HOME | DD
Published: 2012-08-31 13:42:51 +0000 UTC; Views: 2151; Favourites: 24; Downloads: 7
Redirect to original
Description
Often when I read discussions, arguments, or biblical-based critiques/attacks of my theology I find that there is both a sad simplification and, at times, an ignorance of Scripture. Many of us, especially Christians, would like to disagree that we are members of this category but the reality is that all the zeal and good (or bad) intention in the world doesn't translate to wisdom (let alone an understanding of Scripture). In order to remedy this situation I would like to offer some ideas on reading Scripture more effectively and some pitfalls to avoid in the process.Reading Scripture can seem like a daunting task—many aren't sure where to begin or try to muscle their way through right from the beginning. This isn't a bad approach but we can get weighed down in a sea of details. Keep reading and I'll try and put it in a different light.
Many people make comments about a number of subjects while using Scripture such as gay marriage, abortion, sex outside of marriage—and the list goes on. Consequently there are those people who are obviously in the wrong. These are people who curse, hate, ridicule, and belittle. Scripture has already judged these people so we need not concern ourselves with them or that subject. What we do need to focus on are those on either side who establish their argument by claiming that "Jesus says that we should love one another!" or "Judge not lest you be judged!" Far be it from me to call the statement wrong but we are all aware that we can say one thing and mean a number of things.
For example:
1) "I love her" (her = her personality, her body, her presence, her person).
2) "I am saved" (...right now, ...later, ...when I have faith)
"Judgment" and "love" are no different. Everyone uses the words but few consider the meaning. Fewer consider the source where we are drawing that meaning from. I will expand on this in another piece but Scripture conveys many meanings. We can convey just as many about Scripture—only we can be very, very wrong in the process.
Jesus says "Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments" (Mt 22:37-40).
In a society and mindset where we want the quick and easy method it seems that we should be content with this passage. Indeed, it seems many people are content with just hearing this passage. They nod their heads and continue on as if nothing has changed and nothing is different.
But listen now and pay close attention: is a building called a building by its foundations alone? Are not all the parts of a house considered together? Indeed, even Paul warns us that "each must be careful how he builds upon it [the foundation]" (1 Cor 3:10). More still that foundation will be revealed for what it is. What we build may be weak and crumble under the weight of practical incompetence, ignorance, pride, laziness, and more. "If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation [Christ] he will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire." (1 Cor 3:14-15). Sure, you could build poorly—but when you "build" poorly you may also mistake the foundation for Christ when it's not really Him at all. If you can (or should) build, build wisely.
What is this building process, then? For our purposes let's call it our role as evangelizers. When we argue weakly from Scripture we still argue weakly. This is not a case of us "being fools for Christ." We will be called fools for speaking the Truth, but we will also be called fools for speaking wrongly—discerning which is which is the key.
Christ gives us a starting point: Love God and love your neighbor are the foundation of the law and the prophets. But how can we put Christ's hint to good use if we fail to read Scripture, especially the Old Testament—the law and the prophets?
You should make an effort today to read, but when you read Scripture don't be intimidated. I've found that the following holds true in my reading: if Scripture is the wisdom of God speaking to us then we must endeavor to gain wisdom. Indeed, many will hear but not listen and many will see but will not understand (cf., Is 6:9, Mt 13:14-15). Wisdom is the light by which we see truth. But sometimes we need help to see the truth—we need to be taught wisdom.
"Plans fail when there is no counsel, but they succeed when counselors are many" (Proverbs 15:22). Likewise "Listen to counsel and receive instruction that you may eventually become wise" (19:20). Who are our counselors and instructors? First, the prophets. Men who were inspired by the Spirit and who longed for Christ as much as we should long for Him. The letter of James states that "the fervent prayer of the righteous person is very powerful" (James 5:16) and so too is the counsel of those who are prayerful and loving. We have already been taught about love from St. Paul: it is patient, without malice, and kind. Seek these people out and seek their advice when darkness covers your own heart. For "like golden apples in silver settings are words spoken at the proper time" (Prv 25:11). "A word in season, how good it is!" (15:23).
When I am stuck on Scripture it is sometimes a matter of academic ignorance. But in the same way I need instruction from those who are wise. The wise rabbis and scribes compiled these books for us called "Wisdom Literature." They consist of Job, the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Wisdom, and Sirach. If you were to begin anywhere in Scripture (and are unsure where to begin) I would look to Proverbs, Wisdom, and Sirach. These three books contain easy-to-digest phrases and speech but also offer a mature reflection on the whole of Scripture (i.e., the law, the prophets, and the wisdom of many generations).
Though a bit simple, I consider Proverbs part of the oral-wisdom of the Jews. Sayings passed down and collected over the ages. The book of wisdom is like this as well but offers some more mature reflections and invokes king Solomon. The book of Sirach (originally written in Hebrew but only surviving to us in Greek) was written by an Jerusalem Jew, translated by his grandson, an Alexandrian Jew. It is a collection of wisdom and instruction written about 200-175BC. It is the mature musings of a man who grew up loving the law and lived it his whole life. These three books have offered me a great deal of insight and reflection on the entirety of Scripture. Seek out their wisdom and reflect on their words.
The other Wisdom books are excellent sources but much more difficult. St. Bernard of Clairvaux wrote extensively on the Song of Songs, even though the book itself is about 7 pages (he wrote somewhere around 30 long-essays on it and he never finished) and Job itself is a book that should be revisited often. But if you want my advice, start with the easier books.
Wisdom is for all ages. Some are ready for solid food but many more of us must be fed with milk first.
And so I return to my earlier point. Christ tells us that the law and the prophets depend on love. The Apostles and Paul affirmed and upheld this. But when we neglect the prophets we will mourn like those who neglected the prophets in ages past. The prophets warned about false gods, idols, and foreign nations. Do we not also sacrifice to false gods when we love money, power, and things over God and others? Do we not raise idols for ourselves when disdain the chastisements of the wise and instead boast of our own virtue? And are not the foreign nations nothing more than the allure, power, and (in the end) the destructive tendency of sin? When we stop seeing the prophets and the law as merely 'that which has passed' and more as a relevant warning for our souls right now we are all the better. Christ said to stay awake. Peter said 'stay sober and alert.' The devil is indeed like a prowling lion, looking for someone to devour.
"When one turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination" (Prv 28:9).
If you want to speak in Jesus' name but do not heed His words as best you can what are you building? Are you building the Kingdom of God or is your work destined for the fire? 'If they will not heed the prophets neither will they heed one who has risen from the dead.' I will address the wisdom of the prophets, primarily Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel at a later date. What I will do is set Jerusalem our very souls and not just the city of past ages. I think some very interesting insights arise from making the temple—which is the height and center of Jerusalem—and the city our very own being. For is not our body a "temple of the Holy Spirit"?
And so, when we speak about Scripture and about Christian living are we speaking from the perspective of one who sought counsel or from the perspective of one who simply claims he 'loves God and neighbor'? It is very easy to say we love both, but it is far more difficult to seek others who tell us that we're doing it wrong. These counselors can be Scripture, those who have died, or those still living. This is true because "he who rejects admonition despises his own soul, but he who heeds reproof gains understanding" (Prv 15:32). "Reprove a wise man and he will love you" (9:8b).
Do not blind or deaf to instruction nor be weighed down. My words may seem harsh but only because "evil is cleansed away by bloody lashes, and a scourging to the inmost being" (Prv 20:30). My goal is not to beat you into submission but to warn you sternly about the great task before you. If you are to make God known to the world it would benefit you to make His Word known to yourself—not as one who claims he knows that word. Do not be this person too readily. Rather, seek wisdom. Seek it in Scripture and in the world where God resides. For the Spirit inspires both word and man. God gives us both.
"All wisdom is fear of the Lord; perfect wisdom is fulfillment of the law. The knowledge of wickedness is not wisdom, nor is there prudence in the council of sinners" (Sirach 19:17-18). Do not be quick to declare another a sinner nor be too quick to ignore a man's words. Every man is known by his fruit. "Do people pick grapes from thorn-bushes, or figs from thistles? Just so … a good tree cannot bear bad fruit nor a rotten tree bear good fruit" (Mt 7:16-18). And so if there seems to be merit in the man there may be merit in his words. It is good and wise to trust Scripture and it is good and wise to trust those who live according to Scripture—but how we determine this is also for another time.
If you have questions or want some suggestions please feel free to ask. There is much to say (on my part) and hardly time to record it all. Remember to pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance and if you find yourself drawn to a certain book in Scripture (for this or that reason) read that book! God is inspiring your heart to read something and it benefits you to trust that instinct.
I hope this is a good start! We'll continue with the prophets next time.
Related content
Comments: 47
Hoenn-Master [2012-09-02 02:20:00 +0000 UTC]
Overall
Vision
Originality
Technique
Impact
In the first place, I'm very sorry if I've missed any of your previous works: I may have deleted them out of ignorance.
The vision, is virtually impeccable: I can clearly see your point, I am highly impressed with said point, and it is something I, (and many others besides) will learn from as I continue to revisit and attempt to grasp what you already have.
When writing about religion, it is nearly impossible to be original, but you do it about as well as I can imagine. Thank you.
As always, your technique is extremely good, and I am still learning from it in my own writings.
Impact: I very nearly fell out of my seat at the truth in your words. Figuratively speaking.
May you bear much fruit in your ministry, and God bless.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hurdreve [2016-10-17 05:21:50 +0000 UTC]
I know it must have been a while ago when this first was created, though I just came by while browsing scripture topics and read through it, and I have to say, how eloquently you expressed everything! I will be adding it to my favorites to look over at a later time. I am not yet sure what to think completely concerning certain apocryphal books, though I do own a bible that contains Sirach, which I have been intending to read for some time now; I should get to it sometime.
Thank you for sharing this!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TESM In reply to Hurdreve [2016-10-17 11:30:06 +0000 UTC]
Thank you.
The short version of it is that I believe that the 'apocryphal' books are canonical Scripture. I believe the Septuagint is inspired by God, as did the early Christians, and a legitimate translation of the Hebrew.
Those criticisms Luther laid on the apocrypha, such as some not being in Hebrew, has been proven somewhat false. We have found parts of Maccabees and Sirach in Hebrew. Likewise the early Christian synods and councils confirm the inspired character of what was included in Scripture while leaving out those other books that were popular (e.g., the Shepherd of Hermas).
Thanks again for reading.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
LilyCalico17 [2016-07-18 11:21:44 +0000 UTC]
Respectfully, can I ask which denomination you practice?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
LilyCalico17 In reply to TESM [2016-07-19 19:14:17 +0000 UTC]
I am non-denominational, and even though I don't read the Sirach, there's a lot I agreed with you in your writing Thanks for shedding some light on the importance of wisdom in our Christian lives.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Kajm [2013-11-21 19:14:18 +0000 UTC]
Watch out for longcool, she appears to have a serious superiority complex.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TESM In reply to Kajm [2013-11-21 19:16:25 +0000 UTC]
I'm just a stupid Catholic anyway. What do I know?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Kajm In reply to TESM [2013-11-21 19:17:56 +0000 UTC]
I've been reading her comments elsewhere. I have this feeling that someday, they are going to find her whispering to herself in the depths of a dark closet *shudder*
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TESM In reply to Kajm [2013-11-21 19:24:02 +0000 UTC]
Ha ha, some people have to validate themselves somehow.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
LongCoolWomanInBlack [2013-11-21 05:49:56 +0000 UTC]
A few thoughts: who would you prefer to be with a religious man or a holy man?
As a Christian, do you live a life in Christ? Follow His example without hesitation? He is the son of God why would any prophecy interfere with this?
Would you be better off reading the greek or the interpretation. This is your salvation, sanity, compassion if you follow Christ, the path to a Good life on Earth leading to Divine Truth in the after life. Something so utterly important would compel you to read the original Word. Or is this not the case?
I hope this provokes some thought or the thought has already taken place. I intend it in a spirit of brotherly love. OK, this means agape or non erotic love.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TESM In reply to LongCoolWomanInBlack [2013-11-21 06:08:57 +0000 UTC]
Whereas a religious man is not necessarily holy, I find a holy man to always be religious.
As a Christian, do you live a life in Christ? Follow His example without hesitation? He is the son of God why would any prophecy interfere with this?
I suppose I would need more connecting points between questions 2 and 3 here.
1) Yes
2) Yes, and if I don't I ask for His grace and try again
3) Don't understand how it follows from 1 and 2
Would you be better off reading the greek or the interpretation.
In all honesty, both.
This is your salvation, sanity, compassion if you follow Christ, the path to a Good life on Earth leading to Divine Truth in the after life. Something so utterly important would compel you to read the original Word. Or is this not the case?
Not everyone is a Hebrew scholar, and even Jesus spoke Aramaic.
I hope this provokes some thought or the thought has already taken place. I intend it in a spirit of brotherly love. OK, this means agape or non erotic love.
I'm not usually in the mood for eros on Deviant Art anyway.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Mechatherium [2012-12-06 05:53:38 +0000 UTC]
Very cogent. I'll be faving this for future reference.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TESM In reply to Mechatherium [2012-12-06 23:52:06 +0000 UTC]
Thank you very much. I hope you get a chance to look at some of my other subsequent stuff and what I hope to post in the next few weeks.
Appreciate it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nikolaj [2012-09-15 09:08:31 +0000 UTC]
Thank you for this. It is a refreshing read, even though I am not a Roman Catholic. It is good to see people chasing wisdom in different denominations and to see the same truths spoken throughout all of christendom.
Too bad I have little spare time to indulge myself in reading lengthy texts, but I see that it is worthwhile, so I'll probably find my way back to your account soon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TESM In reply to Nikolaj [2012-09-15 11:38:41 +0000 UTC]
Thanks again. I know my texts are a bit long but I appreciate very much those who take the time, such as yourself, to read them.
Feel free to drop by anytime and take a look and tell me what you think.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
CalleighBlack [2012-09-06 02:20:44 +0000 UTC]
As usual, you are bending my mind into corkscrews, but I like it. I know that I don't know nearly enough about the Scriptures and that no matter how many times I read the Bible, I'll probably miss something. But, I do believe that the more you read it and really get into it and study, the better and understanding you get. Also, listening to those who are more knowledgeable (such as you) is always a good thing too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Doctor-Why-Designs [2012-09-05 12:56:58 +0000 UTC]
There's one thing I don't understand. If the apocrypha books were never accepted as Canon by the Jews and only occur in two or three incomplete and poorly edited greek manuscripts, why have them at all?
The Sirach you mention has some teaching that are biblical, but also unbiblical at the same time.
Such as this verse:
Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good; and it is a woman who brings shame and disgrace-Sirach 41:14
Does that basically say a man who disobeys God, is better than a woman who does obey God?
Did I miss something here?
Could it possibly mean that self-righteousness is better than righteousness?
The Apocrypha was even declared 'canon' until 1546, until that time the old testament was affirmed as being just 22 books.
from reading various sources, they were canonized just to have a 'biblical' foundation for many of the traditions and practices of the Roman church, which the reformed Christian criticized and condemned.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TESM In reply to Doctor-Why-Designs [2012-09-05 13:50:56 +0000 UTC]
I like how you think you can claim it was poorly edited when in reality you don't know what you're talking about. They were accepted as canon by many Jews, but by about 50AD or so the Jews in Jerusalem decided to solidify the canon but the strictures they put upon it were rather strange: 1
1 is not strange: it has to be in accord with the law of Moses (ironically, however, Jesus criticized the very group of Jews who were interpreting the Law of Moses in Jerusalem that established this criterion)
2) had to be written before Ezra (500-ish BC)
3) Had to be written in Hebrew
4) They had to be written in Palestine.
This was their criteria and parts seem rather arbitrary and nationalistic given the circumstances. Also they exists as fragments in our age, not necessarily in ages past. They have come to us in full in Greek and Latin--some as early as 200BC.
The Sirach you mention has some teaching that are biblical, but also unbiblical at the same time. ...
Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good; and it is a woman who brings shame and disgrace-Sirach 41:14
The citation seems to be incorrect.
Does that basically say a man who disobeys God, is better than a woman who does obey God?
Did I miss something here?
Could it possibly mean that self-righteousness is better than righteousness?
It also appears to be a dubious translation.
The Apocrypha was even declared 'canon' until 1546, until that time the old testament was affirmed as being just 22 books.
from reading various sources, they were canonized just to have a 'biblical' foundation for many of the traditions and practices of the Roman church, which the reformed Christian criticized and condemned
If you studied nothing before 1546 I guess that might be true. The canon was declared at that time precisely because of the challenges to canon. Trent and other councils precisely made these pronouncements to uphold what had been taught in the past in face of Luther and Calvin's revisionist canon--which have also been shown to be less based on manuscript traditions than the Catholic canon.
Likewise, many manuscripts attest to the existence, use, and canon of these so-called "non-canon" books by Protestants today. As early as 120AD many were already in wide circulation, especially Sirach. So while your "many sources" will likely say this or that (good luck finding an unbiased synthesis of reformation history--> i.e., command: read primary texts) the manuscripts and canons of the early Church don't lie. The canon the Catholic Church has is derived from Alexandria, the Qumran community, and from synods and councils in the 2nd and 3rd and 4th centuries affirmed throughout the ages and the concordance of many bishops.
Also worth noting that Jesus' diction and words seem derived from the Septuigent and the Scriptures held by the Qumran community, whose primary languages were Aramaic and Greek, not Hebrew--well, textual analysis seems to think so.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Doctor-Why-Designs In reply to TESM [2012-09-05 14:47:36 +0000 UTC]
What about the fact that Jesus(God Himself) did not affirm the apocrypha books as part of scripture?
In Luke 24:44 he makes reference to the Law, the Prophets and the psalms, but not to the apocryphal books
'And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.'
Also in Luke and in Matthew he made a statement that covered the whole Jewish historical canon.
Matthew 23:35
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Luke 11:51
From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
In the Bible you find Jesus arguing about them not keeping the law correctly, but nothing about thecanonization of scripure. Rather he uses the canonization of scripture to affirm who he is.
Many scholars point out Jesus used the hebrew scriptures, not greek, based on this verse
Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Jot and Tittle are hebrew terminologies, am I right?
From reading different parts of the book of Tobit, I came across a part that had an angel(Raphael) teaching the author how to use parts of a fish to ward off demons.(See Tobit 6:5-7).
Not only did this man learn it from the angel, he practiced it on the day of his marriage
Now, why would a biblical book contain a story about a supposed angel teaching a man witchcraft and sorcery?
Wasn't witchcraft and practicing magic condemned by the Law of Moses?
Paul refers to the Jews as having been given the oracles of God in Romans 3:1-2
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
The Catholic Church was never in unanimous agreement about the apocrypha, many of the church fathers(including the translator of the Latin Vulgate) rejected it because the jews had.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TESM In reply to Doctor-Why-Designs [2012-09-05 17:12:13 +0000 UTC]
What about the fact that Jesus(God Himself) did not affirm the apocrypha books as part of scripture?
Or that he quoted from the same Scripture that did not see them as apocrypha. Wisdom books do not deal with prophecy, they deal with talking about wisdom--i.e., instructional books.
In the Bible you find Jesus arguing about them not keeping the law correctly, but nothing about thecanonization of scripure. Rather he uses the canonization of scripture to affirm who he is.
Or how they interpreted the law.
Many scholars point out Jesus used the hebrew scriptures, not greek, based on this verse
Many more say differently.
Jot and Tittle are hebrew terminologies, am I right?
Of course, just like we know French words or Latin words in common use. Jesus no doubt could pray in Hebrew but it is likely he preached in the more common tongue--Greek and Aramaic.
From reading different parts of the book of Tobit, I came across a part that had an angel(Raphael) teaching the author how to use parts of a fish to ward off demons.(See Tobit 6:5-7).
Not only did this man learn it from the angel, he practiced it on the day of his marriage
Now, why would a biblical book contain a story about a supposed angel teaching a man witchcraft and sorcery?
Wasn't witchcraft and practicing magic condemned by the Law of Moses?
So sacrifices in the law weren't anything ritualistic. Also, Tobit is a parable.
The Catholic Church was never in unanimous agreement about the apocrypha, many of the church fathers(including the translator of the Latin Vulgate) rejected it because the jews had.
Perhaps, but a counsel has more wisdom than just the words of one. Jerome had his reasons but his reasons didn't automatically validate them as perfect.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Doctor-Why-Designs In reply to TESM [2012-09-06 03:23:03 +0000 UTC]
From what I've read a lot of the apocryphal books don't even claim spiritual inspiration.
2 Maccabees even admits that there were no prophets when it was written.
I think this argument like all are others will get nowhere because we're both religiously bull-headed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TESM In reply to Doctor-Why-Designs [2012-09-06 03:31:33 +0000 UTC]
While I like how you identify me using yourself, you are likely making your value claims based off of some "website" where you seem to get your opinions.
Baruch was written by the Scribe Baruch. Not sure why prophets are necessary.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Doctor-Why-Designs In reply to TESM [2012-09-06 03:36:09 +0000 UTC]
You are stubborn with your faith just as I am with mine.
Have to remember before God spoke through the apostles, he used the prophets. There hasn't been any real prophets since John wrote Revelation.
I thought everybody knew that....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TESM In reply to Doctor-Why-Designs [2012-09-06 03:40:30 +0000 UTC]
Looks like you misheard me rather than understood me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Doctor-Why-Designs In reply to TESM [2012-09-06 03:46:10 +0000 UTC]
This from the a church member that originated the imperfect Bible doctrine....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TESM In reply to Doctor-Why-Designs [2012-09-06 04:26:01 +0000 UTC]
Yea, once again you read without understanding and spoke without thinking.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Doctor-Why-Designs In reply to TESM [2012-09-06 11:55:23 +0000 UTC]
Maybe.
The Catholic church did endorse Westcott and Hort in the translation of the Alexandrian Cult scriptures
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TESM In reply to Doctor-Why-Designs [2012-09-06 13:50:01 +0000 UTC]
whatever helps you sleep at night
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
AmericanCicero [2012-09-04 22:47:30 +0000 UTC]
Thank god you actually respect christianity instead of using the same old tired athiest excuses.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TESM In reply to AmericanCicero [2012-09-05 04:33:12 +0000 UTC]
Thanks, although I'm not sure--given your syntax--if you're calling me an atheist or not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
AmericanCicero In reply to TESM [2012-09-05 12:29:15 +0000 UTC]
My reference was towards the irreligious rabble on DA. They just want to atheist because someone hurt their feelings or some flismy reason like that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TESM In reply to AmericanCicero [2012-09-05 13:51:33 +0000 UTC]
I suppose so.
Thanks again for reading and I hope you get a chance to look at some of my other stuff.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ShopKey [2012-09-01 11:11:37 +0000 UTC]
This is excellent, thank you so much for writing this.
In which bible is the book of Sirach? My NIV doesn't have it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Doctor-Why-Designs In reply to ShopKey [2012-09-05 12:59:49 +0000 UTC]
I suggest you avoid apocryphal writings. They weren't held as canon by the jews, Jesus or the apostles.
They weren't even canonized as scripture until 1546, some 1000 years after the Jewish historian Josephus confirmed the old testament as being 22 books (the same 39 books we have today, just divided differently) [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TESM In reply to ShopKey [2012-09-05 20:56:34 +0000 UTC]
You may want to read what I've written below before you just accept this.
His history is....well, suspect. Very much so. The canon was reestablished in 1546 because of the challenges and removal of books from the canon (by Luther, mostly) required a firmer stance on the canon. Books could not be removed from the canon if they weren't there beforehand.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TESM In reply to ShopKey [2012-09-01 14:09:48 +0000 UTC]
I use the NAB, but it's also in the Ignatius Bible (I think that's the name). It is also recognized in the Septuagint (which I use sparingly) as well as the Latin Vulgate (likewise I use it sparingly).
The book of Sirach was also considered by Alexandrian Jews and later by many early Christians as the Liber Ecclesiasticus (not to be confused with Ecclesiastes) which means "Church Book." I guess you could call it a sort of handbook of Judaism that was not only helpful to non-Hebrew speaking Jews but also early Christians (i.e., Gentiles) who didn't live in the Jewish tradition. The book of Sirach is and was a helpful book for many generations and is quoted often by many bishops and theologians from 70AD all the way to 680AD. It's quoted after this of course but I'm focusing on the early Church.
It's a remarkably good book and was only considered non-canon by the Jews in Jerusalem in 60-ish AD because it only survived in the Greek and the Hebrew (which is was originally written in).
It was also determined that it was written too late by the Jerusalem Jews but many people then (and I today) think that their arbitrary cutoff was a bit strange. As it stands it is an excellent reflection, just as Maccabaeus is an interesting look at the conflicts and history of the Jews right before Christ. Maccabaeus is not unlike the history of King David leading to King Solomon.
Hope that helps!
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Vader999 In reply to TESM [2012-09-02 17:11:08 +0000 UTC]
I like your advice. Too bad many creationists don't understand the context of the books they read.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ShopKey In reply to TESM [2012-09-02 12:19:29 +0000 UTC]
Ah thank you, I'll have to take a look at it some time
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
