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   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Kerygmania: The Apocrypha for dummies (and/or Protestants) (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Kerygmania: The Apocrypha for dummies (and/or Protestants)
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One of the things they don't tell you about becoming regional prison chaplain before you say yes is that you will be expected to take delivery of (and store) pallet-loads of Bibles for an area about the size of Belgium prior to acting as "last mile" deliveryman for said Bibles.

To add insult to injury, imagine my non-conformist horror when on opening the boxes many of these Bibles turn out to contain the apocryphal books. Not even decently tucked away in a separate section between the OT and NT but scattered throughout the OT in line with the genres.

While some of the books have prefaces in which the editors seem to be at pains to distinguish the canonicity of the usual protestant Bible from the other bits (the second half of Esther, for instance) other books don't seem to get a particular mention at all.

What I find even more surprising is that the protestant authority responsible for these bulk orders and indeed print runs seem to favour the inclusion of the apocrypha. I thought it was a purely Catholic thing. Am I mistaken?

All this leaves me with a number of other questions, too. Here are some:

How is the apocrypha or deutero-canonical books or whatever you want to call them viewed in your faith tradition? Do you personally approach these bits in a different way to the canonical books? What are the views, and reasoning, in it being published in a single volume with the canonical scriptures? Does it form a separate section or is it interspersed with the other books/sections of books?

(Suggestions on the best way of dealing with a pallet-load of apocrypha-laden bibles in a protestant chaplain's garage are welcome too, but I should tell you I'm simply giving them out...)

[ 19. November 2013, 02:16: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

--------------------
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
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Anglican church teaches that the Apocrypha may be used "for edification, but not for doctrine". One passage in the Apocrypha which many Protestants find objectionable is 2 Maccabees 12:39-45, because it suggests that prayers for the dead have an effect.

There is a thread here about the use of the Apocrypha for lectionary readings.

I treat the Apocrypha as I treat non-Biblical writings about Christianity. A great deal in there is very valuable, but a certain wariness is in order.

Some of the Apocrypha is fun to read. You should try Tobit.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499

 - Posted      Profile for Anselm   Email Anselm   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My understanding is that there is also a variation in what books are included in the 'Apocrypha' for the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox traditions

--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?

Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The Anglican church teaches that the Apocrypha may be used "for edification, but not for doctrine". One passage in the Apocrypha which many Protestants find objectionable is 2 Maccabees 12:39-45, because it suggests that prayers for the dead have an effect.

There is a thread here about the use of the Apocrypha for lectionary readings.

I treat the Apocrypha as I treat non-Biblical writings about Christianity. A great deal in there is very valuable, but a certain wariness is in order.

Some of the Apocrypha is fun to read. You should try Tobit.

Moo

Thanks Moo. That was pretty much where I was coming from instinctively.

I've skimmed through the older thread and it's given me a lot of food for thought (mostly that I'm a dummy in these matters), but I hope that a new, possibly simpler one may be in order (one major headache in the old one is "MT" being used interchangeably for "Mousethief", "Mama Thomas" and "Masoretic Text" by the protagonists...).

Let me take if I may a quote by BroJames late on that thread, here, emphasis mine:
quote:
Actually it would be as well (IMO) to recognise that Christianity embraces (at least) two different historical decisions about the canon. These are not likely to be dislodged by argument today. It would be better to understand and respect the difference than to try and argue a case for one being better than another.
The thread has given me some insight into the decisions in question but I would like more. I would also like to know what people of any tradition think about the deuterocanonical books being included in a single volume in an interspersed, rather than distinct, manner.

That type of discussion is very much what I'm aiming for here.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I strongly prefer Bibles that include them. I hold it against the NIV that it has never translated them. The difference in price between an expurgated and full version is usually quite small. Even without the rest, Ecclesiasticus is well worth the difference in price.

Whatever you think of the Apocrypha's canonical status, it is a great deal more valuable than a lot of the other books we get commended to read.

I also prefer the Prod way of putting them in a separate section to the RC way of dispersing them through the Old Testament by content.

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

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

Ship's Arboriculturalist
# 14031

 - Posted      Profile for Offeiriad   Email Offeiriad   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When we united an Anglican and a Methodist congregation into a Shared Church, the Methodists were even less familiar with the Apocrypha than the Anglicans (and that's saying something!). Our Bible Study Group did a whistle-stop tour, imaginatively entitled 'Everything you can Say about the Apocrypha on One Side of A4!' (Guess what the handout looked like!) So few had a copy of the Apocrypha that we had to produce another handout giving the passages we were going to look at (illustrating the different genres).

It went quite well, and interestingly led on to a look at some 'Christian' apocryphal literature, and in particular why some of it didn't get into the Bible in any form. They were very interested in the 'gospel of Thomas', which was being talked about yet again on TV as having been 'suppressed by the Catholic Church'. They liked bits of it, but turned a very funny colour over the bit about turning women into men so that they might be accepted into heaven... [Projectile]

Posts: 1426 | From: La France profonde | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What I find even more surprising is that the protestant authority responsible for these bulk orders and indeed print runs seem to favour the inclusion of the apocrypha. I thought it was a purely Catholic thing. Am I mistaken?

Yes. [Smile]

quote:
How is the apocrypha or deutero-canonical books or whatever you want to call them viewed in your faith tradition? Do you personally approach these bits in a different way to the canonical books? What are the views, and reasoning, in it being published in a single volume with the canonical scriptures? Does it form a separate section or is it interspersed with the other books/sections of books?
I am Orthodox. Therefore, to me, the dichotomy between these so-called "apocryphal" books and the canonical books is a false one. There is nothing apocryphal about them and they constitute nothing less than part of the Old Testament: canonical Holy Scripture. In my bible, they are to be found in their place among the other Old Testament books and are not relegated to an appendix at the back or omitted altogether. I do not treat them differently from the rest of the Old Testament and have become so accustomed to having them there that it now seldom occurs to me that there was a time that I regularly used bibles without them.

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My apologies for my complete ignorance of the Orthodox position on such matters.

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
In my bible, they are to be found in their place among the other Old Testament books and are not relegated to an appendix at the back or omitted altogether.

The arrangement you describe is what I find most surprising in the edition sitting in my garage. It is published by the Alliance Biblique Universelle and is said to have been reviewed and approved by "catholic, protestant and evangelical specialists". Not an Orthodox in sight.

If you read the introductions in this edition, it's fairly clear that Tobit and the second part of Esther are treated differently to the other books. The introduction to Tobit mentions it is not part of the Jewish Scriptures; that to Esther says that in the second half "the translators sought to compensate for what was lacking in their eyes" (a fine slight on my day job!). But the introduction to Judith doesn't give any hint at all that it might not be found in some other bibles.

So I suppose this is all good for Orthodoxen, but does the inclusion and still more the unsegregated inclusion in this way not come as a surprise to those of other traditions?

--------------------
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
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
My understanding is that there is also a variation in what books are included in the 'Apocrypha' for the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox traditions

At the front of my NRSV is a list of which books are canonical in which churches. I suggest you get hold of a copy; it's very interesting.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  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 Eutychus:
The arrangement you describe is what I find most surprising in the edition sitting in my garage. It is published by the Alliance Biblique Universelle and is said to have been reviewed and approved by "catholic, protestant and evangelical specialists". Not an Orthodox in sight. ... So I suppose this is all good for Orthodoxen, but does the inclusion and still more the unsegregated inclusion in this way not come as a surprise to those of other traditions?

Coming from a RC background, I can only say that "Protestant" publishers drive me batshit by 1) not always producing a version of their bible translations with the "Apocrypha" included and 2) not including "Apocrypha" in the natural order of the text but setting them apart.

Quite often the quality or at least novelty of "Protestant" bible publishing is way ahead of all Catholic / Orthodox bibles. But if they lack the "Apocrypha", point 1, then they are automatically damaged goods to me - like a book that literally has chapters torn out. And if they lack the proper order, point 2, then they are automatically badly edited to me - like a book that literally has its chapter order jumbled in places.

Over the years, this has often stopped me from buying a bible - and I'm sure I am not the only one. The rational solution is in my opinion to produce a Catholic / Orthodox bible, and then mark in the Contents what parts are considered canonical by whom. Or put it in the chapter commentary, if you must. If that would happen, then these bibles would appeal to a much larger market. I guess what is holding publishers back is precisely that Protestants may see this as "selling out" to Catholics / Orthodox. A bigger market is not worth it if your core market rejects you for opening it up.

So I welcome your "Protestant Catholic" bibles as a sign of the bigger market becoming more important than the core market. I would welcome this even more if we were not talking about French bibles (correct?), because for French bibles it is quite clear that a Protestant core market is so small as to make the Catholic bigger market financially attractive. If the big US publishers of Protestant bible started doing this, then it would indicate something good about the relationship between Protestants and Catholics (or about Hispanic birth rates, but I'm being cynical...).

Incidentally, on this thread we talked about the canon as well.

--------------------
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:
Coming from a RC background, I can only say that "Protestant" publishers drive me batshit by 1) not always producing a version of their bible translations with the "Apocrypha" included and 2) not including "Apocrypha" in the natural order of the text but setting them apart.

I find this a very odd point of view. I can fully understand the Orthodox view, in which the OT is the Septuagint. In that case, you are indeed translating the OT in its natural order by following LXX.

However, since Jerome, the RC attitude is a mishmash of conflicting ideas. The "natural" order of the Maserotic text, at least on a book-by-book basis is precisely the Protestant one, with the additions being stuck somewhere else because the ARE from a different place. One can argue about the order of the books themselves, but the RC doesn't follow the Jewish ordering of those texts either, so I presume that is not what you are talking about.

Once we stop assuming that LXX is the text being translated, the RC ordering stops making sense. There's really no rational basis for arguing in favor of the mongrel dog that the RC ordering represents. Or so ISTM. (I hope this isn't too Purgatorial for the board).

--Tom Clune

[ 08. May 2012, 12:47: Message edited by: tclune ]

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

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
if they lack the "Apocrypha", point 1, then they are automatically damaged goods to me - like a book that literally has chapters torn out. And if they lack the proper order, point 2, then they are automatically badly edited to me - like a book that literally has its chapter order jumbled in places.

But am I not right in thinking that even in Catholic (as opposed, apparently, to Orthodox) circles, the deutero-canonical books are not seen as having the same weight as the canonical ones? In which case it seems to me it's less of an issue to denote them than to blur the distinction.

quote:
put it in the chapter commentary, if you must.
Well, the NIV does something like that for the end of Mark and John 8 and so on, so why not? Better than no distinctive marking at all, which is how things are in my garage.

quote:
I would welcome this even more if we were not talking about French bibles (correct?), because for French bibles it is quite clear that a Protestant core market is so small as to make the Catholic bigger market financially attractive.
We are talking about French bibles, but I think you are neglecting French-speaking Africa and the predilection of protestants in general for actually getting their hands on, and reading, a bible.

quote:
Incidentally, on this thread we talked about the canon as well.
I see. More further reading [Help]

--------------------
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
Offeiriad

Ship's Arboriculturalist
# 14031

 - Posted      Profile for Offeiriad   Email Offeiriad   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I should have added in my comments about our Bible Study Group that I deliberately used and recommended a Methodist commentary on the Apocrypha. I was surprised that the Methodist Version of the Common Lectionary includes readings from the Apocrypha (with, like the C of E, an alternative offered), but I gather the alternative is almost always substituted by those a Methodist service.
Posts: 1426 | From: La France profonde | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669

 - Posted      Profile for venbede   Email venbede   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Of course, scroipture is not just for establishing doctrine, but for forming the basis of worship.

Middle of the Road Anglicans have been having the Benedicite at Sunday Mattins from the extra bits of Daniel for ages.

Common Worship, following the Brevieary, includes a number of canticles from the Apocrypha for use at Morning Prayer after the psalms. How anyone can claim that bits of Judges are more inspired than "The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God" from Wisdom beats me.

The King James version was produced with the Apocrypha. At what time did it become common to omit it?

--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.

Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The King James version was produced with the Apocrypha. At what time did it become common to omit it?

From my limited reading on these things, it appears to have really started with 19th century missionary societies, who wanted to send as many Bibles as they could to far-off places. They apparently would often send just NT + Psalms, and then began sending Apocrypha-less volumes. Not only did this allow them to send more Bibles in the same amount of space, but it meshed with their general misgivings about the reliability of the deuterocanonicals anyway. Apparently, from that beginning, it spread throughout Protestant denominations.

When I was growing up in the 1950s, it was very uncommon for Protestant Bibles to include the Apocrypha. It wasn't until "secular" study Bibles started to appear in the early 1970s or so that the Apocrypha began to make a comeback in Protestant circles. Now, with the wide interest in every weird "gospel" and "epistle" known to man, the Apocrypha has finally re-won some level of legitimacy by comparison among the more educated Protestants. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

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

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669

 - Posted      Profile for venbede   Email venbede   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ta, tc.

I have in front of me

--------------------
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
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669

 - Posted      Profile for venbede   Email venbede   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Blast pressed the wrong button. Must go out to work in the garden. We are having the first sunshine for weeks.

--------------------
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
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Something useful (and I hope accurate) from Wikipedia on the publication of the Apocrypha
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Exclusion of the apocrypha certainly seems to coincide with both the Reformation and the advent of the printing press.

On the one hand this could seem like shameless revisionism on the part of the protestants.

On the other hand, the Reformation coupled with mass printing would have put bibles into the hands of a lot more people - people who would not perhaps to be in such a good position as clerics to make the distinction between the component books. That seems like a good reason to prune the content.

This also ties in with the thought, also expressed on one of the earlier threads, that a change in medium is likely to have a profound impact on the way people interact with the Bible.

I guess anyone under the age of 25 is as likely to read the Bible in electronic format as in hardcopy format, and the new distinction this brings between content and the container, plus the ability to mash up different contents, heralds a big change in the way people will relate to written revelation. (Another point mentioned on Wikipedia is that the apocrypha may have been left out simply for reasons of cost. That is already no longer an argument, any more than having to opt for one version is).

This might be a tangent, but then again in the light of the media developments at the time of the Reformation, perhaps it isn't.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Exclusion of the apocrypha certainly seems to coincide with both the Reformation and the advent of the printing press.

That isn't what I gather from the wikipedia article. It seems to pretty much agree with what I've read in other histories of the Bible. They seem to specifically tie its widespread exclusion to the action of British and Foreign Bible Society in 1826. That is hardly coincident with the Reformation or the advent of the printing press.

--Tom Clune

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

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am C of E.

I refuse to buy a bible that omits the 'Apocrypha'.

When a deutero-canonical book comes up on the lectionary, usually preach on it.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
other histories of the Bible. They seem to specifically tie its widespread exclusion to the action of British and Foreign Bible Society in 1826. That is hardly coincident with the Reformation or the advent of the printing press.

Well it seems to have been the culmination of a trend that started in the mid-1600s... what I'm trying to argue, I suppose, is that it looks as if the desire to exclude the apocrypha is directly proportional to the spread of the printed bible, and by extension the idea that the book itself might be read by the great unwashed.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669

 - Posted      Profile for venbede   Email venbede   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Professor Eammon Duffy in The Stripping of the Altars makes the point that printing had been around half a century of more before the Reformation got going and a whole load of popular Catholic piety was widely available in print.

In the 1549 & 1555 Prayer Books, the months of October and November have the first lesson at Morning and Evening Prayer from the Apocrypha. A smaller selection from Wisdom and Sirach is still in 1662.

The spread of printing assisted the spread of all ideas, catholic as well as protestant.

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

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well it seems to have been the culmination of a trend that started in the mid-1600s... what I'm trying to argue, I suppose, is that it looks as if the desire to exclude the apocrypha is directly proportional to the spread of the printed bible, and by extension the idea that the book itself might be read by the great unwashed.

But there is essentially no basis for that in the wikipedia article or any of the history that I have read. There does appear to have been some sputtering efforts in a few cases to try to restrict the Apocrypha before the 19th century, but they are few and far between.

ISTM that a better question would be what was it in 19th-century Protestantism that made it so hostile to the Apocrypha. My suspicion is that it probably coincided with a flare-up of anti-Catholicism at that time. I know that in the US there was a significant anti-Catholic movement before the Civil War, culminating in the rise of the Know-Nothings. I don't know whether anything comparable was happening in the UK.

But, if there was a strong anti-Catholic sentiment at that basic time, it may have manifested itself at least in part by opposing them thar Papist books in the otherwise-Holy Bible.

I hasten to add that I have no actual knowledge to support this suspicion. But, unlike your speculation, mine at least is consistent with the timeline. FWIW

--Tom Clune

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

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  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:
I find this a very odd point of view. I can fully understand the Orthodox view, in which the OT is the Septuagint. In that case, you are indeed translating the OT in its natural order by following LXX. ...

Once we stop assuming that LXX is the text being translated, the RC ordering stops making sense. There's really no rational basis for arguing in favor of the mongrel dog that the RC ordering represents. Or so ISTM.

I think you are wrong there, since I see no particular issue with the RC canon at all. It is essentially identical with the Orthodox one, i.e., that of the LXX. There are minor deviations, and if that concerns you then one can see the Latins as following a "Vulgate-type LXX" in their canon.

Where you can validly accuse Catholicism of a "mongrel approach" is not concerning the canon (the selection of texts), but concerning the chosen sources for translation. Catholics followed Jerome in adopting a Hebrew version as the "more original" source, just as Protestants do now, while maintaining that the LXX represents a better selection of material (against Jerome, at least in his younger years).

This has led to the RC mongrel "Vulgate" in Latin, mostly derived from a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text but also partly from the LXX or Latin translations thereof. I simply see this as having established its very own OT tradition, namely the "Vulgate" one, which like the LXX itself unfortunately is now not available in its original sources any longer.

I think where the RC bibles should develop to is recovering mostly the original "Vulgate flavour" and using the Masoretic text only where it is clear that underlying Hebrew "Vulgate" texts (now sadly unavailable) have been mangled in the original translation attempt. I believe that this is actually pretty much a description of the Nova Vulgata, see the promulgation. However, my Latin is nowhere near being able to simply read this and I'm not aware of any direct translation of this into either German or English. If somebody does, I would be greatly obliged...

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
But am I not right in thinking that even in Catholic (as opposed, apparently, to Orthodox) circles, the deutero-canonical books are not seen as having the same weight as the canonical ones? In which case it seems to me it's less of an issue to denote them than to blur the distinction.

I'm not aware that any distinction is being made concerning the "weight" of these books in RCism. I've not seen this in either official statements or the practice of the faithful.

--------------------
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 
Thanks, IngoB. The promulgation link was very helpful.

--Tom Clune

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

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well it seems to have been the culmination of a trend that started in the mid-1600s... what I'm trying to argue, I suppose, is that it looks as if the desire to exclude the apocrypha is directly proportional to the spread of the printed bible, and by extension the idea that the book itself might be read by the great unwashed.

But there is essentially no basis for that in the wikipedia article or any of the history that I have read. There does appear to have been some sputtering efforts in a few cases to try to restrict the Apocrypha before the 19th century, but they are few and far between.
The article says (until someone edits it):
quote:
However, starting in 1630, volumes of the Geneva Bible were occasionally bound with the pages of the Apocrypha section excluded. In 1644 the Long Parliament forbade the reading of the Apocrypha in Church, and 1666, the first editions of the King James Bible without Apocrypha were bound.
Forbidding the reading of the apocrypha in church sounds restrictive to me, apocrypha-free bibles seem to have been around since the mid-17th century in English (admittedly a long time after the printing press); but even before that, it seems the apocrypha was in a distinct section. Unlike in the bibles in my garage.

It may be that 19th-century protestants had an anti-catholic axe to grind, but I would imagine it's also true that the bible societies increased the number of bibles being printed massively.

quote:
ISTM that a better question would be what was it in 19th-century Protestantism that made it so hostile to the Apocrypha.
I think an even better question would be to ask what the historic catholic OR protestant views of the apocrypha were. The Council of Trent decision to grant them canonical status seems just as much a reaction to the Reformation as any 19th century reaction on the part of protestants.

My more immediate question is about the process by which the publisher of my garage bibles has come to decide to integrate the deuterocanonicals in the warp and woof of the OT with no particular distinguishing marks - and got this approved, apparently, by protestants and evangelicals as well as catholics.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think an even better question would be to ask what the historic catholic OR protestant views of the apocrypha were.

If you've never read it, you will undubtedly enjoy reading the correspondence between Augustine and Jerome over the issue of using the Hebrew instead of the Septuagint in the original Vulgate. FWIW.

--Tom Clune

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

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
The "natural" order of the Maserotic text, at least on a book-by-book basis is precisely the Protestant one, with the additions being stuck somewhere else because the ARE from a different place.

I prefer the Tanakh order myself. Makes much more sense.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think you are wrong there, since I see no particular issue with the RC canon at all. It is essentially identical with the Orthodox one, i.e., that of the LXX.

Is that true? AIUI the Septuagint includes 3 and 4 Maccabees, plus the books that the KJV calls 1 and 2 Esdras*, all of which are absent from the Catholic canon.

* I think the Septuagint itself calls them 3 and 4 Esdras, with 1 and 2 Esdras being Ezra and Nehemiah respectively.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
The "natural" order of the Maserotic text, at least on a book-by-book basis is precisely the Protestant one, with the additions being stuck somewhere else because the ARE from a different place.

I prefer the Tanakh order myself. Makes much more sense.
In context, I thought I made it clear that I was discussing the content of each book (although the wording was excruciatingly awkward, I admit). The book order is a different question, and not noticeably different between Protestant and Catholic translations except for those passages that do not appear in the Maserotic text at all, of course.

I really don't have a preference between the overall orderings personally, because I don't read the scriptures like a novel anyway. I will often attempt to digest a book at once, for purposes of maintaining a vision of the integrity of the book. But I have never been in the position of swallowing more than that at any given time, so the differing orders are largely of no consequence to me in my studies. It is worth being aware that there is a difference, and even understanding the rationales for each. But the practical signficance to me is virtually nil.

Why do you care?

--Tom Clune

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

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not aware that any distinction is being made concerning the "weight" of these books in RCism. I've not seen this in either official statements or the practice of the faithful.

Sorry, I missed your answer, probably because I took so long to compose my previous answer to tclune.

So would it be correct to say that RCism distinguishes the (OT) canonical books from the deuterocanonical books (in much the same way as the rest of the OT and the NT) BUT does not see either canon as having more authority or 'weight' than the other?

[ 08. May 2012, 19:45: 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
churchgeek

Have candles, will pray
# 5557

 - Posted      Profile for churchgeek   Author's homepage   Email churchgeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was raised Protestant and am now Anglo-Catholic (of a broad-church Episcopalian variety).

I find it useful having both a Bible with the Deuterocanonical books in a separate place (between the testaments; my NRSV has this arrangement) and a Catholic Bible (NAB) where they're in their traditional places in the OT.

At first, the Deuterocanonical books seemed very odd to me, and I spotted "problems" with them left and right. But then I started finding such gems in them as I would hate to lose from the Bible. Now I realize it's kinda that way with the whole Bible, anyway.

Historically (IIUIC) the Deuterocanonical books were originally written in Greek, so they date from a later time than the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures; but they were still Jewish in origin. If I had to object to anything in there, it would be additions to the book of Daniel - but only as additions to the book, because that book has a lovely chiastic structure that additions sort of ruin. For that reason I like having them separate in my NRSV.

I think having an historical understanding of how the canon developed and changed over time helps. I grew up in an inerrantist church, so the idea was that the Scriptures (in the Protestant canon, mind you) were inspired by God, and the Apocrypha was something humans tagged on. I didn't even understand that they were all OT books - I head that Catholic Bibles had stories about Jesus as a boy making clay pigeons and bringing them to life, etc., stuff that's in what's known as the "New Testament Apocrypha" - Gospels and other writings that were perhaps used by some individual churches in antiquity but never accepted as canon by the whole church, and certainly not included in the Catholic Bible!

I have to admit, though, that I still haven't read all of the Deuterocanonical books all the way through.

The wisdom books are wonderful, though (except when they're not), and seem to have been used by Paul. At least when I read parts of Wisdom, I think of tons of Pauline passages.

And Tobit is a blast!

Some of these books, too, have inspired some wonderful works of art. It might be fruitful to study the books and the art together.

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004  |  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 Ricardus:
Is that true? AIUI the Septuagint includes 3 and 4 Maccabees, plus the books that the KJV calls 1 and 2 Esdras*, all of which are absent from the Catholic canon. * I think the Septuagint itself calls them 3 and 4 Esdras, with 1 and 2 Esdras being Ezra and Nehemiah respectively.

As you can see here, none of these is accepted by all Orthodox canons, with 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras having a better shot. Colour me confused as to how all that relates precisely to the LXX. Somehow I was holding two obviously contradictory statements true at the same time, namely that the Orthodox canon is identical with the LXX on one hand, and that the Orthodox do not agree with each other on the canon on the other hand.

My comment that the deviation is minor more appropriately applies to comparing the RC ("Vulgate") canon with the "lowest common denominator" of the various Orthodox ("LXX") canons. Basically then one only needs to add the Prayer of Manasseh and Psalm 151 to the RC one. The difference between the "Vulgate" canon and the LXX text as such may well be as big as between the Protestant canon and the "Vulgate" one. No idea, really...

Anyway, what I really wanted to get across is that in my opinion the RC / "Vulgate" canon can stand in its own rights as a historically valid take on what was back then simply not yet a settled issue (namely what a canonical OT contains). In terms of this Wikipedia pic the Vulgate can count as much as a representative of the "lost" version as the Masoretic one, and that "lost" version can be considered at least as valid as the LXX on the same level.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So would it be correct to say that RCism distinguishes the (OT) canonical books from the deuterocanonical books (in much the same way as the rest of the OT and the NT) BUT does not see either canon as having more authority or 'weight' than the other?

Yes, the deuterocanonical books are for RCs "second" ("deutero") only in the sense of a later historical acceptance, not in the sense that their canonicity is second-rate. Actually, most RCs are probably blissfully unaware of the very term "deuterocanonical" and would read these books precisely as they would read any other part of the OT. Well, actually, that's the way it also is for me. I do not particularly remember this distinction unless it comes up in discussion, and when it comes up I have to look up what books actually belong to this category. Except for Tobit and Maccabees, which I do remember a deuterocanonical simply because I have used them in apologetic arguments against Protestants ("if you only had the full bible, you would know that..." type of thing).

--------------------
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
churchgeek

Have candles, will pray
# 5557

 - Posted      Profile for churchgeek   Author's homepage   Email churchgeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

I really don't have a preference between the overall orderings personally, because I don't read the scriptures like a novel anyway. I will often attempt to digest a book at once, for purposes of maintaining a vision of the integrity of the book. But I have never been in the position of swallowing more than that at any given time, so the differing orders are largely of no consequence to me in my studies. It is worth being aware that there is a difference, and even understanding the rationales for each. But the practical signficance to me is virtually nil.

Why do you care?

--Tom Clune

The question wasn't directed at me (although it could be a general question), but for me, since I was raised Protestant, it's hard for me to find the Deuterocanonical books in the Catholic Bible without looking them up in the table of contents, something I'm not used to doing with the Bible. Having them in the middle can make them easier to find for people who are or who grew up Protestant.

I have a French Bible called the Traduction Oecumenic de la Bible (TOB) which has the OT in the Tanakh order, then a section for the Deuterocanonical books, then the NT. I'm sure that one pleases just about no one. [Biased]

One of the reasons having the OT in the Tanakh order is preferable is that the Hebrew Scriptures then don't end with the threat of a curse. It's been noted that for Christians, that can feed supercessionism.

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
churchgeek

Have candles, will pray
# 5557

 - Posted      Profile for churchgeek   Author's homepage   Email churchgeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It can also be useful to study the Deuterocanonical books because they fill a gap between the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. They're Second Temple (a.k.a. intertestamental) theology. Maccabees (which, btw, in Hebrew is an acronym for "Who is like you among the gods, O YHWH?" and also the word for hammer) shows us part of the development of Jewish martyrology which of course the early Christians continued. Against the backdrop of God's promises in the Torah that those who obeyed God would see long life and other blessings, the martyrdom of young men for keeping Torah presents a problem that people of the Maccabbean period had to work out.

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Adam.

Like as the
# 4991

 - Posted      Profile for Adam.   Author's homepage   Email Adam.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's funny for me to think of these books as being though of as a unit. On any grounds except later canonical judgments, it's hard to see any reason to view them as one. It's true that they're all comparatively late (as compared with texts in the Hebrew Bible), but I don't think you can easily argue that they're later than everything in the Tanakh.

Most of my bibles have them slotted in with the rest of (what I regard as) the Old Testament. The exceptions are my NRSV which doesn't have them at all (I have the NRSV "Apocrypha" supplement) and my Hebrew Bibles (and, of course, my stand alone New Testaments).

I'd be happy to discuss what I've gotten out of any particular one of them, but saying something meaningful about all of them as a unit... I can't think of what to say because I just don't see them as a unit.

--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog

Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003  |  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 
Luther included them in his German Bible, though with the note that they were not Holy Writ but rather stuff that was generally speaking good and useful to read. I'm pretty sure they had their own section.

My understanding (though I can't tell you where I picked it up!) is that in pre-Reformation days the Apocryphal books were generally regarded (in the West at least) as being of lesser authority than the ones everybody now agrees on, though their exact standing vis-a-vis the OT wasn't nailed down until the Council of Trent. Which of course was after the protestant horses had left the barn...

I have heard reports that the LCMS publishing house is working on an edition of the Apocrypha, I suppose as a follow-on to their study Bible. To me that sums up the LCMS position--"We don't think it's really God's Word, but we'll annotate it to death anyway." [Big Grin]

--------------------
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
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek
Historically (IIUIC) the Deuterocanonical books were originally written in Greek, so they date from a later time than the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures...

Until recently it was assumed they were all written in Greek because there were no Hebrew manuscripts. The Dead Sea Scrolls, however, have fragments of at least some of the Apocryphal books in Hebrew, which means they may have originally been written in that language.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

the deuterocanonical books are for RCs "second" ("deutero") only in the sense of a later historical acceptance, not in the sense that their canonicity is second-rate.

OK, well colour me educated. Unfortunately this seems to mean that I'm not being strictly truthful if, when asked (as I very often am) the difference between protestants and catholics, I answer that in any event, we have the same bible...

quote:
in my opinion the RC / "Vulgate" canon can stand in its own rights as a historically valid take on what was back then simply not yet a settled issue (namely what a canonical OT contains).
Well, it still doesn't seem to be fully settled in christendom as a whole, does it?

Which to me is an excellent reason for putting the apocrypha separately in bibles that are directed at a broader (ie more ecumenical) audience than one for which the canon is fixed. Otherwise it looks like an attempt to settle the issue by stealth.

Churchgeek, somewhere I have a Français Courant bible with the OT in the Tanakh order. I'm not sure if it has the apocrypha in it or not. I'll have to check in my TOB and my (French) Jerusalem bible.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Unfortunately this seems to mean that I'm not being strictly truthful if, when asked (as I very often am) the difference between protestants and catholics, I answer that in any event, we have the same bible...

Indeed. Protestants have least of the bible. [Razz] As I mentioned on the other thread, I would be for all large Apostolic churches agreeing on one canon. But any "compromise" there would mean additions even for the RCs, who have the second-least of the bible.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Which to me is an excellent reason for putting the apocrypha separately in bibles that are directed at a broader (ie more ecumenical) audience than one for which the canon is fixed. Otherwise it looks like an attempt to settle the issue by stealth.

I disagree. There is only one group that is happy with having them listed separately, the Protestant, whereas all others would like to see the LXX ordering (which is identical with the Vulgate ordering for all parts shared AFAIK). Keeping them separate is settling it towards the Protestants, which is of course precisely why they are the only ones championing this arrangement. If you are playing the ecumenical card, then it is really clear that the Protestants will have to change their ways. And the necessary result is exactly what you seem to have stacked in your garage. So good on whoever published that...

--------------------
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
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669

 - Posted      Profile for venbede   Email venbede   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have in front of me an edition of the Revised Standard Version with the apocryha/deuterocanonical books 1973 called The Common Bible with commendations by Cardinal Koenig and Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh.

The d/c bits are between the OT and NT, and the bits accepted by whom are delineated.

The word shibboleth keeps coming to mind in this discussion. Which order the books are printed seems relatively unimportant. Printing the additions to Esther separately is confusing, and the RSV prints the entire Greek text, not just the additions.

Maybe they should do the same for Daniel?

--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.

Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As stated above, I would accept the RC ordering in an ecumenical edition, but I would still like to see a distinction made, as the NIV does with the ending to Mark and John 8. Otherwise things are being skewed the other way.

(I've dug out my French Jerusalem bible and while there is no distinction between the books themselves, the introduction to the Bible is very fair and details the differences - and reasons behind them - in a way my garage bibles don't. I don't have time right now to summarise what it says but I'll get back to it if I can).

I think there is more to the protestant side of things here than the picture Ingo is painting of the Reformers simply tearing out the bits of Scripture they didn't like. Lamb Chopped for one suggests the deuterocanonicals were not held in the same regard by anyone in the West prior to the Council of Trent.

I also think it's a bit more than a shibboleth. Not ascribing the same authority to the Church means protestants attach more authority to the Scriptures. I can hear the clattering of deceased hoofs from here, but I think it's plain that attaching more relative importance to the scriptures themselves means it's only natural that protestants are (or should) be more vigilant about what goes in them.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As stated above, I would accept the RC ordering in an ecumenical edition, but I would still like to see a distinction made, as the NIV does with the ending to Mark and John 8. Otherwise things are being skewed the other way.

Fine with me, FWIW.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think there is more to the protestant side of things here than the picture Ingo is painting of the Reformers simply tearing out the bits of Scripture they didn't like. Lamb Chopped for one suggests the deuterocanonicals were not held in the same regard by anyone in the West prior to the Council of Trent.

A late recognition of canonicity could have influenced the way people dealt with that part of scripture - if one is not entirely sure that something is part of the bible proper, then one may be more cautious about using it. That said, the Church Fathers at least weren't particularly discriminating or consistent in their usage of material as "scripture".

I have just found a very nice summary by Michael Barber concerning the development of the OT canon: part 1, part 2 and part 3.

--------------------
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
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think an even better question would be to ask what the historic catholic OR protestant views of the apocrypha were.

If you've never read it, you will undubtedly enjoy reading the correspondence between Augustine and Jerome over the issue of using the Hebrew instead of the Septuagint in the original Vulgate. FWIW.

--Tom Clune

Thanks for the great link, Tom. Have to say that my opinion of Augustine has lowered somewhat (conversely, muchos respect to Jerome).

Is it just me or is there a striking similarity between Augustine's position (and even the type of arguments he uses) and those who hold an AV-only stance these days?

Also, am I misunderstanding him, but on the final part - whether Ninevah would be destroyed in 40 (Hebrew version) or 3 (Greek version) days, Augustine's argument boils down to "Well, 40 is probably the original accurate version, but Jesus was in the tomb for 3 days, so 3 is more special than 40."

One other thought - although this says much about translation, it doesn't say much about their views on the canon. I'd guess that Augustine was all-in, but I don't think it follows that Jerome was necessarily DCs-out - more that, whatever books are in the canon, the most accurate translation should be made. Is that fair?

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

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  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 goperryrevs:
One other thought - although this says much about translation, it doesn't say much about their views on the canon. I'd guess that Augustine was all-in, but I don't think it follows that Jerome was necessarily DCs-out - more that, whatever books are in the canon, the most accurate translation should be made. Is that fair?

From Barber's article linked to above:
quote:
Jerome had studied with the Rabbis in Palestine and was persuaded by them that the Christian LXX was inferior to the Hebrew Bible.[38] As a result, he argued that the apocrypha should be included as a separate collection. Setting them aside as a separate collection, he wrote in his preface: “As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.”[39]

However, Jerome later changed his mind on the matter. This is often overlooked by historians. He writes: "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. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book.”[40]

So while it is true that Jerome was once suspicious of the apocrypha, he later viewed them as “Scripture.” This is clear from his epistles. For example, in the letter to Eustochium, dated to 404 C. E., Jerome quotes Sirach 13:2, saying, “…for does not the scripture say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power?’”

The change of mind likely had less to do with his exchanges with Augustine, and more to do with the mind of the church at large as made explicit by decisions of the hierarchy. It should be noted that Jerome knew less about his sources than we do now, in particular his comments on "Christian interpolations" contained in the LXX is plain false:
quote:
I am surprised that you do not read the books of the Seventy translators in the genuine form in which they were originally given to the world, but as they have been corrected, or rather corrupted, by Origen, with his obelisks and asterisks; and that you refuse to follow the translation, however feeble, which has been given by a Christian man, especially seeing that Origen borrowed the things which he has added from the edition of a man who, after the passion of Christ, was a Jew and a blasphemer. Do you wish to be a true admirer and partisan of the Seventy translators? Then do not read what you find under the asterisks; rather erase them from the volumes, that you may approve yourself indeed a follower of the ancients. If, however, you do this, you will be compelled to find fault with all the libraries of the Churches; for you will scarcely find more than one manuscript here and there which has not these interpolations.
Not at all so, actually the LXX rather represents a textual variant to the Hebrew version that Jerome was using, as we now know.

--------------------
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:
I have just found a very nice summary by Michael Barber concerning the development of the OT canon: part 1, part 2 and part 3.

That is, indeed, a nice piece. However, it is more polemical than might be supposed by the unwary. For example, my understanding is that virtually all of the LXX and Samaritan variant texts were found in a single cave. It has been hypothesized that this represented a "junk room" for rejected texts, and so the question of whether all these variants were actively and widely recognized as of comparable value is highly suspect.

Further, something like 80% of the texts were of the Masoretic text type, with only about 10% being LXX text type, about 5% being Samaritan, and the rest being either unclassifiable or classifiably "other." So, when considering the reality of the Dead Sea scrolls, Barber's presentation of the data seems highly skewed toward supporting a thesis more than an unbiased restating of what has been found.

Nonetheless, it is a very interesting piece if read with the appropriate caution.

--Tom Clune

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

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Quick 'n dirty translation of the relevant part of the intro to the French Jerusalem Bible:

quote:
The number of 'books' varies depending on the edition... The canon of books recognised as sacred was shorter for Palestinian Jews (followed by the Protestants for the OT) than for those in the Diaspora, which the [RC] Church has inherited.
It goes on to specify which bits are not included in most protestant Bibles as a result.

Unlike my garage bibles (of which my national chaplain has just denied all knowledge, so I guess this means there is no conspiracy after all).

--------------------
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
churchgeek

Have candles, will pray
# 5557

 - Posted      Profile for churchgeek   Author's homepage   Email churchgeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Printing the additions to Esther separately is confusing, and the RSV prints the entire Greek text, not just the additions.

Maybe they should do the same for Daniel?

Now that I think about it...

The older books in the Hebrew canon were also revised and added to; but which bits were added later (etc.) is dusted over by the sands of time. For me to object to later additions to books is inconsistent. One can just as easily locate the chiastic structure of the older part of Daniel by doing a bit of archaeology on the book with the addition, just as we identify different sources in other books.

I had a TA for a class on the background to the the Bible, who was a PhD student working on the Hebrew Bible (she was also Jewish). She told us that the birth account for Samuel has all kinds of wordplay if you replace the name "Samuel" with "Saul," which suggests the account was originally celebrating Saul, but when he fell out of favor, his name got replaced with the prophet's.* Someone here can probably correct this if it's wrong; but taking her word for it, it's one more example of how the books that wound up in the Bible have always undergone revisions and additions.

[ETA: *I suppose another explanation might be that the author intentionally made puns on Saul's name for some kind of contrast - like when a satirist uses rhyme to build up an expectation and then drops in a word that doesn't rhyme to humorous effect. In this case, whether that's a possibility would of course depend on the Hebrew, which I unfortunately don't read.]

[ 09. May 2012, 19:36: Message edited by: churchgeek ]

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669

 - Posted      Profile for venbede   Email venbede   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Pondering on this...

You can take it that the authoritative text for Christians is the Septuagint, in which case the books are obviously printed in the Septuagint order, as in the Jerusalem or Douai versions.

Or you can take it that the authoritative text for Christians is the Hebrew text, in which case ken is completely logical in wanting the books printed in the Hebrew order.

What you have in the RSV, AV and others is books printed in the Septuagint order, translated from Hebrew and with the non-Hebrew bits left out of the main text. Which is a bit illogical. (Not that it's any great issue, to my mind.)

--------------------
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



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