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

[mommaduck]

<p>

 

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

Yes, I consider them inspired Scripture as with the First Canon.

 

Here is the Eastern Orthodox Deuterocanonical books for comparison with the Roman Catholic list. Very similar. Some of our combining of books is different and we have several more.

 

From Orthodox Wiki

The word Deuterocanonical comes from the Greek words Deutero and canona meaning "second canon." The word apocrypha comes from the Greek word ἀπόκÏυφα, meaning "hidden." They are included in the Orthodox Bible because they were included in the Septuagint which was in use at the time of Jesus, and the authors of the New Testament. They are not called apocrypha by the Orthodox Church.

The Books of the so called Apocrypha

I Esdras

The portion of II Esdras called the "Prayer of Manasseh"

Tobit

Judith

Portions of Esther

Wisdom of Solomon

Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)

Baruch

Epistle of Jeremiah

The portions of Daniel:

Song of the Three Children

Susanna

Bel and the Dragon

Psalm 151

I Maccabees

II Maccabees

III Maccabees

IV Maccabees

The Psalms are also numbered and divided up differently.

Also John Sanidopoulos has a good post on it...

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/08/protestant-myths-about-deuterocanonical.html?m=1

[Georgiana Daniels]

It's my understanding that Orthodox don't have an "official" canon.have I misunderstood that?

[TianXiaXueXiao]

It's my understanding that Orthodox don't have an "official" canon.have I misunderstood that?

We do have the Canon of Scripture in addition to our Canon laws some of which sorely need updating/eliminating.

[mommaduck]

It's my understanding that Orthodox don't have an "official" canon.have I misunderstood that?

If I remember correctly, it's more that we refuse to consider it absolutely closed (?) One of the other ladies may be able to clarify.

[Bluegoat]

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.

 

This is more or less what happens in my Anglican Church.  The epistle lesson is read from the epistle side of the sanctuary.  Then the deacon (of sub-deacon, I can't quite remember), priest, crucifer, and two servers who carry candles process out to the center of the church while a psalm is sung, and the priest reads or sings the gospel lesson.

[Bluegoat]

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.

 

My understanding is that they were often left out to bring down the cost, much like you can get NTs today with no OT.  But you can still fairly easily find a KJV with all the books if you want one.

 

[ErinE]

Thanks for starting this topic. All the information is very interesting. I have an annotated archaeological Bible which I used for a disciple bible study several years ago. It made the readings so much more vivid because there was historical context for the written word.

[speedmom4]

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

Thank you SO much for sharing this resource! I've listened to the first podcast and cannot wait to hear more.

I noticed,though, that her last podcast dates from 2014. Do you know if she's continuing to do them?

 

Thank you!!

[Georgiana Daniels]

Thank you SO much for sharing this resource! I've listened to the first podcast and cannot wait to hear more.

I noticed,though, that her last podcast dates from 2014. Do you know if she's continuing to do them?

 

Thank you!!

This is my absolute favorite podcast! I hope she does more but it sure doesn't look like it :(

[mommaduck]

Thank you SO much for sharing this resource! I've listened to the first podcast and cannot wait to hear more.

I noticed,though, that her last podcast dates from 2014. Do you know if she's continuing to do them?

 

Thank you!!

I'm asking around. I'm interested also. I did find rumor of her working on a book?

[JenniferB]

Thank you SO much for sharing this resource! I've listened to the first podcast and cannot wait to hear more.

I noticed,though, that her last podcast dates from 2014. Do you know if she's continuing to do them?

 

Thank you!!

 

Hmmm, I will try to find out for you.  She's my friend on Facebook.  Hehe.

[Joanne]

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:

 

"Lost his faith"and "without a faith tradition" could easily be very judgment heavy terms.

 

I have a HUGE "faith tradition." I call on it probably daily in some form. And I didn't "lose" anything - the reality of my deconversion is a lot more aggressive than a passive "losing" of something.

 

 

[Joanne]

I spent my last few years as a Christian studying the Bible itself and studying *about* the Bible (in a seminary for part of it.) I challenged the tenacious authorship (Moses, for example) and canon (it seems that Gnostic, more human Jesus, and women-centered writings were disregarded)

 

When I was a Christian, it was "truth because 'everyone' said so" when I was younger. That matured into it was truth, and some history, but not scientific history. Eventually, it became *symbolic* and *spiritual* truth, but not literal.

 

I landed somewhere much more harsh, the landscape content of which is probably not wise or kind to share. :)

 

 

[Joanne]

About the Bible writers I like include:

RIchard Foster, Elaine Pagel, Bart Ehrman, Marcus Borg, Richard Rohr, Peter Enns, Nadia-Bolz Weber, Rachel Held Evans, Thomas Keaton. If I (still) cared enough about Christianity, I'd read some Karen Armstrong and Rob Bell.

[mommaduck]

"Lost his faith"and "without a faith tradition" could easily be very judgment heavy terms.

 

I have a HUGE "faith tradition." I call on it probably daily in some form. And I didn't "lose" anything - the reality of my deconversion is a lot more aggressive than a passive "losing" of something.

Might it also be how he has described himself?

[JenniferB]

"Lost his faith"and "without a faith tradition" could easily be very judgment heavy terms.

 

 

I was curious about his story because he's mentioned in the podcasts I linked earlier. From what I understand he had put years of trust in the inerrancy of Scripture, and after studying the manuscripts including their discrepancies and one thing led to another until he ceased to be Christian.

 

Here's an audio interview where he tells his own story.

 

http://cfvod.kaltura.com/pd/p/618072/sp/61807200/serveFlavor/entryId/1_ky0c2bee/v/1/flavorId/1_3pw4xtpo/name/a.mp3

[Pam in CT]

About the Bible writers I like include:

 

RIchard Foster, Elaine Pagel, Bart Ehrman, Marcus Borg, Richard Rohr, Peter Enns, Nadia-Bolz Weber, Rachel Held Evans, Thomas Keaton. If I (still) cared enough about Christianity, I'd read some Karen Armstrong and Rob Bell.

Karen Armstrong is one of my top 5 authors of all time.  IMHO, she is the best scholar out there working the religious history space, and one of the best on interfaith issues.  She's worth it no matter what/if your faith orientation.  

 

The biographies/short histories (Buddha, Muhammed, and viz. this discussion her excellent historical analysis of The Bible) are more accessible gateways than her 1400-page bricks (!).

[Carol in Cal.]

I spent my last few years as a Christian studying the Bible itself and studying *about* the Bible (in a seminary for part of it.) I challenged the tenacious authorship (Moses, for example) and canon (it seems that Gnostic, more human Jesus, and women-centered writings were disregarded)

 

It's really interesting to actually read the Gnostic gospels.  There are, in fact, as you mention, sections that are very women-friendly, and there are also sections that are more misogynistic than anything in the Bible.  It's quite a range.   

 

I find the range of how Jesus is portrayed in the actual Bible to be quite interesting as well.  He seems more divine in John than in Mark, for instance.  I see the range as within the realm of realistic experience, and it makes the gospels more credible to me--no one was trying to cover up things like the cursing of the fig tree that could be construed unfavorably.  Similarly, King David in the OT is quite sinful in addition to being 'a man after God's own heart', and rises and falls over and over--very different and much more candid than other royal portrayals of the same era.  

 

To me both of these things bespeak a great commitment to actual, albeit somewhat uncomfortable, truthtelling.

[Onceuponatime]

It's really interesting to actually read the Gnostic gospels. There are, in fact, as you mention, sections that are very women-friendly, and there are also sections that are more misogynistic than anything in the Bible. It's quite a range.

 

I find the range of how Jesus is portrayed in the actual Bible to be quite interesting as well. He seems more divine in John than in Mark, for instance. I see the range as within the realm of realistic experience, and it makes the gospels more credible to me--no one was trying to cover up things like the cursing of the fig tree that could be construed unfavorably. Similarly, King David in the OT is quite sinful in addition to being 'a man after God's own heart', and rises and falls over and over--very different and much more candid than other royal portrayals of the same era.

 

To me both of these things bespeak a great commitment to actual, albeit somewhat uncomfortable, truthtelling.

The criterion of embarrassment is fraught with problems. Namely, there are other possible reasons why an author would include such a story: to replace a worse story, to teach a lesson or moral, to make someone else or the deity look really good, etc. Stories of legendary heroes and the writings of other religions contain stories with content that would be potentially embarrassing to the hero or the religious figure, does that make them true as well?

[JenniferB]

I've been listening to the Search the Scripture podcasts in whatever free time I can squeeze out, and I found it interesting the way she explains the difference between "inspired" and "inerrant."  Orthodox Christians believe that the Scriptures are "inspired" but not "inerrant."  When we say inspired what we mean is that the authors of the Bible, or the origins of the story wherever they came from include the element of human cooperation with God in a synergistic relationship.  Care to discuss the difference, and the different ways people approach the Bible?  So, we are all on the same page as far as word definitions, here is a quick definition of each word:

 

in·spired

inˈspī(ə)rd/

adjective

 

1. of extraordinary quality, as if arising from some external creative impulse.

 

in·er·rant

inˈerənt/

adjective

 

1. incapable of being wrong.

 

[laundrycrisis]

I enjoy Bart Ehrman's books. http://www.bartdehrman.com/

[Onceuponatime]

My experience as a former fundamentalist was that the definition of inspired used was "God breathed," literally. God was supposed to have breathed the words of scriptures into the authors, this is what made them inerrant. The answer to a question about the relevance of a passage was, "It's scripture." The verse in Timothy about all scripture being inspired was taken to mean every bit of the Protestant bible, nothing else. This didn't make sense to me because when the author of Timothy wrote that, the bible as a compilation didn't exist. The authors of the New Testament also quoted other texts that did not appear in the canon.

[JenniferB]

Another thing I learned and found interesting is about the putting together of the Hebrew Scriptures. It was a very long process. She talks about different stages of development. The first stage being when the events occurred, those of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the beginning of the Bible. The first date they can come up with is the dating of Abraham in 1800 or so BC and Moses in around 1250 BC. The next stage is the stage where the stories were written down which didn't occur until as late as 1000 BC. The third stage began when the Babylonians destroyed the Jewish Temple in the 500's BC, 580-540 ish, and they no longer had a place of worship. So, they turned to their writings and began to think of them as Holy Scripture. Of interest, she also mentions that the Jews were the first to have a Holy Scripture. This was a new concept.

[Georgiana Daniels]

Another thing I learned and found interesting is about the putting together of the Hebrew Scriptures. It was a very long process. She talks about different stages of development. The first stage being when the events occurred, those of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the beginning of the Bible. The first date they can come up with is the dating of Abraham in 1800 or so BC and Moses in around 1250 BC. The next stage is the stage where the stories were written down which didn't occur until as late as 1000 BC. The third stage began when the Babylonians destroyed the Jewish Temple in the 500's BC, 580-540 ish, and they no longer had a place of worship. So, they turned to their writings and began to think of them as Holy Scripture. Of interest, she also mentions that the Jews were the first to have a Holy Scripture. This was a new concept.

 

Which episode is this?

[JenniferB]

Which episode is this?

Introduction Leason 9

[Georgiana Daniels]

Introduction Leason 9

I'm going to listen again.

[JenniferB]

Thank you SO much for sharing this resource! I've listened to the first podcast and cannot wait to hear more.

I noticed,though, that her last podcast dates from 2014. Do you know if she's continuing to do them?

 

Thank you!!

 

Speedmom4, She does plan to continue them, God willing.  She had to pause due to additional family responsibilities.

[Georgiana Daniels]

Speedmom4, She does plan to continue them, God willing.  She had to pause due to additional family responsibilities.

 

She does? WOOHOO! That's good news.

[Guest]

In the meantime, this might be a good substitute:  http://stspyridon.dreamhosters.com/archives/250

This is the first of a 25+ series Father Evan taught at a Bible college.  It is worth listening to, even though the audio quality isn't necessarily up to today's standards.

 

[Georgiana Daniels]

In the meantime, this might be a good substitute: http://stspyridon.dreamhosters.com/archives/250

This is the first of a 25+ series Father Evan taught at a Bible college. It is worth listening to, even though the audio quality isn't necessarily up to today's standards.

thank you! I'm looking forward to trying these and hoping it will make my treadmill time less tedious.

[OnTheBrink]

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 this podcast! 

 

Edited, because the question's already been answered. I'm delighted to hear she plans to start them up again!

[lulalu]

I have enjoyed youtubing dr. James White. He has a wide range of topics he debates, but if you listen to debates over the KJVO he gives really great fact and history to the creating of the manuscripts. He is a reformed baptist but his Bible manuscripts discussion doesnt really include doctrines other than saying KJVO is a dangerous belief for the validity of the New Testament.

[Bluegoat]

The criterion of embarrassment is fraught with problems. Namely, there are other possible reasons why an author would include such a story: to replace a worse story, to teach a lesson or moral, to make someone else or the deity look really good, etc. Stories of legendary heroes and the writings of other religions contain stories with content that would be potentially embarrassing to the hero or the religious figure, does that make them true as well?

 

It isn't the only criteria, but it is one thing that scholars consider when they are looking at the historical accuracy of a text.