"His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven" (Song of Solomon 5:11 KJV).
It has been said that the Song of Solomon almost did not make the biblical canon because Jews and Christians both had trouble making sense of the work. This book was eventually given an allegorical interpretation by readers in Judaism and Christianity, so that we now have this great sacred work in the scriptural canon, which Jehovah inspired by means of his holy spirit.
59 comments:
Its not the only one preserved that is attributed to Solomon - https://keelrowbooks.com/item/11316/myths-legends-of-the-ancient-near-east/#:~:text=FIRST%20FOLIO%20EDITION.,colourful%20illustrations%20by%20Jane%20Ray.
As I said in another thread, these other accounts/stories did not become canonical.
I still don't get what that means. These other stories have stood the test of time and are still with us.
You don't get the difference between canonicity and endurance of texts? Just asking ☺
Not sure I understand what the problem is.
https://www.cepher.net/what-is-canonicity.aspx
Also see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/07/kanwn-and-disputed-bible-books.html?m=1
Canon either refers to a published list of books or it denotes divinely inspired books that Jews or Christians take to be authoritative for their beliefs and conduct.
Shakespeare scholars and English professors often refer to the English canon
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/right-books-in-old-testament/question16-was-hebrew-canon-after-christ.cfm
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2011/10/seven-reasons-for-excluding.html?m=1
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Book-of-Judith
"or it denotes divinely inspired books that Jews or Christians take to be authoritative for their beliefs and conduct." - a given subset of Christians at a given point in time, apparently. I think thats called cherry picking.
I never said any such thing, nor do I believe it. Some of us believe that Jesus established a group of men while he was on earth, who served as the foundation stones for the ecclesia that originated on the day of Pentecost in 33 CE. Revelation 21 likewise calls these men foundation stones of the holy city, New Jerusalem. It is the Lord's apostolically-founded ecclesia that determines canonicity for God's people in one sense of the word by making lists, but I believe God's holy spirit ultimately determines what's truly needed for matters of faith and conduct. That part of the canonization process does not depend on men.
Charles Ryrie more likely states the truth of the matter: "It was not necessary to wait until various councils could examine the [Bible] books to determine if they were acceptable or not. Their canonicity was inherent within them, since they came from God. People and councils only recognized and acknowledged what is true becausde of the intrinsic inspiration of the books as they were written. No Bible book became canonical by action of some church council" (Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 105).
We also read: "the Canon of the New Testament was completed when the last authoritative book was given to any church by the apostles, and that was when John wrote the Apocalypse, about A.D. 98" (Benjamin B. Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, pp. 455-56).
https://archive.org/details/formationofchris0000camp/page/n7/mode/2up
Revelation, a second century invention, there was no such organisation of "older men" in Jerusalem. The "foundation" became the Roman Catholic church. The belief has no basis in evidence and the arguments are circular. Even Paul does not have a fixed definition for "spirit". There is no unbroken chain-
https://medium.com/belover/when-evangelicals-tore-books-out-of-the-bible-c426cb97c505
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha_controversy#:~:text=The%20British%20and%20Foreign%20Bible%20Society%20had%20in%20fact%20dropped,Apocrypha%20between%20the%20two%20Testaments.
Evidence is always better than assertion.
There are other older holy books that are still preserved and utilised today, what is your explanation for that?
Intrinsic Canonicity and the Inadequacy of the Community Approach to Canon-Determination - "The intrinsic canon-approach thus presents a plausible, internally coherent approach to the issue of biblical canonicity responsive to the all-too-common supposition that the Bible is merely a human construct. In doing so, the intrinsic-canon approach impinges upon the larger question regarding the foundational authority of Scripture. If the Bible consists merely of books selected based upon human whims and power structures, why should one accept it as trustworthy and authoritative today? Why adopt such texts instead of any others that might be popular or personally palatable? Indeed, why accept any writings as authoritative at all? When it comes to such a decision of faith, the canon’s significance is rooted in its claim to divine revelation, inspiration, and commission. The divine origin of Scripture makes it the authoritative and trustworthy foundation for theology and practice, to be received not merely as “the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God” (1 Thess 2:13)."
That author can see the problem in his logic, that Paul is clearly referring to the Hebrew texts. So he uses a nonsensical footnote - "5 Metzger thus correctly states, “The canon is complete when the books which by principle belong to it
have been written” (The Canon of the New Testament, 287)."
Incidentally on another point regarding YHWH Elohim, have you ever looked at the history of Amon Ra. One god or two?
It takes more than preservation and utiliation to make a book canonical or else the pseudepigraphal works would be canonical. Furthermore, canons are established within certain contexts (i.e., the Jewish or Christian canon), so what's canonical for one group might not be for another (Prots and Catholics). But this finally comes down to which writings are normative for the true Christian ecclesia: which books have a divine origin.
Speaking of evidence, try proving that Revelation is a second century invention. You can't do it, nor can you prove that the apostles did not exist in the first century as a body in Jerusalem.
Amun-Ra apparently became fused with the Egyptian sun god. https://egyptianmuseum.org/deities-amun
If one believes in Almighty God Jehovah, it is not a stretch to believe that he inspired a book and left humankind some precepts by which to walk. Sorry if some don't believe God looks out for us and provides a light for our roadway.
More to it. The what and the when https://www.ashmolean.org/ram-of-amun-re
Well how about you proving the mass persecutions happened before the time of Hadrian? You know the things that Revelation is talking about. The same myth is being utilised today.
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” don't know who said it, but it makes sense.
https://brill.com/view/journals/nt/63/4/article-p505_6.xml
https://www.academia.edu/104823954/Hadrian_and_the_Nero_Redivivus_Myth
https://www.academia.edu/26797968/The_Revelation_of_John_and_the_Roman_Empire_Methodological_Observations_on_Witulski_s_Studies_Concerning_the_Dating_of_Revelation_in_Annali_di_Storia_dellEsegesi_33_1_2016_pp_224_229
1) There are two major theories for the date when Revelation was written: the early and late dating of the book. Last I checked, the debate was still open.
2) What evidence would you need to show that Christians were persecuted during the reigns of Nero and Domitian, who both preceded Hadrian? They both seem to be documented in the literature of the time.
See https://www.academia.edu/81032686/Roman_Anti_Christian_Persecutions_Reframing_the_Paradigm
https://www.academia.edu/109673522/Persecution_and_Martyrdom_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire_from_AD54_to_100_A_Lesson_for_the_21ST_Century_Church
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/historicity-of-the-neronian-persecution-a-response-to-brent-shaw/72A73656C0F1372963C197F8945D38D3
Would like to read this one: https://www.baylorpress.com/9781481313889/christian-persecution-in-antiquity/
A already know the weak arguments for the 60s or 90s debate and that's why I posted what I did. How many kinds of "Christian"(moshiaists) factions were there in the first century? Who says that are talking about this brand?
The evidence is that the Christian brand we know today only emerged as a separate entity around the time of Hadrian. These debates are just treading water.
These binary arguments are tedious and have more to say about human nature than anything factual.
Matthew 24:24 - in that authors opinion this had already been going on for some time.
2 Corinthians 11:13-15 - more than just fake apostles in his opinion.
Hebrews 3:1
The claim about Hadrian remains somethhing that needs evidence. A book came out in 2010 (thereabouts) that made similar claims, but nothing has stuck yet.
I can accept a "parting of ways" scenario with respect to Christianity and Judaism, but pushing Christianity into the second century based on slender to no evidence is not for me.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110742213/html?lang=en
Matt 24:24 speaks of a future time: "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."
You are not hinged on the texts but instead the fathers. This is where the problems emerge.
https://timsteppingout.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/irenaeus-and-the-big-lie/
"Mark was a common name, but in the original Greek of the text, the Greek name that was used in this passage was not Marcus. It was Mark the Less – Μαρκίωνος. Μαρκίωνος literally translates to Marcion! This was the same spelling Irenaeus used against Marcion.
...
Nor did Saint Irenaeus have answer why no one noticed Christians or their persecution in the secular record."
I am sure that there were follows of Jesus from the start. Nothing comes from nothing but certainly not enough for secular authorities to single them out as a threat to empire. By the time of Hadrian.
Those words are put in the mouth of jesus, but a future time was already with them when this was penned. I am beginning to see how these "prophecies" were utilised as propaganda for certain opinions or powerbase.
I don't believe the first-century Christians were persecuted because the fathers said it: we have secular testimony for these things and the Bible. Even Wikipedia contains information about Christianity as a first-century movement.
The Hadrian suggestion is a hypothesis; scholars working on the problem admit as much. It is not a fact. We'll just have to disagree on Matthew.
I also suspect the statement about Mark is flawed.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%9C%E1%BE%B6%CF%81%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%82#Ancient_Greek
https://biblehub.com/greek/3138.htm
" we have secular testimony for these thing" - sorry no.
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/causes-early-persecutions#:~:text=From%20the%20province%20of%20Bithynia,acting%20on%20accusations%20against%20Christians.
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=24912
1) I hope you realize that the claim about Mark's name is in all probability wrong. I went through that long thread about the subject and nothing there substantiates the original claim plus it is about Pontic Greek, which has nothing to do with Mark's name.
2) Tacitus was a secular writer and there are others who talk about Christians being persecuted. What about Pliny? And I just posted a link for that recent study about Christians being persecuted. But I'm wiling to move on if the conversation is not going to be productive.
The 1966 article for which you posted the link appeals to Tacitus and Suetonius to support the Neronian persecution, both of whom were secular writers. For the record, I never said that the first-century persecution had to be a result of imperial policy nor did I make any specific claims about the breadth of the persecution. My point is that first-century Christians were persecuted by Romans and some Jews, period.
Who doesn't get persecuted for opposing any paradigm, but you are imposing the modern meaning onto there understanding of "christian", if it is even a genuine record.
Nothing to do with name "Mark" name but everything to do with the name "Marcion" being a regional dialect.
Eg. as an example today "Vincent" to Italians is Vinchenzo. So how are you saying that the claim is wrong?
You know the birth and death dates of Tacitus, right? c. 55-117 CE
Born possibly in Cisalpine Gaul.
Nero (37 – 68 AD / reigned 54 – 68 AD)
So Nero reign ended when Tacitus was ~13?
Tacitus lived well into the second century - SO, when did he write this "history" and why?
An eye witness of persecution in Rome ????
https://www.ancientjewreview.com/read/2022/9/13/the-parting-of-the-ways-reflections-on-the-journey
The first point I waas making about "Mark" is that the issue is diminutive forms. Secondly, this has nothing to do with the heretic, Marcion.
See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%9C%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%BA%CE%AF%CF%89%CE%BD
https://ehrmanblog.org/is-the-martyrdom-of-polycarp-an-authentic-account/
I'm well familiar with the dates for Tacitus, yes. Who said Tacitus was an eyewitness and since when do historians have to be eyewitnesses?
To quote Wiki:
The Annals (Latin: Annales) by Roman historian and senator Tacitus[1] is a history of the Roman Empire from the reign of Tiberius to that of Nero, the years AD 14–68.[2] The Annals are an important source for modern understanding of the history of the Roman Empire during the 1st century AD.[3] Tacitus' final work, modern historians generally consider it his magnum opus[4] which historian Ronald Mellor says represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing".[5]
Judaeo-Christian persecution is different from your everyday persecution. See Matt 24:9 and John 16: followers of Christ are persecuted for the sake of his name. See also 1 Peter, which speaks about being persecuted for bearing the name, Christian.
Read the book of Acts chapters 4, 5 and 17.
https://books.google.com/books?id=eZkRAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=marcion+martyrdom+of+polycarp&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi61vql2-WEAxX0EFkFHZb3BaoQ6AF6BAgIEAI#v=onepage&q=marcion%20martyrdom%20of%20polycarp&f=false
You already know that I think ACTS is a very late work.
So Tacitus just googled what he needed? And you know that it he wrote the account IN the first century, how?
Are these "histories" as we would understand today?
https://crossworks.holycross.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1296&context=necj
"The orator Quintillian emphasizes this point while discussing the importance of vivid writing through description of disaster scenes in his handbook (Quintillian, Institutio Gratia. 8.3.67-70)."
1 Peter, which speaks about being persecuted for bearing the name, Christian. -
"Summary of reasons to doubt that Peter wrote 1 Peter:
The language, dating, style, and structure of the letter has led many scholars to doubt its authenticity.
The writer appears to have had a formal education in rhetoric and philosophy, and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language, none of which would be usual for a Galilean fisherman.
The letter lacks all reference to any personal details regarding the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
The author references the Septuagint translation which would’ve been an unlikely source for historical Peter to reference."
https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/arbutus/article/view/20187/9120
https://vridar.org/2022/01/13/rome-burning-the-christian-problem-in-the-annals-of-tacitus/
https://myfranciscan.franciscan.edu/ICS/icsfs/Dio_Cassius,_Nero_and_the_Great_Fire_of_Rome.doc?target=57c1f8a0-7098-4863-a4c8-52efa3bfa124
https://www.academia.edu/35878331/Tacitus_and_the_Persecution_of_the_Christians_An_Invention_of_Tradition_Eirene_53_2017_299_331
From this survey it can be concluded that the name Christian was a designation invented by the Roman authorities, which only gradually was taken over by the Christians themselves. Shaw is of course right when he points out that the first surviving attestations of the term Christian are relatively late. It is also undoubtedly true that the way in which Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny characterise Christians reflects early second century “public discourse” (89) and
can therefore not summarily be projected back onto mid-first century perception.
While these points may warrant the conclusion that Nero’ victims were perhaps
not labelled Christians, although Tacitus’ Christian seems to suggest otherwise(above), it does not necessarily follow that they were not followers of Christ.
Yes, I know you think Acts is a late work, but scholars are mixed on this question.
Criticisms about whether Peter wrote or did not write 1 Peter are beside the point when it comes to the subject of why Jesus' followers are persecuted. That's what I was addressing in my last remarks and we've also strayed from talking about the Song of Solomon.
In reply to ancient history, it wasn't done in exactly the same way. Nevertheless, they developed methods for passing down information accurately.
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html
As this link shows, the objections to Peter's authorship are not determinative or conclusive.
For an example of people being persecuted for their faith, see what's happening in Russia towards Jehovah's Witnesses
I'm going to lock this thread.
Post a Comment