Adding Books to the Bible.

[SolomonVII]

The Greek Septuagint was the Bible of the early Christians. Jew and Christian alike at that time considered this version of the bible to be inspired. Many of Paul's quotations of the Old Testament follow the Greek text of the Septuagint. hence, the idea that the original text had to be in Hebrew in order to be considered inspired does not find its source in the earliest churches of Christianity.

Jerome's dislike for much of the deuterocanonical work was as much due to his distate for the highly personalized meanderings of the ideas expressed in many of these works, rather than just whether or not the text was in Greek or Hebrew. As a Hebrew scholar, his natural preference was the older Hebrew texts, but even he too deferred to the near consensus of opinion in regards to what scripture should be composed of.

The final choice of Jewish sages in the century following Christ's death to only include the older Hebrew writings in thei Masoretic text has been regarded by some to be as much a reaction against the early Christians' love of deuterocanaonical works contained within the Septuagint, and a desire to find a way to distinguish themselves from these early Christians. However up until that time, Jews too held all the works of the Septuagint in high regard.

 

[Ainesis]

However up until that time, Jews too held all the works of the Septuagint in high regard.

There is much truth in this post, however let's keep in mind that "in high regard" does not mean the samething as being the literal Word of God that we equate Scripture to be. Many considered these books good for reading and learning (IOW, in high regard), but did not consider them God-breathed.

Just an extra 2 cents!

 

[SolomonVII]

Hi, I think the Bible say not to add books or take away from the Bible. Is this right or wrong?

Robert.

The manner in which the books of the Bible were finally decided upon was through reaching as wide a consensus as possible through the whole of the Christian community. Changes to this compilation that are performed without such a consensus have had the effect of alienating Christians from each other, changing the teaching, and ultimately creating a river of doubt throughout formerly Christian societies as to whether or not any of the books of the bible are really inspired.
IMO, not only would it be wrong to change the text of any particular book in the bible, but it is also bad practice to add or subtract the actual books that make up the bible without first obtaining a general consensus. Such decisions can only lead to a splintering of the faith community.

 

[SolomonVII]

There is much truth in this post, however let's keep in mind that "in high regard" does not mean the samething as being the literal Word of God that we equate Scripture to be. Many considered these books good for reading and learning (IOW, in high regard), but did not consider them God-breathed.

Just an extra 2 cents!

I'll take my Catholic cross for just a second(pretend it is not there for this post) and give my opinion that it was probably not the best idea that the Catholic Church ever had to give the deuterocanonicals the full weight of canonical scripture as a reaction against the Protestant schism.
On the other hand, I an not entirely certain that early Christians did not hold all of the writings oof the septuagint as being God-breathed. Many of the apocryphal works were quoted in the NT with the same authority as the older writings of the Prophets and the Law.
Finally, not all Christians even today regard all of scripture to be the literal Word of God. I would hope though that most of us at least hold all the works that we still hold in common in high regard.
I'' add my two cents to yours, and before you know it we'll have a nickel.

 

[Crazy Liz]

The Greek Septuagint was the Bible of the early Christians. Jew and Christian alike at that time considered this version of the bible to be inspired.

At least the Greek-speaking ones.

The final choice of Jewish sages in the century following Christ's death to only include the older Hebrew writings in thei Masoretic text has been regarded by some to be as much a reaction against the early Christians' love of deuterocanaonical works contained within the Septuagint, and a desire to find a way to distinguish themselves from these early Christians. However up until that time, Jews too held all the works of the Septuagint in high regard.

Or it could be that Palestinian Christians and Jews may have differed with Gentile Christians and Diaspora Jews, with the Gentile party coming to predominate among Christians and the Palestinian party eventually prevailing among the Jews.

Many of Paul's quotations of the Old Testament follow the Greek text of the Septuagint. hence, the idea that the original text had to be in Hebrew in order to be considered inspired does not find its source in the earliest churches of Christianity.

Many of the gospel quotations are also from the LXX.

 

[Crazy Liz]

On target. One of the arguments used against the deuterocanon was that the books were not known in Hebrew at the time -- as it happens, at least one (Ecclesiasticus, AKA the Wisdom of Jeshua ben Sirach, or Sirach) was in fact written in Hebrew but only the Greek version was known to have survived (thanks to the Septuagint) -- we now have an unearthed manuscript of the original Hebrew text but it was not known at the time of the Reformation, and apparently for a long time before that.

The sort of scholarly analysis that is offensive to many conservative "Bible-believing Christians" suggests that several of the deuterocanonical books were actually late writings originally in Greek -- which hardly affects their canonicity.

There are a few places where the LXX differs significantly from the MT besides the inclusion of additional books. Until the DSS were discovered we had no evidence of any Hebrew manuscripts from which the LXX could have been authentic translations. Among the DSS, some of these textual variants were found in Hebrew.

 

[Ainesis]

I'll take my Catholic cross for just a second(pretend it is not there for this post) and give my opinion that it was probably not the best idea that the Catholic Church ever had to give the deuterocanonicals the full weight of canonical scripture as a reaction against the Protestant schism.
On the other hand, I an not entirely certain that early Christians did not hold all of the writings oof the septuagint as being God-breathed. Many of the apocryphal works were quoted in the NT with the same authority as the older writings of the Prophets and the Law.
Finally, not all Christians even today regard all of scripture to be the literal Word of God. I would hope though that most of us at least hold all the works that we still hold in common in high regard.
I'' add my two cents to yours, and before you know it we'll have a nickel.

Actually Solomon, your response added to mine brings us up to $1.23 exactly. LOL

Regarding the NT references to the Septuagint, I agree. However, the NT also references pagan work (Titus 1:12), and they certainly didn't consider that to be God-breathed.

I think it just shows how awesome God is that, in spite of these differences in what is the literal Word of God, He is able to draw man unto Himself.

 

[The Thadman]

Many of the gospel quotations are also from the LXX.

It's a solely Greek phenomena.

The Hebrew NT quotes from the Massoretic, the Coptic from the Coptic, the Aramaic from various Aramaic sources. The Greek LXX quoted within a Greek NT manuscript does not warrant any evidence.

Peace!
-Steve-o

 

[SolomonVII]

At least the Greek-speaking ones.
In terms of Christianity, if, as most scholars agree , the New Testament books were written originally in Greek, in terms of Christianity it would be the Greek-speaking Jews of the diaspora that had the most direct influence on the development of Christianity. Raised in a very diverse, multi-cultural part of the empire, it is also very possible that Jesus knew how to speak Greek as well.


Or it could be that Palestinian Christians and Jews may have differed with Gentile Christians and Diaspora Jews, with the Gentile party coming to predominate among Christians and the Palestinian party eventually prevailing among the Jews.
It is important to remember that the Hebrew community was probably never in their history a uniform community with singular ideas. Being dispersed across the ancient world, different communities were motivated by different ideals. Even among those in Judea proper, there were those like the Herods who desired closer ties to the larger community and others that wanted to be a people set apart. At any rate, after the adoption of the Masoretic text by Jewish sages as canon, and the destruction of the Temple, there was no Palestinian Jews became part of the Diaspora. Adoption of the Masoretic Hebrew as canon had the practical function of making Jew and Christian distinct.

Many of the gospel quotations are also from the LXX.

The version of the bible I have has the Septuagint verses quoted in the back. Among the gospels listed as quoting or paraphrasing the septuagint are Matt 1.23, 3.3,12.21, 13.14-15, 15.8-9, 21.16; Mark 1.3, 4.12, 7.6-7; Luke 3.4-6, 4.18, 8.10; John 1.23, 12.38,12.40. There are many other verses of the NT that are quoting the Septuagint as well, which is often quite different in meaning from the Masoretic text. As well, it is often the LXX that picks up the particular Christian interpretation of the Old Testament prophecy much better than the Masoretic does.
In this regard, the idea that the Septuagint text finds some authentication in the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls is very interesting. It is no longer correct to believe that the Masoretic is more authentic than the LXX, as there seem to be different versions of the same Hebrew text.

 

[Polycarp1]

It's a solely Greek phenomena.

The Hebrew NT quotes from the Massoretic, the Coptic from the Coptic, the Aramaic from various Aramaic sources. The Greek LXX quoted within a Greek NT manuscript does not warrant any evidence.

Peace!
-Steve-o

Being as you're now subscribed to this thread, Steve, let me ask if, aside from the three or four places where Jesus's exact words in Aramaic were quoted verbatim by the Evangelists, the Aramaic text we have (which I gather is a back-translation) has any evidence of original usages that might be of interest.

Me, I seldom use the deuterocanonicals for anything -- but I respect them as God's word and on occasion find something that they say illuminates something in the rest of Scripture.

 

[The Thadman]

Being as you're now subscribed to this thread, Steve, let me ask if, aside from the three or four places where Jesus's exact words in Aramaic were quoted verbatim by the Evangelists, the Aramaic text we have (which I gather is a back-translation) has any evidence of original usages that might be of interest.

Glad you asked I have a website that I have been working on for 4 years dedicated to that precise study. http://www.AramaicNT.org . My current theory is that much of the NT was originally written in Aramaic, and then was subsequently translated into Greek, thereby being easily disseminated throughout the Roman empire. The "back translated" Aramaic Manuscripts have some interesting phenomena when compared to the Greek MSS which appear to betray themselves to an Aramaic original.

For example, we have poetry which rhymes in Aramaic, yet is lacking in the Greek, as well as word-play, punnery, and even scribal mistakes that can only occur from one language to another.

Peace!
-Steve-o

 

[Crazy Liz]

It is important to remember that the Hebrew community was probably never in their history a uniform community with singular ideas. Being dispersed across the ancient world, different communities were motivated by different ideals. Even among those in Judea proper, there were those like the Herods who desired closer ties to the larger community and others that wanted to be a people set apart. At any rate, after the adoption of the Masoretic text by Jewish sages as canon, and the destruction of the Temple, there was no Palestinian Jews became part of the Diaspora. Adoption of the Masoretic Hebrew as canon had the practical function of making Jew and Christian distinct.

Actually, after the destruction of the Second Temple, it was the party of the Pharisees that evolved into today's rabbinic Judaism. Thus, although the Jews were largely ejected from Palestine, it was one of the Palestinian sects that unified the Jews who did not follow Jesus around the Law as a replacement for the Temple and its sacrifices.

 

[Ave Maria]

It comes down to what we believe. Is the Bible enough or do we need extra material.

I believe the Bible is enough, extras will only get us into trouble.

Removing is just as bad as adding.

Don't do either.

The Bible is most definitely enough. I believe that we should not add or remove anything from any part of the Bible.

 

[Polycarp1]

The Bible is most definitely enough. I believe that we should not add or remove anything from any part of the Bible.

But Holly, you're a Baptist. You have to prove to me that Baptism is an ordinance and not a sacrament, and that there's a Biblical stricture against paedobaptism. You have to show me in Scripture that the congregational polity is preferential or required as against the episcopal, presbyterian, or papocentric.

Forgive me -- I'm not knocking Baptist beliefs here. My point, as I trust you gathered, is that even the most firmly Sola Scriptura based churches do add to the Bible -- at least their own interpretation of what it says or commands.

Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox, and Catholics hold firmly to the idea that Holy Tradition -- the preserved doctrines of belief and practice, taken as a comprehensive whole -- supplements the Bible's explicit words without contradicting it in any way. Almost anything which Christian churches believe or do is a tacit use of Holy Tradition to interpret and supplement Scripture.

 

[SolomonVII]

Actually, after the destruction of the Second Temple, it was the party of the Pharisees that evolved into today's rabbinic Judaism. Thus, although the Jews were largely ejected from Palestine, it was one of the Palestinian sects that unified the Jews who did not follow Jesus around the Law as a replacement for the Temple and its sacrifices.

Although I do agree that it was the Pharisees that have evolved into rabbinic Judaism of today, is it true that the Pharisees were exclusively a Palestinian sect? For example, Saul of Tarsus called himself a Pharisee, and yet he was not from Palestine, and he was in many ways throughly hellenized.

 

[The Thadman]

Although I do agree that it was the Pharisees that have evolved into rabbinic Judaism of today, is it true that the Pharisees were exclusively a Palestinian sect? For example, Saul of Tarsus called himself a Pharisee, and yet he was not from Palestine, and he was in many ways throughly hellenized.

The Pharisees were all over the place, not just Palestine.

I'd debate about Paul's helenization though He's a lot more Jewish than people would credit him, especially with his poetry and metaphors.

Peace!
-Steve-o

 

[SolomonVII]

The Pharisees were all over the place, not just Palestine.

I'd debate about Paul's helenization though He's a lot more Jewish than people would credit him, especially with his poetry and metaphors.

Peace!
-Steve-o

I suppose a clue to how Jewish he really was would be the fact (which I learned from another thread) that God addressed him in Hebrew during his conversion process.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe his viewpoint as cosmopolitan rather than strictly Hellenic, for even if his metaphors and his knowledge of Hebrew scripture demonstated his intimate awareness of Hebrew culture, his use of logic and the rhetorical skills employed when setting forth his arguments do show some Greek influence as well.

(How's that for ducking out of a debate I'd be sure to lose ).

Of course, my description of him as being hellenized is based on the assumption that he was using the greek language Septuagint for his reference to scripture, and that he was writing his letters in Greek. From your site, and from some of your posts that I have stumbled upon (the one about the Lord's Prayer being originally an Aramaic poem was interesting), I gather that you may not agree that this was the case.

In any case, in the sense that Paul understood the gospel message as being inclusive for all people of his Hellenic world, instead of as just being an exclusive relationship between God and his chosen people, Paul's showed his basic intent to be a blurring of the distinction between Greek and Jew. Rather than to remain as a people set apart, as many Jews might have preferred, for Paul, such a tribal identification no longer was an integral part od his identity.

In this sense, then, it would be fair to characterize Paul as being Hellenized. In the sense that he remained true to the essential meaning of scripture, and delivered God's message to the nations as prophecied by Isaiah, he also remained true to his own Jewish heritage in both a literary and a spiritual way.

In other words, it would be very difficult to argue against the essentially Jewish nature of either the Old Testament or the New. Paul was not Hellenic at the expense of his own Jewishness, but he was Hellenic in his willingness to enter into communion with the larger society that he found himself in.

 

[Polycarp1]

I suppose a clue to how Jewish he really was would be the fact (which I learned from another thread) that God addressed him in Hebrew during his conversion process.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe his viewpoint as cosmopolitan rather than strictly Hellenic, for even if his metaphors and his knowledge of Hebrew scripture demonstated his intimate awareness of Hebrew culture, his use of logic and the rhetorical skills employed when setting forth his arguments do show some Greek influence as well.

(How's that for ducking out of a debate I'd be sure to lose ).

Of course, my description of him as being hellenized is based on the assumption that he was using the greek language Septuagint for his reference to scripture, and that he was writing his letters in Greek. From your site, and from some of your posts that I have stumbled upon (the one about the Lord's Prayer being originally an Aramaic poem was interesting), I gather that you may not agree that this was the case.

In any case, in the sense that Paul understood the gospel message as being inclusive for all people of his Hellenic world, instead of as just being an exclusive relationship between God and his chosen people, Paul's showed his basic intent to be a blurring of the distinction between Greek and Jew. Rather than to remain as a people set apart, as many Jews might have preferred, for Paul, such a tribal identification no longer was an integral part od his identity.

In this sense, then, it would be fair to characterize Paul as being Hellenized. In the sense that he remained true to the essential meaning of scripture, and delivered God's message to the nations as prophecied by Isaiah, he also remained true to his own Jewish heritage in both a literary and a spiritual way.

In other words, it would be very difficult to argue against the essentially Jewish nature of either the Old Testament or the New. Paul was not Hellenic at the expense of his own Jewishness, but he was Hellenic in his willingness to enter into communion with the larger society that he found himself in.

This is a very nice bit of argumentation, and I enjoyed reading it. Of course, I can't rep you for it, because part of the point of this thread is whether one can legitimately reference the Wisdom of Solomon!!

Actually, though, I'd see the question of Paul's language and customary Scripture-of-reference as not being indicative of his philosophical/cultural bent, in this regard. To draw a modern parallel, imagine a long-extended Dark Ages in which the Irish preserve the Christian tradition, speaking Irish Gaelic as they were wont to do. But now civilization is experiencing a rebirth, and nearly everybody is facile in English. So a missioner from Ireland to Great Britain and America would reference the Scriptures in English, write his letters in English -- not because he's become "Anglicized" per se, but because it's the language of international scholarship and commerce, where few people, even of Irish descent, are competent in Gaelic any more.