tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post8479080698052903945..comments2024-03-02T08:27:42.344+00:00Comments on Theological Scribbles: If not 'Old Testament' then what?Robin Parryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-61793295208877225732010-02-27T20:50:56.299+00:002010-02-27T20:50:56.299+00:00@Robin:
Good thoughts in follow-up.
Regarding th...@Robin:<br /><br />Good thoughts in follow-up.<br /><br />Regarding the issue about the close of the canon, I too am not sure how such a case could be made, though I do suffer under the impression that the TNK had not been deemed "closed" during Jesus' day. Increasingly so, maybe, but not rigidly.<br /><br />Regardless, the apostles thought they too were writing authoritatively and thus expected the churches (or individuals) to whom they were writing to obey the words therein, much like they obeyed the words of the <i>graphe</i>, the TNK.<br /><br />Clearly, the concept of an authoritative body of writings existed in the minds of the apostles, and the concept that that body of writings was "open"—insofar as their authoritative writings were concerned—seems implied. <br /><br />But really I was just getting at the sheer ability of the church (and her publishers) to just call it all "Holy Scripture." It doesn't rest so much on what folks in the first century thought as much as it relies on the fact, based on tradition with good bit of apostolic history thrown in, that the Christian canon stretches from Genesis to Revelation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05006685610827238652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-71509300469517172322010-02-18T13:59:44.369+00:002010-02-18T13:59:44.369+00:00As a Messianic Jew, I find this debate intriguing....As a Messianic Jew, I find this debate intriguing. I am reminded of a story about Helen Shapiro (a Messianic Jew), who went into a Golders Green bookstore, to acquire a copy of the OT. The Rabbi, with a twinkle in his eye said: 'Well, how old would you like it to be'?<br /><br />I simply call it the Tanakh and the NT the Messianic Scriptures. It suits the church and the synagogue well to keep clear demarcation lines between the two. But the early Jewish believers only knew the Tanakh. Yeshua only used the Tanakh. And to Jews who don't believe in Yeshua, the 'Old' Testament is an insult.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-29429072226883493782010-02-18T10:18:15.438+00:002010-02-18T10:18:15.438+00:00Chris
Thanks. On Goldingay and prophets. Nobody i...Chris<br /><br />Thanks. On Goldingay and prophets. Nobody is suggesting that prophets were people who went around foretelling the future all the time. But if you consider the classic books by prophets (e.g., Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah) they are a very different kind of book from, say, Joshua or the book of Proverbs. To describe Jeremiah as a prophetic book is unproblematic. To describe Proverbs as prophetic does require some stretching of the term. I am not opposing that but we do need to be clear what we are doing when we do it.<br /><br />Your proposal is interesting. To some extent it will depend on historical issues regarding when the early Jesus believers considerdd the 'scriptures of Israel' to be a closed collection. If they thought of the collection as still open then you could make a case that Jesus-believers closed their canon later than non-Jesus-believers. But I suspect it might be a tricky case to make.<br /><br />In one sense Christians regalary do refer to the OT+NT as 'The Scriptures' but I still think it is of some use to be able to distinguish the scriptures that look forward to the coming of Messiah and those that reflect back on it after the event.Robin Parryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-72750921339259238732010-02-17T18:52:31.765+00:002010-02-17T18:52:31.765+00:00Why not just "Holy Scripture" to refer t...Why not just "Holy Scripture" to refer to the whole canon? Simply stop using any designation that refers solely to that collection of books from Gen-Mal or Matt-Rev. And publishers could lead the way here.<br /><br />"Prophets and Apostles" is okay, but the apostles were prophets after all, just post-christ. And of course Moses as well as the authors/editors of the history books were prophets too (understood as covenant prosecutors). I don't think Goldingay is correct in suggesting that using "prophets" in this way stretches its natural usage. Prophets were not a bunch of guys walking around prognosticating all the time.<br /><br />But if one must refer to those old, pre-Christian writings as a separate collection, then TNK seems to do the trick just fine.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05006685610827238652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-32781883245037372212010-02-15T10:05:30.197+00:002010-02-15T10:05:30.197+00:00David
interesting! I guess that I would be happy ...David<br /><br />interesting! I guess that I would be happy to use 'the prophets' to refer to the OT books subject to a qualification Goldingay makes in 'Models of Scripture' - that we can speak of the OT as prophets so long as we realise that we are extending the term beyond its more natural useage. That it applies in a looser way to some texts than to others.<br /><br />Perhaps I'll try it outRobin Parryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-82019871850643625682010-02-14T00:20:04.731+00:002010-02-14T00:20:04.731+00:00BTW
Happy Valentines Day!
For all those people in...BTW<br />Happy Valentines Day!<br /><br />For all those people in the world who don't know it, God is their mystery Valentine -- because <br /><br />"God shows (present continuous!)his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died (past tense) for us." Rom 5:8.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-44985248989860094222010-02-14T00:09:10.301+00:002010-02-14T00:09:10.301+00:00What is YMMV?
YMMV is "Your Mileage May Vary&...What is YMMV?<br />YMMV is "Your Mileage May Vary"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-52909748033033750272010-02-13T13:36:30.150+00:002010-02-13T13:36:30.150+00:00Robin mused: I am not sure that 'prophets'...Robin mused: <i>I am not sure that 'prophets' does justice to the range of books in the OT.</i><br /><br />You mentioned Ephesians (2:20; 3:5), but I think Jesus was OK with it too (well, at least the "prophets" bit):<br /><br />Matthew 26: <i>55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56 But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.</i><br /><br />Luke 18: <i>31 And taking the twelve, he said to them, "See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished.”</i><br /><br />Maybe the content of "prophets" here is debatable, but it <i>seems</i> pretty inclusive!<br /><br />Of course, for Josephus, the "prophets" were authors of scripture: after all, that's how Samuel could write of events that followed his death! ("...everyone is not permitted of his own accord to be a writer, nor is there any disagreement in what is written; they being only prophets that have written the original and earliest accounts of things as they learned them of God himself by inspiration...", C.Apion 1.37 (Niese numbering).)<br /><br />Miller claims that the "prophets and apostles" moniker was a common patristic form of referring to the complete Christian scriptures, though he doesn't give the references himself, instead pointing to Hans Von Campenhausen's <i>Formation of the Christian Bible</i> (Fortress, 1972), pp. 257, 263.<br /><br />YMMV! :)David Reimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17886492671751634816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-13179817196493060622010-02-12T10:51:51.359+00:002010-02-12T10:51:51.359+00:00David
I quite like 'Prophets' and 'Ap...David<br /><br />I quite like 'Prophets' and 'Apostles' (and it does echo Ephesians).<br /><br />I am not sure that 'prophets' does justice to the range of books in the OT. I guess Moses was a prophetic guy so that covers Torah (kind of). I guess the history books might be classified as 'former prophets' (though I am not comfortable with that). I suppose that the Psalms might be read in prophetic ways (as NT does) and yet ...<br /><br />'Scriptures' seems more inclusive. Less problematic.<br /><br />But once you add the NT and need to differentiate the two sections of scripture the problem reappears.<br /><br />I can see the attraction of OT and NT but there has to be a better alternative (though, to be honest, it would never catch on after all this time)Robin Parryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-71052968465512396552010-02-10T21:43:32.235+00:002010-02-10T21:43:32.235+00:00Parts A & B come to mind!
What else?Parts A & B come to mind!<br /><br />What else?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-59204486907796568462010-02-10T20:44:25.385+00:002010-02-10T20:44:25.385+00:00Personally, I'm content with OT/NT ... at leas...Personally, I'm content with OT/NT ... at least Jeremiah gives it a semblance of scriptural warrant! :)<br /><br />But I do feel the weight of discontent. I dislike Goldingay's choice, and much prefer the solution that John Miller argues for in an appendix to his book <i>The Origins of the Bible: Rethinking Canon History</i> (New York: Paulist, 1994). In fact, the appendix is entitled: "Note to Bible Publishers".<br /><br />Miller suggests that the terms "Prophets and Apostles" provide a helpful and defensible way of referring to the scripture of both synagogue and church using terms indigenous to both.<br /><br />FWIW!<br /><br />(Miller is an intriguing guy, btw! Always intereting stuff to ponder.)David Reimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17886492671751634816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-76524363234667609762010-02-10T15:11:58.695+00:002010-02-10T15:11:58.695+00:00Robin,
Great issue to discuss!! I know some refer ...Robin,<br />Great issue to discuss!! I know some refer to the OT as the Old(er) Testament and the NT as the New(er) Testament. But boy is that cumbersome. Or the Covenant and the Renewed Covenant. I suppose we must wrestle with the first issue of are we dealing with the TEXT (the body of literary material) or are we speaking of the TIME to which the testaments refer. Once that is settled, then we can begin to tackle how to address labelling these. For my part, if focussing upon the TEXTS, I prefer the title Scriptures for the whole thing, recognising that the OT is Israel's Scriptural heritage (and the Church's heritage as well, cf. 2 Tim 316-17 amongst other places), & the NT focuses this heritage specifically upon Christ and fleshes out what this means for the church. But what a long-winded explanation for two titles 'Old' and 'New' Testaments. Oh well, I just taught on this in my OT! Intro class. Hope you're well!<br /><br />HeathHeathThomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04698340880213698683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-32786554528438617552010-02-10T13:51:04.687+00:002010-02-10T13:51:04.687+00:00Robin,
I've heard the Hebrew/LXX Bible called...Robin,<br /><br />I've heard the Hebrew/LXX Bible called the 2/3 Bible : )<br /><br />Jamesjpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017353888045816159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-29749052220053003862010-02-10T13:27:27.361+00:002010-02-10T13:27:27.361+00:00Hi Robin,
Regarding your preference for the use o...Hi Robin,<br /><br />Regarding your preference for the use of the NT term 'the Scriptures', a case could be made that this was the approach of the NT writers (see 1Tim5v18, 2Peter3v16).<br /><br />BernardBernard Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09864404947725578213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-77850118335232826412010-02-10T12:31:28.994+00:002010-02-10T12:31:28.994+00:00I'd scratch saying "First Scriptures"...I'd scratch saying "First Scriptures" for the Old Testament unless you insist on completely ignoring higher criticism.:)James Goetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02412501436355228925noreply@blogger.com