Let's talk about the Bible, how did it come to be and other fascinating facts or feelings related to Scripture

[JenniferB]

^^ Big title. I wonder if it will show up in its entirety.

 

Can we talk about the Christian Bible?

 

I really <3 the study of church history and I would like to discuss the implications surrounding the fact that the putting together and establishment of the Scriptures we have today was a very long process. For one, it didn't take one meeting (council). Scripture was in use in the liturgy before it was what we would call officially "Scripture." And it wasn't until 400+ years after Christ that the Scriptures became an official canon. But it was a pretty organic process: Scriptures were used in some unity, and the councils were a good place to make official that which was already in use. Does this disturb anyone and if so, why and in what way and what do you want to "do with that?"

 

I have heard it said by someone who's teaching was very instrumental in my Christian experience that he believed the Church had gone astray somewhere in the 200's or 300's and the forming of the canon "was a problem" to him, but he couldn't articulate in what way it was a problem.

 

I would like to understand what problems folks have with the forming of the canon and what particular teachings, doctrine, etc would move someone to say the church went astray in the early 200's or 300's.

 

So that we all have a very, very basic idea of what the process was like, here's a wiki on the subject:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon

 

Other more detailed articles / papers are welcome to be shared.

[Georgiana Daniels]

I LOVE this topic. I'm particularly interested in the use of Septuagint vs the Masoretic text. Following...

[JenniferB]

In studying the Bible recently, I came across a couple of new thoughts from of old. What do you think about these quotes from some early fathers in the faith?

 

The great thinker Origen called the Bible God's “baby talk†to humanity, and St. John Chrysostom perceived Scripture as an expression of divine “condescension."

[Carol in Cal.]

Condescension (English) did not always have the insulting connotations that it does now.  For instance, I remember in one of the Jane Austen books it is used as an admiring term.  I wonder what is implied by that older use in your citation?

[Tsuga]

Somewhat tangential, but you may find Jaroslav Pelikan's works interesting:

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=ByjAZqIej90C&dq=jaroslav+pelikan+church+history&sitesec=reviews

[JenniferB]

Condescension (English) did not always have the insulting connotations that it does now. For instance, I remember in one of the Jane Austen books it is used as an admiring term. I wonder what is implied by that older use in your citation?

I do not think it's used in an insulting way but to say that God humbled Himself so as to be described within the limitations of language for our sakes.

[JenniferB]

Somewhat tangential, but you may find Jaroslav Pelikan's works interesting:

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=ByjAZqIej90C&dq=jaroslav+pelikan+church+history&sitesec=reviews

Is there a particular paragraph or passage you can share here?

[mommaduck]

Subbing

[ktgrok]

In studying the Bible recently, I came across a couple of new thoughts from of old. What do you think about these quotes from some early fathers in the faith?

 

The great thinker Origen called the Bible God's “baby talk†to humanity, and St. John Chrysostom perceived Scripture as an expression of divine “condescension."

 

i've never read that, but wow. I totally agree with Origen! I mean, it has to be baby talk, when you consider this is God talking to us mere humans. It also goes along with my personal (studied) belief that many stories are NOT literal. I'm an old earth evolutionist, and I've always thought that the creation story was phrased to make sense to the people of the time. Throwing in microbiology and genetics wouldn't have accomplished anything, so God left that stuff out and made it accessible. Baby talk. Love it!

[Hyacinth]

This topic is so interesting to me! It was never ever discussed in all of my Protestant church-attending, verse-memorizing, sermon-listening life. Talk of Christian history was limited to Jesus, Paul, a little bit of Martin Luther, and Billy Graham.

 

I once asked a youth pastor how we could be sure that the verse "all scripture is God-breathed..." was supposed to be applied to the whole Bible as we know it now when the whole Bible didn't yet exist when it was written. (I probably saw it as circular reasoning even though I didn't know the term then). I don't recall his answer but I know it was unsatisfying.

 

All that to say I'll be following this thread.

[Bluegoat]

Condescension (English) did not always have the insulting connotations that it does now.  For instance, I remember in one of the Jane Austen books it is used as an admiring term.  I wonder what is implied by that older use in your citation?

 

It implies coming down to someone's level so you can meet together. 

 

It became insulting because of the idea that some people are "above" others.  The dutchess made time to talk to you!  How wonderfully condescending!

 

But it doesn't have to be used that way.  For example, an expert who would make the effort to talk to non-experts in a way they can really get to understand the topic could be correctly said to be condescending to them.  So it could equally imply this person seeing that he had a duty, or that other people who are less expert being worth talking to, and so on.

 

In the case of God, the word is used to talk about not only expressing himself in human language, but being involved with people at all (unlike the platonic ideas of god) and involvement through creation or nature and the Incarnation.

[J-rap]

i've never read that, but wow. I totally agree with Origen! I mean, it has to be baby talk, when you consider this is God talking to us mere humans. It also goes along with my personal (studied) belief that many stories are NOT literal. I'm an old earth evolutionist, and I've always thought that the creation story was phrased to make sense to the people of the time. Throwing in microbiology and genetics wouldn't have accomplished anything, so God left that stuff out and made it accessible. Baby talk. Love it!

 

I've always thought this too.  Can you recommend any books that discuss this?

 

[Pam in CT]

In studying the Bible recently, I came across a couple of new thoughts from of old. What do you think about these quotes from some early fathers in the faith?

 

The great thinker Origen called the Bible God's “baby talk†to humanity, and St. John Chrysostom perceived Scripture as an expression of divine “condescension."

Love that image...

 

 

re: multiple possible meanings/associations of the word 'condescension'"

It implies coming down to someone's level so you can meet together. 

 

It became insulting because of the idea that some people are "above" others.  The dutchess made time to talk to you!  How wonderfully condescending!

 

But it doesn't have to be used that way.  For example, an expert who would make the effort to talk to non-experts in a way they can really get to understand the topic could be correctly said to be condescending to them.  So it could equally imply this person seeing that he had a duty, or that other people who are less expert being worth talking to, and so on...

 

WRT to the Austen usage, I also think of "code-switching' -- even mere mortals who aren't coming "down" or going "up" sometimes change their manner of address depending on who they're with, in order to improve the chances of meaningful mutual comprehension.

 

 

There's a beautiful construct in Judaism of tzimzum, the idea that prior to creation God had to "contract" in order to make "room" for it... which yields up all sorts of gorgeous and goofy possibilities... but its core sense, that if God is infinite and ineffable whereas we are finite, that any mechanism for communication between us is necessarily limiting, is an idea I find myself coming back to over and over, in different ways as I age and evolve.

[Bluegoat]

Love that image...

 

 

re: multiple possible meanings/associations of the word 'condescension'"

WRT to the Austen usage, I also think of "code-switching' -- even mere mortals who aren't coming "down" or going "up" sometimes change their manner of address depending on who they're with, in order to improve the chances of meaningful mutual comprehension.

 

 

There's a beautiful construct in Judaism of tzimzum, the idea that prior to creation God had to "contract" in order to make "room" for it... which yields up all sorts of gorgeous and goofy possibilities... but its core sense, that if God is infinite and ineffable whereas we are finite, that any mechanism for communication between us is necessarily limiting, is an idea I find myself coming back to over and over, in different ways as I age and evolve.

 

I was thinking just the same thing about code-switching, though I didn't know the word, so that is avery useful thing to have learned.

 

I think we have a similar concept in Christianity - we talk about God having to bring himself into being to reveal himself, both in natural and special revelation (creation and Scripture.) We make a distinction between what we can say or know about God, and what he is in his own right.  The most accurate theology of God is always language that doesn't in any way limit him - it's called apophatic or negative theology.  It consists mostly of statements like "God is not..."   

 

Eriugena who was a very interesting Irish theologian said "We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what he is, because he is not anything. Literally, God is not, because He transcends being." 

 

To bring this back to the OP question - I think this is a really important point, because it tells us that Scripture doesn't somehow contain God, it doesn't hold him in or limit him.  We have to understand it as pointing in many cases to realities beyond ourminds and language conventions.

[Carol in Cal.]

Well, the Incarnation is condescension in the positive sense of the word.  We term it Christ's 'humiliation' but emphasize that He was not merely sent but in the most complete sense chose to come.

[Carol in Cal.]

This topic is so interesting to me! It was never ever discussed in all of my Protestant church-attending, verse-memorizing, sermon-listening life. Talk of Christian history was limited to Jesus, Paul, a little bit of Martin Luther, and Billy Graham.

 

 

FWIW, as a Confessional Lutheran we did talk about all of this stuff, a great deal; and in my Lutheran school we spent a year learning Church history starting with the Ascension and learning it continuously.

[Hyacinth]

FWIW, as a Confessional Lutheran we did talk about all of this stuff, a great deal; and in my Lutheran school we spent a year learning Church history starting with the Ascension and learning it continuously.

[Hyacinth]

I'm jealous. I didn't know it then, of course, but I wish now that I would've had that kind of instruction.

 

My church background is largely independent Baptist and non-denominational.

[Hyacinth]

Don't know what happened there. Why is my response separate from the quote? Stupid phone...(or, rather, foolish phone user).

[Georgiana Daniels]

Yes! I agree with Origen. That's why, imo, while Scripture is inspired and holy and God-breathed, I can't get too hung up on things that appear to be inconsistent, hard to understand or don't make sense. Simply put, human words can't contain the awesomeness of God.

[JenniferB]

Well, the Incarnation is condescension in the positive sense of the word. We term it Christ's 'humiliation' but emphasize that He was not merely sent but in the most complete sense chose to come.

So appropriate as we prepare to prepare for the nativity.

[milovany]

I don't know if this is completely related, but it's how I understand there being a growing, vibrant church that people would die for prior to there being an organized canon.  The church was obviously living a full liturgical, salvational life not based solely on writings, but based instead on the oral teaching that was being passed down (starting with the Holy Apostles) and on example-based living.  Perhaps there was some kind of developing need or desire for something written, so (related to the Origen comment) I can see God saying, "Oh, alright! [not really in an exasperated way, but in that condescending way spoken of above] Let me give you some of the basics in written format," and He inspired the church fathers to bring together some of the letters being passed around and put them together in a book.  It was baby talk in format because an exhaustive compendium wasn't necessary since a full liturgical life was already being lived in the Church. 

 

ETA:

That's not to diminish the importance of the Holy Scriptures at all.  They are very important and to be honored to be sure. Our Gospel Book is gold-covered, the entire first half of our Divine Liturgy is dedicated the New Testament readings, and we stand when the book is opened and the words are read.  I'm just saying that the Holy Scriptures are one part of a much larger picture. 

[Mom-ninja.]

Well, this is then a timely discovery for this thread. The article is about new insights in the translation for the King James Bible.

[Carol in Cal.]

Yes! I agree with Origen. That's why, imo, while Scripture is inspired and holy and God-breathed, I can't get too hung up on things that appear to be inconsistent, hard to understand or don't make sense. Simply put, human words can't contain the awesomeness of God.

True, and yet, "All Scripture...is profitable for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."  So while we shouldn't get hung up on these things, it is still good to wrestle with the texts that God has given us.

 

In context:  II Tim. 3:  14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom^a you learned it 15and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God^b may be complete, equipped for every good work.

[Carol in Cal.]

I don't know if this is completely related, but it's how I understand there being a growing, vibrant church that people would die for prior to there being an organized canon.  The church was obviously living a full liturgical, salvational life not based solely on writings, but based instead on the oral teaching that was being passed down (starting with the Holy Apostles) and on example-based living.  Perhaps there was some kind of developing need or desire for something written, so (related to the Origen comment) I can see God saying, "Oh, alright! [not really in an exasperated way, but in that condescending way spoken of above] Let me give you some of the basics in written format," and He inspired the church fathers to bring together some of the letters being passed around and put them together in a book.  It was baby talk in format because an exhaustive compendium wasn't necessary since the full, life-giving liturgical of the church was already being lived. 

The full liturgical life was indeed in place, but it also included readings from the beginning.

Epistles were passed around and read in their entirety during church services (if only...).  Gospels were told and then later were read.  The Hebrew Scriptural cycle was continued in the early Christian church (in which the entire Hebrew Bible was read in public out loud as part of synagogue worship each year.)

 

The main basis of canonization was regular and widespread use in early churches of specific writings.  Which in turn demonstrates that use.

[JenniferB]

I've always thought this too. Can you recommend any books that discuss this?

 

I'm going through a series of podcasts right now which gives an extensive introduction to the Bible: what is the Bible, where did we get it, why should we study it...then she picks up in Genesis and goes verse by verse. It's a university course she teaches, modified slightly for Orthodox Christians, which means more detail on the Orthodox side. God willing she will go all the way to Revelation. She's up to Ezekiel now. She's a professor and a Phd in church history (I think) but very accessible, not dry, conversational.

 

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/searchthescriptures

[bolt.]

A very interesting topic. I can put on my "Bible College Prof" hat and help explore the issue. I like a like a lot of what people are saying here.

 

One's understating of inspiration and canonization can have a strong impact of how one interprets the Bible, so it's a surprisingly everyday issue even for people who don't often think it through.

[Carol in Cal.]

Have you all ever been to a synogogue service?  In the several that I have attended over the years, the scrolls of the Holy Writings are kept in a gorgeous, elevated cabinet at the back of what we would call the chancel.  They are revealed ceremonially.  And at a certain point they are carried around the assembly, with the common worshippers (laity?) touching them reverently as they go by.  The focus on this is very beautiful.

[milovany]

The full liturgical life was indeed in place, but it also included readings from the beginning.

Epistles were passed around and read in their entirety during church services (if only...).  Gospels were told and then later were read.  The Hebrew Scriptural cycle was continued in the early Christian church (in which the entire Hebrew Bible was read in public out loud as part of synagogue worship each year.)

 

The main basis of canonization was regular and widespread use in early churches of specific writings.  Which in turn demonstrates that use.

 

Yes, thank you!  That's what I mean, He brought together the writings into one book at some point in time.  But, yes, before this there were readings in the services, from the Psalms and individual letters. 

[Carol in Cal.]

So appropriate as we prepare to prepare for the nativity.

Indeed!  Maranatha, come, Lord Jesus!

[Georgiana Daniels]

True, and yet, "All Scripture...is profitable for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." So while we shouldn't get hung up on these things, it is still good to wrestle with the texts that God has given us.

 

In context: II Tim. 3: 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom^a you learned it 15and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God^b may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Agree!

 

I love reading/studying/memorizing Scripture now more than ever. My earlier point being, there are obscure passages and hard topics in the Bible that many theologians and great thinkers have wrestled with over the ages, and I'm not likely going to have any more clarity than they, and I'm OK with it.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

Have you all ever been to a synogogue service? In the several that I have attended over the years, the scrolls of the Holy Writings are kept in a gorgeous, elevated cabinet at the back of what we would call the chancel. They are revealed ceremonially. And at a certain point they are carried around the assembly, with the common worshippers (laity?) touching them reverently as they go by. The focus on this is very beautiful.

Orthodox Christians also make a procession through the church with the Gospels bound in gold during the point in the Divine Liturgy where we prepare to hear the Word of God. It sounds very similar and is not surprising.

 

Coming back to add that the laity touch and kiss the hem of the priests vestments as he makes the procession of the Great Entrance when the gifts of bread and wine are brought out before the consecration.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

I love reading/studying/memorizing Scripture now more than ever. My earlier point being, there are obscure passages and hard topics in the Bible that many theologians and great thinkers have wrestled with over the ages, and I'm not likely going to have any more clarity than they, and I'm OK with it.

Righto!

 

I Cor. 13:  "12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."

 

and

 

2 Peter 3:  "15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen."

[Carol in Cal.]

Orthodox Christians also make a procession through the church with the Gospels bound in gold during the point in the Divine Liturgy where we prepare to hear the Word of God. It sounds very similar and is not surprising.

Confessional Lutherans have a Gospel procession on festival days also, but ours is always to the center of the church, down the center aisle, into the midst of the congregation, through which the Word goes forth.  The Jewish ceremony that I have observed is around the entire perimeter, I think for maximum personal exposure but am not sure.

 

They are both very beautiful but quite different.

[mommaduck]

True, and yet, "All Scripture...is profitable for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." So while we shouldn't get hung up on these things, it is still good to wrestle with the texts that God has given us.

 

In context: II Tim. 3: 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom^a you learned it 15and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God^b may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Yes, ALL. That would include the Deuterocanonicals, also known as The Second Canon or The Lesser Canon (but equally of import). They are mistakenly called the Apocrypha, but that was actually a third set of books that were never part of either Canon. Interestingly, even the Reformers held the Deuterocanonicals up as good spiritual trading, even though they did not hold to it as Scripture.

 

Honestly, between missing out on the Deuterocanonicals and Tradition, I felt like I had only been given half the story. Because of this, I was critical of practices, because they hadn't been in *my* Bible. Like another poster, I had been raised IFB and my education had been limited to "Sword Drills" and only what was between the covers of the modern KJV (KJV used to include the Second Canon). History, it makes a difference.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

Confessional Lutherans have a Gospel procession on festival days also, but ours is always to the center of the church, down the center aisle, into the midst of the congregation, through which the Word goes forth. The Jewish ceremony that I have observed is around the entire perimeter, I think for maximum personal exposure but am not sure.

 

They are both very beautiful but quite different.

Yes. Orthodox processions go either around and down the middle (when there are chairs or pews in the nave) or it makes a circular path through the laity who move to create a space because we are all standing together side by side without chairs or pews. My church has no chairs or pews except for some chairs along the wall for people to rest.

[Carol in Cal.]

Yes, ALL. That would include the Deuterocanonicals, also known as The Second Canon or The Lesser Canon (but equally of import). They are mistakenly called the Apocrypha, but that was actually a third set of books that were never part of either Canon.

 

Honestly, between missing out on the Deuterocanonicals and Tradition, I felt like I had only been given half the story. Because of this, I was critical of practices, because they hadn't been in *my* Bible. Like another poster, I had been raised IFB and my education had been limited to "Sword Drills" and only what was between the covers of the modern KJV (KJV used to include the Second Canon). History, it makes a difference.

Early Confessional Lutheran Bibles all included the Apocrypha and Josephus' account of the fall of Jerusalem.  English translations tended to start excluding those, I am not sure why, but they have fairly recently been retranslated and published in modern English by CPH--I have owned them both for a while.  Having read older translations before, I appreciate the modern ones all the more.  And there are some quotes from the Aprocrypha in our liturgies.  

 

There were always ranks within the canon.  Even in the non-apocryphal books there are the homologoumena and the antilegomena.  Confessional Lutherans view the Apocrypha as useful but not Holy Writ.  As original source material it's all useful and fascinating, something that tends to be lost on modern liberal Bible scholars.

[mommaduck]

When the Deuterocanonicals started to be left out, blank pages were initially left in their place by the printers. They wanted people to remember what was supposed to be there, but they had been instructed to remove them.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

I'm going through a series of podcasts right now which gives an extensive introduction to the Bible: what is the Bible, where did we get it, why should we study it...then she picks up in Genesis and goes verse by verse. It's a university course she teaches, modified slightly for Orthodox Christians, which means more detail on the Orthodox side. God willing she will go all the way to Revelation. She's up to Ezekiel now. She's a professor and a Phd in church history (I think) but very accessible, not dry, conversational.

 

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/searchthescriptures

 

I love that podcast!

 

There's also a new podcast called The Bible's Grand Narrative: A Weaver's Tale by Marcia Harris Brim that's intended for all Christians. http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/biblesnarrative

[albeto.]

Well, this is then a timely discovery for this thread. The article is about new insights in the translation for the King James Bible.

 

The correlation between the founding documents of the xian religion and Ugaritic texts is an equally interesting insight into the modern bible.  According to many ancient mythologies, one of the [70] children of El and Asherah was Baal Hadad, a character which evolved into Yahweh for the Israelites. These examples illustrate that like all other religions, the one of the Israelites was influenced by the religion and mythology of cultures around them, ultimately modified to reflect their beliefs. I know it's wiki, but it's nice for those of us with short attention spans who want to quickly find links and references: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

[MercyA]

I recommend this course,

, which covers topics like revelation, inspiration, inerrancy, and the Old and New Testament canons. I've taken other classes by the professor, who has degrees in classical studies and European history from Stanford University and a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Virginia. He attended the American School of Classical Studies in Athens and the Intercollegiate Center for Classical Studies in Rome. So, he knows a lot about history (and, as a lawyer, about evidence!). He is someone who spent many years away from Christianity, but returned to it later in life. Please note that he does have Parkinson's. He speaks well, but his facial expression may be somewhat affected. Lots of interesting information here, if you have the time!

[mommaduck]

I recommend this course,

, which covers topics like revelation, inspiration, inerrancy, and the Old and New Testament canons. I've taken other classes by the professor, who has degrees in classical studies and European history from Stanford University and a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Virginia. He attended the American School of Classical Studies in Athens and the Intercollegiate Center for Classical Studies in Rome. So, he knows a lot about history (and, as a lawyer, about evidence!). He is someone who spent many years away from Christianity, but returned to it later in life. Please note that he does have Parkinson's. He speaks well, but his facial expression may be somewhat affected. Lots of interesting information here, if you have the time!

I can't find much on him. May I ask who he is associated with (church, books, denomination?). I always like to know what perspective/tradition they are before I watch (it doesn't keep me from watching, but it does give me an idea of where they are coming from and where they might be going with the subject).

[MIch elle]

I highly recommend the Yale Open Courses (free online) on the Old Testament, Prof. Christine Hayes and New Testament, Prof. Dale Martin.  If you read the Bible while doing these lectures, it's an illuminating study of The Bible. 

 

The Teaching Company courses are also excellent with Bart Ehrman, Amy-Jill Levine and Luke T. Johnson.

[MercyA]

I can't find much on him. May I ask who he is associated with (church, books, denomination?). I always like to know what perspective/tradition they are before I watch (it doesn't keep me from watching, but it does give me an idea of where they are coming from and where they might be going with the subject).

 

Sure, I'm the same way. He teaches at Maranatha Bible College, which is an affiliate of Calvary Chapel Bible College. He is on the elder / deacon board at Maranatha Chapel in San Diego. When I knew him, he attended a Reformed Baptist church. I would say he leans Calvinist in his personal beliefs. (I don't, and I still think he's an excellent teacher).

[Georgiana Daniels]

I highly recommend the Yale Open Courses (free online) on the Old Testament, Prof. Christine Hayes and New Testament, Prof. Dale Martin.  If you read the Bible while doing these lectures, it's an illuminating study of The Bible. 

 

The Teaching Company courses are also excellent with Bart Ehrman, Amy-Jill Levine and Luke T. Johnson.

 

I know Bart Ehrman is the man who lost his faith--I wonder if the others mentioned are also without a faith tradition? Just curious, as I like to know where people are coming from :001_smile:

[TianXiaXueXiao]

The correlation between the founding documents of the xian religion and Ugaritic texts is an equally interesting insight into the modern bible. According to many ancient mythologies, one of the [70] children of El and Asherah was Baal Hadad, a character which evolved into Yahweh for the Israelites. These examples illustrate that like all other religions, the one of the Israelites was influenced by the religion and mythology of cultures around them, ultimately modified to reflect their beliefs. I know it's wiki, but it's nice for those of us with short attention spans who want to quickly find links and references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

It's all so fascinating! I wish I could speak to Ugaritic mythology better but I have very little experience or knowledge of it. I do appreciate the remarks of Eric Jobe, a contemporary Orthodox Christian commentator who speaks to the elements of mythical imagination in the Bible when he states:

The Baal myth was deeply embedded in the consciousness of the ancient Israelites, and its tropes reverberated through the centuries even into the New Testament, where the Apocalypse of John (Revelation) depicts a dragon (ch. 12) and a seven-headed beast rising out of the sea (ch. 13) who wages war against Christ and his Church.

Taken from his blog post on the topic. https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/departinghoreb/baal-and-leviathan/

[goldberry]

I once asked a youth pastor how we could be sure that the verse "all scripture is God-breathed..." was supposed to be applied to the whole Bible as we know it now when the whole Bible didn't yet exist when it was written. (I probably saw it as circular reasoning even though I didn't know the term then). I don't recall his answer but I know it was unsatisfying.

 

 

 

I remember as a kid reading "all scripture inspired" and asking "Did the person writing this know that HIS writing was going to be included in that?"

 

When I first realized that most of the new testament was letters written to congregations or people, I thought "Did they know what they wrote was going to be part of the THE BIBLE, or God's Word as we know it?" Obviously they didn't.  Would it freak Paul out to know that some letter he wrote to his friend/protege Timothy became part of "God's Written Word to Mankind"?

 

I also pondered for days over the scripture where Paul says "this is me speaking, not God" basically.  That really threw me.  Was that really inspired still because it was part of the scriptures, all of which are inspired?  But he said flat out that was his own reasoning, not particularly God's.  It seemed like a paradox.

 

These questions usually got me blank stares of the "you are a weird kid" variety. 

[goldberry]

Yes, ALL. That would include the Deuterocanonicals, also known as The Second Canon or The Lesser Canon (but equally of import).

 

When you refer to Deuterocanonicals, is that these books?  Do you consider them inspired or just useful?  Curious!

 

The Catholic deuterocanonical scriptural texts are:

• Tobit
• Judith
• Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4–16:24)^[26]
• Wisdom (also called the Wisdom of Solomon)
• Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)
• Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint)^[27]
• Additions to Daniel:
  • Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24–90)
  • Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue)
  • Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue)
• 1 Maccabees
• 2 Maccabees

[Pam in CT]

I highly recommend the Yale Open Courses (free online) on the Old Testament, Prof. Christine Hayes and New Testament, Prof. Dale Martin.  If you read the Bible while doing these lectures, it's an illuminating study of The Bible. 

 

The Teaching Company courses are also excellent with Bart Ehrman, Amy-Jill Levine and Luke T. Johnson.

 

I know Bart Ehrman is the man who lost his faith--I wonder if the others mentioned are also without a faith tradition? Just curious, as I like to know where people are coming from :001_smile:

Amy-Jill Levine is Jewish with an interest in Christian scriptures that is, er, atypical for her community.  She is most famous for The Jewish Annotated New Testament, which provides extensive background on the differences and the (largely unacknowledged) two-way synergies between the Jewish community (undergoing first revolt, then destruction of the Temple, then re-invention in the rabbinic era) and the emergent Christian community in the time period that the rabbinic writings and the Christian canon were simultaneously evolving / coming together.  It's an interesting take in an area that few scholars from either tradition have worked.

 

 

 

...These questions usually got me blank stares of the "you are a weird kid" variety. 

:lol:

[umsami]

I read a good book years ago called "When Jesus Became God" by Richard Rubenstein.  It was all about the council of Nicea and different factions and such.  It is not the same book at Bart Ehrman's.  

 

http://www.amazon.com/When-Jesus-Became-God-Christianity/dp/0156013150

 

 

Edited to add the author's background...

"Richard E. Rubenstein (born February 24, 1938) is an author and University Professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs at George Mason University, holding degrees from Harvard College, Oxford University (as a Rhodes Scholar), and Harvard Law School. He lives in Washington, D.C.

 

Rubenstein was an attorney at Steptoe & Johnson in Washington, DC, and served as assistant director of the Adlai Stevenson Institute of International Affairs in Chicagobefore becoming associate professor of political science at Roosevelt University (1970–79), professor of law and academic dean at Antioch Law School (1979–87), and university professor at George Mason University (since 1987). He is a faculty member and former director of George Mason's School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, the nation's oldest and largest conflict studies program.^[1][2]"