2 FORGOTTEN NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS
/ Re: Tondor and NT Canon / 21Nov99 / Forum: TheologyOnLine - BibleStudy / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On 15Nov99 SteveT wrote: Tondaar: You write, "The only sufficient criteria for determining which books are
> inspired and of value to the People of God is truth, truth, and more truth!" And, how do you know that it is true?
.
Tondaar say: Dear SteveT, for anything to be true (in any absolute sense) it must be in harmony with the Truth of Revelation, and with the Truth of Reality (ie. life, the universe, and everything).
.
> Private revelation? Just curious.
.
Nope. :)
.
> By the way, are there any books not included in the generally accepted canon that you believe are
> also "inspired and of value to the People of God?"
.
Oh, absolutely! Two books in particular rise above all the other apocryphal and deutero-canonical writings. These are the two extended essays erroneously misnamed First Clement and Second Clement. What makes these two books so special is that they were both written by New Testament authors: 1Clement by the second-century Egyptian-Christian prophet called Jacob (who also wrote the Epistle of James), and 2Clement by the second-century Egyptian-Christian prophet called Judas (who also wrote the Epistle of Jude). ... If you're at all curious as to the reasons why I make these outrageous statements, please proceed to my web-site called the First Cyber-Church of Jacob & Judas (you can get there from the Just Plain Miscellaneous category on TOL's main resources page).
.
BTW: before you conclude that I have taken leave of my senses, please bear in mind that both of these books were considered to be scripture by the early Egyptian churches. They were in no way supposed to be inferior to the other Christian writings that later achieved canonical status; and, in fact, were collected and bound together with those
other holy books (ie. usually at the tail end of their bibles). In other words, although they were generally known to be "late" (ie. second-century) works, they were *still* considered inspired and valuable by Egyptian believers. So if they were good enough for the early churches of Egypt, then they are surely good enough for the cyber-prophet. Thus, for me, the early Greek churches have *vastly* more authority (in determining what is and is not authentic Christian faith) than any fourth century gathering of the pagan Emperor's (already corrupt) episcopal muffinheads!
/ Re: 2 Forgotten New Testament Books / Ng: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Forum: TheologyOnLine - BibleStudy / 24Nov99 /
.
> On 21Nov99 Kirk2 wrote: Tondaar: The LORD saw to it that all the cannonical books are present in
> the New Testament. It was his will. Be blessed and edified -- LXX2
.
erasmian say: Dear Kirk2, what about the books of the Tanakh? These are canonical books, and none of them are present in the New Testament. Perhaps you would like to rephrase your statement? ... Also bear in mind that for Paul and the other authors of the NT books, the "scriptures" included other holy books that never attained the status of 'canonical works' (4X: the books of Enoch). Surely you're not suggesting that the inspired authors were wrong to consider these other books as scripture? That would imply that you know more about this matter than they did.
> On 22Nov99 Damon wrote: Tondaar, I went to your website and I read the articles listed.
.
Tondaar say: Dear Damon, you read all of them? I find that hard to believe since there is well over ten megabytes of text on my web-sites!
.
> I saw a lot of assertions, but I didn't see much evidence.
.
It depends, I guess, on what you consider to be "evidence". For myself, the primary evidence is the sacred texts, and the secondary evidence is the supporting facts from church history, and the reasoning that follows from all this. You are certainly free to take exception with my reasonings, but facts (as the saying goes) are facts.
.
> I would be more than willing to discuss your evidence for this position provided it is credible.
.
My guiding principle in all reasoning from the evidence of the texts (and from church history) is Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation that accounts for *all* of the relevant facts is very probably the correct one. The only problem with this is that sometimes there are no easy solutions (as is the case here with 1&2Clement).
.
> I would agree that many early Christian groups did view both 1 and 2 Clement as canonical, but many
> groups also affirmed the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache.
.
All of these are very important early Christian documents; but you are wrong to say that they were seen as canonical. 'Canon' has nothing to do with it. They were seen as scripture, and rightly so (in my view). Just because they were not included in the canon by Constantine's bishops does not mean that they ceased being scripture. How can any book be inspired for one century, but not for the next?
.
> Incidently, one of the claims you make supporting your hypothesis has to do with the use of the word
> "dipsychos" (double-minded). This word appears in each of the works mentioned above, and appears to have
> entered into common usage among Christian groups (it is never found in secular sources) sometime shortly
> after 60CE. -- Damon
.
Could you provide the references for your claim that Barnabas, Hermas, and Didache use the word 'dipsychos'? It is, as you point out, a uniquely Christian word, but I had no idea it was that common among the early Christian literature. As for your claim that it appeared "shortly after 60CE", I find this to be extremely unlikely. The nature
of the sources mentioned suggests a second century genesis; or late first century at the earliest. I sure would like to know who first made use of that word. I had thought that it was Jacob (ie. in the epistle of James), but if you are right about these other apocryphal books use of it, I may have to rethink the entire matter . . .
.
btw: Your input on this problem would be greatly appreciated. :)
> On 22Nov99 SteveT wrote: Dear Tondaar:
.
>> Tondaar say: "Dear SteveT, for anything to be true (in any absolute sense) it must be in harmony
>> with the Truth of Revelation, and with the Truth of Reality (ie. life, the universe, and everything)."
.
> So, for something to be considered revelation (i.e., includable in the canon of scripture), it must be in harmony
> with the "Truth of Revelation". But, my dear Tondaar, isn't this a circular argument? How do I know the "truth
> of revelation" without first knowing what constitutes the revelation? Come now, Tondaar, we all expect better
> from you!
.
Dear SteveT, it's not a circular argument at all, owing to the fact that revelation is an ongoing reality. Thus it was revealed to the pharaoh of Egypt (long before Moses) that God is One, but this idea was simply too advanced for the people of those ancient times, and it had to await the prophet Moses before it could be consistently applied. But
even then, monotheism required further development (centuries of it, in fact). The point is that at any given point in history there is already some deposit of revelation available. Thus the later Hebrew prophets had the Torah as their measure of authenticity. Just as the revelation that came out of ancient Egypt (ie. the oldest layers in the wisdom
literature) was in harmony with the 'new' Torah/Law.
.
And so it went. Revelation being added to revelation until the world was ready (sorta) for the ultimate revelation in the form of the Son of Man. Now some suppose that revelation ceased at that point (since there can be no greater revelation than the Incarnation of the Eternal Logos), but this is to deny the progressive and ongoing nature of
revelation. True, no further revelation can equal or surpass that given by Jesus Christ, but this does not mean that revelation is finished. It is not. Down through the Christian centuries we see many saints and prophets witnessing to the truth and unraveling the meaning and implications of the previous revelations (4X: see 'The Brothers Karamazov' by Dostoyevsky for a modern Christian parable). This process cannot stop as long as the human race continues to grow spiritually. We are still a long way from spiritual maturity; and there are many more revelations yet to come. Let us pray that when they come we do not close our eyes to it in the confidence born of arrogance and ignorance.
.
> BTW, what is your opinion of the canonicity of the Didache?
.
I have no opinion on this matter at this time; except to say that parts of that book are almost as old as Paul's authentic epistles.
MORE NAMING THE NAMES.
/ Re: 2 Forgotten New Testament Books / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Forum: TheologyOnLine - BibleStudy / 29Nov99 /
.
] On 24Nov99 Kirk2 wrote: Eras.: The LORD knows all about what is his word and what isn't.
] His decrees will not return void. Be blessed -- LXX2
.
erasmian say: Dear Kirk2, I tend to agree; and thx. May thou also be blessed.
.
>> On 26Nov99 Kirk2 wrote: What is meant by Tanach??
.
I didn't say 'Tanach', but rather 'Tanakh'; which latter word is composed of the first letters from the Hebrew titles for the three groupings of scriptures in the Jewish Bible (ie. Torah, Prophets, Writings). ... Or so I'm told. Could I maybe get some confirmation on this, please? Someone? Anyone?
.
>> Is this it: In the Bible, Taanach is only mentioned seven times, usually in lists such as tribal allotments
>> (Josh. 17:11; 1 Chron. 7:29), administrative districts (1 Kings 4:12), Levitical towns (Josh. 21:25), or
>> conquered cities (Josh. 12:21; Judg. 1:27). What do you think, is this IT????
.
Nope. Definitely not that! :)
.
> On 27Nov99 Fisherman wrote: Tondaar, Are you 'erasmian'?
.
erasmian say: Well, sortta ...
.
> Are you writing under a pseudonym now?
.
I guess so ...
.
> Is 'erasmian' Tondaar?
.
No. Actually, it's even worse than that.
.
> Is 'Tondaar' erasmian? I'm confused!
.
Well, if you *must* know: 'Tondaar' and 'erasmian' are both pseudonyms of 'textman'; as in the semi-infamous cyber-prophet - textman ;> , or as in the offensive one - textman ;> , or as in the slave of the Word - textman ;>
or as in etc etc.
.
... Ouch! You know that's gotta hurt! :)
.
Now all this is not really as weird as one may suppose. Remember that our good friend, the 19C Danish prophet Soren Kierkegaard, also used many pseudonyms; and he is one of the few prophets in all of church history to have well-developed sense of humor. I must admit that he is one of my few favorite Christian authors.
.
And then there's our old friend and fellow historian, the author of Luke-Acts, who is commonly called Luke; because it was once, and still is (by many silly believers), erroneously supposed that Paul's contemporary and travel- companion named Lukas wrote the book in two parts ... Which is sheer nonsense, of course, but if I *don't* call the unknown and unnamed author of Lk-Acts by the name of 'Luke' no one will know who I'm talking about!
.
Anyway, Luke tells the story about how Paul was formerly Saul of Tarsus, but changed his name to Paulos to mark his conversion to the Faith. Of course, this tall tale is worthless to a historical approach to church history (ie. Paulos of Damascus never actually changed his name), but it is nevertheless the beginnings of a ... errrr ... *cute* prophetic tradition.
.
So anyway, it took me a life-time to discover my vocation, and when the Lord did finally tap my shoulder (sortta like getting kicked by a spooked buffalo) he did mark the occasion by granting me the odd name of textman. This, then, is my Christian name; and all the others are just useful tools and labels.
/ Re: 2 Forgotten New Testament Books / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Forum: TheologyOnLine - BibleStudy / 4Dec99 /
.
> On 30Nov99 Damon wrote: Tondaar...or Erasmian...or Textman...or whoever you are today, Sorry it took so
> long to reply. The holidays and school are taking up most of my time these days.
.
erasmian say: Dear Damon, no problem. I'm well aware that life in the real world has a nasty habit of getting in the way of our common existence and shared efforts in cyber-space.
.
> First, I must admit I did not read everything on your website, but I did try to peruse everything I could
> find which seemed relevant to this discussion. Though, I undoubtedly missed something (knowing me,
> the most obvious thing).
.
Nothing that can't be rectified, I hope ... :)
.
> I based my claim that Barnabas, the Didache, and Hermas all use dipsychos on Walter Bauer's "A Greek-
> English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,"
.
A wonderful resource for serious bible students; if one has access to a copy (which, of course, I don't).
.
> but on a closer examination I should probably restate the claim. Hermas does use "dipsychos" as do 1
> and 2 Clement, but it is the verb "dipsycheo" which appears in Barnabas and the Didache (the
> verb also appears in Hermas and 1 and 2 Clement).
.
Does Bauer give the exact locations (reference numbers) for all these uses?
.
> I base the date for the origin of the term on the earlier dates for the composition (not necessarily the
> compilation) of such works as the Didache. BTW, while this word is unique to these writings, there is a
> similar example in Parmenides. He says that there are certain people who are "'dikronoi' (double-headed
> people) who stagger helplessly here and there in their thinking." (Bauer)
.
Interesting idea; and very close in meaning to 'double-minded'. Perhaps Parmenides was the soil out of which grew the Christian word 'dipsychos'?
.
> This could have provided a bit of inspiration for whomever really did coin this term.
.
Yes, it seems a very good possibility; especially in light of the fact that the prophet Jacob was undoubtedly a very well-read scholar in his own right, and would therefore be familiar with the works of Parmenides.
.
> I hope this helped a little. -- Damon
.
Indeed it does. This clearly requires some careful research on my part. But unless you can provide (via Bauer) the exact refs for these terms, I will have to read all of the mentioned works from beginning to end looking for the words in question. Needless to say, this project will take some time. In any case, thanks for the assist. ... I believe I'll start with Barnabas. Stay tuned for the results ... :)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On 30Nov99 SteveT wrote: Textman writes:
.
>> "Anyway, Luke tells the story about how Paul was formerly Saul of Tarsus, but changed his name to
>> Paulos to mark his conversion to the Faith."
.
> Um, care to back that up with chapter and verse numbers?
.
erasmian say: Dear SteveT, ummmm ... no, not really. :)
.
> As I recall from Acts, Luke never says that Paul changed his name to mark his conversion, he simply refers
> to him as Saul in places and Paul in others.
.
We are first introduced to Saul at the end of Stephen's speech to the Sanhedrin: "When they had driven him out of the city, they began to stone him, and the witnesses laid their cloaks at the feet of a young man called Saul" (Acts 7:58/NETbible). Saul is mentioned twice more at the start of chapter eight, and then reappears for his dramatic
conversion: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" (Acts 9:4) He is referred to as Saul throughout the rest of chapter nine, and then fades out of the story only to reappear a couple of chapters later: "Then Barnabas departed for Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught a significant number of people" (11:25-26). From all this it is plain to see that Saul didn't change his name after his conversion, but rather continued using 'Saul' from Damascus to Jerusalem to Tarsus to Antioch (ie. according to the author of Lk-Acts; who is undoubtedly wrong about this matter of names).
.
Now all this is very confusing, because I had assumed that his conversion was the point at which Luke changes the name from Saul to Paul. But things are never so easy with our very odd friend Lukas (ie. the author of Lk-Acts)! In fact, the change doesn't occur until Barnabas and Saul are at Cyprus: "But Saul (also known as Paul), filled
with the Holy Spirit, stared straight at him ..." (13:9). And that's it! No explanation is offered for this, and no hint or reason is given as to why Luke chose this moment to make the name change; because after this the "young man" is consistently referred to as 'Paul'. However, it might be because Paul staight-away makes a speech in the synagogue
wherein he mentions certain names: "Then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul son of Kish, a man from the tribe of Benjamin, who ruled forty years" (13:21).
.
In other words, Luke's use of 'Saul' appears to be completely pointless and utterly senseless. It's almost as if the author began the book thinking Saul was the right name, and intending to use it throughout, and then halfway through was informed that the correct name was 'Paul' (note: in his authentic epistles he gives no hint that his name was anything other than 'Paulos'); at which point he began using 'Paul'! Now I know this explanation will not please many, but if you have a better take on this mystery, I cordially invite you to please do enlighten us.
.
> You are losing more and more credibility with each successive post you make.
.
Thx a bunch there SteveT. It's true that on (rare) occasion I can and do err. In this case the error stems from a long-held erroneous idea which I did not bother to check against the text before mouthing off. Now I can't recall exactly where I got that silly idea, but I'll wager a year's wages that I got it from those nasty Cats. So if anyone
should lose credibility, it ought to be them!
.
- the rather embarrassed and chagrined one - erasmian ;>
<><
/ Re: 2 Forgotten New Testament Books / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Forum: TheologyOnLine - BibleStudy / 10Dec99 /
.
> On 7Dec99 SteveT wrote: Tondaar: I understand (and perhaps this is just an RC teaching you would disagree
> with), that it was quite common in the first century for Jews to also have a related Greek name, much as
> my supervisor at work, Miguel (from Cuba) goes by the name Mike around here. Saul and Paul were simply
> different names for the same person, used according to the circumstances.
.
erasmian say: Dear SteveT, this does *not* explain the strange way that Luke uses these names. I would appreciate a considered explanation of why the author should suddenly and without warning switch from consistently using 'Saul' to consistently using 'Paul'.
.
Moreover, if what you suggest applies specifically to Paulos of Damascus, then we should expect to find some small shred of evidence along these lines somewhere among his authentic epistles. The significant absence of such supporting evidence from Paul, along with Luke's unusual use of the names, casts serious doubts on the historical viability of the legendary 'Saul of Tarsus'!
.
> As a life-long RC, I don't believe I've ever heard the explanation that it related to his conversion.
.
And what is the explanation that you, as a life-long RC, have heard?
.
> Perhaps that's one of Luther's inventions????
.
I doubt it very much. Since I was myself an RC for forty years, I'd say that it's far more likely that the "invention" came from a Romish direction ...
/ Re: 2 Forgotten New Testament Books / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Forum: TheologyOnLine - BibleStudy / 13Dec99 /
.
> On 4Dec99 Damon wrote: textman, I would be more than happy to give you all the reference for the
> use of 'dipsychos' and closely related words. <snip-da-refs>
.
erasmian say: Dear Damon, thx for the refs. First, a couple of general observations. Aside from a handful of uses in 1&2Clement, and one each for Barnabas and Didache, the obvious majority of the refs come from Hermas. Why this book should make such copious use of 'double-minded' strikes me as something of a mystery. On the bright side, I should now be able to pin down the non-Hermas refs more easily.
.
> Re: Luke, you seem to think he was perhaps the most fallible of NT authors. Can you cite sources for this belief?
.
No, not really. While I'm sure that there are many scholars who appreciate the dangers of over-reliance on Lk-Acts to form a realistic impression of the history of the early Greek churches, no names come immediately to mind. My own sensitivity to the weaknesses of Lk-Acts (ie. as a source of historical information) was formed from my investigations into the four Thessalonian letters. Many of the commentaries I consulted imported Lukan materials in a manner that
clearly suggested that they were considered equal in value to the evidence provided by the Thessalonian letters themselves; (I recall that F.F.Bruce was among the worst offenders in this regard). From them I learned a strong revulsion and contempt for Bible scholars who are unable to distinguish between primary and secondary evidence
(ie. those who think that studying Paul means studying *Paul AND Luke* at one and the same time without the bother of making any sort of distinctions between them).
.
> I've always been under the assumption that Luke was perhaps the most reliable in terms of historical
> accuracy, but I like you can, and on rare occasions do, err [though my wife might dispute how rare
> those occasions really are]. -- Damon
.
One of the few scholars whose work I admire is Martin Hengel. In one of his books (the title escapes me) he makes a strong case for Luke's historical reliability. And while I am well aware that there is a lot of material in Lk-Acts of interest to church historians, I am far more cognizant of the necessity of keeping Lk-Acts as far away from Paul and
Mark as possible. In other words, if we wish to form an adequate vision of the churches prior to the Fall of Jerusalem, we must forget Lk-Acts altogether, and concentrate our attention exclusively on the evidence provided by those texts that were actually written before 70CE.
.
As for the idea that Luke is the most reliable (as far as accurate historical information goes), I think this idea stems mostly from the popular understanding that Luke was the first historian of the Way to place church history within the context of the wider history of the Empire:
.
"Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." -- Luke 1:3-4 / NIV
.
"In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)" -- Luke 2:1-2 / NIV
.
"In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar - when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene - during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert." -- Luke 3:1-2 / NIV
.
Accordingly, this view is very understandable, but hardly justified. Luke was a historian after the manner of the ancient school; he was very *not* a historian after the manner of the modern objective and scientific school. Certainly a careful and objective comparison of Lk-Acts with Paul and Mark will very quickly disabuse one of the
erroneous notion that Luke is a reliable source for the true history of the early Greek churches!
textman
*