SolomonVII
Well-Known Member
- Sep 4, 2003
- 23,138
- 4,919
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Greens
Perhaps an interesting way to view this question is from the perspective of the midrashic interpretation that was given to scripture in these times. Perhaps messianic Christians will have a better idea of what is meant by this, but in general it may be described as the very personal interpretations that the rabbis gave to their readings of scripture. Prime examples of the midrashic method from the Gospels would be Jesus' own parables in which he helps elucidate aspects of Scripture through creating entirely new stories that were not actual historic events, but truth being derived from an easily understood fictional situation.
Now for Jesus, the Scripture that was definetly authoritive was the The Law (Torah), the Prophets, and the Psalms. For most early Christians however, the Writings were not excluded to just the Psalms but the Septuagint that was their main source of reference included all of the Masoretic texts of the Hebrew Bible (decided upon around 100 AD) and at least thirteen additional works called the Apocrypha.
Now the Apocryphal works themselves, even though they were revered by Christian and Jew alike in the first centurya AD, were actually composed at a much later date than the Old Testament books that both Hebrew and later Protestants decided upon as authoritive. In a sense these books- and the Book of Enoch may be included among these works, share the same midrashic characteristics as the parables of Jesus. Rather than being historical works, they appear more as highly individualized interpretations of the Scripture that came before. For this reason, even though his advice was not followed, Jerome tried to keep these works "apocryphal", or hidden from the scripture that he found to be more inspired.
A problem arises because the midrashic technique of elucidating God's truth through individualized interpretation threatens to obscure the historical fact of Jesus life. Even though the Gospel of Thomas has much in common with other gospels, its association with Gnosticism, which denies the humanity of Christ even to the point of denying He was a real historical person, does not make clear the nature of Christs as fully human and fully Divine. (In similar fashion, the liberal theology of moderns such as Bishop Spong accentuate the midrashic aspects of the Gospels to the extent of denying His humanity).
Without midrashic interpretaion of the Gospels, the story of Jesus is threatened to be reduced to mere history and the prophetic significance of His ministry is minimized. However, when midrashic interpretation becomes the only interpretation, Jesus becomes reduced to myth.
IN this way, the question becomes not so much one of lost books, but of finding the correct balance in which Christ's divinity and humanity are equally stressed.
Now for Jesus, the Scripture that was definetly authoritive was the The Law (Torah), the Prophets, and the Psalms. For most early Christians however, the Writings were not excluded to just the Psalms but the Septuagint that was their main source of reference included all of the Masoretic texts of the Hebrew Bible (decided upon around 100 AD) and at least thirteen additional works called the Apocrypha.
Now the Apocryphal works themselves, even though they were revered by Christian and Jew alike in the first centurya AD, were actually composed at a much later date than the Old Testament books that both Hebrew and later Protestants decided upon as authoritive. In a sense these books- and the Book of Enoch may be included among these works, share the same midrashic characteristics as the parables of Jesus. Rather than being historical works, they appear more as highly individualized interpretations of the Scripture that came before. For this reason, even though his advice was not followed, Jerome tried to keep these works "apocryphal", or hidden from the scripture that he found to be more inspired.
A problem arises because the midrashic technique of elucidating God's truth through individualized interpretation threatens to obscure the historical fact of Jesus life. Even though the Gospel of Thomas has much in common with other gospels, its association with Gnosticism, which denies the humanity of Christ even to the point of denying He was a real historical person, does not make clear the nature of Christs as fully human and fully Divine. (In similar fashion, the liberal theology of moderns such as Bishop Spong accentuate the midrashic aspects of the Gospels to the extent of denying His humanity).
Without midrashic interpretaion of the Gospels, the story of Jesus is threatened to be reduced to mere history and the prophetic significance of His ministry is minimized. However, when midrashic interpretation becomes the only interpretation, Jesus becomes reduced to myth.
IN this way, the question becomes not so much one of lost books, but of finding the correct balance in which Christ's divinity and humanity are equally stressed.
Upvote
0
