Everything Stands or Falls on Jesus: More than you realize!
Ian & Pam Dorion dorioni@ipa.net
Sat, 31 Jan 1998 06:01:40 -0600 (00886269700, 199801311203.GAA03029@thunder.ipa.net)
IAN
Dave, if you read through this post you might see why it is important to
put your name in capital letters before your post. It also makes it easy to
read if you would put the other persons name in capitals whenever you split
their post. Thank you.
----------
> From: vanhoose <vanhoose@BRIGHT.NET>
> To: errancy@infidels.org
> Subject: Re: Everything Stands or Falls on Jesus: More than you realize!
> Date: Friday, January 30, 1998 9:08 PM
>
> Dave Taylor wrote:
> >
> > Pat:
> >
> > Pat, a few questions:
> >
> > >Although the canon of the Tanakh was not formalized until the late
first
> > >century or early second century, we know from Qumran, and other
sources,
> > >that all books accepted into the Jewish canon were in existence during
the
> > >life of Jesus and were approaching canonical status by then.
> >
> > What does "were approaching canonical status by then" mean? Is there
> > some historical authority for such a statement? Without one, we might
> > just as weel assume that canonicity was a divine event that occurred
> > in milliseconds--no "approaching" was necesary!
> >
> > >: The Septuagint was in existence, but this book did not contain
> > >: the same writings as our modern canon. In fact, it seems this
> > >: was this canon from which that Christ and the apostles quoted.
> > >: Yet it is not the same book as the "canon" compiled by the
> > >: Catholic Church under the authority of Constantine.
> > >:
> > >: So follow this: 1) As you say, Christ "quoted" from the Old
> > >: Testament; 2) But that "testament" was a DIFFERENT canon
> > >: than the one we use today; 3) so by what authority--pray
> > >: tell--have Christians "switched" to a different canon than
> > >: the one used by Christ?
> > >:
> > >We would be more correct to say that the authors of the gospels
generally
> > >quoted, (or misquoted) from the LXX.
> >
> > But why should we say that? Isn't it a little arrogant of we
> > moderns to assume we have better copies of the LXX--after
> > 2,000 years--than the NT writers did?
> >
> > >Some passages in John, suggest that
> > >John used a source that is closer to the MT than the LXX. This does
not
> > >necessarily mean a Hebrew source as we also know from Qumran that
there
> > >were early Greek texts of at least some of the OT books that were
closer to
> > >the MT tradition than the LXX tradition.
> >
> > So, doesn't this prove that it was common to "pick and choose"
> > holy writings (scripture) without the help of canonicity? And
> > doesn't this fact indicate that canonicity might not be inspired?
> >
> > >Several of the NT authors apparently were also familiar with the
> > >non-canonical writings, particularly Enoch. Fragments from Enoch were
also
> > >found at Qumran, which suggest that this work was highly respected by
> > >several Jewish factions in the first century.
> >
> > But these so-called non-canonical writings were most definately
> > NOT considered "non-canonical" at that time. Each was apparently
> > considred on its own merits. What does that say about the inspiration
> > of a canon?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Dave Taylor
> >
> > --
> PAT
> Dear Dave,
> I'm still wading through several hundred posts, but I didn't write
> this about the canon. Maybe the person that wrote this can answer you.
>
> Pat
>