Source for description of books - canonical, pseudepigraphical, apocryphal, and related early writin
Do you know of a source that gives a one or two sentence definition/description of all canonical, pseudepigraphical, apocryphal, and similar early writings ... something appropriate for the answer side of "vocabulary" cards?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
Comments
-
hmm. I'll see if I can find one. The issue is pseudepigraphical and apocryphal are often used for the same thing. I would prefer to call all of them Apocrypha and distinguish between usfeful texts which are just obscure, than sthe stuff which is not very useful by virtue of running off the walls. i haven't seen a proper standardized definition. some ascribe "apocrypha" the to catholic and othordox books, but "pseudepigrapha" to the much more obscure (but still useful hence why I prefer Apocrypha as pseudepigrapha has a much more negative connotation. Honestly I'd just prefer to call all of the "canonical" apocrypha has what its usually called, Deteurocanon, the rest apocrypha. i've come across the problem youre asking about very recently. I dont have a solution other than trying to come up with a reasonable yourself. I'm posing my idea. Deuterocanon for Catholic and Orthodox (possibly excluding some of the Ethiopian books as their canon really is a big too big) and the rest which is non-heretical I'd dub apocrypha.
John 3:17 (ESV)
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Do you know of a source that gives a one or two sentence definition/description of all canonical, pseudepigraphical, apocryphal, and similar early writings ... something appropriate for the answer side of "vocabulary" cards?
You might try checking out the two tables on this wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Table
If you click on the names of the books in the left column, you will get a popup with general info on that book that would be appropriate for your "vocabulary" cards.
0 -
Excellent - yes that's what I was looking for ... not as comprehensive as I wish but that I can live with ...
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Robert Neely said:MJ. Smith said:
Do you know of a source that gives a one or two sentence definition/description of all canonical, pseudepigraphical, apocryphal, and similar early writings ... something appropriate for the answer side of "vocabulary" cards?
You might try checking out the two tables on this wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Table
If you click on the names of the books in the left column, you will get a popup with general info on that book that would be appropriate for your "vocabulary" cards.
Just a note: the "popup" stays active long enough so that you can highlight the text and then copy and paste it into a open document for latter use; Perhaps as a future PBB? [or for your "vocabulary" cards.] [[Thanks!]]
Their comment on the Additions to Esther is just a copy of their notes on Esther. But the “additions” are found in the LXX readings of Esther. [Where God is called upon. Also the "full" wordings of the orders for and against the Jews are listed there in.]]
[[Some notes are not too useful and the author of them is not a "true believer" for example they state that: "The Book of Daniel is a 2nd-century BC biblical apocalypse combining a prophecy of history" rather than something truly written between 605 BC and 530 BC [[Note that copies of Daniel were found in the Dead Sea collection. Would they have preserved a text that that they knew was not true scripture?]] ]]
0 -
If you click on the pop up, it takes you to that wiki page in case you want more detail to sift through.
0 -
David Ames said:
[[Some notes are not too useful and the author of them is not a "true believer" for example they state that: "The Book of Daniel is a 2nd-century BC biblical apocalypse combining a prophecy of history" rather than something truly written between 605 BC and 530 BC
There exist Christian Scripture scholars who do hold that the Book of Daniel was composed at least principally in the 2nd century BC. In fact, the Wiki is citing a Catholic one writing in 1984 when it makes that statement. For a more recent and contrasting perspective from two other (Catholic) scholars, consult this. It may be better for the Wiki note to indicate in some respect that the date of Daniel's writing is disputed, but this would require a serious, well-cited edit to the Wiki page on Daniel that properly takes into account the rather extensive discussions of the dating of Daniel and including the traditional view in some form on its talk page.
At any rate, I just want to note that demarcating the notion of "true believer" at least brushes up against the Forum Guidelines established by Faithlife. (I assume this was unintentional.)
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
This is a topic of interest to me, because this spring I'm teaching a seminar entitled, "Books Not in the Bible." In my initial research and gathering of materials, I'm finding that one of the first challenges is how one defines terms (as discussed above) and then second, how one then categorizes books. If anyone is aware of books or resources that are favorites, I'd be grateful for the tips.
0 -
Ted Weis said:
I'm finding that one of the first challenges is how one defines terms (as discussed above) and then second, how one then categorizes books. If anyone is aware of books or resources that are favorites, I'd be grateful for the tips.
Look at the Canon Comparison tool for a reasonable list of books that are in someone's canon or came close enough to need to be explicitly included. It is not complete but is a good starting point. And do read the definitions on the overview page. For your purposes, I would divide the books into:
- canonical books pretty much everyone includes (protocanonical)
- canonical books that are very commonly included (LXX)
- canonical books that are specific to a few traditions (Beta Israel, Armenian ...)
- books that have historically been included in some canon but are no longer in any canon
- books that have been used as lessons in church services but are no longer in any canon (i.e. canonical by usage)
- books that have "always" been considered non-canonical but were commonly bound in Bibles (Letter to the Laodiceans)
- books that were considered sufficiently to have canon lists explicitly exclude them
- books that are similar to the materials above but for which we have no indication in available historical records that they were ever used as if they were canonical
For contemporary efforts to rethink the narrowest lists of canonical books
- the Muslim "acceptance" of the Torah and Gospels for an "Abrahamic faiths" "Bible"
- the Russian cult leader who accepts only the Book of Revelation
- The New New Testament by Hal Taussig
- An Uncommon Lectionary by Butcher
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
David Ames said:
[[Some notes are not too useful and the author of them is not a "true believer" for example they state that: "The Book of Daniel is a 2nd-century BC biblical apocalypse combining a prophecy of history" rather than something truly written between 605 BC and 530 BC [[Note that copies of Daniel were found in the Dead Sea collection. Would they have preserved a text that that they knew was not true scripture?]] ]]
SineNomine said:At any rate, I just want to note that demarcating the notion of "true believer" at least brushes up against the Forum Guidelines established by Faithlife. (I assume this was unintentional.)
Whoops: Re my use of the term /"true believer"/ as one that believes that the Bible is just what it says it is. That is the Daniel did write Daniel. Ezra wrote Ezra. Maybe Ezra wrote Nehemiah but Ezra used Nehemiah's notes and tried to stay true to what Nehemiah said in his notes. [[Or maybe Ezra interviewed Nehemiah and the notes were by Ezra as to what Nehemiah said in the interview while they waited for everyone to get ready to dedicate the walls.]] And so on.
That is someone that "believes" that there is no error in the written word. Not speaking of any other aspect of belief.
[[Am I out of the woods yet or am i just digging myself in deeper?]]
I have been known to goof but any time that I upset anyone I may have meant what I said but i did not intentionally upset anyone.
[[that is I probably could have said it better]] [the message of Daniel changes completely depending on if it was written 605 - 530 BC by Daniel or 128? BC 165? BC (or so) by someone pretending to be Daniel]
[[For example: https://christian-apologist.com/2019/09/06/when-was-the-book-of-daniel-written/ ]]
0 -
David Ames said:
Am I out of the woods yet or am i just digging myself in deeper?
I think you dug yourself in deeper. Maybe a centimeter or so. For example, much of 'Daniel' doesn't propose to be written by 'Daniel'. Even the dreams are described 3rd hand, as written down by Daniel. Presumably the writer didn't directly interview Daniel.
And that introduces 'true believer'. A Corvette owner could be a true believer, refusing to accept anything but a front placement of its engine. And that is why didactic assignments of religious terms is always naive ... you have to talk to the speaker/writer. I grew up in a church, where their pride was in their defining of baptizo 2,000 years earlier.
And that introduces your digging. 'True believers' almost always assign there/not-there as not-true-believer (ie text vs dogma). The key is not the text.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
And then there are those of us of an age where the automatic response to "True believer" is "Eric Hoffer". [;)]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
And then there are those of us of an age where the automatic response to "True believer" is Eric Hoffer".
VERY good.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
... For your purposes, I would divide the books into:
- canonical books pretty much everyone includes (protocanonical)
- canonical books that are very commonly included (LXX)
- canonical books that are specific to a few traditions (Beta Israel, Armenian ...)
- books that have historically been included in some canon but are no longer in any canon
- books that have been used as lessons in church services but are no longer in any canon (i.e. canonical by usage)
- books that have "always" been considered non-canonical but were commonly bound in Bibles (Letter to the Laodiceans)
- books that were considered sufficiently to have canon lists explicitly exclude them
- books that are similar to the materials above but for which we have no indication in available historical records that they were ever used as if they were canonical
Thank you for this, MJ. It strikes me as a useful way of thinking about it.
0
