Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 07-08-2008, 05:49 AM

From my understanding the books (scrolls) that became the Old Testament were selected from a much larger set of scritpures of various sorts.

My understanding is also that the books in OT were already the ones that were being primarily used by Jews of the time, and that of course the Septuagint played a large role in defining what later became the OT, but why were the books of the Septuagint chosen?

What seems so odd is that there is so much contradiction within the books. Some of the OT books are pro-Davidic, while others are anti-Davidic.

Obviously, many of the books of the prophets were written from a minority perspective against the dominate Jewish culture and rulers of their time, so how is it that these works came to be revered?

It seems that so many of the books were in opposition to the kings and rulers and mainstream culture that I's interesting that they somehow became adopted as mainstream religious texts. And there are others that contain stories of questionable religious virtue, effectively calling religion into question.

In short, the OT seems to be a rather odd collection, so how is it that these books in particular came to be collected together?

Cesc · 07-08-2008, 01:22 PM

Wasn't the OT as we know it "canonised" by a small group of top pharisees of the Temple just before the destruction of Jerusalem? Cuz they were afraid (with good reason) of all of it being lost if the Romans did what everyone was expecting. That things got more and more dangerous in the holy city and they made the decision to canonize what they deemed as the proper scriptures so if/when the Jews were going to be decentralized out of Palestine there would still be order and structure within the cultus.
But why they chose the books they did, I've no idea.

I think the prophets' books were simply so excellent and likeable that they naturally remained popular. Filled with poetry, interpretation, prophecy etc. and above all - hope.

But in short: I've no idea to an answer to your questions :- )

mountainman · 07-08-2008, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

In short, the OT seems to be a rather odd collection, so how is it that these books in particular came to be collected together?

By order c.312-324 CE.
Roman libraries.
Imperial inspiration.
An initiative of the "Pontifex Maximus".

Their (RE-) publication was launched in conjunction
with the founding of the City of Constantine.
Why disregard the obvious?

The "OT" was then mined for "NT extentions".
The forgery was mapped using the OT texts.
The Greek translations and the hexapla of Origen was foundational.
These were in the possession of Constantine/Eusebius.

Best wishes

Pete

Malachi151 · 07-08-2008, 04:36 PM

Well, from what I understand the core of the OT is contained within the Septuagint, so the selection of these works are core important works had to have happened around the 3rd or 2nd century BCE, which is when the Septuagint project was started if I recall correctly.

sy2502 · 07-08-2008, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

From my understanding the books (scrolls) that became the Old Testament were selected from a much larger set of scritpures of various sorts.

My understanding is also that the books in OT were already the ones that were being primarily used by Jews of the time, and that of course the Septuagint played a large role in defining what later became the OT, but why were the books of the Septuagint chosen?

What seems so odd is that there is so much contradiction within the books. Some of the OT books are pro-Davidic, while others are anti-Davidic.

Obviously, many of the books of the prophets were written from a minority perspective against the dominate Jewish culture and rulers of their time, so how is it that these works came to be revered?

It seems that so many of the books were in opposition to the kings and rulers and mainstream culture that I's interesting that they somehow became adopted as mainstream religious texts. And there are others that contain stories of questionable religious virtue, effectively calling religion into question.

In short, the OT seems to be a rather odd collection, so how is it that these books in particular came to be collected together?

"Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal." (Augustine, Book 2, Chapter 8, The Canonical Books)

So probably the criteria were
- What's most popular
- What the big authorities of the Church say
- What supports the Church teachings

Malachi151 · 07-09-2008, 08:22 PM

Any better answers here?

J-D · 07-09-2008, 08:30 PM

The Wikipedia articles on

Development of the Jewish Bible canon and

Development of the Old Testament canon are worth reading.

J-D · 07-09-2008, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

The Wikipedia articles on

Development of the Jewish Bible canon and

Development of the Old Testament canon are worth reading.

Although Pete may want to tell us that all the references there were fabricated and inserted into those documents in the fourth century.

Roger Pearse · 07-10-2008, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sy2502

"Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal." (Augustine, Book 2, Chapter 8, The Canonical Books)

Something wrong with the reference; what is the work of Augustine being quoted here?

PS: It seems to be On Christian Doctrine.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

biblethumping · 07-10-2008, 03:51 AM

I'm curious where you place leviticus in your Davidic disection of the OT?

07-08-2008, 05:49 AM	#1
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Why were the books of the OT selected as canon? From my understanding the books (scrolls) that became the Old Testament were selected from a much larger set of scritpures of various sorts. My understanding is also that the books in OT were already the ones that were being primarily used by Jews of the time, and that of course the Septuagint played a large role in defining what later became the OT, but why were the books of the Septuagint chosen? What seems so odd is that there is so much contradiction within the books. Some of the OT books are pro-Davidic, while others are anti-Davidic. Obviously, many of the books of the prophets were written from a minority perspective against the dominate Jewish culture and rulers of their time, so how is it that these works came to be revered? It seems that so many of the books were in opposition to the kings and rulers and mainstream culture that I's interesting that they somehow became adopted as mainstream religious texts. And there are others that contain stories of questionable religious virtue, effectively calling religion into question. In short, the OT seems to be a rather odd collection, so how is it that these books in particular came to be collected together?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-08-2008, 01:22 PM	#2
Cesc Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Posts: 322	Wasn't the OT as we know it "canonised" by a small group of top pharisees of the Temple just before the destruction of Jerusalem? Cuz they were afraid (with good reason) of all of it being lost if the Romans did what everyone was expecting. That things got more and more dangerous in the holy city and they made the decision to canonize what they deemed as the proper scriptures so if/when the Jews were going to be decentralized out of Palestine there would still be order and structure within the cultus. But why they chose the books they did, I've no idea. I think the prophets' books were simply so excellent and likeable that they naturally remained popular. Filled with poetry, interpretation, prophecy etc. and above all - hope. But in short: I've no idea to an answer to your questions :- )

07-08-2008, 04:36 PM	#4
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Well, from what I understand the core of the OT is contained within the Septuagint, so the selection of these works are core important works had to have happened around the 3rd or 2nd century BCE, which is when the Septuagint project was started if I recall correctly.

07-09-2008, 08:22 PM	#6
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Any better answers here?

07-09-2008, 08:30 PM	#7
J-D Moderator - General Religious Discussions Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New South Wales Posts: 27,330	The Wikipedia articles on Development of the Jewish Bible canon and Development of the Old Testament canon are worth reading.

07-10-2008, 03:51 AM	#10
biblethumping Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Tower of Babel Posts: 557	I'm curious where you place leviticus in your Davidic disection of the OT?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.