Beyond Fundamentalism: Texts and Translations
Posted: January 14, 2011 Filed under: Christianity 32 Comments »Christians of a more conservative persuasion often assure the rest of us that the Bible ‘as originally given’ is guaranteed free of error and that no other work from the ancient world has been preserved with such fidelity.
But do these assurances stand up to the evidence of the Biblical texts? What does the objective factual evidence inescapably tell us?
The role of the Septuagint translation gives us a powerful illustration of the issues.
The New Testament writers generally quote from it as does Jesus as depicted by them (though he spoke Aramaic not Greek).
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University, tells us:
The Septuagint is a work of epoch-making importance, the first full-scale translation of a body of works like the Old Testament to be made on this scale and in a scope that involves languages as different as Hebrew and Greek and cultural milieus as different as the Jewish and the Hellenistic. But, under the circumstances, it was not surprisingly, as a translation, a work of very mixed quality. It differed from book to book, since different techniques of translation were used; at some places it must have had a Hebrew text different from ours, while at others it seriously misread or misunderstood the Hebrew. No scholar who knows the material doubts that this is so. But this makes a difference when we consider the New Testament. For it does not only use the Septuagint in a general way: it often uses the exact ductus of its swords as argument or proof of a theological point.
Escaping from Fundamentalism page 142
Let’s look at an example that illustrates this phenomenon, from the Epistle to the Hebrews 10.5
Consequently, when he came into the world, he said,
“Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired,
but a body hast thou prepared for me…’
This passage is a quotation from Psalm 40:7ff. In the original Hebrew, which is what is translated in our English Bibles (check one and see) we read:
Sacrifice and offering thou dost not desire; but thou hast given me an open ear… (Ps.40.6)
Now the whole point of the quotation in the Epistle to the Hebrews is that it mentions the preparation of a body for the Christ coming into the world; the writer comes back to exactly this:
And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Heb 10:10)
But there was absolutely nothing about a body in the original Hebrew at all! Scholars debate over whether it was a mistranslation or a copying error in the transmission of the Greek text. But we can nevertheless draw the following conclusions:
1) There is no doubt that the Epistle to the Hebrews was proving a point of doctrine from a word that did not exist at all in the Hebrew Bible and which was either the product of an error in transmission or a mistranslation.
2) The matter was theologically important: the question was whether there was in the Bible a previous reference to the clothing of Christ in a body. And as we have seen this difficult demonstration is accomplished entirely through the appeal to the erroneous words of the Septuagint.
So to return to my opening remarks:
Conservative Christians often assure us that the Bible ‘as originally given’ is guaranteed free of error and that no other work from the ancient world has been preserved with such fidelity. I asked, ‘do these assurances stand up to the evidence of the Biblical texts? What does the objective factual evidence inescapably tell us?’
We are now in a position to conclude that matters of doctrinal importance have arisen from accidental or erroneous factors in the transmission of the Bible.
Btw, this sort of thing is not uncommon. Further examples can be cited on request…
The Heb of Ps 40:6 uses the metaphor of ‘digging ears’ (i.e. the creation of a man’s ears), which we render into English as ‘given me an open ear’. The English is not a precise translation, but is meant to convey the sense of the metaphor. The LXX understands this metaphor as the creation of a body, specifically referring to the ears as part of the body. Being that the translators were Hebrews, likely more familiar with the idioms of the day than are modern scholars, would leave open the distinct possibility that they were correct in their interpretation. This is actually a terrible example to prove this point, since it is a metaphor open to interpretation.
Andrew
you write, ‘The LXX understands this metaphor as the creation of a body, specifically referring to the ears as part of the body.’
but the LXX says
Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired, but a body hast thou prepared for me…’
and is clearly understod by the author of Hebrews to refer to Jesus’ body (see my quote).
As Oxford Professor of Hebrew James Barr states:
But there was absolutely nothing about a body in the original Hebrew at all! Scholars debate over whether it was a mistranslation or a copying error in the transmission of the Greek text.
So all that is debated by the experts is whether it is a mistranslation or a copying error.
Which is it?
Andrew
let me remind you of the following:
‘The LXX, as a translation, is a work of very mixed quality. It differed from book to book, since different techniques of translation were used; at some places it must have had a Hebrew text different from ours, while at others it seriously misread or misunderstood the Hebrew. No scholar who knows the material doubts that this is so.’
The problem that fundamentalist Christians must face (though few are aware of this) is the necessity of belief not only in an error free Hebrew text but that the Greek translation of the Hebrew must be without error too! But as this quote from Barr informs us no scholar who knows the subject doubts that the Greek translation seriously misreads or misunderstands the Hebrew.
Another nail in the coffin of inerrancy!
Paul,
Barr is being too simplistic. There is more to the context. Here’s an interesting article on the translation difficulty:
http://maer.vidanovaphilly.org/2009/02/14/hebrews-the-lxx-and-psalm-40/
The LXX does not have to be inerrant. It just has to give the sense of the Hebrew where it is used by the NT.
Andrew
you are in danger of appearing arrogant. Barr is an expert in Biblical Hebrew and a world class OT scholar. For you as a student at a fundamentalist seminary to accuse him of being simplistic is bad form but consistent with your constant swipes at scholars whose views you can’t respect (because they are not fundamentalists).
‘The LXX does not have to be inerrant. It just has to give the sense of the Hebrew where it is used by the NT.’
Glad to hear you are not supporting the inerrancy of LXX! But as OT scholars know the NT occasionally fails to even give the sense of the Hebrew because it follows a dodgy Greek translation which ‘seriously misreads or misunderstands the Hebrew.
You have also failed to address my point that:
‘That matters of doctrinal importance have arisen from accidental or erroneous factors in the transmission of the Bible.’
Btw do you claim proficiency in Biblical Hebrew?
I am not proficient in Hebrew. I will begin Hebrew this summer. But it does not take proficiency in a language to spot a poor argument. Barr’s argument itself is actually pretty prideful. He purports to know Hebrew and Greek better than the LXX translators and author of Hebrews, who may have spoken both languages and understood idioms of the day in a way inaccessible to a modern scholar. There are possibilities that Barr needs to explore before dismissing the text outright. Taking the text seriously, leads us to explore more possibilities before proclaiming rash dismissals.
There are matters of doctrine that are important and need to be reviewed in light of transmission and translation difficulties, but these are not generally central doctrines. Certainly churches have historically made doctrinal mistakes based on textual or translation issues. We have snake handlers based on the later ending of Mark, clerical celibacy based on an Augustinian misunderstanding, etc. But we can establish the core doctrines of Christianity based on reliable manuscripts and translations, etc.
‘we can establish the core doctrines of Christianity based on reliable manuscripts and translations, etc.’
But that is too simplistic an understanding of the Bible. There are a number of different canons of Scripture in current use resulting in different Christian doctrines. Most Christians have a different Bible from you, Andrew. For example 2 Maccabees 12:40–45 is cited in support of the doctrine of purgatory – a doctrine you reject despite its clear Biblical foundation. Why? Because you have a smaller ‘mutilated’ Bible compared to most other Christians. Is the doctrine of purgatory a central Christian doctrine? You will need to ask a Catholic that question, but they believe it to be infallibly taught by the Church and thus to deny it is to deny the revelation of God.
2 Maccabees teaching includes:
Prayer for the dead and sacrificial offerings, both to free the dead from sin (see 12:42-45 and 12:44); Intercession of the saints (15:11-17).
So just having ‘reliable manuscripts and translations’ does not solve the problem at all if Christians cannot even agree which books are the word of God!
‘Barr’s argument itself is actually pretty prideful. He purports to know Hebrew and Greek better than the LXX translators and author of Hebrews, who may have spoken both languages and understood idioms of the day in a way inaccessible to a modern scholar.’
Your ad hominem attacks on an eminent scholar is a classic fundamentalist trait Andrew. It is you who are full of pride, because you, who know no Hebrew, glibly dismiss all the experts, not just Barr.
Please attend carefully to Barr’s original quote:
.
Note Andrew the statement in bold. So your disagreement is with all Hebrew Scholars not just Barr. Yet you know no Hebrew! Lol
http://vridar.wordpress.com/2008/05/23/the-offering-of-isaac-4-death-and-resurrection/
if paul a williams reads the article linked above, he will definately say , “interesting”
see the miracles of reinterpretation?
hmm interesting…
Paul,
2 Maccabees, as part of the Apocrypha, was not part of the canon of the early church, was not considered canonical by Jerome when he was translating the Vulgate, and was considered uninspired by the Jews. “The Jewish synagogue considered them (the Apocrypha) uninspired, and some of their authors disclaim inspiration (Prologue to Ecclus; 2 Macc 2:27; 15:38)” (Metzger, EBC 1:162). The RCC established the Apocrypha as part of the canon in response to Luther.
1 Maccabees clearly shows us it is not inspired revelation:
1 Maccabees 4:46, “And they put the stones on the temple mount in a convenient place until a prophet should come to judge concerning them.”
1 Macc 9:27, “And a great tribulation came upon Israel, such as had not come since the days when a prophet did not appear among them.”
1 Macc 14:41, “And that the Jews and the priests were pleased for Simon to be their governor and high priest until the age, until a faithful prophet should arise.”
Josephus lists the OT canon:
“Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time. Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws and the traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the lawgiver. This period falls only a little short of three thousand years. Form the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persian [465 B.C.], the prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books” [probably (1) Joshua, (2) Judges and Ruth, (3) Samuel, (4) Kings, (5) Chronicles, (6) Ezra and Nehemiah, (7) Esther, (8) Job, (9) Isaiah, (10) Jeremiah, (11) Ezekiel, (12) Minor Prophets, (13) Daniel]. “The remaining four books” [probably (1) Psalms, (2) Song of Songs, (3) Proverbs, (4) Ecclesiastes] “contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of life. From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets. We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to die for them” (Josephus, Against Apion 1.37–42 (LCL 186:177–81)
“Any view of the canon or method of explaining its formation that confuses public recognition of the canon with the inherent canonicity appertaining to every portion of the Word of God from the moment of its writing is inadequate” (Fisher, EBC 1:391).
You are confusing public recognition with canonicity. This is the same thing the RCC does. The early church was concerned with recognizing what was inspired. It was not the authority of the church that made certain books inspired.
So 2 Maccabees is irrelevant to our discussion.
_______________________________
You completely missed which part of Barr’s argument I was addressing. I don’t disagree that the LXX is a mixed bag. I just don’t think he should be so quick to dismiss something as an error, when it is quite possible that he is missing an idiom. We know that the passage in question is using an idiom. So it follows, that we should be cautious in dismissing it, since we are so far removed from the idioms of ancient Hebrew. That is not a fundamentalist argument. It’s common sense.
Andrew,
you claim that ’2 Maccabees, as part of the Apocrypha, was not part of the canon of the early church’
Oh dear. Is it too much to hope that one day you will actually study the history of the early canon?
Read this excerpt from St Augustine’s seminal work On Christian Teaching (just in case you didn’t know, Augustine was born in 354 in what is today known as Algeria. He is universally regarded as one of the greatest Christian minds in history and hugely influenced both medieval catholicism and the leading Reformers such as Luther and Calvin).
12. But let us now go back to consider the third step here mentioned, for it is about it that I have set myself to speak and reason as the Lord shall grant me wisdom. The most skilful interpreter of the sacred writings, then, will be he who in the first place has read them all and retained them in his knowledge, if not yet with full understanding, still with such knowledge as reading gives,—those of them, at least, that are called canonical. For he will read the others with greater safety when built up in the belief of the truth, so that they will not take first possession of a weak mind, nor, cheating it with dangerous falsehoods and delusions, fill it with prejudices averse to a sound understanding. Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.
13. Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:—Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles, these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:—Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following:—Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul—one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews: two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James; one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of John.
So I hope you finally accept that I have provided clear evidence of the following:
That most Christians have a different Bible from you, Andrew. Eg: 2 Maccabees 12:40–45 is cited in support of the doctrine of purgatory – a doctrine you reject despite its clear Biblical foundation. Why? Because you have a smaller ‘mutilated’ Bible compared to most other Christians.
2 Maccabees teaching includes:
Prayer for the dead and sacrificial offerings, both to free the dead from sin (see 12:42-45 and 12:44); Intercession of the saints (15:11-17).
QED.
Paul,
I think we’re speaking past one another. I’m not saying that no one has accepted the Apocrypha at any time. I know some have. I know the Catholic Church has. It is not a matter of DO they, but SHOULD they? The Apocrypha gives us plenty of reasons to suggest we should not, as do the historical discussions of the canon. The fact that some have done one thing or another does not make it right or true.
Athanasius, in his festal letter of 367, the earliest record of the full canon, rejected the Apocrypha, but argued that some non-canonical works were used by the Church Fathers.
Jerome, who knew Greek and Hebrew, and was more familiar with the historical context than Augustine did not consider them canonical.
Augustine is one in a list of voices. But he was wrong on this issue. The first ecumenical council of the Catholic Church to declare the Apocrypha as canonical was Trent (the councils Augustine presided over were not ecumenical), in response to the Reformers. So while some already may have considered it canonical, it was only firmly established AFTER the Reformation.
Again the question is whether or not these books were inspired by God, to which I, and many others before me, say no.
Beyond this, the doctrine of purgatory, which you referenced, is rejected not only because it does not appear in the canonical books, but also because it contradicts what we find in the canonical books. Jesus’ last words on the cross were “It is finished.” The Greek here is literally, ‘paid in full’ (tetelesthai). He paid the penalty for sin in full. The need for a future purging diminishes the perfect sacrificial work of Christ. This point is further established by Hebrews and by the very nature of the gospel in Paul’s epistles.
Andrew
we are not talking past each other. You made a false assertion. I’m refuting your claim that ’2 Maccabees, as part of the Apocrypha, was not part of the canon of the early church’. It clearly was – the evidence is in my last post. Augustine articulated the broad consensus of the early church. You should have the intellectual honestly to admit this.
Also, you simply make my point for me: Christians have never agreed which books constitute the Bible, they didn’t in the past and still disagree today. So much for an inerrant Bible whose contents Christians cannot even agree on!
It was only 1500 years (!) after Jesus that a substantial section of the church, namely the Reformers, decided to reject the ancient consensus and chuck out 1 Maccabees et al.
But don’t forget, Andrew, that some Reformers went to work on the NT too and threw out James (‘a worthless letter’) and the Book of Revelation.
—————
Your quotation from the gospel of John – found in none of the other gospels – is unlikely to be historical I’m afraid. it reflects Johannine theology rather than the historical jesus.
According to multiple examples of Jesus’ teaching in the synoptics, he preached a God of love and forgiveness. A deity who requires his son to be tortured to death so that a dept can be paid (tetelesthai) is unworthy of our worship. Besides, paying a debt is completely different from forgiveness. Do you not see this? Your theology is inconsistent and confused.
——–
I refer to the following:
http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/1332
Augustine counted the Apocrypha as Scripture. Jerome and Athanasius did not. Augustine read the Bible in Latin. Jerome translated that Latin Bible. It is safe to say that Jerome is a greater authority than Augustine on this issue, and Jerome takes the position I am arguing for. You side with Augustine out of convenience, not because his argument works.
Johanine theology and the historical Jesus are not so easily separated. That is a false dichotomy. Actually engage the text, rather than being so dismissive. That is fundamentalist uncritical liberalism.
Jesus preached the kingdom. He preached that there was wrath to come. He taught the centrality of the cross, to which he turned and set his face in each of the Synoptic Gospels. You can’t dismiss the cross as if it is some mistake. The cross is central in each of the Gospels to the authors and to Jesus.
A debt being paid is not different from forgiveness. Forgiveness implies a debt. If you owe me money and I forgive, then I have absorbed what you owed me. So there was an implicit transaction.
Andrew
you write as if this was a personal tussle between Augustine/Athanasius/Jerome!
Let me remind you that:
I’m refuting your claim that ’2 Maccabees, as part of the Apocrypha, was not part of the canon of the early church’. It clearly was – the evidence is in my last post. Augustine articulated the broad consensus of the early church. You should have the intellectual honestly to admit this.
For additional evidences of the early canon see the list of books in the Codex Sinitaticus and the Codex Vaticanus: the OT is the same as Augustine’s list. These codexes contain the earliest complete NT manuscriptes in the world. Btw the earliest complete NT (Codex Sinitaticus) has a different list of NT books from your evangelical version! What do you make of that?
I know Jerome disagreed but that is irrelevant to my key point that christians have never, ever, agree which books make up the Bible, and even today your list is a minority view in the wider Christian church. So this makes a mockery of any claim that the Bible is inerrant when its contents are not even agreed upon!
Finally, your spiritual and intellectual forbears (the Reformers) were quite happy to reject the ancient consensus and chuck out the Letter of James and the Book of Revelation from the NT, in addition of course to chucking out parts of the OT. By what authority did they do this?
‘Johanine theology and the historical Jesus are not so easily separated. That is a false dichotomy. Actually engage the text, rather than being so dismissive. That is fundamentalist uncritical liberalism.’
Actually engage the text!! But that is exactly what I have been urging upon you! Lets remind ourselves what your own leading christian scholars say on this subject (I omit liberal scholarly views because I know you have no time for them):
Evangelical scholar Richard Bauckham in his recent book on the gospels argues that the fourth gospel stems from an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus, namely, the disciple John. At the same time, however, Bauckham also acknowledges the differences between the fourth gospel and the Synoptics and argues that John is a more reflective and a highly interpreted account of the life and ministry of Jesus. Regarding the canonical gospels in general, he concludes:
(Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2006, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 411.)
Regarding the gospel of John specifically, Bauckham says:
(Ibid. p. 410.)
Furthermore:
(Ibid p. 411.)
According to Bauckham, the eyewitness author of the gospel of John did not just simply rehash mere eyewitness reports, but he also offered his highly reflective interpretations and understanding of the events:
(Ibid. pp. 410 – 411.)
Note that Bauckham does not deny the “highly reflective interpretational” status of the gospel of John. He only justifies it by arguing that the author was an eyewitness.
In light of the above, even if we are to accept the fourth gospel as a product of an eyewitness, it does not mean that we can simply read off from its surface the words attributed to Jesus as if Jesus literally uttered them in his historical ministry.
Finally, note should be made of James D. G. Dunn, one of the leading moderate New Testament scholars around and no “anti-supernatural liberal,” who writes:
Christianity In The Making Vol. 1, Jesus Remembered 2003, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, pp. 165-166.
‘A debt being paid is not different from forgiveness. Forgiveness implies a debt. If you owe me money and I forgive, then I have absorbed what you owed me. So there was an implicit transaction.’
I quote from one of your theologians:
Excerpt from The Metaphor of God Incarnate (second revised edition) published by SCM, 2005.
Professor John Hick is a world-renowned philosopher of religion and Christian theologian.
The Jews NEVER accepted the Apocrypha as part of Scripture, even though they were written by Jews. Philo and Josephus both give us canons of the OT that are the Hebrew books we have today.
Jerome was the foremost scholarly authority of the fourth century on biblical languages and texts. Augustine knew no Greek or Hebrew. I respect Augustine, but there is little reason to take his word on this issue against Jerome (and Athanasius who knew Greek, but not Hebrew). The only reason you accept Augustine’s opinion is because it is expedient. There is no scholarly reason to do so.
Including books in a codex does not imply that they are authoritative. They may be there because they are valuable for teaching and background information, as Athanasius says the Apocrypha and some of the early Christian documents (i.e. Shepherd of Hermas, Didache). They may be included because some Christian at some time wrongly thought they were part of the canon. That is in no way problematic. It just took time to get this issue sorted out. The church had to stay underground for 300 years. Pardon us if we don’t sort out everything right away while we’re busy getting butchered.
Hick is not a Christian theologian. He is a philosopher who happens to claim Christianity, although nowhere near classic Orthodoxy. This is the same category mistake that people make when they read the new atheists (i.e. Dawkins) and assume they are philosophers. Dawkins et al are scientists, and many of them are rather poor philosophers if you ask a real philosopher.
Even in the parable of the Prodigal Son, there is a death upon the son’s return. The first thing the father does is slaughter the fatted calf! But the purpose of the parable is not to teach about forgiveness. Parables usually have a single point, and the details are not meant to be pressed into fine doctrinal formulas. Taken in context, the parable is meant to expose the hearts of the religious leaders, who were like the bitter older brother, who refused to come to the party when his lost brother returned. Like the older brother, they were refusing to enter into the kingdom. This parable has some things to say about forgiveness, but this is a side point.
Andrew, bless you, but you really need to have some scholarly knowledge of a subject before commenting on issues you know nothing about. For example I hope I would never make comments on say, sport, because I know zero about it. Likewise Andrew with yourself and this subject.
Do I continue to correct you? Am I your teacher? No. Until you study this subject yourself I’ve decided not to continue our debate. On this blog I assume a certain level of education for me to engage with a debating partner.
LOL. Go look up the meaning of this word: Septuagint
Show me a Jewish source that states that the Apocrypha are authoritative. I have cited two that say otherwise. What you are doing is not “scholarly.” It’s making assumptions based on the contents of the Septuagint, a GREEK version of a HEBREW text, produced outside Israel, in the context of Hellenistic Judaism. That is your assumption, but that is not the evidence we have from written sources laying out the contents of the OT.
The Apocryphal books were not written in Hebrew, so they were not translated into Greek, which removes the divine inspiration that Philo and Josephus ascribe to the translated books. Instead, Philo and Josephus specifically list the Hebrew canon. You have not proved your argument here, but showed have failed to understand a simple fact.
You are confusing the issues. Just because the LXX includes certain books does not make them canonical. Many of the earliest church fathers recognized this. The Jews did as well. The onus is on you to show that it is otherwise. You have cited Augustine, against which I cited Athanasius and Jerome, both of whom were superior authorities on biblical languages and texts.
you challenged me: ‘Show me a Jewish source that states that the Apocrypha are authoritative’
I gave you two sources: ‘The Septuagint was held in great respect in ancient times; Philo and Josephus ascribed divine inspiration to its translators.[4]‘
Furthmore, Jerome was a lone voice in the early church (on this issue and on many others – but that is another subject). Augustine reports the consensus of the catholic church at that time. Pitting Jerome against Augustine completely misses the point – its the general Christian usuage of the septuagint in the world-wide church that I am referring to, not the views of individuals, no matter how brilliant you think they were.
Andrew I consider this argument finished. Time for you to admit you have lost the argument and move on…
Andrew, learn from the experts and visit their site at the British library:
Codex Sinaiticus
As it survives today, Codex Sinaiticus comprises just over 400 large leaves of prepared animal skin, each of which measures 380mm high by 345mm wide. On these parchment leaves is written around half of the Old Testament and Apocrypha (the Septuagint), the whole of the New Testament, and two early Christian texts not found in modern Bibles. Most of the first part of the manuscript (containing most of the so-called historical books, from Genesis to 1 Chronicles) is now missing and presumed to be lost.
The Septuagint includes books which many Protestant Christian denominations place in the Apocrypha. Those present in the surviving part of the Septuagint in Codex Sinaiticus are 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach.
The number of the books in the New Testament in Codex Sinaiticus is the same as that in modern Bibles in the West, but the order is different. The Letter to the Hebrews is placed after Paul’s Second Letter to the Thessalonians, and the Acts of the Apostles between the Pastoral and Catholic Epistles.
The two other early Christian texts are an Epistle by an unknown writer claiming to be the Apostle Barnabas, and ‘The Shepherd’, written by the early second-century Roman writer, Hermas.
What is the Bible?
By John Barton, Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture in the University of Oxford
This extract from Barton’s book What is the Bible? is of some help in countering fundamentalist Christian views of the Bible as an unchanged text over the centuries. Even today Christians are divided as to what books make up their sacred Scriptures. Here Barton describes the origins of the differing canons of the Bible we have today.
pp 29-31
The Septuagint, as a collection of books, proves nothing. Canonicity is not determined by the binding holding together the books.
Declaring yourself the winner of an argument when you have failed to prove your points is fruitless. You can quote your scholar, and I can quote mine. All we do at that point is the same thing the Catholic Church did for centuries: build doctrines on the teachings of men. The appeal to power is logically fallacious, and I only do it to counteract your appeals. The Reformers saw the greater issue was about inspiration, which centers the issue, not on men, but on God. This was only natural, given the God-centered nature of their theology. This all follows logically from the answer to the question ‘What is Scripture?’
John Barton is not ‘my scholar’ he is one of the world’s leading authorites on the OT canon as you can see from the link. The real problem is that you, Andrew, feel honor bound to defend ideas about the Bible which no serious scholar holds, that have no credibility in mainstream scholarship. Also, and most embarrassingly, you dont really know what you are talking about!
As I wrote before I’m not your teacher, and its not my place to correct what you write. I hope you get a decent education at the fundamentalist institution you currently attend…
I’m not questioning his credentials, but there are scholars of the same stature who disagree. The appeal to this scholar or that is the same appeal to power used by the Catholic Church. It fundamentally does not work. It is your own brand of fundamentalism, by which you disregard all who disagree with you and declare yourself the winner of arguments without ever thinking through what you are saying. It is lazy. You never addressed my actual arguments. You appealed to power instead, too lazy to make an argument and actually think for yourself.
OK Andrew that’s enough. Our conversation is over and this thread is now closed.