Dear Jack,
Classes this week were pretty good. In Old Testament we got to look at a three hundred year old scroll of the Torah. It was used as an aid to show how the condition of a fairly new scroll can be deteriorated, let a lone a scroll from before Christ. The scroll was made of lamb parchment and was very thin. One could see how if it were in the wrong type of temperature or humidity it might become damaged. We learned that some animal skins would have knots in them probably from calluses. In time, they would break from the parchment. He says that many of the older scrolls have had much damage and he wanted us to see how easily damageable the scriptures were. It turns out that the oldest text we actually have of the Bible is not in Hebrew, as the scriptures did not survive. Rather they are Greek translations, many variations among them, collectively called the Septuagint. They know the Septuagint was translated over a period of time in to Greek from Hebrew by Hellenistic Jews. Traditionally this was done in Alexandria by seventy scholars, thus Septuagint (Greek for Seventy). However it is more likely that it occurred over a large period of time with an undetermined amount of translators. One thing that is for certain is that the Greek text includes extra (Deuterocanonical) books. These book were considered canon by some Jews. In fact the canon of scripture for the Old Testament was not closed in Jesus' time. We do have mention of "the Law" and "the Prophets" as two sections of Scripture in several New Testament books. In one book, Yeshua ben Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus, we have refernce to "the Othes" which would include "the writings" such as Psalms, Job, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, etc..
For a period of years following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, Rabbis met in Jamnia to figure out which texts were truly sacred. This was also done because many Christian and Mandaean texts were floating around. For those that don't know Mandaeans are a surviving Gnostic group who honor John the Baptist as the main prophet of God. They are one of the few Gnostic groups that still exist today. The Rabbis could not agree on some books, for the most part had a text which was very similar to the Protestant Old Testament (not including the Deuterocanonical books). This was debated and the debates were put down in something called the Mishnah. Now the Mishnah was confusing and expanded. This commentary to the Mishnah became known as the Talmud. Now here's the thing that is interesting. The Talmud and the Mishnah inside it contain debates over the meanings of passages, over which books are holy, and stuff like that. Even then, they didn't agree. For example they debated over whether or not Ecclesiasticus was holy or not, and one cannot come to a for sure conclusion among the various Rabbis' accounts.
Now the Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible with Deuterocanonical books. It was this text that was commonly known to the various writers of the New Testament. This is known because of the many quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures are done from the Greek translation and include some variations in the text that are only seen in the Septuagint. Plus some writers, like Paul and Luke, were Hellenistic Jews and that would have been the main text used in the Synagogues. Around 300 AD, the Pope wanted a new translation of the Bible in the common language. Apparently even then people showed up to Bible story with various translations... some good, and others not (I'm guessing there was a Good News version of the Latin). He picked a historian named Jerome to make a translation. Jerome decided to use the Hebrew Bibles, since it was indeed their scriptures. We was very upset to learn that they did not have many of the books. Since he trusted their pen, he decided they must have it correct and the Church must be wrong. So he put the extra books in what he called "Apocrypha". Now St. Augustine heard this and fought him and eventually won out... thus the books remained in the Old Testament since the Church had been using them. Later we learn that the canon is acurate to the books that were used when the Septuagint was made... thus more accurate to Christ's selection of books in his time.
When the Reformation came around, Martin Luther noticed the same thing that Jerome had noticed and put the extra books in "the Apocrypha". Calvin and Zwingli removed them completely. In England, we kept the books in the Apocrypha also, and every translation including the KJV has the Apocrypha (until it came to the more Calvinist America). The Catholic Church held the Council of Trent and in the deliberations decided that if Jerome translated the books into Latin, they might as well keep them. (Of course it we know Jerome translated them, but wanted them separate). Thus I learned the origins of the Old Testament Canon of Scripture. In regards to the Deuterocanonical books (the Apocrypha), us Anglicans have taken the middle road. We claim that they are not equal to the Law and the Prophets, but are still beneficial to read, but we won't base doctrine on them. And it's true, you can get away with reading from the Wisdom of Solomon in Church, but would probably upset a few people if you read from the Hidden Gospel of Thomas (a non canonical but intriguing book).
This weekend we have a retreat at Trinity Conference Center in Connecticut. I'm told it's supposed to rain, but I'm still looking forward to it.
Posts
