Posted on 11/07/2009 9:04:48 AM PST by GonzoII
APPENDIX.
Do you know what an APPENDIX is in a book?
Did Jesus quote the books I mentioned or not?
Also, no fixed Jewish canon in Hebrew existed before Christ. You are apparently unaware of Jamnia/Javneh.
If you’ll tone down the anger, I’ll consider responding to you.
When I taught the Bible as Literature, the faculty agreed not to use the King James Version for some reason, so I settled on the Revised Standard Version, based on the KJV carefully modernized (but not PC’d).
I used the Catholic edition. As I explained to the class, there were a few differences between the Protestant and Catholic scholars who worked on it concerning a few texts, which are indicated in RSV notes (e.g. Protestants preferred Jesus’ brothers and Catholics preferred Jesus’ brethren). The apocryphal books are so labeled. The reason I chose the Catholic edition was that you get more for your money. You can ignore the apocryphal texts if you choose to do so. But they are interesting reading, and even if not taken as canonical, they still have a good deal of historical interest and were drawn upon by numerous writers.
The RSV was available in an excellent annotated Oxford edition, until Oxford went over the the NEW Revised Standard Version, which is a politically correct mess that introduces all kinds of errors and infelicities. So I turned to the Ignatius Bible, which is excellent but set up with print that is hard to read and without the annotations that had been so helpful. But a decent, reliable translation is more important than footnotes.
I didn’t express any anger. Your apparent lack of knowledge does not make me angry. It just makes me pity you.
I wrote APPENDIX so you would see it. Do you see it now or not?
“THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA AND THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON”
http://www.ibri.org/RRs/RR013/13jamnia.html
The much maligned Wiki has a good discussion of the Jewish Canon here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Jewish_Bible_canon
Enjoy!
From one of the links I posted in #8 - for any with difficulty following links...
“B. Luther’s Christocentric Hermeneutic
Luther scholar Paul Althaus explains, “[Luther] allows the canon to stand as it was established by the ancient church. But he makes distinctions within the canon.”[14] It is these “distinctions” that are often seen as removal. In these prefaces, Luther explained that he understood the Biblical books in an order based on how clearly “Christ the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone”[15] was enunciated. He considered this to be the apostolic standard by which all was evaluated. Althaus explains,
“It was particularly within the canon that Luther practiced theological criticism of its individual parts. The standard of this criticism is the same as his principle of interpretation, that is, Christ: the gospel of free grace and justification through faith alone. This is what Luther means when he says that the standard is “that which is apostolic.” Luther’s concept of apostolicity is based not only on a historical factor, that is, that Christ himself called and sent out a group of witnesses. Rather, it is determined by the content of a book. An apostle shows that he is an apostle by clearly and purely preaching Christ as Savior. “Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the suffering, resurrection, and office of Christ.” This shows that an apostle is inspired by the Holy Spirit; and this gives him his authority and infallibility. Since apostolic authority manifests itself in the gospel of the apostles, the church recognizes the authority of the Scripture as being based not on the person of the apostles but on the word of God or the gospel which bears witness to itself. The apostolic character of a New Testament author manifests itself in the content of his writing and in the clarity of his witness to Christ.”[16]
Certain books that did not express this were critically questioned by Luther: particularly James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation. The editors of Luther’s Works explain,
“In terms of order, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation come last in Luther’s New Testament because of his negative estimate of their apostolicity. In a catalogue of “The Books of the New Testament” which followed immediately upon his Preface to the New Testament… Luther regularly listed these four—without numbers—at the bottom of a list in which he named the other twenty-three books, in the order in which they still appear in English Bibles, and numbered them consecutively from 1–23… a procedure identical to that with which he also listed the books of the Apocrypha.”[17]
Sometimes it is said that in the actual printings of Luther’s New Testament these four books were printed last without page numbers. The citation above says it was a “list” without page numbers.[18] Also of importance to note is Luther did not treat the four questionable New Testament books in the exact same way as he did the Old Testament apocrypha. Luther critic Hartmann Grisar has explained, “…[Luther] simply excluded the so-called deutero-canonical books of the Old Testament from the list of sacred writings. In his edition they are grouped together at the end of the Old Testament under the title: ‘Apocrypha, i.e., books not to be regarded as equal to Holy Writ, but which are useful and good to read.’ …Luther’s New Testament is somewhat more conservative.”[19] Grisar dubs Luther “conservative” because Luther did not include such a heading before the New Testament books he questioned. Luther’s opinion on the apocrypha was solidified, whereas with the New Testament Luther uses caution.
Luther also found different levels of Christocentric clarity within the Old Testament. He observed that Genesis, Psalms, and Jonah spoke more to the apostolic standard, while the book of Esther did not. The editors of Luther’s Works further explain the judgments contained in the prefaces:
“Luther’s prefaces… brought something new by means of which he revealed his understanding of the Scriptures, namely a set of value judgments and a ranking of the books into categories. For him the Gospel of John and the epistles of Paul as well as I Peter, rank as “the true kernel and marrow of all the books.” As books of secondary rank come Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. While Luther’s assigning of a standard of values to the New Testament books may have been simply an act of religious devotion, it proved to be also, as Holl readily points out, a pioneering step toward modern biblical scholarship. Luther’s prefaces are thus more than simply popular introductions for lay readers. They reveal a theological position of Christocentricity which inevitably affects his understanding of the New Testament canon.”[20]
Luther cannot be criticized for explicitly removing books from the canon of sacred Scripture. One can though disapprove of Luther’s critical questioning of particular New Testament books. Paul Althaus explains, “Luther did not intend to require anyone to accept his judgment, he only wanted to express his own feeling about these particular books.”[21] Althaus finds this to be apparent in Luther’s original prefaces of 1522, but even more so in his revisions of 1530. Lutheran writer Mark Bartling concurs: “Luther’s whole approach was one of only questioning, never rejecting. James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation are only questioned, they are never rejected.”[22] Roland Bainton notes,
“Luther treated Scripture with royal freedom, but not at a whim. There was a clear determinative principle that the word of God is the message of redemption through Christ Jesus our Lord without any merit on our part, and that we are saved solely through heartfelt acceptance in faith. Yet despite the recognition of levels within Scripture, Luther did not treat the book as a whole and shrank from demolishing the canon by excluding James and Esther. The pope, the councils and the Canon Law might go, but to tamper with the traditional selection of the holy writings was one step too much.”[23]”
http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm
"But few realize that in Mark 7:6-8 the Lord was quoting the version of Isaiah that is found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament."
I checked the online English version of the Septuagint and it seems to be more in line with Christ's words than the KJV and DR ....
"Is:29:13 And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men. " --The Septuagint LXX
The authors of the NT did quote the Septuagint. That is different from quoting the Apocrypha...
They certainly are history, Mr. Rogers.
Here's a KJV version with the "Apocrypha", I thought you might want to check it out, I like it.
Thank you. The translation I’ve got is the New English Bible, which is more paraphrase than translation.
I know I had a King James Bible with Apocrypha, although I can’t seem to lay hands on it right now. I think it was another Oxford Bible.
Most scholars state Luther was arbitrary and capricious in his “Distinctions”. The audacity of Luther to subjectively promulgate his negative estimates of the apostolicity of bible books is astonishing and clearly demonstrates his depression and quest for power. It would go well for you to read serious historians on this subject.
“Most scholars”? “Serious historians”?
His thoughts were in line with other scholars of the age. The Apostolic authorship of James, Jude, and Hebrews were and are questioned still. His forwards speak for themselves - both in his favor, and against.
He was not being arbitrary or capricious. Perhaps you should try reading scholars with less bias...or just try reading Luther himself.
***I settled on the Revised Standard Version, based on the KJV carefully modernized (but not PC’d).***
I believe it is based on the Sinaiticus,Vaticanus and Alexandrian texts.
It is interesting that these texts contain THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS as scripture but none of the modern bibles has this tall tale.
***The RSV was available in an excellent annotated Oxford edition***
I have that one. I also have an earlier RSV that does not have the last verses of MARK except in the footnotes.
***I know I had a King James Bible with Apocrypha, ***
I saw a new Cambridge Cameo version in a bookstore about 20 years ago.
You can still get the KJV Apocrypha in a separate printing.
I’ve read them and consider most them to be pious tall tales. Everyone should read them at least once to see that there is nothing substantial in them.
Josephus “Against Apion” Book 1, Chapt. 8.
8. For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, (8) which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.
If the Jewish Canon was indeed settled as Josephus says than the "Council of Javneh" (sometimes called "Jamnia"), about A.D. 90 would not have "needed" to establish a Canon which included more than twenty two books.
"you who have made all things by your Word." (Wisdom 9.1)
"In the beginning was the Word ... All things came to be through Him ... "(St. John 1.1,3)
IF there was a council of Jamnia, it was an entirely new thing, as prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, Hebrew "canon" would have been a matter wholly resolved by the Sanhedrin. The whole concept of "canon" would have been foreign to them.
When the revived Sanhedrin, under Rabbi Zakkai was relocated to Jamnia after the fall of Jerusalem, their focus was on the preservation of the Hebrew religion without it's mainstay, the Temple.
There is no authoritative work that meets the claims that anything was taken out or added to the Jewish canon, when it was supposedly defined as canon at Jamnia - although there was a confirmation of the Writings as scriptural (as probably already affirmed during the Hasmonean Dynasty).
If done decisively, which again, I would assert there is no proof for, this was a direct, defensive move against other forces canonizing, and thereby making authoritative, translations which were opposing the true Scriptures supported by Jerusalem, and consequently, the resurrected Sanhedrin at Jamnia.
It is my opinion that Jamnia, as headed by Rabbi Zakkai, and the very top Rabbis from the Temple at Jerusalem, simply espoused what they had always espoused.
Therefore, what did flow from Jamnia, not in a single council, but all the way along, was a denouncement of the Old Testament as found in the Septuagint- as derived from Greek sources and Arabic targums... and a confirmation of the Masoretic and Babylonian sources, of which the Masoretic survives intact.
It is from these exact precincts that Rabbinical Judaism finds it's root, and it is little wonder that Modern Jews and Protestant Christians alike would strive to preserve the authenticity of the Old Covenant.
As to the Apocryphal books themselves, The OP does not address the primary criticism against them- That being the Hellenization of the books generally, which raises questions as to their patronage. There are no extant copies which do not have that heavy Greek flourish, and barring a find which removes these influences, the books must be considered corrupted. That is the main argument against them, from both the Hebrews and the Protestants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.