greatest books last 50 years image
Meagan Lov
My Catholic BIL and I were discussing the Apocrypha tonight, and I have always wondered why those books weren't included in the regular Bible. And how long have those books been around? I thought I saw somewhere that they have just been accepted in the last 50 years or so, but I always thought they dated back to Bible times.
Answer
Others have mentioned the role of the Septuagint in the Hellenized Jewish communities and early Christian communities. According to the Talmud, King Ptolemy, in the 3rd century BCE, had 72 scholars, each in 72 separate rooms, translate the Torah into Koine Greek, and each produced an identical result.
I mention this story because it suggests the great importance that was attached to the accuracy of the translation. But this was the Torah, the Pentateuch, which is the first five books of both the Tanakh and the Christian Bible. Translations of further books were, and are, regarded as of much lower quality.
The Masoretic text, which is almost universally regarded as the authoritative Hebrew text of the Tanakh, now defines the Jewish canon. And while it was assembled in its modern form between the 7th and 10th centuries of the Christian era, scholarship using the Dead Sea scrolls has found it to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh that date to the 2nd century BCE. Qumran texts further validate the Masoretic text as being quite faithful to some much older texts.
(However, the Dead Sea Scrolls also include versions that differ from the Masoretic text and from one another. So, while the legitimacy of the Masoretic text is certainly well supported by archeology, there is evidence for variances even at that early date.)
Now, the Septuagint contains versions of Daniel and Esther that are longer than in the Masoretic text. Newer works, largely hagiographic nature, such as Maccabees, Wisdom of Ben Sira, Tobit, and Judith, were not included in the Masoretic text. Other works seem to have actually been composed in Greek rather than being based on any Hebrew precedent, such as Wisdom of Solomon. Apparently the Septuagint did have some standards, because the book of Enoch (which no Jew recognizes as canonical and which, among Christians, is recognized only in the Ethiopian Orthodox tradition, did not make it into the Septuagint, though it was a Jewish work read at the time.
It has been claimed above that the Jews simply eliminated some books from the Septuagint. This is simply ahistorical. When the Jews fled the eastern Roman Empire (where Greek was spoken) for the Parthian Empire (where Aramaic was spoken) when Jerusalem was destroyed, the use of Greek among the Jews declined. With that decline, Jews began to rely upon the Targum manuscripts, which were translated from Hebrew into Aramaic, alongside texts in the original Hebrew. And during this time, discrepancies between the available Hebrew texts and the Septuagint began to be noticed. The Septuagint then lost favor among Jewish communities.
The Masoretic text was fixed from the Hebrew texts that had become standard during this period but the issue of canonicity of various texts in Judaism is a much older issue. The fact that the Septuagint includes various texts should not be taken as proof that it was regarded as canonical. That works (such as the Book of Judith) have been valued by the Jews for various reasons and were included in a collection of translations is not necessarily evidence that it was regarded as on the same level as the Torah!
Josephus, in the 1st century CE, speaks of there being only 22 books considered divine. How this number and the 24 books of the Jewish canon now is a matter of some speculation. It may be that, for example, he regarded Ruth as part of Judges and Lamentations as part of Jeremiah. It may be that Esther and Ecclesiastes were not yet considered canonical.
There is no historical consensus today on the precise fixing of the Jewish canon. At one time, the theory that it was fixed at the Council of Jamnia was fairly widely accepted but now it is not.
Jerome, composer of the Latin Vulgate in 405 CE, and regarded as a saint by the Catholic Church, included prologues which characterized many of those works that were translated from Greek but for which there was no Hebrew source, as non-canonical or apocryphal, so these questions long predate the Protestant Reformation and are independent of the Jewish question of canonicity. He also makes reference (without taking this as authoritative) to certain works not being esteemed among the Jews.
During the Renaissance, Christian scholars began comparing texts of the Septuagint and the Jewish canon and discovering discrepancies. Their assumption was that the translators of the Septuagint had done a bad job of it. That assumption, we now know, was not quite right. But this was among the motivations of various emerging Protestant denominations excluding texts that were present in the Septuagint but absent in the Jewish canon.
What modern archeology has now shown us, particularly through the Dead Sea Scrolls, but which those Renaissance scholars had not imagined, is that there were actually different textual traditions at a very early date. The Septuagint was not badly translated from the Hebrew texts that became the basis for the Jewish canon. Rather, the Septuagint was translated from a different, parallel, but quite old in its own right, textual tradition!
Now, this explains why you might have heard that the works of the Apocrypha were only accepted in the 2ns half of the last century. It was during that period that archeologists made the discoveries that showed the Septuagint - and therefore the texts in the Septuagint that are not in the Jewish canon - has a historical provenance as well supported as that of the canon. Having said that, most of the Qumran texts are closer to the Masoretic text than to any other surviving group of texts.
Incidentally, what is apocryphal varies by tradition. For example, Roman Catholics, as well as most Jews and Protestants, regard Psalm 151 (which is in the Septuagint) as apocryphal. However, the Eastern Orthodox Christians accept it. For a long time Psalm 151 was thought to have been composed and Greek and to have had no Hebrew precursor, but the Dead Sea scrolls proved otherwise.
Others have mentioned the role of the Septuagint in the Hellenized Jewish communities and early Christian communities. According to the Talmud, King Ptolemy, in the 3rd century BCE, had 72 scholars, each in 72 separate rooms, translate the Torah into Koine Greek, and each produced an identical result.
I mention this story because it suggests the great importance that was attached to the accuracy of the translation. But this was the Torah, the Pentateuch, which is the first five books of both the Tanakh and the Christian Bible. Translations of further books were, and are, regarded as of much lower quality.
The Masoretic text, which is almost universally regarded as the authoritative Hebrew text of the Tanakh, now defines the Jewish canon. And while it was assembled in its modern form between the 7th and 10th centuries of the Christian era, scholarship using the Dead Sea scrolls has found it to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh that date to the 2nd century BCE. Qumran texts further validate the Masoretic text as being quite faithful to some much older texts.
(However, the Dead Sea Scrolls also include versions that differ from the Masoretic text and from one another. So, while the legitimacy of the Masoretic text is certainly well supported by archeology, there is evidence for variances even at that early date.)
Now, the Septuagint contains versions of Daniel and Esther that are longer than in the Masoretic text. Newer works, largely hagiographic nature, such as Maccabees, Wisdom of Ben Sira, Tobit, and Judith, were not included in the Masoretic text. Other works seem to have actually been composed in Greek rather than being based on any Hebrew precedent, such as Wisdom of Solomon. Apparently the Septuagint did have some standards, because the book of Enoch (which no Jew recognizes as canonical and which, among Christians, is recognized only in the Ethiopian Orthodox tradition, did not make it into the Septuagint, though it was a Jewish work read at the time.
It has been claimed above that the Jews simply eliminated some books from the Septuagint. This is simply ahistorical. When the Jews fled the eastern Roman Empire (where Greek was spoken) for the Parthian Empire (where Aramaic was spoken) when Jerusalem was destroyed, the use of Greek among the Jews declined. With that decline, Jews began to rely upon the Targum manuscripts, which were translated from Hebrew into Aramaic, alongside texts in the original Hebrew. And during this time, discrepancies between the available Hebrew texts and the Septuagint began to be noticed. The Septuagint then lost favor among Jewish communities.
The Masoretic text was fixed from the Hebrew texts that had become standard during this period but the issue of canonicity of various texts in Judaism is a much older issue. The fact that the Septuagint includes various texts should not be taken as proof that it was regarded as canonical. That works (such as the Book of Judith) have been valued by the Jews for various reasons and were included in a collection of translations is not necessarily evidence that it was regarded as on the same level as the Torah!
Josephus, in the 1st century CE, speaks of there being only 22 books considered divine. How this number and the 24 books of the Jewish canon now is a matter of some speculation. It may be that, for example, he regarded Ruth as part of Judges and Lamentations as part of Jeremiah. It may be that Esther and Ecclesiastes were not yet considered canonical.
There is no historical consensus today on the precise fixing of the Jewish canon. At one time, the theory that it was fixed at the Council of Jamnia was fairly widely accepted but now it is not.
Jerome, composer of the Latin Vulgate in 405 CE, and regarded as a saint by the Catholic Church, included prologues which characterized many of those works that were translated from Greek but for which there was no Hebrew source, as non-canonical or apocryphal, so these questions long predate the Protestant Reformation and are independent of the Jewish question of canonicity. He also makes reference (without taking this as authoritative) to certain works not being esteemed among the Jews.
During the Renaissance, Christian scholars began comparing texts of the Septuagint and the Jewish canon and discovering discrepancies. Their assumption was that the translators of the Septuagint had done a bad job of it. That assumption, we now know, was not quite right. But this was among the motivations of various emerging Protestant denominations excluding texts that were present in the Septuagint but absent in the Jewish canon.
What modern archeology has now shown us, particularly through the Dead Sea Scrolls, but which those Renaissance scholars had not imagined, is that there were actually different textual traditions at a very early date. The Septuagint was not badly translated from the Hebrew texts that became the basis for the Jewish canon. Rather, the Septuagint was translated from a different, parallel, but quite old in its own right, textual tradition!
Now, this explains why you might have heard that the works of the Apocrypha were only accepted in the 2ns half of the last century. It was during that period that archeologists made the discoveries that showed the Septuagint - and therefore the texts in the Septuagint that are not in the Jewish canon - has a historical provenance as well supported as that of the canon. Having said that, most of the Qumran texts are closer to the Masoretic text than to any other surviving group of texts.
Incidentally, what is apocryphal varies by tradition. For example, Roman Catholics, as well as most Jews and Protestants, regard Psalm 151 (which is in the Septuagint) as apocryphal. However, the Eastern Orthodox Christians accept it. For a long time Psalm 151 was thought to have been composed and Greek and to have had no Hebrew precursor, but the Dead Sea scrolls proved otherwise.
when the great prophet raided a town or village he always gave the girls and women as slaves to be raped?
tomknight2
do any muslims say that may have been wrong? slavery in most islamic countries has been outlawed in the last 50 years, saudi arabia in 1962. so should non-islamic countries stopped the great practiced of slavery?
Answer
They say there's no proof?!
Volume 3, Book 46, Number 717:
Narrated Ibn Aun:
I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.
Bukhari 3.34.432: âNarrated Abu Saeed Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allâh's Apostle he said, "O Allâh's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allâh has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.â
04.024
YUSUFALI: Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: ...
004.025
YUSUFALI: If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess...
They say there's no proof?!
Volume 3, Book 46, Number 717:
Narrated Ibn Aun:
I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.
Bukhari 3.34.432: âNarrated Abu Saeed Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allâh's Apostle he said, "O Allâh's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allâh has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.â
04.024
YUSUFALI: Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: ...
004.025
YUSUFALI: If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess...
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Posts
Comments :
Post a Comment