Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 02-15-2012, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

Quote:

It needs to be understood that the generally agreed Christian canon is Jewish.

how many books do the jews have in thier canon?

That varies. Some Jews have 66, some have 39, depending on whether they think their messiah has arrived, or not.

JoeWallack · 02-15-2012, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

But it also needs to be understood that the generally agreed Christian canon is Jewish. It needs to be realised that all who call themselves Jews also claim to be Christians.

JW:
Actually, assuming there was HJ and disciples, they would have recognized what is now known as Christianity as the same Pagan superstition that Judaism was a reaction to.

Regarding sotto vice [understatement] continuing to make things up [/understatement] is Ron Paul now the Moderator here?

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Toto · 02-15-2012, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

why are they NOT the same?
was there a time when the jews had same number of books as the christian canon?
what criterion did the jews use to include and exclude the books from thier canon? what is the earliest known canon of the jews and what books does it have?

one more question

does the new testament make use of jewish writings NOT found in the jewish tanakh?

Hello Net2004:

Your question sounds straightforward, but is actually quite complicated. The formation of both the Christian and Jewish canons was a long process of evolution and some back and forth between Christians and Jews, and there are still different canons in different branches of Christianity.

There is a wikipedia article

Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon that might be a good place to start.

Early Christians used the

Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Koine Greek, made by Jews. When the epistles and gospels in the NT quote Hebrew scripture, they often quote the Septuagint. Later Christians, once Koine Greek was no longer the language of the western church, made a new translation from the Hebrew Masoretic text that Jews favor, without revising the gospels or Paul.

Toto · 02-15-2012, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

I found the following on debunking christianity by a hector avolos

quote:
“Sometimes Jesus quotes from sources not regarded as scripture today. Consider the passage where Jesus explains the purpose of parables in Mark 4:12: “So that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven” (RSV). This is an allusion to Isaiah 6:9-10. If one looks at the Hebrew Bible, one will not find the final words (“and be [they] forgiven”) but rather “and (let there be) healing for him” (wrp’ lw). The Septuagint has “I shall heal them” (kai iasomai autous). The words “and be they forgiven” (yštbyq lhwn), however, are found in the Aramaic Targum of Isaiah.”

the aramaic targum of isaiah was an interpretation? did these targums exist in jesus' time? was jesus a pick and choose christian who choose what he liked from the targums? did the pharisees consider the targums to be at the same level as the torah?

It would help if you gave the url for that quote.

Hector Avalos is a noted secular scholar of religion. He discusses that question in a reply on the commonsense atheism blog here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Avalos

But please note that these Targums can be later than the time of Jesus as most existing manuscripts of these Targums are from Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.

It is also difficult to know if the author of Mark is the one who knows the Targumic tradition or whether it actually goes back to Jesus. Thus, in Mark 5:41, note how the author of Mark actually inserts words in his Greek translation that are not present in the Aramaic phrase “Talitha qum(i)” Jesus is quoted as speaking. The Aramaic phrase means strictly, “Damsel, arise.” However, Mark’s Greek translation inserts “I say to you,” which is not in the Aramaic he quotes from Jesus.

Dr. Bruce Chilton, whom Dr. Craig Evans credits for many of his insights (see Craig A. Evans, “The Scriptures of Jesus and His Earliest Followers,” in L. E. McDonald and J. A. Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate (or via: amazon.co.uk) [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002], p. 193, n. 25), says the following in regard to the parallels found in these targums:

“The argument is not that Jesus, the early preachers of his message, or the Evangelists actually used the Targum; if our analysis of its chronology is correct, this is out of the question. The evidence permits only of the conclusion that some interpretative traditions later incorporated into the Targum, had formative influence on the wording of some of the sayings of Jesus.”

Source: Bruce Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus’ Use of the Interpreted Scripture of His Time (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1984), p.70.

So, these targums really will not prove that the language in Mark 16:2 must be from the first century. The earliest manuscripts of Mark itself do not date to the first century. Thus, we cannot know if this Aramaic tradition was added in the second or third centuries, for example.

Net2004 · 02-15-2012, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

That which seemed to them to be consistent with and representative of the heritage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel); that which seemed to them to be consistent with and representative of the the establishment of the nation of Israel; and that which seemed to them divinely, rather than humanly, inspired.

is consistency really a good argument to prove that a book goes back to the authour it is attributed to?according to scholars , isaiah has 3 authours living at different times.i have bart d ehrmans book Forged. in it he says that reactualizing of TRADITIOn by the different authours using the name Isaiah helped decieve ppl into thinking that the book of isaiah was WRITTEN by the isaiah from jerusalm.

Net2004 · 02-15-2012, 11:50 AM

EXAMPLE Of Reactualization of tradition

A tradition is "reactualized" when it is made actively relevant (reactuated) to a new situation. Suppose a highly influential authour in 1917 condemned Christians who drank alcohol, on the grounds that doing so made them leave thier senses and behave irresponsibly. Fifty years later, a different problem has arisen people have started using hallucinogenic drugs. A new authour wants to tell Christians that they are not to do any such thing. The new authour living in 1967, writes an essay claiming to be the famous and respected authour from 1917, condemning not just alcohol consumption, but also the use of drugs. This new authour stands in the tradition of the older authour and makes the tradition applicable to the "actual" situation he is addressing. In other words, he has "reactualized" the tradition

page 126. Writing in the Name of God
why the Bible's authours are not who we think they are
FORGED (or via: amazon.co.uk) Bart D Ehrman

sotto voce · 02-15-2012, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

That which seemed to them to be consistent with and representative of the heritage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel); that which seemed to them to be consistent with and representative of the the establishment of the nation of Israel; and that which seemed to them divinely, rather than humanly, inspired.

is consistency really a good argument to prove that a book goes back to the authour it is attributed to?according to scholars , isaiah has 3 authours living at different times.i have bart d ehrmans book Forged. in it he says that reactualizing of TRADITIOn by the 3 different authours only helped decieve ppl into thinking that the book of isaiah was WRITTEN by the isaiah from jerusalm.

That's all very fine and large, but those who believe in the heritage of Abraham are not, to be honest, very concerned about what Ehrman says. The texts used are pretty well agreed and the same for all who accept that a promise was made to Abraham, and the argument comes in what these texts mean.

Whoever wrote them. The criteria used to include and exclude books from canon were and remain that which seems consistent with and representative of the heritage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel); that which seem to be consistent with and representative of the establishment of the nation of Israel; and that which seems divinely, rather than humanly, inspired. Not criteria of human authorship. If Ehrman wants to get involved in these criteria, he's welcome. Otherwise, he may be chasing the wind.

sotto voce · 02-15-2012, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

why are they NOT the same?
was there a time when the jews had same number of books as the christian canon?
what criterion did the jews use to include and exclude the books from thier canon? what is the earliest known canon of the jews and what books does it have?

one more question

does the new testament make use of jewish writings NOT found in the jewish tanakh?

Hello Net2004:

Your question sounds straightforward, but is actually quite complicated. The formation of both the Christian and Jewish canons was a long process of evolution

Nothing could be more incorrect. There is no evidence of contention on this issue before the time of Jesus. Over the centuries, the Hebrew Scriptures may have been ignored and misinterpreted, as they are today, but there is no evidence of dispute over canon. Jesus made specific reference to books that referred to him, that must have been commonly agreed to be authoritative, else the Sanhedrin would have not only refuted him, they would have stigmatised him fatally as heretical. These were therefore the books, no more, no fewer, recognised by the religious establishment of Jerusalem. There was no known dispute on canonical matters then, only on interpretation of what must have been agreed canon.

There is no evidence of evolution after the time of Jesus, either. There is evidence of attempts at contamination, certainly. Proven criminals added humanist works written by Jewish writers that orthodox Jews rejected; but they were again excluded just as soon as legitimate, respectable scholarship was established. Even though the aforementioned criminals wrote their own perversions soon after the apostolic era, they still did not have the confidence to adulterate the legacy of the apostles by canonising them. So the NT, like the OT, has not changed by even one syllable, except by the legitimate process of addition by authors.

andrewcriddle · 02-15-2012, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

one more question

does the new testament make use of jewish writings NOT found in the jewish tanakh?

Jude quotes from the book of Enoch. (And probably from the Assumption of Moses.)

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 02-15-2012, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

.... There is no evidence of contention on this issue before the time of Jesus. Over the centuries, the Hebrew Scriptures may have been ignored and misinterpreted, as they are today, but there is no evidence of dispute over canon. Jesus made specific reference to books that referred to him, that must have been commonly agreed to be authoritative, else the Sanhedrin would have not only refuted him, they would have stigmatised him fatally as heretical.

So could you list these specific references ?? And you don't think that Jewish authorities ever labeled Christians as heretical?

Quote:

These were therefore the books, no more, no fewer, recognised by the religious establishment of Jerusalem. There was no known dispute on canonical matters then, only on interpretation of what must have been agreed canon.

Ha ha - no dispute except what was disputed...

Quote:

There is no evidence of evolution after the time of Jesus, either. There is evidence of attempts at contamination, certainly. Proven criminals added humanist works written by Jewish writers that orthodox Jews rejected; but they were again excluded just as soon as legitimate, respectable scholarship was established.

Please be specific. :constern01:

Quote:

Even though the aforementioned criminals wrote their own perversions soon after the apostolic era, they still did not have the confidence to adulterate the legacy of the apostles by canonising them. So the NT, like the OT, has not changed by even one syllable, except by the legitimate process of addition by authors.

:huh:

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

02-15-2012, 11:50 AM	#16
Net2004 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: U.K Posts: 217	EXAMPLE Of Reactualization of tradition A tradition is "reactualized" when it is made actively relevant (reactuated) to a new situation. Suppose a highly influential authour in 1917 condemned Christians who drank alcohol, on the grounds that doing so made them leave thier senses and behave irresponsibly. Fifty years later, a different problem has arisen people have started using hallucinogenic drugs. A new authour wants to tell Christians that they are not to do any such thing. The new authour living in 1967, writes an essay claiming to be the famous and respected authour from 1917, condemning not just alcohol consumption, but also the use of drugs. This new authour stands in the tradition of the older authour and makes the tradition applicable to the "actual" situation he is addressing. In other words, he has "reactualized" the tradition page 126. Writing in the Name of God why the Bible's authours are not who we think they are FORGED (or via: amazon.co.uk) Bart D Ehrman

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.