrevs having made me preach on Jonah (chapter 2 next!) I've had to look at this a bit more.
If you look at Mt 12:40-42 you'll see that Jesus refers to Jonah and the Queen of Sheba in the same breath. The argument goes that since the Queen of Sheba is a historical figure and is referred to just as Jonah is by Jesus (in the book of Jonah, not just in 2 Kings), Jonah must be too.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I was thinking myself of where Paul quotes a pagan poet in Acts 17.
I don't think the inclusion of the quote magically makes it "inspired" or "inerrant" or denotes endorsement of the entirety of the source.
No. But to me I think it shows the place that the writers of the scriptures saw it to be: and that wasn't that they were writing things on behalf of the deity which were to be digested alone and only in association with (ideas from) other parts of scripture. I'm not even convinced that the writers even understood that the things they were writing should be considered to be scripture.
Instead, I think - in the most charitable light - I think the authors of the NT understood that there were interesting ideas floating around from various sources and wanted to add to them. And they did that by adding to them, engaging with them, commenting upon, and quoting from a bunch of things that many of us have been brought up to understand are dubious. My view is that it is basically impossible to understand the conversation that the NT writers are seeking to have with Greek philosophers without reading Greek philosophy. One can't hope to understand the engagement the NT has with the deutocanonicals without reading them.
Those who therefore wave the 66 books and say "that's it, this is all you need to know" are missing the point. And are mistaken in the context of which the writers saw what they were writing - never mind how the developing understanding of the early church saw the canon, which is a whole other thing in and of itself.
quote:
I think the "inspiration" of Scripture refers to Scripture as a whole and the mosaic it depicts. Of course we can argue about what "as a whole" means, but I think the idea of a corpus, handed down by the community of believers, is what's important.
But that still doesn't explain why this corpus rather than any of the other available libraries. Some of which are a lot bigger than the 66 books, including I think I remember reading, the Copts who have a whole load of other stuff beyond that which is often labelled as apocrypha.
Partly, I think, it is to do with the quality of the other stuff. The Shepherd of Hermas is garbage, nobody is ever going to persuade me otherwise. The Acts of Paul and Thecla are fun but don't really contain a whole lot more content than you'd see in a cheap movie.
But there are other things that are interesting. The Protestant squeamishness about what is or isn't scripture seems pretty unhelpful in that context and the attitude of other theological traditions seems to me to be, well, liberating.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The Protestant squeamishness about what is or isn't scripture seems pretty unhelpful in that context and the attitude of other theological traditions seems to me to be, well, liberating.
The historical and theological details are probably above my pay grade too, but as I said before, on a pragmatic basis I think it's a tradeoff between how much you let individuals read the Scriptures for themselves and highlight their authority, and how much you want to dictate to your flock what they should be thinking, highlighting the authority of your Church.
The more you let the Scriptures out into the wild, the more pressure to nail down/ring-fence the content.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
