|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
mo-oneandmore 24-Dec-24, 12:47 |
 Deleted by mo-oneandmore on 24-Dec-24, 12:52.
|
||
|
The "missing" Books It's Christmas eve and I have been watching a fascinating TV program about the matter. A few of the rejected Book's: The Book of Jubilee The Book of Enoch The book of Nicknames The Book of Mary |
||
|
|
||
|
More Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. Joseph and Amreseth. This whole thing sent me off on the Mithridatic Wars, a fascinating account of Mithridates VI and his conflict with Rome. Pompey ultimately defeated him. |
||
|
www.bartehrman.com In Summary:- For the Old Testament, the early Christian Church simply accepted what was recognised as 'Torah, Prophets and Writings' by the mainstream Jewish scholars of their time, meaning the Pharisee Rabbis (The Sadducees excluded some and Essenes added others) The New Testament writings were originally considered not to be Scripture as such, but advice and explanation by the Apostles and other original witnesses or recognised leaders. This developed into the idea of 'Apostolic Authority'. In desperation some books plainly not written by the original Aposltes were credited to an Apostle or a close associate of an Apostle (e.g., the Letter to the Hebrews was attributed to Paul, the Revelation to John was attributed to the Apostle John, and Luke who wrote his Gospel and the Book of Acts was considered under Paul's wing). This argument from 'Apostolic Authority' was primarily used NOT to admit writings into the canon; after all, Paul probably wrote lots that wasn't included. The main practical purpose was to reject 'heretical' writings, mostly Gnostic 'Gospels' from the second and third centuries, and to retain those writings which had proven themselves most valuable. If a writing hadn't been in wide circulation in the post-apostolic age (say, before 200 A.D.), then it was deemed to be an 'innovation'. This was a dirty word to use, when any departure from 'delivered once by the apostles' was the earmark of orthodoxy. The Gospel of Thomas is perhaps the most famous of these, probably written in the third century but pulling in material from previous writings. The introduction states: "These are the hidden words that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas wrote them down", which almost immediately invites a 'gnostic' assessment. 'Hidden words' and 'secret meanings' are typical of gnosticism. These arguments were supposedly settled in a series of Church Councils to determine which writings were truly apostolic age and backed by the witness of the Early Church, most influential being the Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397). But even as late as the Reformation Martin Luther wanted to exclude the Epistle of James while the Roman church accepted the Deutero-canonical books. Despite the black-and-white attitude of many Protestants who emphasise the primacy of the Bible over 'Church Tradition', the question of which writings belong in the Bible was in fact decided by 'Church Tradition'. The complete Canon did not drop from heaven fully-formed with a note saying "This is the Real Bible, yours truly, God"; it was pieced together by the living community of faith on the basis of history and utility. So implying any 'magical' qualities to it (such as inerrancy or infallibility) is a severe over-simplification of how it is to be read and understood. A more nuanced approach is to say "These writings were produced by men who were highly respected in their own places and times, and have been found over a period of generations to have a profundity that greatly exceeds the value of other writings". I have also read from the Apologists and Patristic writers such as Origen, Augustine of Hippo, Justin Martyr and Tertullian. Much of it is excellent stuff, and was powerful in its own time; but these texts are too intimately linked to the specific issues at the times of their composition to be readily transferable into our modern era. They lack that 'je ne sais quoi' of the New Testament writings, the 'cut through' to basic principles, which I see as a sign of 'inspiration' (for want of a better word). I reckon the various bishops and Councils that thrashed at this question for centuries ended up with a very workable result. We would do well to understand the New Testament writings in their own context, and from that basis extrapolate into our own circumstances. That means applying the same basic principles of humility, awe, generosity, patience, justice and optimism in ways that best match our different times. |
||
|
Bob Merry Christmas. |
||
|
Bobs and context you oft refer to got me thinking, after reading Joshua Schachterle's insight on mistranslation. Greek to Hebrew translation (had me chuckling to myself a couple of times when I envisioned Hebrew scholars exiting the temple after a long day of scholarly translation, shaking their heads and laughing at a comment by a compatriot... which might be the origin for it... "It's all Greek to me."). Kidding aside (well not quite). The possible mistranslation of "young woman" and "virgin" puts a whole new light on "Lost in translation". I find it humorous that one of the dogmas that is currently being celebrated across the globe, (IMO) could be based on this mistranslation. |
||
|
Vocihc 16:11 "Yahweh Eluhinnu, Yahweh ehud." This literally, word-for-word, is 'Yahweh', 'our god', Yahweh', but 'ehud' can mean either 'one' or 'alone'. So translators who are focussed on finding monotheism in the Systematic Theology sense will translate it as 'Yahweh our God, Yahweh is One". But others who are more familiar with Ancient Near East religions at the time will emphasise monolatry by translating it as 'Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone". As always, context is critical; not just literary context, but historical and cultural as well. |
