From: altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
Subject: Re: To Murray et al (was re: Jesus did not claim.....)
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:46:09 GMT

In article <BuDGDu.L0p@news.cso.uiuc.edu> (B.A. Davis-Howe) writes:
>J024330@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM (Chris Colvin) writes:
>>altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)writes:
>
>>>I mentioned in a post a few weeks ago my trials in trying to buy a
>>>decent old testament bible. I called all over town, but whenever I
>>>tried to explain that I was searching for a "scholarly" bible, the
>>>salesperson would rather rudely exclaim that they "did not CARRY any
>>>LIBERAL bibles here, sir!" Followed by a harumph or two.
>
>>I might suggest The New Open Bible study edition in the New American
>>Standard.  It's published by Nelson publishers.  Look one over first
>>to see if it suits your needs.  The NAS is a word for word translation
>>from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.  They use the manuscripts closest
>>to the autographed (original) manuscripts. [...]

I would assume you mean the Masoretic texts, as they seem to be the only
"accepted" text by scholars up through the turn of the century.        

[...]
>>ing word placement, grammar and context.  Do not acquire a Catholic bible.
>>No offense to any Catholics that might be reading, but the Catholic version
>>of the bible contains extra books known as the Apocrapha.  They are
>>writings that were not canonized as part of Christian scripture.  This is
>>where the concept of limbo, purgatory, and praying for the dead came from.

Chris, as I don't follow your particular view or interest in the canon as
aspoused by the modern church, I hold as equally valid all those books that
the church excluded in the course of its history, such as Nicea in the fifth
century. The creation of dogma is interesting, to be sure, but to hold a 
bunch of demonstrably loony churchmen responsible for the creation and 
modification of Christian dogma over fifteen centuries is trusting your 
spiritual development to the wrong people. If you take issue with "loony",
go back and read Nicea or any other council's writings. Some of the 
arguments, taken very seriously, only point out the complete inadequacy of
these people to contain a rational thought. Not all, but many.

The reasons many of the original Jewish, Gnostic Jewish, and Gnostic 
Christian (as well as other sectarian) documents were excluded from the 
original Christian canon are many and varied. Both the Apocrypha and the
Pseudepigrapha contain texts that in many cases cannot be simply explained
away as insane rantings. Many were enlightened works that were excluded
because they contained some element that was politically or socially
not acceptable to the papacy. To pretend it was divine inspiration that
decided the contents of the canon is to ignore your own well-documented
church history.

>A couple of points here:
>First, the NAS, while very literal, is also really lousy English. :(
>
>Second, the Roman Catholic doctrines you mention are not derived from the 
>Duetero-Canonical books, but from various theologians over the centuries.
[BA's comments on usage of the Deutero-Canonical Old Testament texts...]

>Third, the canon of the Old Testament is based on some Jewish Rabbinical 
>distinctions of early in the Common Era.  They divided their writings into a
>number of different levels of canonicity.  The first few levels became the 
>standard of Christian Old Testaments.  The last of the accepted levels of
>canonicity became Deutero-Canonical, that is "secondary canon".  This level
>was distinguished by texts which were originally written in a language other
>than Hebrew.  These books are considered to be part of the scriptures of all
>but Protestant Christianity, but are considered to be of lesser authority.
>(Actually, modern Roman Catholic bibles are missing a couple of books which
>are still used by all of Eastern Christianity.)
>
>Fourth, most Christians, both in history and today, are not Protestant.  Most
>of the Christians in the world acknowledge the Deutero-Canonical books.  All
>of Eastern Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Anglican Communion
>all use the Deutero-Canonical books on a regular basis.  I believe that parts 
>of the Lutheran Communion use them as well.  You are coming from a very narrow
>viewpoint.
>
>              Merry meet, merry part, merry meet again,
>                               Br'anArthur

Br'an and Chris,

My interest is in finding an old testament text that is not based solely
on the Masoretic text of CE 1009, but includes as current as possible 
scholarship from respected sources. As I've stated, I keep running up
against dogmatists who hold to a fairly narrow belief.

Excuse me, but Chris, unless you realize it, you are very obviously within
a certain camp with regard to Christian dogma.

As you've made your biases known, it makes it difficult for me to accept
your judgement on bible choices. I acknowledge your choices, certainly,
and I will look into the New Open Bible edition, since you have suggested
it, but as I've said, I hold the Apocrypha and other non-canonical texts
as at the very least worthy of reading. And I already have several copies
of both. I don't mean to pick at your spelling, but I assume (maybe wrongly)
that since you didn't know how to spell it, and have made the statement 
that it is not part of your canon, that you are unfamiliar with the contents
of the Apocrypha.  You might find it interesting, and in some ways you'll
understand why it was excluded. And it might cause you to question why 
this occurred and the ramifications for the church (eg., the position of 
women in the church).

Br'an, I was wondering where you obtained some of your information on the
canonization process (I might be interested in reading it), as well as
your suggestions.  I recently purchased the Oxford Study Bible, as it
seemed to be very current and had some nice appendices and maps as well.

Thanks both.

Blessings,

Murray

-- 
Murray M. Altheim      "Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
Instructional Consultant    La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
CSU, Sacramento          Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
altheimm@csus.edu       Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict."
Newsgroups: alt.pagan