PDA

View Full Version : Book of Sirach



Joe King
Oct 2nd 2007, 07:59 PM
I have been reading the new american version of the bible.

My favorite book so far is the book of Sirach. I have been looking in other bibles and talking with a few friends that read the Bible (different versions than I) and they don't have the book of Sirach in theirs.

What book is Sirach in other versions of the bible?

Ecclessiastes?

Theophilus
Oct 2nd 2007, 08:22 PM
It's not in the Protestant canon of scripture.

enarchay
Oct 2nd 2007, 08:29 PM
I have been reading the new american version of the bible.

My favorite book so far is the book of Sirach. I have been looking in other bibles and talking with a few friends that read the Bible (different versions than I) and they don't have the book of Sirach in theirs.

What book is Sirach in other versions of the bible?

Ecclessiastes?

Last time I checked, it is a piece of the Apocrypha, contained in the Septuagint (LXX). I have not read it yet, but I suggest you read it with caution (especially if you do not research when it was written, where it was written, and why it was written) because most pieces of the Apocrypha are highly influenced by Hellenistic culture, especially Platoism, were written much later than most of the texts contained in the Hebrew Scriptures, and were ultimately excluded from the Tanakh. The text may contain truths and facts, but the average reader cannot separate truth from myth and fact from fiction.

AlainaJ
Oct 2nd 2007, 09:01 PM
I have read it too. It is in then Apocrypha

http://st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocanon/Deuterocanon-Apocrypha_El-Asfar_El-Kanoneya_El-Tanya__5-Wisdon-of-Joshua-Son-of-Sirach.html

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/sirach.htm

Joe King
Oct 3rd 2007, 10:26 PM
This book has a lot of great and inspiring teachings. I find it hard to believe that a human came up with some of the writings.

My bible is printed by the Catholic press and is the new american version.

Has anyone else read it?

th1bill
Oct 3rd 2007, 11:26 PM
This book has a lot of great and inspiring teachings. I find it hard to believe that a human came up with some of the writings.

My bible is printed by the Catholic press and is the new american version.

Has anyone else read it?
Joe,
.. You are reading a Catholic bible and it will have quite a few books that are not in the Jewish nor in the Christian Canon of scripture.

enarchay
Oct 4th 2007, 12:36 AM
This book has a lot of great and inspiring teachings. I find it hard to believe that a human came up with some of the writings.

That may be so, but that does not change the fact that a human did in fact write it. It may have truths, but it may also have falsities. The problem is, you are probably not prepared to filter the falsities out from the truths.

GothicAngel
Oct 4th 2007, 12:55 AM
That may be so, but that does not change the fact that a human did in fact write it. .

Humans wrote the entire bible

enarchay
Oct 4th 2007, 01:00 AM
Humans wrote the entire bible

Yes, but the humans that wrote the books that are contained in the Protestant canon are, more or less, consistent with each other, especially in doctrine. Some of the books of the Apocrypha, on the other hand, are not entirely concisest with the books of the Jewish canon. The texts of Apocrypha, moreover, were written much later than the Hebrew Scriptures that were accepted into the Jewish canon, some of the texts dating even after 70 C.E. You can see obvious differences from the Apocrypha and the other Hebrew Scriptures that were accepted into the Jewish canon. For example, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon is highly influenced by Platonism: he adopts the doctrine of the immortality of the soul and even, so it seems, the preexistence of the soul.

GothicAngel
Oct 4th 2007, 01:03 AM
Yes, but the humans that wrote the books that are contained in the Protestant canon are, more or less, consistent. The texts of Apocrypha, moreover, were written much later than the Hebrew Scriptures that were accepted into the Jewish canon, some dating even after 70 C.E. You can see obvious differences from the Apocrypha and the other Hebrew Scriptures that were accepted into the Jewish canon. For example, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon is highly influenced by Platonism: he adopts the doctrine of the immortality of the soul and even, so it seems, the preexistence of the soul.
The humans are consistent?

Are you saying the soul isnt immortal?

Where in Wisdom does it say the soul preexists?

Could you give me some more examples?

enarchay
Oct 4th 2007, 01:14 AM
Are you saying the soul isnt immortal?Not from a Hebrew Scriptural perspective.


Where in Wisdom does it say the soul preexists? Come to think of it, sort of sounds like a doctrine of transmigration.

"For I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. Yea rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled" (Wis 8:19-20).

There's other examples of Hellenism in the Apocrypha, but I can't point them all out yet. I'm still reading the Apocrypha, to be honest.

The Parson
Oct 4th 2007, 01:24 AM
If this thread is heading on the direction I think it may, this thread is probably going to be moved to World Religions. The apocrpha is not considered inspired scripture because of it's disagreement with the Old and New Testaments. If this discussion is heading towards defending it as scriptures, it does not belong in this section of the board as it is a Roman Catholic matter, not a Protestant one.

enarchay
Oct 4th 2007, 01:33 AM
The apocrpha is not considered inspired scripture because of it's disagreement with the Old and New Testaments.That is, more or less, what I was trying to explain. However, to the contrary of others, perhaps, I believe there may be truths in the Apocrypha that do, in fact, align with what the Hebrew Scriptures have to say. The problem is, the average reader will neglect to research when, where, and why the text he is reading was written. He also will not be able to separate the fact from fiction; in other words, the Apocrypha is sort of like The Da Vinci code. No doubt the Apocrypha is extremely useful for historical purposes and for understanding what the first century Jews, and perhaps the authors of the New Testament, believed (e.g. bodily resurrection, the abomination of desolation, and so on), but again, not for the average reader. The best, brief advice I can give is to take the Apocrypha with a grain of salt. I fear too many people read the Apocrypha, at first glance thinking it is wholly inspired and aligning with the Protestant canon, when, in fact, they have little knowledge about the Protestant canon in the first place; I was one of those people once.

The Parson
Oct 4th 2007, 01:36 AM
Thank you enarchay... OK folks, this one is in World Religions.

GothicAngel
Oct 4th 2007, 12:35 PM
Joe,
.. You are reading a Catholic bible and it will have quite a few books that are not in the Jewish nor in the Christian Canon of scripture.
Catholics are Christians. The Catholic canon is a Christian canon.

th1bill
Oct 4th 2007, 03:41 PM
Catholics are Christians. The Catholic canon is a Christian canon.
.. Alright, I'll try to be nice but you read into my statement that which I did not nor did I intend to say. I never said that all Catholics were not Christians just as I will tell you that most people in the Protestant Church are not Christians, the same is true of the Catholic Church, but enough of that. Please cease fire, childish spats are just that.
.. As for the Catholic Cannon, there is no such thing. Please do everyone a favor and study before you get fighting mad again. The Canon of the Bible was executed before the Council ever ratified the canon of the Bible. And the Bishops and the Pope did not add the other books for a long time thereafter.

punk
Oct 4th 2007, 11:20 PM
That is, more or less, what I was trying to explain. However, to the contrary of others, perhaps, I believe there may be truths in the Apocrypha that do, in fact, align with what the Hebrew Scriptures have to say. The problem is, the average reader will neglect to research when, where, and why the text he is reading was written. He also will not be able to separate the fact from fiction; in other words, the Apocrypha is sort of like The Da Vinci code. No doubt the Apocrypha is extremely useful for historical purposes and for understanding what the first century Jews, and perhaps the authors of the New Testament, believed (e.g. bodily resurrection, the abomination of desolation, and so on), but again, not for the average reader. The best, brief advice I can give is to take the Apocrypha with a grain of salt. I fear too many people read the Apocrypha, at first glance thinking it is wholly inspired and aligning with the Protestant canon, when, in fact, they have little knowledge about the Protestant canon in the first place; I was one of those people once.

I have to strongly disagree with this.

Even those people in the early church who disputed the canonicity of the Apocrypha asserted that the Apocrypha were the next best thing to the Bible, and should be read by all.

They merely argued they should be given less weight than the canon.

Martin Luther too asserted this about the Apocrypha, and about those New Testament books he felt were not canonical.

No, there should be no debate that every believer should read the Apocrypha.

No debate at all.

There should only be a debate as to how much weight to give the contents of the Apocrypha relative to the rest of the Bible.

I suppose the only believer with an excuse for not being familiar with the Apocrypha is the person that read the Bible and nothing else.

The Parson
Oct 4th 2007, 11:23 PM
There should only be a debate as to how much weight to give the contents of the Apocrypha relative to the rest of the Bible.

I suppose the only believer with an excuse for not being familiar with the Apocrypha is the person that read the Bible and nothing else.So how should such a debate go in your opinion Punk... Good to see you again...

punk
Oct 4th 2007, 11:33 PM
Here's my analysis of the issue in bullets:

* the canon of scripture comprises those texts sufficient for the making of doctrines taught by the church

* all books in the canon are inspired, but this is not to say that there are not inspired books outside the canon.

* the canon is not simply the set of all inspired books

* there are plenty of books out there that are not canon (and thus do not suffice for the formulation of doctrines) that edify the reader

* the church is concerned with the formulation of doctrines and not the believer

* the believer is simply concerned with being edified, and become therewith nearer to God

* so books which are edifying should be studied by the believer even if they are not canon

* at the very least the church has taught (until very recently) that the Apocrypha fell into the category of non-canonical yet inspired, and so edifying (though some have taught that the Apocrypha are canon).

==> So unless you are formulating a doctrine there is no reason to not read the Apocrypha

==> It is only if you are in the position of formulating a doctrine that this debate matters, and must be considered only in that specific context

The Parson
Oct 4th 2007, 11:40 PM
Here's my analysis of the issue in bullets:

* the canon of scripture comprises those texts sufficient for the making of doctrines taught by the church

* all books in the canon are inspired, but this is not to say that there are not inspired books outside the canon.

* the canon is not simply the set of all inspired books

* there are plenty of books out there that are not canon (and thus do not suffice for the formulation of doctrines) that edify the reader

* the church is concerned with the formulation of doctrines and not the believer

* the believer is simply concerned with being edified, and become therewith nearer to God

* so books which are edifying should be studied by the believer even if they are not canon

* at the very least the church has taught (until very recently) that the Apocrypha fell into the category of non-canonical yet inspired, and so edifying (though some have taught that the Apocrypha are canon).

==> So unless you are formulating a doctrine there is no reason to not read the Apocrypha

==> It is only if you are in the position of formulating a doctrine that this debate matters, and must be considered only in that specific contextSo then would we begin this debate with something like a definition of inspiration or of agreement with the already accepted scripture?

punk
Oct 4th 2007, 11:45 PM
I suppose you'd have to debate:

1. What it means for a book to be inspired, and how do we determine if a particular book is inspired.

2. What is the purpose of canonizing books.

The Parson
Oct 4th 2007, 11:48 PM
I suppose you'd have to debate:

1. What it means for a book to be inspired, and how do we determine if a particular book is inspired.

2. What is the purpose of canonizing books.And my answer probably to spark that debate is that if something is to be considered scripture, second only to the consideration of it's author, it must not disagree with the Old Testament, the Gospels, or the letters. The scriptures themselves would then become the judge if you will, of what would be accepted. True?

punk
Oct 4th 2007, 11:55 PM
And my answer probably to spark that debate is that if something is to be considered scripture, second only to the consideration of it's author, it must not disagree with the Old Testament, the Gospels, or the letters. The scriptures themselves would then become the judge if you will, of what would be accepted. True?

Only if you can tell me how you decided the protestant old and new testaments are to be determined to be inspired.

No, no, if we are going to inquire into how we determine if a text is inspired we are starting from scratch.

Imagine you have a pile of old texts in front of you including the protestant Bible (separated into component books of course), and all the other extra-biblical flotsam. How are you going to decide what is inspired?

GothicAngel
Oct 5th 2007, 12:38 PM
.. Alright, I'll try to be nice but you read into my statement that which I did not nor did I intend to say. I never said that all Catholics were not Christians just as I will tell you that most people in the Protestant Church are not Christians, the same is true of the Catholic Church, but enough of that.

So if there are Christians in both groups, why did you call the Protestant canon the Christian one?



Please cease fire, childish spats are just that.
.. As for the Catholic Cannon, there is no such thing. Please do everyone a favor and study before you get fighting mad again. The Canon of the Bible was executed before the Council ever ratified the canon of the Bible. And the Bishops and the Pope did not add the other books for a long time thereafter.

First I will show you where the canon was Not decided before the Council, and how some early Christains Did use the Cathlics books.

These are early Church Fathers and what books of the Catholics books they accepted/did not accept.

-St. Melito of Sardis (late 100s): Wisdom.

-Origen in his Commentaries on The Psalms: Maccabees, Baruch.

-Canons of the Council of Laodecia: Baruch.

-St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechital Lectures (350s): Baruch.

-St. Hilary of Poetiers in his Commentaries on the Psalms (mid 300s): Tobit, Judith.

-Decree of Pope St. Damasus I: Judith, Tobit, Macc, Sirach, Wisdom

-Apostolic Canons (c.400): Sirach, Macc.

-Rufinus in his Explanation of the Apostles Creed (c400): Sirach, Wisdom, Macc, Judith, Tobit, the Shephard of Hermas.

-St. Jerome in his Helmeted Prolouge (c400): Macc; rejected Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, the Shephard of Hermas.

-St. Augustine in his Christian Instruction: Tobit, Judith, Macc, Wisdom, Sirach.

-Pope St. Innocent I: Wisdom, Judith, Macc, Sirach.

-Macarius Magnes (c500): rejected Wisdom, Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit.

-St. John Damascene in his The Source of Knowledge: rejected Wisdom, Sirach.

Second: you show me where the canon of the bible was decided before the Council of Trent (if thats the one your talking about), or how the popes added the books then (implying they were never accpted beforehand).

The Parson
Oct 5th 2007, 01:34 PM
Only if you can tell me how you decided the protestant old and new testaments are to be determined to be inspired.

No, no, if we are going to inquire into how we determine if a text is inspired we are starting from scratch.

Imagine you have a pile of old texts in front of you including the protestant Bible (separated into component books of course), and all the other extra-biblical flotsam. How are you going to decide what is inspired?No need to start from scratch in this instance though Punk. I figured we would start with the book of Sirach.

punk
Oct 5th 2007, 05:29 PM
No need to start from scratch in this instance though Punk. I figured we would start with the book of Sirach.

We are, we just need a procedure for determining if any odd book is inspired.

th1bill
Oct 5th 2007, 09:22 PM
So if there are Christians in both groups, why did you call the Protestant canon the Christian one?

Do you know how annoying it is for you to make comments on what you think I said while you ignore the context of my comment? The fact is that the Protestant Church rose up out of the Catholic Church and therefore did not exist prior to Martin Luther's declaration of the truth causing the movement. However, in Antioch and many other Mideast cities there existed Christian Churches that executed the Canon of scripture. Since the Catholics did not exist for some time after that time the Canon was not executed by Catholics not by Protestants.

Now, I do not know why you have come here looking for a fight but that is exactly what you have done and you are presently not just breaking the rules of the Forum, you are trying to involve me in your sin and I am going to refuse once more and I am going to ask you again, please stand down, your putting words in my mouth that were never spoken by me and that will just get you into trouble with the moderators here. If you are, as you appear to be, a Catholic Agitator, you have found the wrong forum for such goings on.

Good day and may God bless you and calm your spirit.

The Parson
Oct 5th 2007, 09:25 PM
OK, chill out folks. That's enough. Continue with the conversation without the personal accusations or the thread will be closed.

The Parson
Oct 5th 2007, 09:37 PM
Second: you show me where the canon of the bible was decided before the Council of Trent (if thats the one your talking about), or how the popes added the books then (implying they were never accpted beforehand).To end the arguement there, the bible as we know it more or less, was first compiled in the Piedmont Valley by the group of Christians known as the Vaudois about 120 AD. It was called the Old Itala Bible. Later it was named the Waldenessian Bible for the Waldenessian Christians who kept it alive. This was the first common Latin Bible and the first to carry the name Vulgate meaning common Latin. It was the letters from Antioch translated into Latin from the original Greek. Some carried translations from the original Hebrew O.T. but more commonly from the Spetuagent. It did not contain the books of the apochrapha nor would the Vaudois allow it.

punk
Oct 5th 2007, 09:42 PM
To end the arguement there, the bible as we know it more or less, was first compiled in the Piedmont Valley by the group of Christians known as the Vaudois about 120 AD. It was called the Old Itala Bible. Later it was named the Waldenessian Bible for the Waldenessian Christians who kept it alive. This was the first common Latin Bible and the first to carry the name Vulgate meaning common Latin. It was the letters from Antioch translated into Latin from the original Greek. Some carried translations from the original Hebrew O.T. but more commonly from the Spetuagent. It did not contain the books of the apochrapha nor would the Vaudois allow it.

Words don't express how wrong I think the above is.

But that was another thread at another time.

;)

KATA_LOUKAN
Oct 9th 2007, 07:22 PM
To end the arguement there, the bible as we know it more or less, was first compiled in the Piedmont Valley by the group of Christians known as the Vaudois about 120 AD. It was called the Old Itala Bible. Later it was named the Waldenessian Bible for the Waldenessian Christians who kept it alive. This was the first common Latin Bible and the first to carry the name Vulgate meaning common Latin. It was the letters from Antioch translated into Latin from the original Greek. Some carried translations from the original Hebrew O.T. but more commonly from the Spetuagent. It did not contain the books of the apochrapha nor would the Vaudois allow it.

Where do you get this information from? This seems almost like a work of pure fabrication. (note: the vulgate contains the protestant apocrypha)



Does anyone here know how the canon was determined by the Jews?

Answer: At the time of Christ, there were three canons of scripture. The Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the other Jews all had their own variants of scripture. The Sadducees accepted only the first five books of the OT. The Pharisees accepted the modern Protestant canon, and the other Jews (outside of Palestine) accepted the Septuagent.

In terms of which is correct, that is purely a matter of which tradition you choose to follow. Catholic and Orthodox people will tell you one thing while Protestants will tell you another.

The Parson
Oct 9th 2007, 07:54 PM
Where do you get this information from? This seems almost like a work of pure fabrication. (note: the vulgate contains the protestant apocrypha)



Does anyone here know how the canon was determined by the Jews?

Answer: At the time of Christ, there were three canons of scripture. The Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the other Jews all had their own variants of scripture. The Sadducees accepted only the first five books of the OT. The Pharisees accepted the modern Protestant canon, and the other Jews (outside of Palestine) accepted the Septuagent.

In terms of which is correct, that is purely a matter of which tradition you choose to follow. Catholic and Orthodox people will tell you one thing while Protestants will tell you another.Modern References:
In Awe of Thy Word by Riplinger.
One Book Stands Alone by Stauffer
Final Authority by Grady
Gipps Understandable History of the Bible by Gipp
An Examination of Modern New Testament Text Criticism Theory and Methods by Young

More antiquated references.
Papers by Dr. J.M. Pendleton circa 1850's
Papers by G.R. Graves circa 1860's

I like this one. Although I don't thoroughly agree with Chicks methods, I would say I trust about 99% of his publications. He is on the Catholic hit list of Heretics as am I probably...
Ref: Did The Catholic Church Give Us The Bible by Daniels...

Oh, and KATA, there are two Vulgates! The original known as the Old Itala, which is the one I reffered to and the Roman Catholic Vulgate which I will not take the time to tell what credibility I place in its readings.

punk
Oct 9th 2007, 10:13 PM
Modern References:
In Awe of Thy Word by Riplinger.
One Book Stands Alone by Stauffer
Final Authority by Grady
Gipps Understandable History of the Bible by Gipp
An Examination of Modern New Testament Text Criticism Theory and Methods by Young

More antiquated references.
Papers by Dr. J.M. Pendleton circa 1850's
Papers by G.R. Graves circa 1860's

I like this one. Although I don't thoroughly agree with Chicks methods, I would say I trust about 99% of his publications. He is on the Catholic hit list of Heretics as am I probably...
Ref: Did The Catholic Church Give Us The Bible by Daniels...

Oh, and KATA, there are two Vulgates! The original known as the Old Itala, which is the one I reffered to and the Roman Catholic Vulgate which I will not take the time to tell what credibility I place in its readings.

Do any of those books give a standard for determining the inspiration of a text?

GothicAngel
Oct 9th 2007, 10:34 PM
To end the arguement there, the bible as we know it more or less, was first compiled in the Piedmont Valley by the group of Christians known as the Vaudois about 120 AD. It was called the Old Itala Bible. Later it was named the Waldenessian Bible for the Waldenessian Christians who kept it alive. This was the first common Latin Bible and the first to carry the name Vulgate meaning common Latin. It was the letters from Antioch translated into Latin from the original Greek. Some carried translations from the original Hebrew O.T. but more commonly from the Spetuagent. It did not contain the books of the apochrapha nor would the Vaudois allow it.
And the canon was decided then?

If so, how come later authors said parts/the whole of the Apocrypha (and one The Shepherd was canonical?

The Parson
Oct 10th 2007, 04:05 AM
Do any of those books give a standard for determining the inspiration of a text?Yes sir, they do.

Dr. J. M. Pendleton wrote in several of his works:

We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture of error for its matter; that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.He went on to say in his anylsis:

whole heartedly then, would the early brethren agree; unless the scriptures we hold dear as divinely inspired word of God, would also agree in content or they in no wise would be considered scripture at all.

In the article, The Canon of the Bible by William Evans, Copyrited 1902, Brother Evans made a plain statement about how canon was chosen. Because the copyright is over a century old, I don't believe there is a problem posting it here. I've been told that many of his works were in reference to Dr. Pendletons work to some degree.


HOW THE BOOKS WERE TRANSMITTED
There are no original manuscripts of any of the Bible books known to be in existence today. Perhaps God's wisdom is evident in this, for if any of them did exist, some people might be tempted to worship them as idols.

Humanly speaking, the absence of any originals or even of the earliest copies is explainable on the ground of the perishableness of the materials and the Jewish custom not to tolerate any soiled or worn-out copies of their Scriptures. These were either burned or buried.

Since there were no printing presses in Bible times, the various books had to be reproduced by hand. They were written on baked clay tablets, on parchment (sheepskin), on paper made of the papyrus reed, and later on vellum (calfskin). The copying was done with extreme and conscientious care.

In spite of the extreme care exercised in copying the Bible books, minor errors inevitably crept in through the course of the centuries. Hence there arose what are known as variations in the manuscripts. A great many of these have been listed, but scholars are of the opinion that not a single variation vitally affects any basic Christian truth.

In order to determine as nearly as possible what the original text was, a vast amount of scholarship has been expended in the study of old manuscripts, early translations, quotations from and references to the Bible in other ancient writings.

As a result of able, extensive, and painstaking textual scholarship it may be confidently affirmed that we possess today the Bible books essentially as they came from the inspired writers.Brother Evans went on later in his work to comment on the Apocrypha:


The Apocryphal Books.

These books derive their name from a Greek word, apokruphos, which means "hidden." They are so called because they are,--(1) hidden; (2) of unknown authority; (3) spurious. They were not recognized as inspired books by the Jews, who regarded them, however as having high authority, and held them in high esteem as being a valuable history of their nation.

Although they were carefully distinguished from the canonical Scriptures, their use was not only allowed, but many of them are quoted in Talmudical writings. They were given a place by themselves in the sacred volume, but with the distinct statement that they were not to be regarded as of equal authority with the books of the canon, their position being between the Old and New Testaments. We find them in some Bibles today, especially in Roman Catholic Bibles, since they are regarded by the roman church as inspired books.

The Parson
Oct 10th 2007, 04:10 AM
And the canon was decided then?

If so, how come later authors said parts/the whole of the Apocrypha (and one The Shepherd was canonical?Are you familiar with the term "revisionist historian"? Some people believe that newer conclusions take presidence over older ones. In the case of scripture, I tend to disreguard that school of thought.

KATA_LOUKAN
Oct 10th 2007, 09:54 AM
Written in a down-to-earth style, and packed with cartoon illustrations by Jack Chick, Daniels shows that the Bibles Rome gave us are really clever counterfeits, designed to eliminate God's preserved words in English, the KJV. You will see why the KJV is the only Bible you can trust.


I just saw this for the book Did the Catholic Church Give us the Bible?

This is a non-scholarly source, and is rather bizarre considering that the original KVJ had the protestant apocrypha.


They were not recognized as inspired books by the Jews, who regarded them, however as having high authority, and held them in high esteem as being a valuable history of their nation.

Although they were carefully distinguished from the canonical Scriptures, their use was not only allowed, but many of them are quoted in Talmudical writings. They were given a place by themselves in the sacred volume, but with the distinct statement that they were not to be regarded as of equal authority with the books of the canon, their position being between the Old and New Testaments. We find them in some Bibles today, especially in Roman Catholic Bibles, since they are regarded by the roman church as inspired books.

Question: If they were not regarded as inspired by the Jews (which they were, just not the Pharisees in Jerusalem) why are they referenced in the Talmud and the Bible?


Also - The old Latin versions (which contained a great number of mistakes) contain the book (Sirach) in question.

http://www.vetuslatina.org/

Here is a website detailing the translation. Also, wikipedia is helpful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetus_Latina


This is the danger of trusting nut cases (and I say this not to insult anyone who has read Jack Chick in the past) like Mr. Chick. I think it would be more reasonable to assume that we CANNOT trust 99% of the things Jack Chick says. In addition to never citing sources or doing anything "scholarly", Jack Chick uses little pictures to convey his message rather than facts.

Jack Chick (who is, by the way, a recluse) thinks that 100% of all Christians who disagree with him are going directly to hell.

EDIT: I just found some delightful things that Mr. Chick also claims.


Jesuit superspies are covertly infiltrating Protestant churches in order to destroy them.
Pregnant nuns secretly bury the bodies of their murdered babies on church grounds.
Catholic superspies (above) target Protestant ministers by planting seductive teens in their congregations and framing them for rape. The really stubborn Protestants are murdered by the Catholic secret service.
Catholics are engaged in a massive conspiracy with the Masons to conquer the world.

GothicAngel
Oct 10th 2007, 01:24 PM
Are you familiar with the term "revisionist historian"? Some people believe that newer conclusions take presidence over older ones. In the case of scripture, I tend to disreguard that school of thought.
Newer conclusions over older ones?

May I request that you read this (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1401772&postcount=24) post that I made? I have a list of 13 Early Church Fathers and councils and the canons they accepeted, 11 of which did not agree with the Protestant canon.

Also, could you bring up some citation of where the bible written in 120 AD was a final, authoritative bible?

GothicAngel
Oct 10th 2007, 01:25 PM
Catholic superspies (above) target Protestant ministers by planting seductive teens in their congregations and framing them for rape. The really stubborn Protestants are murdered by the Catholic secret service.

:rofl:

Its true though... those sneaksy Jesuits...

The Parson
Oct 10th 2007, 02:19 PM
Loving History as I do, I know all too well what the romish church is capable of, but that is material for another thread. I would not discount what is written there too quick.

What have you been taught concerning the apocrypha and the inquisitions? You do know what the inquisitions were don't you?

The Parson
Oct 10th 2007, 02:49 PM
Newer conclusions over older ones?

May I request that you read this (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1401772&postcount=24) post that I made? I have a list of 13 Early Church Fathers and councils and the canons they accepeted, 11 of which did not agree with the Protestant canon.

Also, could you bring up some citation of where the bible written in 120 AD was a final, authoritative bible?It was authoritative to the ones who used it because they trusted the source. They indeed DID NOT need an edict or proclaimation from any other source other than the Lord God by His Holy Spirit. So much so that the Waldeness continued on to the 1600's and beyond using it.

You are making a error filled conclusion that I as an anabaptist or my protestant brethern here accept any authority proclaimed by an error filled orgainzation like the RCC. We do not. It was those same counsels you mentioned that flung anethema's against our people through the centuries for not trusting or allowing error to creep into a pure Gospel from unscriptural sources. Not to mention the Roman Catholic back yard Bar-B-Ques, where we were the main course.

Weather the subject be the error filled books of the apocrypha, the apostacy of transubtantiation, the foolishness of pergatory, the idolotry of Mary worship or Mariolotry, the audasity of induldgences, the presumptions of infant baptism, or any other nonsense, you shouldn't expect those who trust only on the Lord God and His authoritive Scriptures to buy into it. Again, material for another thread.

And I made a point to mention Jack Chick for the sake of showing the contempt the popish bunch have for him.

Teke
Oct 10th 2007, 03:58 PM
Brother Evans went on later in his work to comment on the Apocrypha:

Mr Evans is propagating there are 'mysterious' (hidden, secret) books of scripture in using the term "apocrypha". So I feel the need to post again their not mysterious.;)

The Deuterocanonical books are the seven books Tobit, Judith, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch plus the additional texts in Esther and Daniel that are found in the Catholic Old Testament but not in the Hebrew canon.

The Hebrew canon is the list of books that comprise the present day Jewish Bible. These are called the protocanonical books. "Proto" means first whereas "deutero" means second. Sixtus of Siena (152O-1569 AD) was a Biblical scholar and a Jewish convert to Catholicism. He was the first to call the seven additional books together with the longer editions of Esther and Daniel that the Christians had in their Old Testament the "Deuterocanonical" books, but when he did this, he did not intend that one list was more certain or more inspired than the other, but merely that there were two lists. Likewise, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation are the Deuterocanonical books of the New Testament. Although there canonicity was questioned by some in the early church they are equally inspired.

The Parson
Oct 10th 2007, 04:17 PM
Mr Evans is propagating there are 'mysterious' (hidden, secret) books of scripture in using the term "apocrypha". So I feel the need to post again their not mysterious.;)

The Deuterocanonical books are the seven books Tobit, Judith, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch plus the additional texts in Esther and Daniel that are found in the Catholic Old Testament but not in the Hebrew canon.

The Hebrew canon is the list of books that comprise the present day Jewish Bible. These are called the protocanonical books. "Proto" means first whereas "deutero" means second. Sixtus of Siena (152O-1569 AD) was a Biblical scholar and a Jewish convert to Catholicism. He was the first to call the seven additional books together with the longer editions of Esther and Daniel that the Christians had in their Old Testament the "Deuterocanonical" books, but when he did this, he did not intend that one list was more certain or more inspired than the other, but merely that there were two lists. Likewise, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation are the Deuterocanonical books of the New Testament. Although there canonicity was questioned by some in the early church they are equally inspired.I'm not convinced that he is sis, but if you perceive it that way, I won't sway you one way or the other. I honestly don't believe he was. Do you have his work to reference?

Teke
Oct 10th 2007, 04:41 PM
I'm not convinced that he is sis, but if you perceive it that way, I won't sway you one way or the other. I honestly don't believe he was. Do you have his work to reference?

No I do not have his work to reference. But if you do, perhaps you can show how he came to this conclusion, "These books derive their name from a Greek word, apokruphos". Since that word is not used of canon in any ancient texts or in any of the councils which decided canon.

While I understand why a Protestant would do such in attacking the RC, using any terminology possible, even if the RC doesn't use such terminology (which doesn't help their argument), I do not understand why a scholar would.

But then perhaps Mr Evans is a Protestant of the Lutheran variety.:dunno:

The Parson
Oct 10th 2007, 04:46 PM
No Teke, he is of the anabaptist variety. I'll look and see if it is online. If Not I'll scan the chapter for you.

The Parson
Oct 10th 2007, 04:54 PM
Here ya go Teke:
http://www.anabaptists.org/history/howwegot.html

Teke
Oct 10th 2007, 04:54 PM
No Teke, he is of the anabaptist variety. I'll look and see if it is online. If Not I'll scan the chapter for you.

I don't know that I need a chapter, just an answer to the statement that the books derive their name from that Greek word.

The Parson
Oct 11th 2007, 01:52 AM
I don't know that I need a chapter, just an answer to the statement that the books derive their name from that Greek word.You are making me do my homework here Teke... News at 11 or answer when I find out.

The Parson
Oct 11th 2007, 02:10 AM
From reading the remainder of the article Teke, it would appear he is using the name Apocrypha simply as a reference because he isn't pointing to them as what he would not define as scripture. Are you saying he is being contemptable in the use of it? My guess would be yes. You'll have to forgive me not getting what you are asking.

Here is that entire section ma'am...


These books derive their name from a Greek word, apokruphos, which means "hidden." They are so called because they are,--(1) hidden; (2) of unknown authority; (3) spurious. They were not recognized as inspired books by the Jews, who regarded them, however as having high authority, and held them in high esteem as being a valuable history of their nation. Although they were carefully distinguished from the canonical Scriptures, their use was not only allowed, but many of them are quoted in Talmudical writings. They were given a place by themselves in the sacred volume, but with the distinct statement that they were not to be regarded as of equal authority with the books of the canon, their position being between the Old and New Testaments. We find them in some Bibles to-day--especially in Roman Catholic Bibles, since they are regarded by the roman church as inspired books.

The Apocrypha contains fourteen books, namely, 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the rest of Esther, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Song of the Three Children, the Story of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasses, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. it is true that by some of the fathers of the Christian church a few of these books have been quoted as canonical, but they were not looked on in this light; nor were their titles included in any list of canonical writings during the first four centuries after the birth of our Lord. It was not, indeed, until the Council of Trent, in 1545, that they were definitely declared to be an integral portion of Holy Scripture as acknowledged by the Romish church. "Philo," says Angus, "never quotes them as he does the sacred Scriptures; and Josephus expressly excludes them. The Jewish church never received them as part of the canon, and they are never quoted either by our Lord or by His apostles; a fact the more striking as St. Paul twice quotes heathen poets. It is remarkable, too, that the last inspired prophet closes his predictions by recommending to his countrymen the books of Moses, and intimates that no other messenger is to be expected by them till the coming of the second Elijah (Mal. 4:4-6) * * * Internal evidence, moreover, is against their inspiration. Divine authority is claimed by none of the writers, and by some it is virtually disowned (2 Mac. 2:23; 15:38). The books contain statements at variance with history (Baruch 1:2, compared with Jer. 43:6,7), self-contradictory, and opposed to the doctrines and precepts of Scripture."

For what, then, can the Apocryphal books be esteemed useful? In the Church of England some parts of them are read "for example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine." By no Protestant church are these writings held to be the rule of faith, and contrasted with the canonical books, they are utterly without authority. From a historical point of view they are of value in showing the condition of the Jewish people, and relating certain events that intervene between the closing of the Old Testament and the opening of the Christian era.

These facts sufficiently indicate the course of the argument by which the canonicity of the sacred Scriptures is proved. Let it be proven that these books were written by the men whose names they bear, and that these men wrote under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, and the canonicity of the Bible is a settled fact. We have, therefore, a right to believe that we have in our Bible a rule of faith and life--yea, the supreme and ultimate rule--by which we may govern our lives in order that they may be in accordance with the revealed will of God.

Quote from: The Canon of the Bible by William Evans, Copyrited 1902

KATA_LOUKAN
Oct 11th 2007, 07:25 AM
it is true that by some of the fathers of the Christian church a few of these books have been quoted as canonical, but they were not looked on in this light;

Then why are they quoted as canonical?


It was not, indeed, until the Council of Trent, in 1545, that they were definitely declared to be an integral portion of Holy Scripture as acknowledged by the Romish church.

History begs to differ. Note that the NT canon was not officially defined until the late 4th century.

Council of Rome


"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).


Council of Hippo


"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).


Council of Carthage III


"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).



The Jewish church never received them as part of the canon, and they are never quoted either by our Lord or by His apostles; a fact the more striking as St. Paul twice quotes heathen poets.

Again, the Jews around Jerusalem had their own canons. The NT references them many times.


These facts sufficiently indicate the course of the argument by which the canonicity of the sacred Scriptures is proved. Let it be proven that these books were written by the men whose names they bear, and that these men wrote under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, and the canonicity of the Bible is a settled fact. We have, therefore, a right to believe that we have in our Bible a rule of faith and life--yea, the supreme and ultimate rule--by which we may govern our lives in order that they may be in accordance with the revealed will of God.


This is still not a very clear reference to what defines canon. Please find any variant canon throughout the history of the church until the 16th century.

As evangelical christians, we must be aware that our biblical canon was not officially put together until the time of Luther. This is ok, because the Bible is a guidebook for our lives, and not God. We dont want to be accused of confusing the Bible with God.


Weather the subject be the error filled books of the apocrypha, the apostacy of transubtantiation, the foolishness of pergatory, the idolotry of Mary worship or Mariolotry, the audasity of induldgences, the presumptions of infant baptism, or any other nonsense, you shouldn't expect those who trust only on the Lord God and His authoritive Scriptures to buy into it. Again, material for another thread.


Agreed! This is where we differ from the Catholics, although this is indeed another thread. Here lies the weakness of Catholicism.

And lets remain charitable, shall we? There was a time when all the believers on the earth were catholic (or orthodox), so when we talk about the Roman Church, lets not be insulting.

DSK
Oct 11th 2007, 10:24 AM
What I like in the book of Sirach

Sirach 5:8 Delay not your conversion to the Lord, put it not off from day to day

Sirach 9:7-8 Gaze not about the lanes of the city and wander not through its squares; avert your eyes from a comely woman; gaze not upon the beauty of another's wife - through woman's beauty many perish, for lust it burns like fire.

Sirach 15:14 When God, in the beginning created man, he made him subject to his own free choice.

Sirach 21:8 He who builds his house with another's money is collecting stones for his fineral mound.

What I dislike about the book of Sirach

Sirach 7:33 be generous to all the living, and withhold not your kindness from the dead

pnewton
Oct 11th 2007, 01:36 PM
And I made a point to mention Jack Chick for the sake of showing the contempt the popish bunch have for him.Not just him, but also the word "popish."

Teke
Oct 11th 2007, 02:39 PM
From reading the remainder of the article Teke, it would appear he is using the name Apocrypha simply as a reference because he isn't pointing to them as what he would not define as scripture. Are you saying he is being contemptable in the use of it? My guess would be yes. You'll have to forgive me not getting what you are asking.

Here is that entire section ma'am...

Well, since you posted it,:P he sounds contradictory to someone who knows better. For instance,
"they are never quoted either by our Lord or by His apostles;"
That is just not true. I've ref. them many times, not long ago even posted a short list.

It doesn't really make sense, to me anyway, in the case of Protestants who believe the RC misled or withheld from them wisdom or some spiritual treasure of scripture.
But then there are many western Christians who do not realize where scripture came from or how it was decided. This man only makes matters worse in writing such information rather than try to educate so one can make a well informed decision.

Actually the church never withheld anything of scripture, but reinforced the foundation with patristics. The patristic approach was the normal historical approach to scripture, always. I firmly believe in this approach, as I'm sure anyone who has read them would agree. Patristics is what gives us more meaning of scripture.

But, yes, I do think he is being contentious in his rhetoric on this subject creating a shibboleth. Not what us Orthodox would call 'conciliar', so not informative.

Teke
Oct 11th 2007, 02:42 PM
What I like in the book of Sirach

Sirach 5:8 Delay not your conversion to the Lord, put it not off from day to day

Sirach 9:7-8 Gaze not about the lanes of the city and wander not through its squares; avert your eyes from a comely woman; gaze not upon the beauty of another's wife - through woman's beauty many perish, for lust it burns like fire.

Sirach 15:14 When God, in the beginning created man, he made him subject to his own free choice.

Sirach 21:8 He who builds his house with another's money is collecting stones for his fineral mound.

What I dislike about the book of Sirach

Sirach 7:33 be generous to all the living, and withhold not your kindness from the dead

We could do this with the whole bible.:cool:

The Parson
Oct 11th 2007, 03:21 PM
Not just him, but also the word "popish."Did I do that again? Sorry pnewton. I'll try not to let that slip out again. It was unintentional.

Steven3
Oct 11th 2007, 04:01 PM
Hi Teke, folks

We could do this with the whole bible.:cool:Well in some ways actually DSK's approach is quite a useful exercise for someone with a firm OT/NT foundation - for example the fact that Sirach is immortal-soulist would make it stick out in the OT context, but yes, generally in the wrong hands it wouldn't be a good approach. If we look as some of the reviews on Amazon of people going wild over books that didn't even make it into the Apocrypha, what folk like in a book is usually going to be all the things that contradict the Bible.

On the Apocrypha : we don't have to make it this complicated. 37 of the 39 proto-canonical books of the OT are established because the core of the NT quotes them as scripture (the other 2 being Esther and Song of Songs are not going to radically change the shape of the Protestant OT either way. I'd prefer them in not out, though if they were moved to the deuteros the NT Gospel wouldn't cave in).

As regards Sirach : I know some people believe Sirach is quoted in the NT - there's a list of allusions here in appendix B at the back of my UBS Greek NT - Luk1:52=Sir10:14 etc - but I can't see one that really matches up with Sirach. Even if they aren't just coincidence they still aren't hard quotes in the way that the NT quotes Deuteronomy or Isaiah. While I don't think Paul would have put Sirach in the "Jewish fables" Titus 1:14 category (to which most of the Pseudepigrapha and Dead Sea Scrolls do belong), it still wouldn't cut it as "scripture". The NT isn't passive about these books - Paul may have left his disciple Clement of Rome thinking one deuterocanonical (Judith) was okay, but otherwise Titus 1:14 refers to exactly the stuff that was rejected from the OT by both Jews and Christians.

God bless
Steven

Teke
Oct 11th 2007, 06:07 PM
Steven, I haven't heard before what you put forth about Titus and Sirach.

James has many phrases in common with Sirach.
Jesus, in the sermon on the mount quotes from Tolbit, Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon. ie. compare Sirach 28:2 to Matt. 6:14 and Mark 2:25

Steven3
Oct 12th 2007, 07:19 AM
Heya Teke :)
Steven, I haven't heard before what you put forth about Titus and Sirach.Well, somewhere there's a line between non-dangerous deuterocanonicals like Judith and dangerous pseudepigrapha like - to pick the dog of dogs, 1 Enoch.


Jesus, in the sermon on the mount quotes from Tolbit, Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon. ie. compare Sirach 28:2 to Matt. 6:14 and Mark 2:25

Sirach 28:2 Forgive your neighbor's injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven.

Mm. Really ought to stir up the energy to put LXX and Greek NT side by side, sorry, lazy ;), but in the English this isn't much more than a general similarity, drawing on common sources in the OT - the idea of don't forgive others and God won't forgive you didn't originate with Jesus, it's found all through the OT. It's been many years since I went through these Sirach quotes - I'd have no objection to recognising a quote of Sirach (after all Paul quotes Aratus and Epimenedes) it's just that when I last did this exercise I was somewhat underwhelmed by the supposed similarities. They aren't direct quotes - and being listed in Appendix B of the UBS Greek NT doesn't mean much, it's a very broad long list, and confirmed quotes are listed in Appendix A.

God bless
Steven

GothicAngel
Oct 13th 2007, 03:14 PM
What I dislike about the book of Sirach

Sirach 7:33 be generous to all the living, and withhold not your kindness from the dead

The Jews did believe that sin would send a person to hell, not their belief.

Taking the book of Sirach out of the bilbe doesnt do anything about the Jews belief. They still believe sins can send to hell, whether or not tyhe OT explicitly says it.

GothicAngel
Oct 13th 2007, 03:49 PM
It was authoritative to the ones who used it because they trusted the source.

So?....


They indeed DID NOT need an edict or proclaimation from any other source other than the Lord God by His Holy Spirit.

So God came down from heaven and gave trhem the canon of the Scripture?



So much so that the Waldeness continued on to the 1600's and beyond using it.

You are making a error filled conclusion that I as an anabaptist


I said no such thing. I dont even know what that is.


or my protestant brethern here accept any authority proclaimed by an error filled orgainzation like the RCC.

I never said that.


We do not. It was those same counsels you mentioned that flung anethema's against our people through the centuries for not trusting or allowing error to creep into a pure Gospel from unscriptural sources.

Your "people" did not even exist until 1500 years prior to the RCC existing. Was this "pure gospel" in nonexistence until then?



Not to mention the Roman Catholic back yard Bar-B-Ques, where we were the main course.


And you are reffering to?


Weather the subject be the error filled books of the apocrypha, the apostacy of transubtantiation, the foolishness of pergatory, the idolotry of Mary worship or Mariolotry, the audasity of induldgences, the presumptions of infant baptism, or any other nonsense, you shouldn't expect those who trust only on the Lord God and His authoritive Scriptures to buy into it. Again, material for another thread.

[quote]And I made a point to mention Jack Chick for the sake of showing the contempt the popish bunch have for him.

Us sedistous papists show contempt for Jack Chick because he is a bigot.
If Jack Chick made up things about evil black people inflitrating white people societies, than us Romanists would condemn him the same.
His prejudice and narrowmindedness should be condemned whoever he is prejudiced against.

Btw... do you actually believe him?

enarchay
Oct 13th 2007, 09:10 PM
Didn't the Book of Sirach probably come from a Sadducee? That seems to be the theory N.T. Wright briefly proposes.

pnewton
Oct 13th 2007, 10:40 PM
Didn't the Book of Sirach probably come from a Sadducee? That seems to be the theory N.T. Wright briefly proposes.That would seem strange since Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead and Sirach assumes an afterlife.

enarchay
Oct 13th 2007, 11:39 PM
That would seem strange since Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead and Sirach assumes an afterlife.

“The point here [mBer. 9.5] is that Sadducees are accused of teaching that there is no ‘age to come’ or ‘world to come’; the same Hebrew word, ‘olam, means both ‘world’ and ‘age’. The Pharisees believed strongly in ‘the age/world to come’, in which present wrongs would be righted. Without that, they held one would simly work for eward and compensations in the present life – a doctrine which would have suited the Sadducees very well, and would have suited anti-Sadducean polemic even better.

The closest we come to statements from the Sadducees themselves, or to one whom they might regard as a spiritual ancestor, is the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach (‘Ecclesiasticus’).From what we know of them, the Sadducees would certainly have approved of Sirach’s attitude to death and what might lie beyond:

Give, and take, and indulge yourself, because in Hades one cannot look for luxury. All living beings become old like a garment, for the decree from old is, ‘You must die!’

Who will sing praises to the Most High in Hades in place of the living who give thanks? From the dead, as from one who does not exist, thanksgiving has ceased; those who are alive and well sing the Lord’s praises.

Do not forget, there is no coming back; you do the deed no good [by excessive mourning], and you injure yourself. Remember his fate, for yours is like it; yesterday it was his, and today it is yours. When the dead is at rest, let his remembrance rest too, and be comforted for him when his spirit has departed.

This is the Lord’s decree for all flesh; why then should you reject the will of the Most High? Whether life lasts for ten years or a hundred or a thousand, there are no questions asked in Hades.
There is one passage in Sirach where it looks for a moment as though the prospect of post-mortem judgment is being brought to bear on moral behavior:

It is easy for the Lord on the day of death to reward individuals according to their conduct. An hour’s misery makes one forget past delights, and at the close of one’s life one’s deeds are revealed.
But the next verse indicates that the reward in question is simply that of good or bad reputation:

Call no one happy before his death; by how he ends, a person becomes known.
It is reputation, and hope contained in the new generation that offers such as is to be found in the present life” (The Resurrection of the Son of God, Wright 135–137).

I actually like Sirach's reasoning, despite his apparent denial of resurrection.

pnewton
Oct 14th 2007, 12:19 AM
Thanks for the information. It would explain why the Pharisee dismissed the book as canonical at Jamnia.

Steven3
Oct 14th 2007, 03:17 AM
Does Sirach actually rule out resurrection? Or does he just not have the concept?


That would seem strange since Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead and Sirach assumes an afterlife.

I'm unconvinced that this book has anything to do with the Jewish priesthood. That the Sadducees didn't believe in an afterlife is rather unlikely by human psychology - if they believed in their own annihilation they would be virtually unique in mankind's religious history. It's more likely they just didn't believe resurrection was required to attain immortality.

The question would be when Caiaphas is depicted as wanting Abraham to send Lazarus back to warn Annas and his five brother-in-laws in Luke 16, was Caiphas expecting Lazarus to warn Annas "repent, because you don't just die and perish" or was he expecting Lazarus to warn Annas "repent, because you're not going to the side of Hades you think you're going to"?

God bless
Steven

enarchay
Oct 14th 2007, 03:38 AM
Does Sirach actually rule out resurrection? Or does he just not have the concept?

One could ask the same about Ecclesiastes.


I'm unconvinced that this book has anything to do with the Jewish priesthood. That the Sadducees didn't believe in an afterlife is rather unlikely by human psychology - if they believed in their own annihilation they would be virtually unique in mankind's religious history. It's more likely they just didn't believe resurrection was required to attain immortality.

I'll type up some examples from The Resurrection of the Son of God tomorrow.



The question would be when Caiaphas is depicted as wanting Abraham to send Lazarus back to warn Annas and his five brother-in-laws in Luke 16, was Caiphas expecting Lazarus to warn Annas "repent, because you don't just die and perish" or was he expecting Lazarus to warn Annas "repent, because you're not going to the side of Hades you think you're going to"?


Caiaphas? Annas? Hmmm? What are you talking about?

Steven3
Oct 14th 2007, 03:56 AM
One could ask the same about Ecclesiastes.Indeed, a very similar book. I suppose a justification that's in the OT rather than the Apocrypha is because of Jesus quoting 11:5 in John 3:8? ;)


Caiaphas? Annas? Hmmm? What are you talking about?Well you know of course, others don't. Since the Bosom of Abraham is found in Maccabean burial papyri it's unlikely that Luke 16 specifically be a parody of Sadducee belief, but nevertheless we have a Sadducee in Hades, which opens up all sorts of interesting avenues.

I need to go, chat tomorrow ;)
Take care.
S.

enarchay
Oct 14th 2007, 06:30 AM
Well you know of course, others don't. Since the Bosom of Abraham is found in Maccabean burial papyri it's unlikely that Luke 16 specifically be a parody of Sadducee belief, but nevertheless we have a Sadducee in Hades, which opens up all sorts of interesting avenues.

I actually have never heard of this Maccabean burial papyri, to the best of my knowledge. Can you show me what you mean?

What do you mean Sadducee in Hades?

Teke
Oct 14th 2007, 03:15 PM
Heya Teke :)Well, somewhere there's a line between non-dangerous deuterocanonicals like Judith and dangerous pseudepigrapha like - to pick the dog of dogs, 1 Enoch.



Sirach 28:2 Forgive your neighbor's injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven.

Mm. Really ought to stir up the energy to put LXX and Greek NT side by side, sorry, lazy ;), but in the English this isn't much more than a general similarity, drawing on common sources in the OT - the idea of don't forgive others and God won't forgive you didn't originate with Jesus, it's found all through the OT. It's been many years since I went through these Sirach quotes - I'd have no objection to recognising a quote of Sirach (after all Paul quotes Aratus and Epimenedes) it's just that when I last did this exercise I was somewhat underwhelmed by the supposed similarities. They aren't direct quotes - and being listed in Appendix B of the UBS Greek NT doesn't mean much, it's a very broad long list, and confirmed quotes are listed in Appendix A.

God bless
Steven

Hellenistic and Egyptian Jews differed in their opinions of how good a translation was. That is, when they compared it with the Hebrew. But then, that is always the problem with translations.

Jesus and the Apostles quotes aren't a new trial of scripture. IOW you never read of any speaking as in ref. to superiority of Hebrew scripture.

Scripture is just scripture to EO, part of church tradition, not the dogma of the church as Christ is.

Steven3
Oct 15th 2007, 03:02 AM
Hi Enarchay, Teke :)

I actually have never heard of this Maccabean burial papyri, to the best of my knowledge. Can you show me what you mean?

The best example is in Friedrich Preisigke Sammelbuch (http://www.amazon.de/Sammelbuch-griechischer-Urkunden-aus-%C3%84gypten/dp/311004756X) of Greek documents in Egypt 2034:11 "to the Kolpos of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" (Kolpos, bosom, bay, lap, same word as Luke 16 "Bosom of Abraham")


Dr. Preisigke's papyri find is supported by:

IV Maccabees (http://bibleforums.org/www.earlyjewishwritings.com/4maccabees.html)13:17 "After our death in this way Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will receive us, and all our forefathers will praise us"

Apocalypse of Zephaniah (http://userpages.burgoyne.com/bdespain/progress/progzeph.htm). 9:2 Thou wilt now cross over the crossing place. For thy name is written in the Book of the Living.” 3I wanted to embrace him, (but) I was unable to embrace the great angel because his glory is great. 4Then he ran to all the righteous ones, namely, Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Enoch and Elijah and David.


What do you mean Sadducee in Hades?Someone dressed in Levitical purple and linen, with five brothers-in-law in his father Annas' house. Someone who when Lazarus was raised didn't believe even though someone was raised from the dead but, with Annas and the five brothers, hired assassins to send Lazarus back to Hades again:

John 12:9 When the large crowd of the Jews learned that Jesus was there, they came, not only on account of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests (Annas, Caiphas, the 5 brothers) made plans to put Lazarus to death as well, 11 because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus.

The Parson
Oct 15th 2007, 04:56 AM
That would seem strange since Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead and Sirach assumes an afterlife.Well for crying out loud pnewton!!! The Sadducees did not believe in the ressurection... Thats what made them SAD-YOU-SEE!!! :rofl:

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, I heard that groan. Come on now, you gotta admit, that was a good one!!!

enarchay
Oct 15th 2007, 06:52 AM
Someone dressed in Levitical purple and linen, with five brothers-in-law in his father Annas' house. Someone who when Lazarus was raised didn't believe even though someone was raised from the dead but, with Annas and the five brothers, hired assassins to send Lazarus back to Hades again:


I see. Linking the rich man with the Sadducees (cf. the book of Sirach) makes sense. Not so sure about linking Annas and so on with the parable, though.

enarchay
Oct 15th 2007, 06:53 AM
Well for crying out loud pnewton!!! The Sadducees did not believe in the ressurection... Thats what made them SAD-YOU-SEE!!! :rofl:

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, I heard that groan. Come on now, you gotta admit, that was a good one!!!

:lol:

:giveup:

Steven3
Oct 15th 2007, 11:35 AM
I see. Linking the rich man with the Sadducees (cf. the book of Sirach) makes sense. Not so sure about linking Annas and so on with the parable, though.A double entendre perhaps? in one sense the "five brothers in my father's house" are perhaps the 5 Books of Moses in the Temple (like the Samaritan woman's "five husbands", another double meaning?), but in the physical sense given that it was Caiphas, his father in law Annas, and the literal five high priest sons of Annas (http://www.bible-history.com/HighPriests/NTHIGHPRIESTSAnnas.htm)whom Josephus writes about who actually didn't believe when Lazarus was raised, exactly as Abraham predicted, I think it's still more likely that the "five brothers" are literal five brothers in a literal father's house. If Jesus' hearers didn't get it when Jesus said it, then later when Caiphas, Annas and the five brothers-in-law tried to have Lazarus killed they surely would have remembered and got it then. Though that perhaps depends how much time is between the parable of Lazarus and the raising of Lazarus. Days? Months? A year?

Re Sadducees, apart from Josephus' War II.7.14 I don't know how much other data on Sadducees is readily accessible. Should do an online Talmud search, but feeling hungry ;)
Steven

Living Water
Oct 15th 2007, 07:24 PM
The Holy Spirit bears witness to the truth of the Word of God, so who ever has the Spirit in him need not the men of this world to point him in the direction of 'inspired' Word of God. He will find it by the Spirit only, for it will bear witness to the truth of the Word.

It is by the Spirit only that you may know the truth of the Word of God. Men can not bear witness to the Word of God, only the Holy Spirit can bear witness.