Brief Survey - The Bible
Mark Goodge
After the success[1] of the Gifts of the Spirit survey, I thought it's
time for another one. This time, I've picked a subject that is fairly
topical, as far as uk.r.c goes.
Same "rules" as before - you can either post your replies or email
them to me, and if you need to then reinterpret the questions in line
with your own flavour of Christianity. I'm not going to be
over-concerned with precise wording, so please try and take a
pragmatic approach to answering!
1) To what degree do you think that the Bible is "inspired" or
"inerrant"? (On a scale of, say, "totally human with no divine input
whatsoever" to "completely inerrant in every last detail").
2) Do you consider any or all of the apocryphal books to be equivalent
in status to the canonical books?
3) Do you consider that the traditional authorship attributions of the
various books are correct?
4) Do you consider that there is one clearly "best" translation of the
Bible into English? If so, which translation?
5) How important do you think it is to read and seek to understand the
Bible?
6) Which translation do you normally use for everyday reading?
7) Which other translations do you posess a copy of, and refer to
regularly?
8) Which other translations do you have a copy of on your bookshelves,
but that's where they tend to stay?
9) Does your church (local congregation, not denomination) have an
"official" or preferred translation? If so, what percentage (to the
best of your knowledge) of the congregation use it?
10) If you were asked to recommend a translation for the following
purposes, which would it normally be:
a) In-depth study
b) Public reading (eg, in church)
c) Personal devotional use
e) Sunday School or Children's group
f) "General purpose" use
g) To give to a new Christian
(Feel free to expand on *why* you have made these choices...)
I'll post the results when I've got enough to make it worthwhile,
probably in 2 or 3 weeks' time.
Mark
[1] For some values of "success".
--
Take a look at Mark's uk.r.c meta-page at http://www.message.org/urc/
bigmax
--
Marcus Maxwell
Heaton Mersey, Stockport
Mark Goodge wrote in message <352aef88...@bubble.good-stuff.co.uk>...
[snip]
>1) To what degree do you think that the Bible is "inspired" or
>"inerrant"? (On a scale of, say, "totally human with no divine input
>whatsoever" to "completely inerrant in every last detail").
Inspired, but not inerrant, either factually, as originally written, or (of
course) textually as transmitted.
>2) Do you consider any or all of the apocryphal books to be equivalent
>in status to the canonical books?
A moot point. Somewhat less important, I would say.
>3) Do you consider that the traditional authorship attributions of the
>various books are correct?
No. Some are, of course, like the major Paulines, some are not, like the
Pentateuch.
>4) Do you consider that there is one clearly "best" translation of the
>Bible into English? If so, which translation?
No, it depends on the purpose of the translation, the readership, the
occasion of use, and so on.
>5) How important do you think it is to read and seek to understand the
>Bible?
Very. It's the word of God (with a small g), or at least the vehicle of the
word of God. (Actually, I'd say it's the record of the word of God, which
becomes the word of God again to us when it is read in faith and openness to
the Spirit).
>6) Which translation do you normally use for everyday reading?
Thank you for the compliment that we read the Bible every day!
NRSV
>7) Which other translations do you posess a copy of, and refer to
>regularly?
RSV, NEB, REB, GNB, NIV (I just tend to grab whatever's to hand as the need
arises)
>8) Which other translations do you have a copy of on your bookshelves,
>but that's where they tend to stay?
JB, NJB, RV, LB, AV, ICB, Phillips, Moffat, Weymouth, Berkeley, NT in Basic
English etc (I had a phase of collecting them)
>9) Does your church (local congregation, not denomination) have an
>"official" or preferred translation? If so, what percentage (to the
>best of your knowledge) of the congregation use it?
NRSV, RSV for public worship, with a bit of whatever people bring along.
Otherwise, no standard (though GNB is faily popular, I think)
>10) If you were asked to recommend a translation for the following
>purposes, which would it normally be:
> a) In-depth study
NRSV
> b) Public reading (eg, in church)
NRSV, REB
> c) Personal devotional use
Depending on levels of literacy, either of the above, or GNB
> e) Sunday School or Children's group
GNB, ICB
> f) "General purpose" use
As a) and c)
> g) To give to a new Christian
GNB, NRSV
>(Feel free to expand on *why* you have made these choices...)
Appropriate degrees of accuracy, language and accessibility
[snip]
Mark Goodge
On Fri, 03 Apr 1998 14:41:02 GMT, I wrote:
>After the success[1] of the Gifts of the Spirit survey, I thought it's
>time for another one. This time, I've picked a subject that is fairly
>topical, as far as uk.r.c goes.
It has been pointed out to me (by someone who answered the survey via
email) that it might help if I answered the questions myself, as a)
that gives an idea of the type of answer I'm looking for, and b) my
views are as interesting as anyone elses! While I am rarely in doubt
about (b) (I usually omit the H from IMHO), I'm a bit less sure about
giving some kind of lead in responding to the questions as I
deliberately want to see how other people interpret them. However,
I've been persuaded in favour of self-participation (at least on this
occasion), so here are my own answers:
>1) To what degree do you think that the Bible is "inspired" or
>"inerrant"? (On a scale of, say, "totally human with no divine input
>whatsoever" to "completely inerrant in every last detail").
I use the term "inspired". I see God's role in the creation of the
Bible as being most closely akin to that of a commissioning editor,
giving different tasks to different people. The level of inspiration
varies from place to place, including dictation ("Get your quill,
Isaiah, there's a prophecy I want you to write down"), post-authorship
selection ("Nice poem, David, I'm going to include that in the
collection") and commission ("Luke, I want you to write a history of
Christianity so far. Do it in two parts, starting with the life of
Jesus and then covering the early church"). I also see the role of of
the Holy Spirit in the subsequent revision and compilation process
that led to the Bible as we know it.
>2) Do you consider any or all of the apocryphal books to be equivalent
>in status to the canonical books?
No. Some of them are more useful than others.
>3) Do you consider that the traditional authorship attributions of the
>various books are correct?
Yes, although that doesn't rule out the fact that some books obviously
had input from more than one person (eg, the end of Deuteronomy *must*
have been written by someone other than Moses), and some books simply
don't give any clues as to their authorship (eg, Hebrews).
>4) Do you consider that there is one clearly "best" translation of the
>Bible into English? If so, which translation?
Not really.
>5) How important do you think it is to read and seek to understand the
>Bible?
Very. I think it's as close to being essential as it's possible to be
without approaching salvation by works.
>6) Which translation do you normally use for everyday reading?
NIV.
>7) Which other translations do you posess a copy of, and refer to
>regularly?
NRSV, GNB, Amplified, NASB, The Message, Phillips NT, AV, NEB. I've
also got a Greek/English interlinear, which I use regularly.
>8) Which other translations do you have a copy of on your bookshelves,
>but that's where they tend to stay?
I tend to read all those that I posess. Probably the least used are
the Amplified and NEB.
>9) Does your church (local congregation, not denomination) have an
>"official" or preferred translation? If so, what percentage (to the
>best of your knowledge) of the congregation use it?
We don't have an official or recommended version, but I once did a
survey in our church magazine that was quite similar to this, and
discovered that the NIV was the most popular (around 50%), followed by
the NKJV and GNB.
>10) If you were asked to recommend a translation for the following
>purposes, which would it normally be:
> a) In-depth study
The NRSV is a good basis for study use, being slightly less "dynamic"
than the NIV. But it's important to compare different translations,
and I personally find the interlinear NT invaluable.
> b) Public reading (eg, in church)
That depends a lot on the church. Obviously, if you know that most
people in the building have got one particular version (especially if
your church provides a pew Bible), then any public readings should
normally come from the same version so that people can follow them
easily. Otherwise, one that "reads well" is the best choice - the NIV
or NRSV are both good in that respect. For a formal situation where
the Bible reading is part of the programme (eg, a wedding or funeral)
I'd be inclined to use the NKJV - it has a more "literary" language
that sounds nice when read out loud, but doesn't have the archaisms of
the AV.
> c) Personal devotional use
Again, it's a matter of preference. This is one area where I find that
paraphrases are often useful - the different approach can be very
refreshing. I particularly like the Psalms in the GNB, and the Message
translation for the NT.
(Yes, I know there is no (d). I don't know what happened to it...)
> e) Sunday School or Children's group
It depends a lot on the age of the children, but overall I think that
the ICB (International Children's Bible) is probably the best, with
the GNB as a good alternative.
> f) "General purpose" use
Normally, I would recommend the NIV.
> g) To give to a new Christian
That depends a lot on the age and background of the individual
concerned. Again, I'd normally be inclined to stick with my own
favoured choices of the NIV or NRSV, but if the person came from a
completely unchurched background, or was not used to reading much,
then one of the better paraphrases would be a good choice - probably
the New Living Translation (not to be confused with the Living Bible,
which is completely different).
Mark
--
Visit Mark's World at http://www.good-stuff.co.uk/mark/
John Osborn
Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> 1) To what degree do you think that the Bible is "inspired" or
> "inerrant"? (On a scale of, say, "totally human with no divine input
> whatsoever" to "completely inerrant in every last detail").
All of it is inspired by God and infallible in all it teaches. The
original manuscripts are without error (and any errors introduced in
transcription or translation are usually minor), but in a few places
the most obvious meaning of the text may not be the intended meaning
due to unexpected use of language.
> 2) Do you consider any or all of the apocryphal books to be equivalent
> in status to the canonical books?
No.
> 3) Do you consider that the traditional authorship attributions of the
> various books are correct?
Yes in those cases where the attributions are derived from statements
in the books. E.g. I believe that Paul wrote all letters from Romans
to Philemon, but I don't know who wrote Hebrews.
> 4) Do you consider that there is one clearly "best" translation of the
> Bible into English? If so, which translation?
No.
> 5) How important do you think it is to read and seek to understand the
> Bible?
Extremely important. It contains all we need to know in order to
trust in Christ for salvation and general rules for living.
> 6) Which translation do you normally use for everyday reading?
RSV and NIV
> 7) Which other translations do you posess a copy of, and refer to
> regularly?
NKJV
> 8) Which other translations do you have a copy of on your bookshelves,
> but that's where they tend to stay?
KJV. I also have and occasionally use a Greek New Testament with an
interlinear English translation (I don't know Greek but the
interlinear translation can be useful).
> 9) Does your church (local congregation, not denomination) have an
> "official" or preferred translation? If so, what percentage (to the
> best of your knowledge) of the congregation use it?
The NKJV is used in church services, but we have no recommended
translation for personal use. I don't know what proportion of the
congregation use the NKJV at home - I think not a very high
proportion.
> 10) If you were asked to recommend a translation for the following
> purposes, which would it normally be:
> a) In-depth study
Either RSV or NIV
> b) Public reading (eg, in church)
NIV
> c) Personal devotional use
Either RSV or NIV
> e) Sunday School or Children's group
For younger children, GNB (probably several others that I am less
familiar with are equally suitable). For teenagers, NIV
> f) "General purpose" use
NIV
> g) To give to a new Christian
NIV
--
John Osborn
University of Bradford, UK.
To reply by email, replace "br" by "bradford" in my email address.
Simon Gray
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Down on uk.religion.christian street, the vibe from Mark Goodge is:
~ 1) To what degree do you think that the Bible is "inspired" or
~ "inerrant"? (On a scale of, say, "totally human with no divine input
~ whatsoever" to "completely inerrant in every last detail").
Moderately inspired. Certainly not dictated to the scribes in the
manner that, say, the muslims believe al qu'ran to have been.
~ 2) Do you consider any or all of the apocryphal books to be equivalent
~ in status to the canonical books?
Dunno - never given it much thought.
~ 3) Do you consider that the traditional authorship attributions of the
~ various books are correct?
Irrelevant - it is the words (or rather, the spirit behind the words)
that are important, not the author.
~ 4) Do you consider that there is one clearly "best" translation of the
~ Bible into English? If so, which translation?
There are better & worse translations. The better ones are the ones
that do not add extra spin to the words.
~ 5) How important do you think it is to read and seek to understand the
~ Bible?
Quite to very important - but not to the exclusion of living the
life that it is supposed to be an example for !
~ 6) Which translation do you normally use for everyday reading?
niv.
~ 7) Which other translations do you posess a copy of, and refer to
~ regularly?
None.
~ 8) Which other translations do you have a copy of on your bookshelves,
~ but that's where they tend to stay?
None.
~ 9) Does your church (local congregation, not denomination) have an
~ "official" or preferred translation? If so, what percentage (to the
~ best of your knowledge) of the congregation use it?
There are neb's scattered around the meeting house, but I don't
think it is `official'.
~ 10) If you were asked to recommend a translation for the following
~ purposes, which would it normally be:
~ a) In-depth study
~ b) Public reading (eg, in church)
~ c) Personal devotional use
~ e) Sunday School or Children's group
~ f) "General purpose" use
~ g) To give to a new Christian
No comment !
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNSZWl0dRFO5sC2Q6EQKWDQCgi37O5nhvmWs6xzwW6ech/bxpfXcAn15s
JTADMaWq6PIubY3ZwrcGOQAE
=hlJX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Selling the Big Issue in t minus 6 days...
http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/
Simon Gray
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Down on uk.religion.christian street, the vibe from Gareth McCaughan is:
~ > 1) To what degree do you think that the Bible is "inspired" or
~ > "inerrant"? (On a scale of, say, "totally human with no divine input
~ > whatsoever" to "completely inerrant in every last detail").
~
~ It's hard to know how to answer this question.
I decided it was easier to let the detail come out in any discussion...
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNSZX+UdRFO5sC2Q6EQIo6wCg5dHQStGbQ2J7tiA1Bggp+SX5/vcAoL6G
sNOwY5lYsl+fDHRNbbTtccyW
=y8wb
Alan Zanker
ma...@good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge) wrote:
>1) To what degree do you think that the Bible is "inspired" or
>"inerrant"? (On a scale of, say, "totally human with no divine input
>whatsoever" to "completely inerrant in every last detail").
When read in church or used for private devotion it seems to be one of
the means God uses to inspire us.
>2) Do you consider any or all of the apocryphal books to be equivalent
>in status to the canonical books?
No - does anybody?
>3) Do you consider that the traditional authorship attributions of the
>various books are correct?
I think Paul probably wrote 7 of the 13 letters attributed to him
(possibly 8 if you include Colossians) and that somebody called John
wrote Revelation. Otherwise almost certainly not (in either OT or NT).
>4) Do you consider that there is one clearly "best" translation of the
>Bible into English? If so, which translation?
Following recent threads I'd like to say the RV of 1881 (:-), but
probably the RSV.
>5) How important do you think it is to read and seek to understand the
>Bible?
For me personally, very. And in general I believe we should, so long
as we seek to understand both what the bible is (a helpful guidebook
written by fallible but sometimes inspired humans) and what it
certainly is not (a book of rules to be followed without question in
every situation). ('IMHO'? Nah! - not even 'IMO' (:-))
>6) Which translation do you normally use for everyday reading?
RSV and GNB.
>7) Which other translations do you possess a copy of, and refer to
>regularly?
NRSV, NGNB, NJPS translation of the Tanakh.
>8) Which other translations do you have a copy of on your bookshelves,
>but that's where they tend to stay?
AV, RV, JB, NIV, NEB, JB Phillips' 'Letters', Luther's Bible (in
German), Greek interlinear NT (though I don't know Greek)
>9) Does your church (local congregation, not denomination) have an
>"official" or preferred translation? If so, what percentage (to the
>best of your knowledge) of the congregation use it?
No, but as the lectern bible is GNB, most readers use either that or
the NRSV in public worship, and probably for private use as well.
>10) If you were asked to recommend a translation for the following
>purposes, which would it normally be:
> a) In-depth study
RSV, together with a good commentary and bible dictionary. (I'd
suggest Harper's for both - or if you want something specifically NT
and moderately conservative, Raymond E Brown's excellent new
'Introduction to the New Testament' - complete with imprimatur!)
> b) Public reading (eg, in church)
NRSV (but GNB if that's what people are most familiar with)
> c) Personal devotional use
GNB or NRSV
> e) Sunday School or Children's group
GNB, illustrated
> f) "General purpose" use
GNB (but old family AVs make good doorstops)
> g) To give to a new Christian
GNB
Alan
--
'The heart of Christian faith is not a theological
theory but belief that God the Father works in a
revealing, redeeming and liberating way in us through
His Son Jesus Christ in His Spirit' - Hans Kueng
Andy McMullon
In article <352aef88...@bubble.good-stuff.co.uk>, Mark Goodge
<URL:mailto:ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> 1) To what degree do you think that the Bible is "inspired" or
> "inerrant"? (On a scale of, say, "totally human with no divine input
> whatsoever" to "completely inerrant in every last detail").
I think it is trustworthy in saying what God wanted it to say! That
doesn't mean it can't contain historical, scientific or even theological
mistakes. Since that is not normally what people use 'inerrant' to mean
I don't go for that word myself.
Inspired - 100%
Human input - also 100%
Peter says it for me: "because no prophecy ever came by human
will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (NRSV
2 Pet 1:21)
> 2) Do you consider any or all of the apocryphal books to be equivalent
> in status to the canonical books?
No
> 3) Do you consider that the traditional authorship attributions of
> the various books are correct?
I don't mind either way. If Isaiah was all written by a single Isaiah
or 66 Isaiahs - it's still the word of God!
> 4) Do you consider that there is one clearly "best" translation of the
> Bible into English? If so, which translation?
I like the modern literary quality of the REB. I am not a fan of the
KJV/AV exept for a 'performance' reading.
> 5) How important do you think it is to read and seek to understand the
> Bible?
More important than a cold bath or five portions of fruit and veg every
day!
> 6) Which translation do you normally use for everyday reading?
REB (for the morning office), NRSV (for study on the RiscPC), NJB (for
study of the OT - I like Yahweh instead of LORD; and also for OT or NT
narrative for which it is superb!)
> 7) Which other translations do you posess a copy of, and refer to
> regularly?
GNB, RSV
> 8) Which other translations do you have a copy of on your bookshelves,
> but that's where they tend to stay?
NEB, RSV, KJV, AV, NIV
> 9) Does your church (local congregation, not denomination) have an
> "official" or preferred translation? If so, what percentage (to the
> best of your knowledge) of the congregation use it?
GNB in the pews (hardly used)
ASB whatever version was choosen for the Sunday (people did like to
read these - until we went to the RCL)
NRSV the official version in the Revised Common Lectionary wich we have
on the Lectern (at the moment people listen because few have their own
copy of either the lectionary readings or the full NRSV)
> 10) If you were asked to recommend a translation for the following
> purposes, which would it normally be:
> a) In-depth study
NRSV - reasonable and accurate
> b) Public reading (eg, in church)
NRSV - except that it uses 'inclusive language' which I don't like
(troll mode)
> c) Personal devotional use
REB or NJB
> e) Sunday School or Children's group
GNB
> f) "General purpose" use
NRSV
> g) To give to a new Christian
Now that would depend on the new Christian......
Thanks for running this survey Mark! I vote we make you the official
pollster on ukrc!
Andy
--
Andy: skyp...@bigfoot.com / http://www.mcfamily.demon.co.uk
What did I know, what did I know
of love's austere and lonely offices? Robert Hayden
Stephen Bull
Mark Goodge wrote:
> 1) To what degree do you think that the Bible is "inspired" or
> "inerrant"? (On a scale of, say, "totally human with no divine input
> whatsoever" to "completely inerrant in every last detail").
>
Somewhere near to the inerrant end of things, but only in thecontext of
the age and circumstances in which it was given.
> 2) Do you consider any or all of the apocryphal books to be equivalent
>
> in status to the canonical books?
>
I don't know enough about them.
> 3) Do you consider that the traditional authorship attributions of the
>
> various books are correct?
>
Not sure how much it matters, but FWIW, NT yes (except Hebrews);OT I'm
less sure
> 4) Do you consider that there is one clearly "best" translation of the
>
> Bible into English? If so, which translation?
>
No
> 5) How important do you think it is to read and seek to understand the
>
> Bible?
>
Crucial: I attempt to read it every day.We do need to apply it to
ourselves and our time: eg I believe that women
can be just as effective leaders as men.
> 6) Which translation do you normally use for everyday reading?
>
NRSV/NIV
> 7) Which other translations do you posess a copy of, and refer to
> regularly?
>
GNB (especially for children's work)
> 8) Which other translations do you have a copy of on your bookshelves,
>
> but that's where they tend to stay?
>
RSV
> 9) Does your church (local congregation, not denomination) have an
> "official" or preferred translation? If so, what percentage (to the
> best of your knowledge) of the congregation use it?
>
NIV; unsure
> 10) If you were asked to recommend a translation for the following
> purposes, which would it normally be:
> a) In-depth study
NIV/NRSV
> b) Public reading (eg, in church)
NIV (through habit more than anything else)
> c) Personal devotional use
NIV (through habit more than anything else)
> e) Sunday School or Children's group
We use GNB (but only 'because it's there')
> f) "General purpose" use
Whichever is most appropriate to the purpose,
probably GNB, NRSV, NIV as these are the
versions with which I'm familiar
> g) To give to a new Christian
Would depend very much on context.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bull Praxis Critical Systems 20 Manvers Street BATH BA1
1PX UK
+1225 466991 (switchboard) +1225 469006 (fax)
Views expressed are not necessarily those of my employer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Watson
Philip Gardner wrote:
>
> Mark Goodge asked a series of interesting questions:
>
> > 1) To what degree do you think that the Bible is "inspired" or
> > "inerrant"? (On a scale of, say, "totally human with no divine input
> > whatsoever" to "completely inerrant in every last detail").
Divinely infallible with respect to all matters related to faith and
conduct from the individual right up to societies.
I don't believe it is necessarliy inerrant on other matters.
>
> > 2) Do you consider any or all of the apocryphal books to be equivalent
> > in status to the canonical books?
No.
>
> > 3) Do you consider that the traditional authorship attributions of the
> > various books are correct?
Yes.
>
> > 4) Do you consider that there is one clearly "best" translation of the
> > Bible into English? If so, which translation?
No best one.
> > 5) How important do you think it is to read and seek to understand the
> > Bible?
>
It is not important to salvation but it is to Christian development.
>
> > 6) Which translation do you normally use for everyday reading?
>
KJV
>
> > 7) Which other translations do you posess a copy of, and refer to
> > regularly?
NIV, NKJV
>
> > 8) Which other translations do you have a copy of on your bookshelves,
> > but that's where they tend to stay?
NEB, Goodspeed, RSV, NWT, GNB, Philips
> > 9) Does your church (local congregation, not denomination) have an
> > "official" or preferred translation? If so, what percentage (to the
> > best of your knowledge) of the congregation use it?
NKJV or NIV
>
> > 10) If you were asked to recommend a translation for the following
> > purposes, which would it normally be:
>
> > a) In-depth study
NKJV
> > b) Public reading (eg, in church)
NIV or NKJV
> > c) Personal devotional use
>
KJV
>
> > e) Sunday School or Children's group
GNB
>
> > f) "General purpose" use
KJV
>
> > g) To give to a new Christian
NKJV or NIV
Roland.
bigmax
--
Marcus Maxwell
Heaton Mersey, Stockport
>Marcus wrote:
>> Very. It's the word of God (with a small g),
>Er, I think you mean a small `w', no?
Probably.
bigmax
--
Marcus Maxwell
Heaton Mersey, Stockport
>I agree with colin and sharon on this one, except for 7, i binned all my
>other tranlsations and now only possess an interlinear and a Youngs
>concrdance, also a Turkish new testament for if that great day ever
>comes.
Just as a matter of interest (and I'm not trying to start a debate on Bible
versions - there's enough of that already) is the Turkish version based on
the Textus Receptus?
Patrick Herring
Mark Goodge wrote:
...
> 1) To what degree do you think that the Bible is "inspired" or
> "inerrant"? (On a scale of, say, "totally human with no divine input
> whatsoever" to "completely inerrant in every last detail").
It's a human record of divine events insofar as they were appreciated by
those who experienced them. I have a feeling that God may have had to
step in to make sure they didn't get too lost or confused in the
recording & telling, and did so by sending people who would know what to
do eg the Gospel writers. There's no need, or justification, for calling
it 'inerrant' in the sense that 'it can't be wrong'. It could well be,
but I don't think & feel so, at least about the basics (whatever they
are).
> 2) Do you consider any or all of the apocryphal books to be equivalent
> in status to the canonical books?
Yes - the Canon is a minimum not a maximum. I'd say this of lots of
books written throughout history, particularly biographies.
> 3) Do you consider that the traditional authorship attributions of the
> various books are correct?
Never really thought about it. I read according to what the content does
for me rather than out of a feeling that I ought to because of the
status of the author, though with experience there is a way to bet.
> 4) Do you consider that there is one clearly "best" translation of the
> Bible into English? If so, which translation?
KJV. I believe it's none too accurate but I just find the language has a
much richer meaning & that it conveys more of what I find to be
spiritual knowledge than the academically accurate ones.
> 5) How important do you think it is to read and seek to understand the
> Bible?
Fairly. Other things are more important, like worship & spiritual
reflection. I find I read it much more nowadays simply to answer uk.r.c
posts.
> 6) Which translation do you normally use for everyday reading?
KJV. See 5. I've not had a Bible consistently off the shelf since I was
a CU-evangelical-type at school.
> 7) Which other translations do you posess a copy of, and refer to
> regularly?
Coverdale psalms. Would like to get one of those interlinear e-Bibles,
but don't have the disk-space ATM.
> 8) Which other translations do you have a copy of on your bookshelves,
> but that's where they tend to stay?
JB, GNB, RSV, NEB.
> 9) Does your church (local congregation, not denomination) have an
> "official" or preferred translation? If so, what percentage (to the
> best of your knowledge) of the congregation use it?
Yes. In the sense of choosing it /because/ it's favoured by the church,
I'd say about 0% of the congregants use the version they do.
> 10) If you were asked to recommend a translation for the following
> purposes, which would it normally be:
> a) In-depth study
Interlinear multi-version with all the trimmings eg commentaries.
> b) Public reading (eg, in church)
KJV, but I don't care that much.
> c) Personal devotional use
Impossible to say.
> e) Sunday School or Children's group
One with lots of pictures, even if they're naff ones, at least they'll
have something they can get hold of.
> f) "General purpose" use
Experiment.
> g) To give to a new Christian
Book-token.
--
________________________________________________________
Patrick Herring at work (clearly not - Ed.)
Disclaimer: The appearance is BT but the essence is me.
"Occam's razor is so sharp, I bought the whole argument"
John Osborn
LythanNev wrote:
>
> > e) Sunday School or Children's group
>
> > f) "General purpose" use
> CEV
I notice that you recommend the GNB as suitable for children (as I
did) and that you are familiar with the CEV (which I have not seen
myself). The Sunday School material produced by Scripture Union
used to be based on the GNB but they have recently started using the
CEV which the editors think is better for this purpose. Would you
or anyone else who is familiar with the CEV care to comment on its
suitability for children?
bigmax
--
Marcus Maxwell
Heaton Mersey, Stockport
>I have to agree with the Big Max (Marcus Maxwell) here
Don't sound so reluctant - everyone is allowed to be right once in a
while:-)
[snip]
>I would imagine this and the RSV are the most popular as these have been
given
>out as Lord Wharton's Bibles from time immemorial
What are LWB's?
Andy McMullon
In article <352955b9...@mail.compuserve.com>, Martin Biddiscombe
<URL:mailto:M.Bidd...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Colin & Sharon wrote:
> :>3) Do you consider that the traditional authorship attributions of the
> :>various books are correct?
> :Yes, or else the whole of the Bible would be a lie.
>
> Hmm. If a book says "This book/letter was written by <x>" but actually
> wasn't, then you may have a point (although I wouldn't state it so
> strongly). But not all books which have a "traditional authorship
> attribution" actually state anything like that within them...
I'd go further. Just because certain bits of, say, the Pentateuch are
put into the mouth of Moses doesn't mean that he had to have written
down his words verbatim for the whole five books. I think they are
'Mosaic' rather than directly written in every detail by him. The
editorial process took centuries and involved wholsale additions and
re-ordering. It is still authentic 'Gospel according to Moses' though!
Same with the letters of Paul. I think he wrote some of them in
initimate detail. I also think it quite acceptable that other people
may have helped Paul write his letters and he added a salutation and a
few closing words before his signature. Just like a famous painter
adding the last few brushstrokes to a work of art, largely painted by
a student in his school, and signing it as his own.
I don't think any of this 'makes the whole Bible', or even bits of it,
a lie.
> Colin & Sharon added::
> :The KJV is by far the true unaltered Word of GOD.
> Martin Biddiscombe added:
> I'm sorry, but I just don't understand the fanaticism with which some
> people proclaim that the KJV is the only "true unaltered Word of GOD".
Well it didn't actually say that '*only the KJV* is the true unaltered
word of God' though I suspect that is what they meant.
So long as the claim covers NRSV, NIV, REB etc, etc, and not KJV
exclusively then I'd go along with it - though I would prefer to put it
differently.
Colin Bell
ma...@good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge) writes:
> 1) To what degree do you think that the Bible is "inspired" or
> "inerrant"? (On a scale of, say, "totally human with no divine input
> whatsoever" to "completely inerrant in every last detail").
Inspired - definitely, but I would also regard many other books, works of
art, pieces of music etc to be inspired also. I don't see how I can judge
accurately which are more inspired than others, but the Bible seems to me
to be pretty high on the list. (Some parts more than others.)
Inerrant - however inspired the authors were, they were human and may well
have produced errors. Other parts are intended as poetic or stories, and
others may be included out of a need for completeness where the full
infomation was lacking (probably 'allowed' by God) . I'd include the creation
story and the genealogies in this last part.
The important thing about the Bible IMHO is that it is a record of how God
has dealt with people down the ages: the portrayal of God in this respect
is generally accurate. I don't think it was intended as a science or history
textbook, and it shouldn't be treated as such (although a large part of
the history is definitely correct).
> 2) Do you consider any or all of the apocryphal books to be equivalent
> in status to the canonical books?
I haven't read very many of them, so this is somewhat off the top of my
head, but I'd say that although they're probably less inspired than the
canonical books, the cut-off may be a bit arbitrary.
> 3) Do you consider that the traditional authorship attributions of the
> various books are correct?
Some and not others. I don't think in some cases it matters too much.
> 4) Do you consider that there is one clearly "best" translation of the
> Bible into English? If so, which translation?
No. Different ones have different strengths and weaknesses. The KJV may
be a good translation into 17th century English but it isn't into 20th
century English.
> 5) How important do you think it is to read and seek to understand the
> Bible?
It's one of the bases of our Christian faith, but not the only one.
> 6) Which translation do you normally use for everyday reading?
NIV
> 7) Which other translations do you posess a copy of, and refer to
> regularly?
GNB. Not that regularly.
> 8) Which other translations do you have a copy of on your bookshelves,
> but that's where they tend to stay?
There's a KJV and an (N)RSV in the house, which I look at occasionally.
> 9) Does your church (local congregation, not denomination) have an
> "official" or preferred translation? If so, what percentage (to the
> best of your knowledge) of the congregation use it?
We use the NIV for readings on Sundays and have both NIVs and RSVs in the
pews (The latter I assume was the previous 'readings' translation).
> 10) If you were asked to recommend a translation for the following
> purposes, which would it normally be:
I'm no expert, but here goes:
> a) In-depth study
NIV, plus perhaps another translation for comparison.
> b) Public reading (eg, in church)
I'd go for the RSV over the NIV. It seems to work better as a translation
to listen to (rather than to read from the page).
> c) Personal devotional use
Something you're familiar with. Would depend on the person.
> e) Sunday School or Children's group
GNB (or something similar) for primary age. For teenagers I'd go more on
presentation than the particular translation (unless it was awful) - the
Youth Bible looks reasonably good to me, although I haven't studied it in
detail.
> f) "General purpose" use
NIV
> g) To give to a new Christian
Again would depend on the person. Something with some decent explanatory
notes definitely.
Colin
--
Colin Bell, c...@art.co.uk Advanced Rendering Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's been going downhill since the lake caught fire."
Roland Watson
Andy McMullon wrote:
>
> In article <352955b9...@mail.compuserve.com>, Martin Biddiscombe
> <URL:mailto:M.Bidd...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> > Colin & Sharon wrote:
>
> > :>various books are correct?
> > :Yes, or else the whole of the Bible would be a lie.
> >
> > Hmm. If a book says "This book/letter was written by <x>" but actually
> > wasn't, then you may have a point (although I wouldn't state it so
> > strongly). But not all books which have a "traditional authorship
> > attribution" actually state anything like that within them...
>
> I'd go further. Just because certain bits of, say, the Pentateuch are
> put into the mouth of Moses doesn't mean that he had to have written
> down his words verbatim for the whole five books. I think they are
> 'Mosaic' rather than directly written in every detail by him. The
> editorial process took centuries and involved wholsale additions and
> re-ordering. It is still authentic 'Gospel according to Moses' though!
I think you go to far, Andy. How many forgers (sorry, redactors) have
to have their fingers in the pie before the whole thing becomes a bit
dubious?
The people said to Christ "we know God spoke to Moses...", If they are
referring to a part of the Pentateuch retrofitted by a 7th Century
scribe who then claims this is the Law given to Moses on Mt. Sinai,
I would take issue with them!
How do you actually distinguish Moses from 7th Century BC priest anyway?
Roland.
Kim Tame
Roland Watson wrote:
>
> How do you actually distinguish Moses from 7th Century BC priest anyway?
>
> Roland.
>
>
Um, the bit that describes Moses' death probably wasn't written by
Moses.
Kim
Kim Tame
I used to have one. It was presented to me in Sunday School for
learning a passages by heart. I think Lord Wharton set up some kind of
trust for giving Bibles to children in less affluent areas (which mine
was). I used my Lord Wharton RSV until it fell apart (after about 20
years).
Kim
bigmax
John A Green wrote
[snip]
>The Jeruslaem Bible is quite accurate on the whole, but has at least
>one extraordinary mistranslation eg Rom.8 24 (Week 30, Tuesday, in
>missal/lectionary)
>
> "For we must be content to hope that we shall be saved - our
>salvation is not in sight, we should not have to be hoping for it if
>it were - but, as I say, we must hope to be saved since we are not
>saved yet - it is something we must wait for with patience."
>
>This wins my prize for the worst translation in any version[1]. It is
>corrected in NJB.
>compare Rheims/Douay:
> For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen is not hope. For
>what a man seeth, why doth he hope for? But if we hope for that which
>we see not, we wait for it in patience"
>[1] I assume, since no other translation is thus, it is wrong! Can
>anyone, with more knowledge of Greek than I, see how JB could have
>possibly got that?
No. Not that I claim to be a great Greek scholar, but it seems a faily
simple verse to translate, and I can't get that out if it at all.
I suspect that there's a bit of doctrinal fudging going on (to preserve a
works-based notion of salvation?), or else the translator has missed out on
the sense of hope, which Paul uses to mean "expectation", but we use to mean
"wish". The rest of the translation is then forced into a "perhaps we'll be
saved mode". But otherwise, it's a mystery.
Simon Gray
{i'm resending a whole batch of stuff because I think something
has got broken somewhere}
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Down on uk.religion.christian street, the vibe from Mark Goodge is:
~ > b) Public reading (eg, in church)
~
~ That depends a lot on the church. Obviously, if you know that most
~ people in the building have got one particular version (especially if
~ your church provides a pew Bible), then any public readings should
~ normally come from the same version so that people can follow them
~ easily.
I actually `disagree' (well, I wouldn't conduct campaigns against
it, ye know what I mean) with the practise of following in one's
own bible when it is being read out. In my observations, by the
time the overwhelming majority of people have found the relevant
place, the reading has nearly finished. So, since most people will
have largely missed it, why bother ? Why not just sit & listen to
the person reading it out ?
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNSepzEdRFO5sC2Q6EQLvCQCguTagoP9tRvcyA/i+Uu66q2BJbjEAn35w
Ovc43lJNMifMNOoNYAaQHSMD
=1COS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Selling the Big Issue in t minus 5 days...
http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/
Simon Gray
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Down on uk.religion.christian street, the vibe from Colin & Sharon is:
~ >3) Do you consider that the traditional authorship attributions of the
~ >various books are correct?
~
~ Yes, or else the whole of the Bible would be a lie.
Why would it be a lie ?
~ >4) Do you consider that there is one clearly "best" translation of the
~ >Bible into English? If so, which translation?
~
~ KJV (AV). The only true Bible for the English speaking world.
Why is it the only true bible blah blah ?
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNSgPK0dRFO5sC2Q6EQIdPwCg3yERKnOO+TDmb2zDRFPlmDr5OooAn0To
NdULaVFlQt+liZEc9Xq2bSJz
=JPen
Simon Gray
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Down on uk.religion.christian street, the vibe from Colin & Sharon is:
~ >2) Do you consider any or all of the apocryphal books to be equivalent
~ >in status to the canonical books?
~
~ NO NO NO (for as many books in the apocrypha)
It seems to me that everybody who has given a not-noncommittal
answer to this question has responded in the negative.
Some reasons *why* they are non-canonical might be nice, I think -
keeping in mind that mark's question is `do *you* consider...',
not, `do the official doctrines of your church consider...'.
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNSgO10dRFO5sC2Q6EQJeUQCfayzSdZm4KNZrXyxSaas7Q0cv7QMAoN8E
A/VSsDVc3uOYX2Qu5u8CT1we
=uSnc
Andy McMullon
In article <352A35...@spider.co.uk>, Roland Watson
<URL:mailto:rol...@spider.co.uk> wrote:
>
> How do you actually distinguish Moses from 7th Century BC priest anyway?
Why should I need to?
Andy
Every man is a priest, even involuntarily; his conduct is an unspoken
sermon which he is for ever preaching to others.
Henri Amiel
Frank Lane
>I'm sorry, but I just don't understand the fanaticism with which some
>people proclaim that the KJV is the only "true unaltered Word of GOD".
>
>Martin
>
I've missed a lot of this thread - being under pressure at school and
my modem playing up - but I have to come in on this bit.
It's not fanaticism, Martin.
It's idolatry.
Frank
Roland Watson
Annabel Smyth wrote:
>
> Quoting Roland Watson <rol...@spider.co.uk>:
>
> >The people said to Christ "we know God spoke to Moses...", If they are
> >referring to a part of the Pentateuch retrofitted by a 7th Century
> >scribe who then claims this is the Law given to Moses on Mt. Sinai,
> >I would take issue with them!
> >
> Deuteronomy since he dies at the end of it? I mean, he didn't come back
> and put the finishing touches on it from the grave, did he?
Annabel,
The only part of Deuteronomy that looks "non-Moses" is the account of
his death and the eulogy at the end. But I have read at least one
commentator suggesting that God instructed Moses to insert, another
suggests Joshua instructed its insertion - not a scribe hundreds of
years later.
Roland.
> --
> Annabel Smyth Ann...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
> Website updated 5 April 1998
Roland Watson
Kim Tame wrote:
>
> Roland Watson wrote:
>
> >
> > How do you actually distinguish Moses from 7th Century BC priest anyway?
> >
> >
> >
> Um, the bit that describes Moses' death probably wasn't written by
> Moses.
That doesn't imply it was a scribe several centuries later! How about
Joshua?
Roland.
>
> Kim
A.A.R...@open.ac.uk
Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>
> 1) To what degree do you think that the Bible is "inspired" or
> "inerrant"? (On a scale of, say, "totally human with no divine input
> whatsoever" to "completely inerrant in every last detail").
99% inspired and inerrant.
>
>
> 2) Do you consider any or all of the apocryphal books to be equivalent
> in status to the canonical books?
All the deutercanonical books (the "apocrypha") are canonical.
>
>
> 3) Do you consider that the traditional authorship attributions of the
> various books are correct?
>
I have no idea.
> 4) Do you consider that there is one clearly "best" translation of the
> Bible into English? If so, which translation?
No.
>
>
> 5) How important do you think it is to read and seek to understand the
> Bible?
>
Very important, BUT understanding cannot be found in individual study of
the bible alone. The gospel must be preached and taught with apostolic
authority, and can only be understood in the context of apostolic
teaching.
> 6) Which translation do you normally use for everyday reading?
The Jerusalem Bible
>
>
> 7) Which other translations do you posess a copy of, and refer to
> regularly?
>
The RSV.
> 8) Which other translations do you have a copy of on your bookshelves,
> but that's where they tend to stay?
The King James Version
>
>
> 9) Does your church (local congregation, not denomination) have an
> "official" or preferred translation? If so, what percentage (to the
> best of your knowledge) of the congregation use it?
The Jerusalem Bible
>
>
> 10) If you were asked to recommend a translation for the following
> purposes, which would it normally be:
> a) In-depth study
> b) Public reading (eg, in church)
> c) Personal devotional use
> e) Sunday School or Children's group
> f) "General purpose" use
> g) To give to a new Christian
The JB or the RSV for all of the above.
>
>
--
Andy Reilly
Stephen Bull
Simon Gray wrote:
> Some reasons *why* they are non-canonical might be nice, I think -
> keeping in mind that mark's question is `do *you* consider...',
> not, `do the official doctrines of your church consider...'.
>
My reasons are a combination of unfamiliarity and my church's doctrine.
The (few) times when I have read from the aprocrypha have left me
unconvinced of its value. I remain open to reasoned argument.
Stephen
Mark Goodge
Simon Gray wrote:
>
> Down on uk.religion.christian street, the vibe from Mark Goodge is:
>
> ~ > b) Public reading (eg, in church)
> ~
> ~ That depends a lot on the church. Obviously, if you know that most
> ~ people in the building have got one particular version (especially if
> ~ your church provides a pew Bible), then any public readings should
> ~ normally come from the same version so that people can follow them
> ~ easily.
>
> I actually `disagree' (well, I wouldn't conduct campaigns against
> it, ye know what I mean) with the practise of following in one's
> own bible when it is being read out. In my observations, by the
> time the overwhelming majority of people have found the relevant
> place, the reading has nearly finished. So, since most people will
> have largely missed it, why bother ? Why not just sit & listen to
> the person reading it out ?
That depends on the situation, really. I think it's important, if the
preacher is preaching from a text, to have your Bible open and follow
what he/she is talking about. But for "liturgical" readings, that don't
neccesarily relate directly to the sermon, it's less important (but
still nice!).
> Selling the Big Issue in t minus 5 days...
> http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/
I thought you'd found somewhere (and got your laptop back as well)?
Mark
--
Visit Mark's World at http://www.good-stuff.co.uk/mark/
Martin Biddiscombe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Annabel Smyth wrote:
...
> But Roland - how could Moses possibly have written the book of
> Deuteronomy since he dies at the end of it? I mean, he didn't come
> back and put the finishing touches on it from the grave, did he?
It really bugs me when people (not necessarily you Annabel) say or
imply:
"Aha! Moses couldn't possibly have written the stuff in Deuteronomy
about his death, so therefore the claim that Moses wrote (or compiled
if you prefer) the whole pentateuch is false, so therefore he didn't
write any of it."
There are two easy explanations:
1) Moses wrote it all except for that little bit - he could have *even*
left instructions on how to 'complete' the book after his death.
2) Moses really did write it all, because God had revealed to him how
and when he was going to die. The fact that Moses then wrote about it
as if it had already happened is irrelevant for two reasons:
a) No-one was likely to read it until it had actually happened;
b) Since God had told him what was going to happen, it was as
certain to happen as if it had already happened.
Martin
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQB1AwUBNStlX5aT8w4dn389AQEJnAMA6lgPCNZm4S6fAPDRwthQqdzBKxF1ekSh
dL8Y6lVWvJPd5HhQLZP+l6MXL1Py8hdiqfHW/pqjksVFrRHO/kOAOMckwqZitgiG
KT03bsPCzSxCtUwuumMsfv/Tu5AQKW7P
=2Lqf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gently lapping, persistently weathering, forcibly pounding; the sea
is a metaphor for so many things we find hard to comprehend.
- Rebecca Hughes, In Doubt's Shadow.
PGP key at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uceemdb (that's not all, of course)
bigmax
Simon Gray wrote in message <362ed60e....@news.demon.co.uk>...
>Down on uk.religion.christian street, the vibe from Colin & Sharon is:
>~ >2) Do you consider any or all of the apocryphal books to be equivalent
>~ >in status to the canonical books?
>~
>~ NO NO NO (for as many books in the apocrypha)
>It seems to me that everybody who has given a not-noncommittal
>answer to this question has responded in the negative.
No, they haven't; the RC's have been positive, since for the RCC, the
apocrypha/deuterocanonicals are simply part of the Bible. Incidentally,
most of us have assumed that this is what Mark meant by "apocrypha" though
the word is used more widely to describe stuff like GThom, which no one
accepts as canonical, except gospel scholars (in a sense).
>Some reasons *why* they are non-canonical might be nice, I think -
>keeping in mind that mark's question is `do *you* consider...',
>not, `do the official doctrines of your church consider...'.
IIRC the Jewish canon was finalised after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD
(usually said to be at the council of Yamneh, but I understand it's more
complex than that). Up till then, the most widely used and recognised
"Scripture" was that represented by the LXX. The Christians went on using
the "canon" of the LXX, while the Rabbis went for a slightly shorter one.
At the Reformation, the reformers seem to have decided that there was some
pretty ropey stuff in the "apocrypha" and plumped for the Jewish canon (for
the OT of course). Hence there are now two slighty different OT
canons -Jewish/Protestant and Roman/Orthodox.
In this light, Mark's (and your) desire for a personal opinion can only be a
statement of the doctrinal position of the whole church/denomination, since
the concept of canon is to do with universal recognition. Of course, as we
have seen, there is nothing to stop individuals deciding that anything from
Tolstoy to Blyton is divinely inspired, but it can't really be termed
canonical.
Alan Zanker
si...@mahayana.demon.co.uk (Simon Gray) wrote:
>Down on uk.religion.christian street, the vibe from Colin & Sharon is:
>
>~ >2) Do you consider any or all of the apocryphal books to be equivalent
>~ >in status to the canonical books?
>~
>~ NO NO NO (for as many books in the apocrypha)
>
>It seems to me that everybody who has given a not-noncommittal
>answer to this question has responded in the negative.
I realise now my blanket 'no' answer was not quite as intended (comes
of not reading the question properly and overlooking the 'any' in 'any
or all'(:-(). The 'Apocrypha' sections in both the RSV Common Bible
and the NRSV include such books as 3 & 4 Maccabees which I understand
are not recognised by the RCs as deuterocanonical. 4 Macc is
incredibly gruesome.
I do believe, however, there's some Good Stuff in Wisdom and Sirach,
Alan
--
Alan Zanker
Leeds
England
Andy McMullon
In article <352B57...@ucl.ac.uk>, Martin Biddiscombe
<URL:mailto:M.Bidd...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Annabel Smyth wrote:
> ...
> > But Roland - how could Moses possibly have written the book of
> > Deuteronomy since he dies at the end of it? I mean, he didn't come
> > back and put the finishing touches on it from the grave, did he?
>
> It really bugs me when people (not necessarily you Annabel) say or
> imply:
>
> "Aha! Moses couldn't possibly have written the stuff in Deuteronomy
> about his death, so therefore the claim that Moses wrote (or compiled
> if you prefer) the whole pentateuch is false, so therefore he didn't
> write any of it."
>
> There are two easy explanations:
>
> 1) Moses wrote it all except for that little bit - he could have *even*
> left instructions on how to 'complete' the book after his death.
>
> 2) Moses really did write it all, because God had revealed to him how
> and when he was going to die. The fact that Moses then wrote about it
> as if it had already happened is irrelevant for two reasons:
> a) No-one was likely to read it until it had actually happened;
> b) Since God had told him what was going to happen, it was as
> certain to happen as if it had already happened.
>
> Martin
And, to my mind the easiest and most probable explanation:
3) Moses left behind a body of writings including teaching,
biographical information and accounts of Israel's wanderings. This
material was edited and expanded over the years in a process which
was overseen by the Holy Spirit.
Why is this such a problem to some people?
Surely once you have admitted a human involvement in the production of
the word of God does it matter whether that was one person or hundreds!
bigmax
Martin Biddiscombe wrote in message <352B57...@ucl.ac.uk>...
>Annabel Smyth wrote:
>...
>> But Roland - how could Moses possibly have written the book of
>> Deuteronomy since he dies at the end of it? I mean, he didn't come
>> back and put the finishing touches on it from the grave, did he?
>
>It really bugs me when people (not necessarily you Annabel) say or
>imply:
>
>"Aha! Moses couldn't possibly have written the stuff in Deuteronomy
>about his death, so therefore the claim that Moses wrote (or compiled
>if you prefer) the whole pentateuch is false, so therefore he didn't
>write any of it."
[Fairly reasonable explanations - all other things being equal - snipped]
Of course, it is possible to argue that Moses *could* have written all the
Pentateuch, the real question is whether he actually did. As far as I can
see, there are good reasons for supposing that he did not (such as duplicate
and conflicting accounts of creation, the flood etc.)
Given that a case continues to be made for both points of view, the main
issue is whether it matters. Does the authority and inspiration of
scripture depend on a particular view of its provenance. What bugs *me*
(and it doesn't necessarily apply to you, Martin) is the assumption some
seem to make, that anyone who believes that the results of historical
criticism etc. is automatically denigrating the Bible, casting doubt on
faith and so on.
Mark Goodge
Steven Carr wrote:
>
> on Wed, 8 Apr 1998 16:14:32 +0100, bigmax <max....@zen.co.uk> wrote :
>
> >No, they haven't; the RC's have been positive, since for the RCC, the
> >apocrypha/deuterocanonicals are simply part of the Bible. Incidentally,
> >most of us have assumed that this is what Mark meant by "apocrypha" though
> >the word is used more widely to describe stuff like GThom, which no one
> >accepts as canonical, except gospel scholars (in a sense).
>
> >(usually said to be at the council of Yamneh, but I understand it's more
> >complex than that). Up till then, the most widely used and recognised
> >"Scripture" was that represented by the LXX.
>
Er... I am aware of that, actually. But I don't think that that's
particularly relevent - the LXX was the "most widely used" simply
because it was in Greek, not Hebrew, and was available to the Jew of the
diaspora. As far as I'm aware, the "official" Hebrew canon has never
included the deuterocanonicals.
By "apocrypha" I did simply mean the stuff that RC Bibles have in them,
but Protestant Bibles don't!
Roland Watson
Andy McMullon wrote:
>
> In article <352B57...@ucl.ac.uk>, Martin Biddiscombe
> <URL:mailto:M.Bidd...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> > ...
> > > But Roland - how could Moses possibly have written the book of
> > > Deuteronomy since he dies at the end of it? I mean, he didn't come
> > > back and put the finishing touches on it from the grave, did he?
> >
> > It really bugs me when people (not necessarily you Annabel) say or
> > imply:
> >
> > "Aha! Moses couldn't possibly have written the stuff in Deuteronomy
> > about his death, so therefore the claim that Moses wrote (or compiled
> > if you prefer) the whole pentateuch is false, so therefore he didn't
> > write any of it."
> >
> >
> > 1) Moses wrote it all except for that little bit - he could have *even*
> > left instructions on how to 'complete' the book after his death.
> >
> > 2) Moses really did write it all, because God had revealed to him how
> > and when he was going to die. The fact that Moses then wrote about it
> > as if it had already happened is irrelevant for two reasons:
> > a) No-one was likely to read it until it had actually happened;
> > b) Since God had told him what was going to happen, it was as
> > certain to happen as if it had already happened.
> >
> > Martin
>
> And, to my mind the easiest and most probable explanation:
>
> 3) Moses left behind a body of writings including teaching,
> biographical information and accounts of Israel's wanderings. This
> material was edited and expanded over the years in a process which
> was overseen by the Holy Spirit.
>
> Why is this such a problem to some people?
Quite simply because the editor/forger's insertions claim to be written
at the time of the original documents.
If someone got a hold of Churchill's account of the second world war
and started adding and deleting their own "opinions" whilst giving the
impression that it was still Churchill who originally said it, would
you be impressed? I think not.
Roland.
Roland Watson
Annabel Smyth wrote:
>
> Quoting Kim Tame <kim....@virgin.net>:
>
> >Um, the bit that describes Moses' death probably wasn't written by
> >Moses.
> >
> part, round about the time when the tribes of Israel first went into
> exile, and "rediscovered" during the reign of King Josiah of Judah, when
> it became safe to take an interest in the Temple and its doings once
> again.
Isn't this just sheer speculation? How about this theory:
The book of Deuteronomy was probably written down, at least in whole,
round about the time when the tribes of Israel first went into the
promsied land, and rediscovered during the reign of King Josiah of
Judah when it became safe to to take an interest in the Temple and its
doings once again.
There was nothing special about the post-exilic Israel of Josiah's time.
God handed Israel over to their enemies more than once over their
history, what is so special about Josiah's days?
Graf and Wellhausen has spawned a frenzy in this area of Biblical
criticism, I have seen one paper on the flood account which has various
sequence of verses jumping between the J and E authors for whole
chapters - as if Moses had no right to use different names for God.
The "conflicting" two creation accounts is a flimsy piece of evidence
once again partly based on the change in God's name. I can't imagine
such a thing standing up in a court of law!
>
> Now, will you all please note that I said written *down*. This is NOT
> the same as "being made up". I think it is extremely probable, to the
> point of certainty, that the laws and commandments contained in the book
> of Deuteronomy were known for centuries before the book was published,
> and were passed down from one generation of priests to the next as part
> of the training process.
So we had a complete Genesis to Numbers at the time of Moses, but
Deuteronomy was in verbal form? Why the discrimination? I thought the
liberals said that practically nothing of the Pentateuch existed until
Josiah's high priest got his pen out?
We have about 600 years between Moses and Josiah and you claim that
the details of 30-odd chapters of Deuteronomy were preserved by oral
communications over such a long period? Surely some mistake!
>
> The point was, when the Israelites were taken into exile, and only the
> two tribes of Judah remained, and when the king was a serious
> collaborator, it did look decidedly as though the Temple might be left
> derelict, with nobody there to worship God. So the priests might easily
> have decided to write down the laws and precepts we know as the book of
> Deuteronomy, and perhaps the history of the end of Moses' life, to keep
> them safe, just in case.
Doesn't the Pentateuch mention Moses writing down all he had received
from God?
>
> In the end, the king, Manasseh, died, and his son Amon only reigned for
> two years before he was assassinated, and 8-year-old Josiah came to the
> throne. When he was about 25, the Assyrian king died, and his successor
> wasn't really interested in Judah, so it was safe for Josiah to explore
> the Temple. When he found it was nearly derelict, he sent in the
> painters and decorators, and guess what? During the refurbishment, the
> High Priest, Hilkaiah, "found" the book of Deuteronomy. I don't know
> whether he knew it was there all the time, or whether he was genuinely
> surprised. Anyway, he promptly took it to the King, who caused it to be
> read, and also caused it to be obeyed.
>
How does one extrapolate this to "wrote" the book of Deuteronomy?
Andy McMullon
In article <352CC0...@spider.co.uk>, Roland Watson
<URL:mailto:rol...@spider.co.uk> wrote:
> Andy McMullon wrote:
> >
> > And, to my mind the easiest and most probable explanation:
> >
> > 3) Moses left behind a body of writings including teaching,
> > biographical information and accounts of Israel's wanderings. This
> > material was edited and expanded over the years in a process which
> > was overseen by the Holy Spirit.
> >
> > Why is this such a problem to some people?
>
> Quite simply because the editor/forger's insertions claim to be written
> at the time of the original documents.
>
> If someone got a hold of Churchill's account of the second world war
> and started adding and deleting their own "opinions" whilst giving the
> impression that it was still Churchill who originally said it, would
> you be impressed? I think not.
No - but then I don't think the Pentateuch is trying to be a historical
account in quite the same way that Churchill's memoires were.
You can't judge the writers of the 6th Century BC by the literary
conventions of the 20th Century.
>
> >
> > Surely once you have admitted a human involvement in the production of
> > the word of God does it matter whether that was one person or hundreds!
> >
> > Andy
This is my main point.
John Osborn
There is a difference in the way New Testament authors regard the
Old Testament and the way they regard the apocrypha. The canonical
Old Testament books are quoted extensively in the New Testament,
often in a way which implies that they are regarded as authoritative.
I think that the only one which is not quoted is Esther. On the other
hand the apocrypha is essentially ignored by the New Testament
writers. The only possible exception to this is an apparent
quotation from 1 Enoch in Jude 14, and this is not definitely taken
from 1 Enoch since it is possible that Jude and the author of 1 Enoch
were each quoting from another source. The frequency of quotations
from the canonical Old Testament and the absence or near absence of
quotations from the apocrypha suggests that they were not deemed to
be of equal value by the disciples.
--
John Osborn
University of Bradford, UK.
To reply by email, replace "br" by "bradford" in my email address.
bigmax
--
Marcus Maxwell
Heaton Mersey, Stockport
>>But the BigMax wrote 'most widely used and recognised', not just 'most
>>widely used'.
"The bigmax"? Well, I suppose I am unique... (Must change that name
sometime.)
>
>Well, I'd probably be inclined to disagree with him over the "and
>recognised" bit, although that depends of course on what he meant :-)
It was just a numerical supposition. LXX seems to have been widely used
outside Palestine, and there are reckoned to have been more Jews in the
Diaspora than the homeland, ergo "more widely recognised". And, of course,
the choice of books for inclusion in the LXX is a good hint of what was
widely recognised (though not infallible, of course.) And does it really
matter all that much? Is there anything in the apocrypha which
significantly changes our view of God and all that?
Simon Gray
Down on uk.religion.christian street, the vibe from Roland Watson is:
~ If someone got a hold of Churchill's account of the second world war
~ and started adding and deleting their own "opinions" whilst giving the
~ impression that it was still Churchill who originally said it, would
~ you be impressed? I think not.
You mean like churchill's speeches, many / most of which were
apparently neither written nor even spoken by him ?
--
Temporarily pgp-less
http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/
Simon Gray
Down on uk.religion.christian street, the vibe from bigmax is:
~ >~ NO NO NO (for as many books in the apocrypha)
~
~ >It seems to me that everybody who has given a not-noncommittal
~ >answer to this question has responded in the negative.
~
~ No, they haven't; the RC's have been positive, since for the RCC, the
~ apocrypha/deuterocanonicals are simply part of the Bible.
When I typed that, no rc had yet responded.
~ Incidentally,
~ most of us have assumed that this is what Mark meant by "apocrypha" though
~ the word is used more widely to describe stuff like GThom, which no one
~ accepts as canonical, except gospel scholars (in a sense).
Well, having read the gthom (& the elaine pagels book that many
other people have read), I await education as to why (other than
'because the council of thingy said so') *that* should be considered
sub-canonical, too...
Simon Gray
Down on uk.religion.christian street, the vibe from
~ > 5) How important do you think it is to read and seek to understand the
~ > Bible?
~
~ Very important, BUT understanding cannot be found in individual study of
~ the bible alone. The gospel must be preached and taught with apostolic
~ authority, and can only be understood in the context of apostolic
~ teaching.
Please (for the sake of discussion) expand upon what you mean by
'apostolic teaching'.
Simon Gray
Down on uk.religion.christian street, the vibe from Roland Watson is:
~ I thought the liberals said
What, all of them ?!
~ We have about 600 years between Moses and Josiah and you claim that
~ the details of 30-odd chapters of Deuteronomy were preserved by oral
~ communications over such a long period? Surely some mistake!
I was under the impression that the usual explanation accepted by
right-thinking individuals for the 'bible codes' thing (theomatics ?)
was that the cyclical re-occurance of certain letters was placed
by the relevant people as a cyclic redundancy check to make sure
that upon copying & recopying errors were minimised ?
Simon Gray
Down on uk.religion.christian street, the vibe from Mark Goodge is:
~ > I actually `disagree' (well, I wouldn't conduct campaigns against
~ > it, ye know what I mean) with the practise of following in one's
~ > own bible when it is being read out. In my observations, by the
~ > time the overwhelming majority of people have found the relevant
~ > place, the reading has nearly finished. So, since most people will
~ > have largely missed it, why bother ? Why not just sit & listen to
~ > the person reading it out ?
~
~ That depends on the situation, really. I think it's important, if the
~ preacher is preaching from a text, to have your Bible open and follow
~ what he/she is talking about.
But *why* - why can't one follow what they are talking about by
listening to them ? If if one is spending half of the reading
looking for the relevant page, then you're not following it at
all !
~ > Selling the Big Issue in t minus 5 days...
~ > http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/
~
~ I thought you'd found somewhere (and got your laptop back as well)?
This was originally sent before that; however, see my latest
update on this...
Simon Gray
Down on uk.religion.christian street, the vibe from michael_forrest is:
~ Well, it wouldn't be a problem, except for the temptation to regard
~ anything Paul wrote as being 100% reliable, quantitative, factual, no room
~ for discussion or argument.
You mean like in the religion of paulianity...
Mark Goodge
>Down on uk.religion.christian street, the vibe from Roland Watson is:
>
>~ If someone got a hold of Churchill's account of the second world war
>~ and started adding and deleting their own "opinions" whilst giving the
>~ impression that it was still Churchill who originally said it, would
>~ you be impressed? I think not.
>
>You mean like churchill's speeches, many / most of which were
>apparently neither written nor even spoken by him ?
Er... Precisely. If a speech purporting to be by Churchill was in fact
neither written nor delivered by the man himself, then it is not
authentic and does not belong in any collection of Churchill's
writings or sayings.
If a book of the Bible that purports to be written by a named
individual (eg, Peter or Paul) was not in fact written or dictated by
the individual concerned, it is not authentic and therefore not
canonical.
(Before anyone asks, that doesn't mean that we have to accept any
ascription of books that make no such claim (eg, Hebrews), nor does it
mean that the books were not edited at a later date).
Mark Goodge
On Fri, 10 Apr 1998 00:22:29 +0100, bigmax <max....@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>--
Aaaagh! You've done it again. that's a sig separator right at the
start of your post, which means that when I try to reply, Agent cuts
off everything below it, leaving a blank page.
>>
>>Well, I'd probably be inclined to disagree with him over the "and
>>recognised" bit, although that depends of course on what he meant :-)
>
>It was just a numerical supposition. LXX seems to have been widely used
>outside Palestine, and there are reckoned to have been more Jews in the
>Diaspora than the homeland, ergo "more widely recognised".
Yes, that's how I would see it.
> And, of course,
>the choice of books for inclusion in the LXX is a good hint of what was
>widely recognised (though not infallible, of course.) And does it really
>matter all that much? Is there anything in the apocrypha which
>significantly changes our view of God and all that?
Well, yes and no. I don't have a copy of any of the apocryphal books
handy, so this is all from memory, but there are some things that do
significantly differ from OT and NT theology. For example, the writer
of (I think) Ecclesiasticus is *very* sexist - remarks like "a quiet
wife is the only good wife" or something like that, and other passages
that appear to treat women as being purely a commodity owned by men. I
think that a lot of the male chauvinism in the institutional church
can be traced back to attitudes fostered by the apocrypha. And some of
the "historical" deuterocanonicals are pretty much folk-tales, which
don't fit into what is known from either the OT or external sources.
Other parts, of course, are very valuable - they give an excellent
insight into the mindset of the time, and much of the wisdom in the
Proverbs-like books is very good. But I don't think they can be
equated with the canonical OT, in any way.
Mark Goodge
On 9 Apr 1998 22:49:45 GMT, michael_forrest
<michael...@lineone.net> wrote:
>>
>Just something that occurs to me ....
>
>Paul tells us that
>"Love of money is the root of all evil".
>Now this bothers me slightly, because taken as a simple factual statement,
>it ain't true. Well, it's mostly true, but not entirely. Love of money is
>certainly the root of a lot of evil, and if the term "money" is interpreted
>liberally to include those things associated with money (prestige, power,
>luxury etc) arguably the root of most evil. But all evil? No place for
>lust, pride, anger, intolerance etc?
>Of course there isn't a problem, we know what Paul means. He's exaggerating
>(again), it's the way he tells them, it's his style (which, despite all
>misconceptions, is forceful and idiomatic rather than pedantic).
Actually, it isn't Paul, it's the KJV that makes it sound so dogmatic.
The Greek text[1] has "a root", not "the root", and "evils" instead of
"evil".
The NIV translates it better (IMO) with "love of money is a root of
all kinds of evil".
>Well, it wouldn't be a problem, except for the temptation to regard
>anything Paul wrote as being 100% reliable, quantitative, factual, no room
>for discussion or argument. As a good few posts in this group have
>demonstrated, complete with exact measings of Greek words. And it's not
>just Paul that does this. The same applies to other Biblical authors. Well,
>you might expect that. You wouldn't expect any other book to be written in
>a way in which every single sentence can be taken literally and exactly
>(well, some technical textbooks maybe, but the Bible isn't like that).
I agree, and this is also a reason why I think it's important to
compare different translations when studying the Bible.
>IMHO
>IYSWIM (just made that one up).
Maybe, but you are certainly not the first to do so!
Mark
[1] Well, the Nestle text, which some may consider unacceptable. But I
don't have a TR handy, so I can't compare.
Mark Goodge
On Fri, 10 Apr 1998 05:19:57 GMT, ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk (Steven
Carr) wrote:
>Am I right in thinking that your opinion is that when Luke,Paul,
>John etc quoted the LXX translations of Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah etc,
>they did not regard the LXX translations as inspired, but just
>convenient?
Yes. Just as I quote the NIV because it's convenient, but I don't
think it's inspired.
Mark
Mark Goodge
On Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:33:57 GMT, si...@mahayana.demon.co.uk (Simon
Gray) wrote:
>Down on uk.religion.christian street, the vibe from Mark Goodge is:
>~
>~ That depends on the situation, really. I think it's important, if the
>~ preacher is preaching from a text, to have your Bible open and follow
>~ what he/she is talking about.
>
>But *why* - why can't one follow what they are talking about by
>listening to them ? If if one is spending half of the reading
>looking for the relevant page, then you're not following it at
>all !
Because you shouldn't just take what the preacher says on trust, you
need to be aware of how the things that he/she is saying fit into what
the Bible says.
In any case, if you can't find any quoted Bible passage within a
matter of a couple of minutes, then you obviously don't read it enough
anyway....
Alan Zanker
ma...@good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge) wrote (in reply to bigmax):
>Aaaagh! You've done it again. that's a sig separator right at the
>start of your post, which means that when I try to reply, Agent cuts
>off everything below it, leaving a blank page.
Yes, but I've found that if you select all the original message and
then click on the reply icon it is all copied into the reply window,
bigmax
Simon Gray wrote in message <353c5cf9...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>Down on uk.religion.christian street, the vibe from bigmax is:
>~ Incidentally,
>~ most of us have assumed that this is what Mark meant by "apocrypha"
though
>~ the word is used more widely to describe stuff like GThom, which no one
>~ accepts as canonical, except gospel scholars (in a sense).
>Well, having read the gthom (& the elaine pagels book that many
>other people have read), I await education as to why (other than
>'because the council of thingy said so') *that* should be considered
>sub-canonical, too...
Because, as I mentioned in another post somewhere, the council of thingy is
the only meaningful definition of canonical. I take it that you mean "sub"
as derogatory (which is fair enough) but the usual, and more neutral term is
"extra-canonical".
For what it's worth, GThom and other gnostic tracts were rejected because of
the understanding of salvation which they promulated.
bigmax
Mark Goodge wrote in message <352e0443....@bubble.good-stuff.co.uk>...
>start of your post, which means that when I try to reply, Agent cuts
>off everything below it, leaving a blank page.
Sorry. It's Outlook Express, which inserts the sig, and expects you to type
above it, whereas on this ng it makes more sense to intersperse comments. I
usually remove the sig and replace it, but sometimes forget.
[snip]
>> And, of course,
>>the choice of books for inclusion in the LXX is a good hint of what was
>>widely recognised (though not infallible, of course.) And does it really
>>matter all that much? Is there anything in the apocrypha which
>>significantly changes our view of God and all that?
>
>Well, yes and no. I don't have a copy of any of the apocryphal books
>handy, so this is all from memory, but there are some things that do
>significantly differ from OT and NT theology. For example, the writer
>of (I think) Ecclesiasticus is *very* sexist - remarks like "a quiet
>wife is the only good wife" or something like that, and other passages
>that appear to treat women as being purely a commodity owned by men. I
>think that a lot of the male chauvinism in the institutional church
>can be traced back to attitudes fostered by the apocrypha.
I'm not sure you *can * get more sexist than some of the canonical material,
but I dare say that as a general principle[1], you may well be right. I
don't look at it all that often, being a good Protestant, but as an
Anglican, I sometimes come across it in the lectionary. I think the
official CofE position is that it's not inspired, but can be spiritually
usefult (in the 39 Articles somewhere).
And some of
>the "historical" deuterocanonicals are pretty much folk-tales, which
>don't fit into what is known from either the OT or external sources.
Yes but then, so is some of the OT stuff as well.
[1] I heard an interesting paper once, which suggested that the stuff in
Ecclus. reflects the worries of a father of modest means who finds himself
having to find dowries etc. for a load of daughters. Still sexist, but
understandable in the culture of the time.
bigmax
Steven Carr wrote
>Am I right in thinking that your opinion is that when Luke,Paul,
>John etc quoted the LXX translations of Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah etc,
>they did not regard the LXX translations as inspired, but just
>convenient?
I'm not sure that they thought about inspiration in the same way as modern
evangelicals tend to, though obviously I've no idea about how the NT writers
regarded the LXX. They obviously used it extensively, but also produce
their own translations (Revelation is full of them) and quote wrongly from
memory, or alter texts to suit their interpretation. Which suggests that
while they no doubt thought of the OT as inspired, it was the basic meaning,
rather than the exact words, which were of interest (unless the exact words
were useful, like "seed" in Galatians).
Interestingly, the early church (post-NT) was castigated by the Jews for
using such a poor translation as the LXX, and a new Jewish one was brought
out, for use in debate! (IIRC from long-ago lectures.)
Mark Goodge
On Fri, 10 Apr 1998 15:14:57 +0100, Philip Gardner
<philip....@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>The message <3535faed....@bubble.good-stuff.co.uk>
> from ma...@good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge) includes this text:
>
>> If a book of the Bible that purports to be written by a named
>> individual (eg, Peter or Paul) was not in fact written or dictated by
>> the individual concerned, it is not authentic and therefore not
>> canonical.
>
>I think you're applying modern standards inappropriately here. It is
>(to say the least) doubtful that the Pastoral Epistles were written
>by Paul himself, but they are clearly in the Pauline tradition. AIUI,
>this is what a first-century reader would have understood by the
>ascription to Paul - there is no intention to mislead, and therefore
>no lack of authenticity.
Hmmm. What evidence is there that people of the NT period didn't care
who wrote something as much as we do? Given the difficulty of
communicating over long distances, I would have thought they would
have taken great care to ensure that the writer of such a document was
who he claimed to be. There are various warnings in the NT about false
teachers, etc, which presupposes that they would have had some way of
checking the credentials of such people.
>Anyway, the Pastorals *are* canonical - this is a matter of
>historical record. And since God speaks to us through these letters,
>why should we reject them just because there is some doubt as to who
>wrote them?
Well, the reason they are canonical is because they were declared as
such by the council of whatsit. And among their criteria for
determining canonicity was the authenticity of the books. It's because
the early church generally recognised that (eg) Paul's letters were
actually written by Paul that they were included, whereas (eg) the
Gospel of Thomas was not written by Thomas so it was excluded.
John Osborn
Steven Carr wrote:
>
> on Thu, 09 Apr 1998 22:34:39 +0100, John Osborn <j.c.o...@br.ac.uk>
> wrote :
>
> >There is a difference in the way New Testament authors regard the
> >Old Testament and the way they regard the apocrypha. The canonical
> >Old Testament books are quoted extensively in the New Testament,
> >often in a way which implies that they are regarded as authoritative.
> >I think that the only one which is not quoted is Esther.
>
> Possibly they may be, but I don't know off-hand. It might be
> interesting to find out.
Ezra 9:6 - '... for our iniquities have risen higher than our heads,
and our guilt has mounted up to the heavens' - is quoted (not
verbatim) in Rev. 18:5 - 'for her sins are heaped high as heaven'.
Looking through a list of Biblical cross-references I have not
found quotations from Judges, Nehemiah or Song of Solomon
(Canticles). The list is not comprehensive so there may in fact be
quotations from these books, but perhaps not. However even if not,
that still leaves 35 out of 39 OT books quoted in the NT.
> > On the other
> >hand the apocrypha is essentially ignored by the New Testament
> >writers. The only possible exception to this is an apparent
> >quotation from 1 Enoch in Jude 14, and this is not definitely taken
> >from 1 Enoch since it is possible that Jude and the author of 1 Enoch
> >were each quoting from another source.
>
> OK , which apocryphal source were both Jude and 1 Enoch quoting?
There is no known source. The point is that they may both have
quoted from some text which has not survived, or from oral tradition,
thus Jude is not necessarily quoting from 1 Enoch.
> Which apocryphal source were Jannes and Jambres in?
Jannes and Jambres were the traditional names of Pharaoh's magicians
who opposed Moses, mentioned in 2 Tim. 3:8. The names come from
sources outside the Old Testament, but I would not regard a reference
to these names as a quotation from the sources concerned. Paul is
simply making use of the traditional names for these men to identify
them - he does not thereby verify that these were the actual names
or imply either the accuracy or inspiration of other documents which
also use these names.
> 1 Enoch mentiosns Tartarus. Where did 2 Peter get 'Tartarus' from?
2 Pet. 2:4 uses the word Tartarus as a synonym for hell. As with the
above use of the names Jannes and Jambres, this does not constitute a
quotation, in the sense I had in mind, from the other sources which
use the name Tartarus or Tartaros to refer to a mythical figure in
hell or Hades. The use of a name found in an earlier text cannot be
compared with the quotation of a clause or an entire sentence, and
quotations of this nature from the Old Testament are frequently
found in the New Testament.
Also note that I did not claim that every quotation found in the
New Testament proves that the source from which it is taken is
regarded as authoritative. However a substantial number of them
are used in such a way as to imply that the New Testament author
considered them to be authoritative. The quotation of a name, as
in the two examples you have given, does not carry that implication.
> > The frequency of quotations
> >from the canonical Old Testament and the absence or near absence of
> >quotations from the apocrypha suggests that they were not deemed to
> >be of equal value by the disciples.
>
> Which bit of Scripture was James quoting in 4:5?
>
> Or John 7:38 - 'Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said,
> streams of living water will flow from within him.' Where is this
> Scripture, which Jesus quoted?
These two statements are apparently not actual Old Testament
quotations. In stating 'as the Scripture has said', it appears that
Jesus here meant that the statement about streams of water could be
supported from the Scripture rather than that it was actually found
in the Scripture, and similarly with James. The phrase 'the
Scripture says' does not necessarily introduce a direct quotation
from the Scriptures but may indicate a claim that the ensuing
statement is implied by the Scriptures.
Frank Lane
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 09:35:42 GMT, ma...@good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge)
wrote:
>Well, the reason they are canonical is because they were declared as
>such by the council of whatsit. And among their criteria for
>determining canonicity was the authenticity of the books. It's because
>the early church generally recognised that (eg) Paul's letters were
>actually written by Paul that they were included, whereas (eg) the
>Gospel of Thomas was not written by Thomas so it was excluded.
Surely there were a lot more reasons that just whether or not Thomas
wrote the Gospel(s) ascribed to him?
Frank
Mark Goodge
On Mon, 13 Apr 1998 08:38:57 GMT, la...@enterprise.net (Frank Lane)
wrote:
Yes, but authenticity was one of the main criteria, AIUI. The fact
that the Gospel of Thomas "failed" on other criteria as well isn't
directly relevent to my point!
Mark Goodge
On Sun, 12 Apr 1998 21:23:21 +0100, Philip Gardner
<philip....@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>The message <35343458....@smtp.dial.pipex.com>
> from ma...@good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge) includes this text:
>
>> Hmmm. What evidence is there that people of the NT period didn't care
>> who wrote something as much as we do? Given the difficulty of
>> communicating over long distances, I would have thought they would
>> have taken great care to ensure that the writer of such a document was
>> who he claimed to be. There are various warnings in the NT about false
>> teachers, etc, which presupposes that they would have had some way of
>> checking the credentials of such people.
>
>Hmmm. I didn't suggest that people of the NT period didn't care who
>wrote something as much as we do. I said I understood that they
>wouldn't necessarily have assumed that an ascription to X meant that
>the piece had to be written by X himself, i.e. the difference is how
>one understands an ascription.
Yes, that's not so much of a problem when it comes to pieces ascribed
*to* someone, but I'm more interested in examples where the the actual
content of the work itself contains a self-ascription - eg, Paul's
letters.
I don't think it matters a huge amount[1] if, for example, Matthew's
gospel was written by the man himself or by someone else in the
"school" of Matthew. The work contains no self-attribution, so nothing
within it can be falsified by a later misattribution. On the other
hand, where a book starts of with "From Paul..." or whatever, then if
it wasn't, in fact, written by Paul, then the self-attribution
contained within it is a forgery. That is something that is
significantly at odds with my understanding of the inspiration of the
Bible, and also with what I understand to be one of the criteria for
canonicity.
>However, your request for evidence is a reasonable one, and I'll try
>to check it out. I was writing on the basis of what I remembered
>having read (as I hope my AIUI implied), but of course that is no
>evidence at all!
>
>It feels a bit strange to be writing this on Easter Sunday, when our
>joy in the resurrection makes these discussions seem very minor indeed.
Indeed!
Mark
[1] On the whole, I think that Matthew probably did write the gospel
attributed to him, as did Mark, Luke and John. But that's a conclusion
reached "on the balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond
reasonable doubt", so I wouldn't be too bothered if I'm ultimately
proved wrong.
Mark Goodge
(I know this follow-up is a bit tardy, but I didn't want to respond
immediately because I didn't want to pre-empt anyone else's answers to
the survey. I then forgot about it until I came to re-read them all
when tallying up the results).
On 03 Apr 1998 18:26:00 +0100, Gareth McCaughan
<gj...@dpmms.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> 4) Do you consider that there is one clearly "best" translation of the
>> Bible into English? If so, which translation?
>
>No, there isn't. (Do you expect to get any `yes' answers here
>that cite any translation other than the KJV?)
No, not really.
>b) Depends a great deal on the church.
>
> I like the RSV because it's literarily one of the better
> translations; in some contexts GNB or similar might be good
> because they're more accessible; for some purposes KJV
> might do rather well because of the beauty of its language.
> In others, maybe the NRSV's more `inclusive' language
> would be appreciated.
>
> Yes, this is an unhelpful answer. If the question is really
> `what translation would you prefer to be read out in the
> services you attend', the only reasonable answer is `I
> really don't mind much'.
No, the question I had in mind was "what would *you* use if it was
your responsibility to choose?" I don't think most people are all that
bothered, but it's interesting to see what people would do if it was
up to them.
>d) What happened to (d)?
I don't know.
>e) I'm not very expert here. I would look at GNB, ICB, LB and
> probably others. The only `easy' Bible I've used much is
> GNB; it's certainly OK, but for all I know others might be
> much better. I'd also consider more avowed paraphrases;
> for instance, there's a thing called `New World' -- *not*
> to be confused with the JWs' translation! -- which I'm told
> is good.
I think you're thinking of the New Century Version, which is actually
the translation used (in a slightly simplified form) by the
International Children's Bible (ICB). As paraphrases go, I'd agree
that it's one of the better ones. It's deliberately intended to be
simple English, which is what makes it good for a children's Bible.
>I'm sorry not to have given simple answers to most of those,
>but I really don't think simple answers would have any value.
Simple answers make it a lot easier to assess the "results"!
Mark
Roland Watson
Andy McMullon wrote:
>
> In article <352CC0...@spider.co.uk>, Roland Watson
> <URL:mailto:rol...@spider.co.uk> wrote:
> > Andy McMullon wrote:
>
> > >
> > > And, to my mind the easiest and most probable explanation:
> > >
> > > 3) Moses left behind a body of writings including teaching,
> > > biographical information and accounts of Israel's wanderings. This
> > > material was edited and expanded over the years in a process which
> > > was overseen by the Holy Spirit.
> > >
> > > Why is this such a problem to some people?
> >
> > Quite simply because the editor/forger's insertions claim to be written
> > at the time of the original documents.
> >
>
> account in quite the same way that Churchill's memoires were.
>
> You can't judge the writers of the 6th Century BC by the literary
> conventions of the 20th Century.
You'll have to explain to my 20th century Western mind why an ancient
Hebrew would insert a text centuries after the event and believe it
is the authentic voice of the original person.
I can think of several options:
1. The redactor committed oral tradition to written form believing it
to be genuine.
2. The redactor added his own composition from new based on his
expectations of what Moses would have said.
3. God dictated the text to him without human input perhaps from a
prophet or directly.
4. The redactor had pieces of older manuscript which he edited into an
expanded form.
Few would accept option 3 whilst option 2 places the text on decidedly
shaky ground. Option 1 presupposes an oral tradition that would require
a miraculous preservation over several centuries, it would seems simpler
to assume the Hebrews committed such important commandments to writing
as soon as possible - as I said there are references to Moses writing
and the ark of the covenant did contain the written Law.
Option 4 seems your best bet - a bare Law manuscript which was "padded"
out by redactionists which brings us to textual shaky ground again.
> >
> > >
> > > Surely once you have admitted a human involvement in the production of
> > > the word of God does it matter whether that was one person or hundreds!
> > >
> > > Andy
>
> This is my main point.
I have no problem with human involvement, just give me some hard
evidence that the Pentateuch could have undergone massive editing
several centuries later under Josiah!
Roland.
Andy McMullon
In article <353396...@spider.co.uk>, Roland Watson
> > You can't judge the writers of the 6th Century BC by the literary
> > conventions of the 20th Century.
>
> You'll have to explain to my 20th century Western mind why an ancient
> Hebrew would insert a text centuries after the event and believe it
> is the authentic voice of the original person.
>
> I can think of several options:
>
> 1. The redactor committed oral tradition to written form believing it
> to be genuine.
I doubt this for the Pentateuch but it works for the Gospels.
> 2. The redactor added his own composition from new based on his
> expectations of what Moses would have said.
I have no problem at all with this so long as he was inspired by the
Spirit. The fact that the Pentateuch was accepted by Jesus and by the
church settles this.
> 3. God dictated the text to him without human input perhaps from a
> prophet or directly.
I don't think you need to go that far - I don't think it worked like
that for the original writers so why for the redactors.
> 4. The redactor had pieces of older manuscript which he edited into an
> expanded form.
Possible. Many redactors have had to deal with mutliple sources -
including the writers of the gospels.
> Few would accept option 3 whilst option 2 places the text on decidedly
> shaky ground. Option 1 presupposes an oral tradition that would require
> a miraculous preservation over several centuries, it would seems simpler
> to assume the Hebrews committed such important commandments to writing
> as soon as possible - as I said there are references to Moses writing
> and the ark of the covenant did contain the written Law.
>
> Option 4 seems your best bet - a bare Law manuscript which was "padded"
> out by redactionists which brings us to textual shaky ground again.
So what is this shaky ground? If we can believe in a God who delivers
the whole thing via a single author surely it is no more difficult to
accept a God who oversees a long process. Which limits or glorifies
God more? To my mind it's not unlike the creation/evolution debate
where I am much more impressed by a God who is continually involved in
a long tortuous process than one who just does it all in a day (well
seven!).
I think the textual criticism of the OT and redaction criticism of the
NT involves a great deal of complicated evidence. We could rehearse it
here but it took me three years at university to make up my mind what I
thought of it.....
In the end it's 'horses for courses'. I know many conservative
Christians don't go along with modern Biblical criticism. I don't mind
that until people suggest that it is somehow ungodly or unchristian.
Some of the most inspiring theology I know has come from the pen of
allegedly liberal Biblical Scholars written off as beyond the pale by
those of the evangelical tradition that nurtured me.
Andy
then I must know that still
I am in the hands of the unknown God,
he is breaking me down to his own oblivion
to send me forth on a new morning, a new man. D H Lawrence
K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON
Roland Watson wrote:
>
>
> I can think of several options:
>
> 1. The redactor committed oral tradition to written form believing it
> to be genuine.
>
> expectations of what Moses would have said.
>
> prophet or directly.
>
> expanded form.
>
> shaky ground. Option 1 presupposes an oral tradition that would require
> a miraculous preservation over several centuries, it would seems simpler
> to assume the Hebrews committed such important commandments to writing
> as soon as possible - as I said there are references to Moses writing
> and the ark of the covenant did contain the written Law.
>
> Option 4 seems your best bet - a bare Law manuscript which was "padded"
> out by redactionists which brings us to textual shaky ground again.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > the word of God does it matter whether that was one person or hundreds!
> > > >
> > > > Andy
> >
> > This is my main point.
>
> I have no problem with human involvement, just give me some hard
> evidence that the Pentateuch could have undergone massive editing
> several centuries later under Josiah!
There is no hard evidence that Moses wrote the current form of the
"Books of Moses". There are indications that the Book of Deuteronomy was
written some time later than Moses. "These are the words Moses spoke
whilst the people were East of Jordan" suggests that at the time of
writing, the writer is in Israel looking back on a time when the people
weren't. The coffin of Og King of Bashan can still be seen today" is not
that impressive if Og has just died, but is very impressive if the death
of Og was some time in the past. The commandments not to follow the ways
of the people in the land not only command against practises current in
the time of Moses, but go on to outlaw the Assyrian cult. It is not
impossible that this was very detailed prophecy on the part of Moses,
but it is unlikely. It requires the people of Israel to be given very
specific commands about a religion that they would not encounter for
centuries. Why not general commands about following other gods and
breaking the Covenant, and a later redactor filling in that this meant
Assyrian cult as well.
Why does Divine Inspiration end with Moses. Why couldn't the redactor
who composed the Pentateuch from earlier source material be inspired by
God? We believe the author of the Histories, Samuel, Kings and
Chronicles to be inspired by God, and the text makes it quite clear that
the compiler was working from source material. Why not something similar
for the Penteteuch. The Pentateuch claims to contain the teaching of
Moses. It makes no specific claim as to who wrote it or when.
Kathy HH
Roland Watson
Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>
> Roland Watson wrote:
>
> > Quite simply because the editor/forger's insertions claim to be written
> > at the time of the original documents.
>
Gareth, looks like we don't agree on this subject either. Such is the
grist that turns the millstones of theological debate.
The claim is implicit by its seamless insertion into the text.
>
> > If someone got a hold of Churchill's account of the second world war
> > and started adding and deleting their own "opinions" whilst giving the
> > impression that it was still Churchill who originally said it, would
> > you be impressed? I think not.
>
> Where does the Pentateuch claim to be the exclusive work of
> Moses?
I think you are asking the wrong person. I already conceded somewhere
that Joshua may have added passages such as the end of Deuteronomy.
My main objection is the suggestion that someone centuries later such
as under Josiah could have achieved such a thing using oral tradition.
Roland.
>
> --
> Gareth McCaughan Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
> gj...@dpmms.cam.ac.uk Cambridge University, England.