luke joural 2

Title of the article: Jesus’ pronouncement about entering the kingdom like a child: a structural exegesis
The author: Daniel Patte Daniel Patte’s interest in hermeneutics (Early Jewish Hermeneutics in Palestine) and in theories of communication, structuralism, and semiotics (books on “Structural Exegesis”) led him to pay special attention to The Religious Dimensions of Biblical Texts and, in particular, those of Paul’s letters (Paul’s Faith and the Power of the Gospel) and Matthew (The Gospel according to Matthew).
His involvement as General Editor of Semeia: An Experimental Journal for Biblical Criticism of the Society of Biblical Literature (1992-98), and his concern for moral responsibility (Ethics of Biblical Interpretation) led him to a practice of “Scriptural Criticism” that accounts for the analytical-exegetical, hermeneutical-theological, and contextual choices any interpretation of the Bible involves–formulated in Romans through History and Cultures (a Society of Biblical Literature seminar and a book series), in preparation for a commentary on Romans.
He illustrated the practice of Scriptural Criticism in The Challenge of Discipleship, in the co-authored books with M. Stubbs, J. Ukpong, and R. Velunta, The Gospel of Matthew: A Contextual Introduction for Group Study, and with the seventy scholars around the world of the Global Bible Commentary. He is the General Editor of The Cambridge Dictionary of Christianity (in process) that seeks to make understandable the complexity of present-day Christianity by clarifying the contextual character of Christian theological views, practices and movements through history and cultures.

Bibliographic Data:
The outline of the article:
1. identification of the textual manifestations of the common theme
2. the approach needed for the study of such a common theme
3. comparison of the six texts in terms of their discoursive syntax: the relation between Jesus and his addressees
4. Comparison of the six texts in terms of their narrative syntax and semantics: the relation between” entering the kingdom” and “childhood”
5. conclusions:
5.1 entering the kingdom like a child according to Mark 10
5.2 entering the kingdom like a child according to Matthew 18 &19
5.3 entering the kingdom like a child according to Luke 18
5.4 entering the kingdom like a child according to John 3
5.5 Entering the kingdom like a child according to Thomas 22
About the article: The six texts selected by J. Dominic Crossan –Matthew 18:1-5; Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17; John 3:1-6;
Gospel of Thomas 22—form a corpus admirably suited for structural exegesis. They can be compared to the variants of a myth studied by Levi-Strauss. Studying their structural relations should allow us to specify the features of their common theme ad well as to elucidate the specific connotations which this theme takes in each of these texts. As a starting point for our study we need to identify, at the level of the textual manifestation, the common theme of these six texts. Reflecting upon the nature of the theme, we shall then select an approach suited for our comparative study.

luke SQ11

Which do you consider to be the most important principle of interpretation? Why?
Interpretation should be distinguished from application. Interpretation refers to the meaning of the Scripture to the people to whom it was originally given. The interpreter is as obligated to make correct applications as he is to make correct interpretations.
I think the theological principle is the most important principle of interpretation. The books of the Bible were written to interpret the grace of God as it reaches out to man in need. They were not written primarily to record historical events. God acted in history, and His actions were theologically interpreted. The Gospels were not simply historical accounts of the life of Christ. The Gospel writers used historical events to present theological truths. The miracles proved the divinity and love of Christ. The atonement through Christ’s death is the theological meaning of the death of a Jew who was crucified by the Romans outside of Jerusalem. Many men died on crosses, and their deaths had no theological significance. The interpreter should focus on the theological truths presented and not on the question of the accuracy of historical details.

luke J 1

Title of the Article: Inspiration, Authority and Interpretation.
About the Author: Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons)
Andrew S. Kulikovsky has a B.App.Sc.(Hons) in Computer and Information Science from the University of South Australia and an M.A. in Biblical Studies and Theology from Louisiana Baptist University. His Masters thesis was entitled ‘Creation, Fall, Restoration: A Biblical Theology of Creation’. He is currently working on a Law degree at Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia, and is an active supporter of Creation Ministries International and a member of the Adelaide Support Group.
Bibliographic Data: Journal For Christian Theological Research
ISSN 1087-1624 February 10, 1994

URL:
Outline of the Article:
1.Introduction
2. Biblical Inspiration
2.1 Inadequate Definitions
2.2 Nature of Biblical Inspiration
2.3 Extent of Biblical Inspiration
3. Biblical Authority
3.1 Nature of Biblical Authority
3.2 Extent of Biblical Authority
4. Inspiration, Authority and Hermeneutic
5. The Hermeneutical Task
6. Guidelines For Sound Biblical Interpretation
6.1 Genre
6.2 Historical Context
6.3 Literary Context
6.4 Content
6.5 General Principles
7. Conclusion
About the article:
The doctrine of Biblical Inspiration is fundamental to evangelical Christianity. Without this essential notion, the uniqueness and authority of the Bible is destroyed. The Bible just becomes one of many ancient books and the truths of historic Christianity are reduced to a collection of religious myths.
The doctrine of Inspiration also implies that the Bible is authorative for all humanity in all aspects of life. Unless the Bible is truly inspired by God, there is no reason why it should be considered any more authorative than any other book. Francis Schaeffer recognised that rejecting these two most fundamental doctrines was an enormous problem and called it The Great Evangelical Disaster (in The Complete Works 1982, vol. 5 pp. 320-321).
The purpose of this paper is to explore the meaning and implications of these doctrines and highlight how they relate to the hermeneutical task and how we apply these truths to our lives.

luke BR5

Title of the book: Inerrancy and Common Sense
About the authors: Edited by Roger R. Nicole and J. Ramsey Michaels, colleagues on the faculty at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, have both earned doctorates at Harvard University. Nicole is Andrew Mutch Professor of Theology; Michaels is professor of New Testament.
Contributors: John J. Davis, Roger R. Nicole, James I. Packer Gordon D. Fee, R.C. Sproul, Richard Lovelace Douglas Stuart, J. Ramsey Michaels; Three of the contributors are leaders in the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy: James I. Packer (whose chapter is titled ¡°Preaching as Biblical Interpretation¡±), Roger R. Nicole, (¡°The Nature of Inerrancy¡±), and R.C. Sproul (¡°Biblical Interpretation and the Analogy of Faith¡±).
Contents:
Preface¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­7
Introduction¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­..11
1 Inerrancy: Some Historical Perspectives…………………………………………………………………………..15
2 Inerrancy or Verbal Inspiration? An Evangelical Dilemma¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­..49
3 The Nature of Inerrancy¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­71
4 Inerrancy and Textual Criticism¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­97
5 Biblical Interpretation and the Analogy of Faith¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­.119
6 Genesis, Inerrancy, and the Antiquity of Man¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­.137
7 Hermeneutics and Common Sense: An Exploratory Essay on the Hermeneutics of the Epistles¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­…161
8 Preaching as Biblical Interpretation¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­187
About the book: The essays of this volume are all written by people who are members of the faculty of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, either full-time, or in limited but regular involvement. Although the book is to be seen more as a sampling than as a full exposition of the view about Scripture represented at this seminary, it should give the reader some idea of the faculty¡¯s understanding of and commitment to its statement that the Bible is ¡°inspired of God. hence free from error.¡± A word remains to be said about the nature of the eight essays and the order in which they appear. We begin with Richard Lovelace¡¯s paper as providing a historical vista as well as supplying some suggestions for an evangelical strategy with reference to inerrancy. The essays of the two editors relate to dogmatics, Michaels making a comparison between the terminology of verbal inspiration and that of inerrancy, and Nicole seeking to provide a definition of inerrancy that fits with the phenomena of Scripture. Douglas Stuart directs his attention to the textual transmission of Scripture, with illustrations drawn from Old Testament textual criticism. The last four essays relate in a variety of ways to the difficult subject of the interpretation of Scripture. R. C. Sproul has analyzed the components involved in the hermeneutical principle of the Analogy of Faith. John Jefferson Davis deals with the interpretation of Genesis, and Gordon Fee with gnat of the Pauline Epistles, both of them with a view to establishing certain principles of more general application than the texts they directly study. Finally, James Packer relates the whole issue of inerrancy, inspiration, and interpretation to the practical ministry of preaching. Thus Old Testament studies, New Testament Studies, church history, dogmatics, and practical theology are all given at least some representation in this symposium. That inerrancy of Scripture is both a biblical doctrine and the historic view of the Christian church, is the note sounded with clarity and vigor by the eight contributors to this volume. While they are concerned to show how reasonable and sensible this view is, they also strike an irenic stance when expressing differences with evangelicals who limit Scripture¡¯s inerrancy to matters of faith and morals. These essays all affirm an inerrant Bible, accepted under the rules of common-sense interpretation. With such elasticity, there should be little controversy about its authority.

luke SQ9

Evaluate the allegorical method of interpreting Scripture.
Allegory means to speak figuratively, Both Greeks and Jews used allegory. The Greeks, especially the Stoics, used allegory to explain away the myths concerning the gods. The Rabbis under stood Scripture to have hidden meanings; therefore, they used the allegorical method to bring out the hidden meanings. Paul used the allegorical interpretation of an Old Testament Scripture to illustrate the difference in bondage under the Law and freedom under grace:
For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freedom. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai. which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. Paul went far beyond the literal or historical understanding of the story of Hagar and Sarah when he applied it to enslaved Israel and the free. His interpretation differs, however, from true allegory since he did not deny the reality of the Old Testament history. The story is a figure of a spiritual truth. Paul¡¯s use of allegory indicates that the method is not ethically wrong, but it is an inferior way of discerning the real meaning of the Scriptures. His use of Abraham¡¯s two sons as examples of the enslaved and the free is not entirely forced. Allegory was used by the Hellenistic Jews to develop a philosophy based on Moses¡¯ writings which had a semblance to the Greek philosophers. Philo was convinced of the spiritual superiority of Moses and the prophets over Plato and the philosophers. He compared divine wisdom to Sarah, the princess, and human wisdom to Hagar, the concubine. The extreme allegorical interpretation of Philo has caused Christians to recoil from using allegory and to deny that Paul employed a different and moderate form of allegory. Allegory has often been a means of avoiding the literal sense of a passage when this caused difficulties or raised objections. The essence of figurative interpretation is not merely to enable us to cope with aspects of a text that we do not like. It is nearer to being a way of enabling us to discover something from a text that would otherwise be mute. Allegory may make it possible to handle different texts; more fundamentally it makes it possible to hear something that speaks to us from texts that may not otherwise do so. The correctness of figurative interpretations is difficult to evaluate. We cannot establish what was in the back of God¡¯s mind at a given moment unless God reveals it, any true interpretation of this kind comes as the gift of the Spirit who inspired scripture.

luke SQ8

What are the benefits in knowing the history of the translation of the English Bible?
Knowing the history of the translation of the English Bible, we know that the English Bible had many versions, they have different characteristics. Many great people devoted themselves in the translation of the English Bible; some people even lost their lives or endured sufferings because of the Bible translation. Through the history, we can recognize the extreme value of the Bible. Most of the Bible versions being used now adhere as closely as possible to the original language of the Holy Scriptures and to make the translation fluent and readable according to current English usage, but it¡¯s not natural, it is the result of many translators¡¯ efforts. There are many different versions:
Some poems and a few verses of Scripture appeared in Old English in the eighth century. The translation of the Bible into Middle English began in the fourteenth century. The Wycliffe Translation is the earliest English translation based on the Vulgate(1383). The Tyndale Translation is the first printed English New Testament Based on the Greek text, the Vulgate, and Luther¡¯s translation. The Coverdale translation is the first complete Bible printed in English(1535). Great Bible is the Bible approved by Henry VIII to be read in the churches. King James is the Bible which replaced the Geneva and Great Bibles(1611). Revised Version is the revision of the King James Version in 1870 using newly discovered texts. Revised Standard Version is an American revision published in 1946 and 1952. New English Bible is an English revision of the revised version (1961, 1970 ) New American Standard Bible is an American revision of the American Stand version( 1960,1970) . Thanks God, we can have the opportunity to read the Bible. Reading different versions of Bible, we can understand God¡¯s Word deeply, thoroughly. Knowing history can make us more knowledgeable. God love knowledgeable servants. To be God¡¯s servants, being good and faithful is not enough, we should be knowledgeable and wise.

lukeBR4

Title of the book: INVITATION TO THE SEPTUAGINT
About the authors:
Karen H. Jobes (Ph.D., Westminster Theological Seminary) is associate professor of New Testament at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California. Karen is the author of The Alpha-Text of Esther: Its Character and Relationship to the Masoretic Text and The NIV Application Commentary: Esther.
Moises Silva(Ph.D., University of Manchester) has taught biblical studies at Westmont College, Westminster Theological Seminary, and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Moises is the author of various books on biblical interpretation, including Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics, Philippians, and Explorations in Exegetical Method.
Contents:
List of Illustration¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­..7
Preface¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­…9
Acknowledge¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­…13
Abbreviations¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­..15
Map¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­..17
Timeline¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­…18
Part 1: The History of the Septuagint
1. The Origin of the Septuagint and Other Greek Versions¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­.29
2. The Translation of the Septuagint¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­45
3. The Septuagint in Modern Times¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­.69
4. The Septuagint as a Translation¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­…86
Part 2: The Septuagint in Biblical Studies.
5. The Language of the Septuagint¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­105
6. Establishing the Text of the Septuagint¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­.119
7. Using the Septuagint for the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­146
8. The Judean Desert Discoveries and Septuagint Studies¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­167
9. Septuagint and New Testament¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­.183
10. Interpreting the Septuagint¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­..206
Part 3: The Current State of Septuagint Studies
11. Our Predecessors: Septuagint Scholars of a Previous Generation¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­..239
12. Current Studies in Linguistic Research¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­258
13. Reconstructing the History of the Text¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­273
14. Theological Development in the Hellenistic Age¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­288
Appendixes
A. Major Organization and Research Projects¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­..311
B. Reference Works¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­…319
C. Glossary¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­324
D. Differences in Versification between English Versions and the Septuagint¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­..329
Indexes
Subject Index¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­..335
Author Index¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­..344
Scripture Index¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­¡­…349
About the book:
As the Bible of Hellenistic Judaism and of the early church, the Septuagint has long been important to biblical scholarship as an aid for interpreting both the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament. Until now, however, no user-friendly. Introduction to the Septuagint has been available. Previous volumes presupposed a great deal of prior knowledge about the scholarly discussions that had been going on for decades. Writing for beginning students and seasoned scholars alike, Karen Jobes and Mosies Silva give the necessary background and provide a primer that is both accessible and comprehensive. As it moves from basic introductory matters to more advanced issues, Invitation to the Septuagint:
1.    Clarifies the Septuagint¡¯s importance for the field of biblical studies.
2.    Reviews the history of early Greek versions of the Bible.
3.    Introduces the current printed editions of the Septuagint.
4.    Provides explanatory notes on selected Septuagint passages.
5.    Surveys the present state of Septuagint research..
This practical resource will undoubtedly become the standard introduction for those seeking a clear and accessible guide to the study of Septuagint. This book is a very inviting book for anyone wanting to learn about the Septuagint, not only those for whom this is a first introduction but also those who know their way in this area.

Luke SQ7

Since the Canon is composed only of inspired writings, are all the books of equal value? What was Luther’s view?
During the century after the death of Jesus, the 27 books of the New Testament were written and slowly collected into one volume. This fixed collection of works came to be recognized as authoritative for the faith and life of the Church. Practical usage determined which books should be included in the collection long before their official recognition in AD 397. The valuable writings which expressed the early Christians’ faith and commitment were preserved by the congregations throughout the Roman Empire. Eventually writings of religious value came to be associated with each other because of such factors as common origin or subject matter. Paul’s epistles were so highly respected by the time of the writing of 2 peter that the author stated:” So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters” (2 Pet. 3:15b-16a). The author equated Paul’s epistles with other Scriptures. They were already recognized as containing religious authority. Perhaps the Gospels existed as a collection by AD 100, but Paul’s writings probably became a collection earlier. The deaths of those who had been eyewitness of Jesus’ life and teachings made the preservation of the books all the more important. By the end of the first century, letters and books which were associated with the names of the apostles were prized highly.
Luther stated that Scripture only, without tradition, was the single and complete source of doctrine. He also said that only the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament and acknowledged books of the New Testament ought to be admitted as authoritative. Luther concluded that some books of the New Testament were superior to others. He listed the superior books as John’s Gospel, Paul’s epistles, especially to the Romans, and 1 Peter. He stated that the Epistle of St. James is a “right strawy epistle” when compared with them, for it has no character of the gospel in it. He placed Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse at the end of his translation since their acceptance into the Canon had been questioned. He concluded that James contradicted Paul by teaching righteousness by works. He considered Revelation to be a” dumb prophecy.”

Luke SQ6

What historical circumstances contributed to the origin of the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles?
Important historical events:
AD30 the crucifixion of Jesus
AD34 the conversion of Paul
AD41-44 the death of James and Herod Aprippa I and the imprisonment of Peter
AD46-48 Paul’s first missionary journey
AD49 the Jerusalem Conference
AD50-52 Paul’s second missionary journey .Much of the time was spent in Corinth
AD58 Paul’s return to Jerusalem and his arrest
AD58-60 Paul’s imprisonment and trials in Caesarea, until Festus became procurator in AD60, and his transfer to Rome for trial before the emperor
AD60-62 Paul’s Roman imprisonment
AD64 the burning of Rome by Nero, the false accusation of the Christians, and possibly the death of Paul
AD66-70 The Jewish rebellion against Roman rule and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The Roman persecution of the Jews and the death of many Christians may have encouraged the permanent recording of the life and ministry of Jesus
AD81-96 the rule of Domitian,during which time the Christians were severely persecuted. Perhaps John wrote Revelation during this time to encourage the Christians
Although Jesus performed many benevolent deeds of healing, His major activity was teaching His disciple. His miracle proved He possessed the power of God; therefore, they gave evidence that the Kingdom was at hand. His teachings emphasized the new concept that victory in the Kingdom comes through the suffering and death of the King. He gave the requirements for kingdom citizens and the kind of service His disciples were to render. His teachings were very significant and greatly treasured by His disciples after His death. Two events emphasized the need for written accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus: (1) The death of the apostles threatened to destroy the source of authentic teachings. (2) The spreading of the gospel to the Gentles, who did not have an Old Testament background, required a permanent authoritative writing. Because of Roman domination and punishment of Jewish rebels, Messianic expectations rose to new heights. Jewish dissatisfaction with Roman rule resulted not so much from oppression as from the idea of being under foreign domination. During Paul’s early life, he was a strict Pharisee who believed in Jewish separation from Gentiles. A special revelation at the time of his conversion resulted in a complete change his views. He became the interpreter of the gospel of Christ to the Gentiles. Through a diligent study of the Old Testament and under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, he discovered that salvation had always been by faith rather than by the observance of legalistic rules. He gave his life to the establishment and guidance of the new Israel which included converted Gentitles.

g

Q5

The first data regarding a fixed Jewish canon are provided by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, whose writings date from the end of first century A.D. In his apologetic work Against Apion (1.37-46), Josephus mentions 22 “accredited” (pepisteume,na) books, written in the period from Moses to Artaxerxes I (465-424 B.C.). If one allows for the fact that some books were regarded as single units (e.g., 1 + 2 Samuel, 1 + 2 Kings, 1 + 2 Chronicles, Ezra + Nehemiah, Judges + Ruth, Jeremiah + Lamentations) and that the Twelve Minor Prophets which were counted as one book, one can arrive at the number of 22 –with the result that the number of the books equaled the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. All books written after Artaxerxes I, according to Josephus, lacked the degree of accreditation of those written earlier, since by that time the era of the prophets had passed. From Josephus’ testimony it may be inferred that towards the end of I A.D. the Jews made a clear distinction between “canonical” books and the rest, using as a criterion their alleged time of writing.

Similar information derives from the book of 4 Ezra written ca. A.D. 100 According to its author (14:19-48) the canon was composed by Ezra himself and contained 24 books (v. 45). Although the 24 books are not mentioned by name, it is probable that they were the books included in today’s Jewish canon (based on the numbering described above provided Judges, Ruth, Jeremiah and Lamentations are counted separately in order to equal the number of the Greek alphabet). Though the attribution of the canon’s formation to Ezra lacks historical foundation, the mention of a specific number of books corroborates that, when 4 Ezra was written, a clearly formed canon was in existence. Despite the canon of 24 books, the author not only did not suppress the existence of other sacred books, but attributed their composition as well to Ezra. This was a collection of 70 additional books (v. 46), whose sole difference from the 24 books was that the former were not “made public” by Ezra but handed over by him to “the wise among [the] people” (v. 47).

It is characteristic of the above witnesses that, whilst a specific number of sacred books is mentioned and a clear distinction is made between these and the remaining works of Jewish religious literature, there is nowhere any reference to the existence of an institutional body charged with the acceptance or non-acceptance of a given book to the canon. Consequently, only hypotheses can be put forward on this question. The information contained in the Talmud that the “men of the Great Synagogue”, who are identified with Ezra and his associates, worked towards the establishment of the canon, lacks a firm historical foundation. On the other hand, the insistence of all Jewish sources on the attribution of the canon’s formation to Ezra favours the view that it was not based on a decision taken by an institutional entity.

The absence of an institutional body with the final decision on canonicity, based on strict criteria, explains the uncertainty of Jewish authors of I A.D. regarding their assessment on the books not included in the canon. Thus, whilst at the end of I A.D. the canon of the Jewish Bible appears to have been formed and the canonical books were clearly distinguished from other works of Jewish religious literature, the latter were not rejected nor were they condemned as spurious. Indeed, the author of 4 Ezra endowed them with Ezra’s authority, while Josephus used them as sources in his own writings and cited them verbatim (e.g., the Additions to Esther [Antiquities of the Jews XI.216-219, 273-283], 1 Maccabees [Ant. XII.237-386, 389-432 and XIII.1-57] and 1 Ezra [Ant. XI.75] and appears to accept them as “sacred”.

The rabbinical Synod of Jamnia in Palestine (A.D. 90/100) seems to have played an important role in the demarcation of the Jewish canon. The synod did not initiate the formation of a canon but, accepting it as a given, dealt with matters concerning the public reading of specific books or parts of them, their place within the canon etc. It is a fact, however, that after this synod the books which were not included in the canon were considered ouv kei,mena (“non at hand”) that is, non existent. Thus, the rather tolerant stance of Jewish writers towards the non-included books began to alter after I A.D. The establishment of the Christian Church and the spread of Christianity played an important role in this development. The widespread use of the Septuagint Translation among Greek-speaking Jews of the dispersion facilitated the Christian mission. This resulted in the adoption of the Septuagint (LXX) by the Church as her holy Bible, without, however, any clear notion regarding the number of the books it contained. Nevertheless, the adoption of the Septuagint by the Christians led the Jewish Synagogue, due to its antagonism towards the Church, to the rejection and, ultimately, the condemnation of the LXX, and, consequently, of the books not included in the Jewish canon. The first indication of disapproval of the LXX by Judaism comes from the Christian apologist Justin Martyr in his work Dialogue with Trypho. Approximately during this same period (end of II A.D.) the list of the 24 canonical books with the names of their “authors” surfaced in talmudic tradition (Baba Bathra 14b-15a).

Despite the formation of the canon, the issue as a whole was far from resolved. The Talmud has preserved many disagreements among the rabbis related to the problem of public reading of certain books, such as Song of Solomon (Jaddajim III 5, Megilla 7a), Ecclesiastes (Jaddajim III 5, Sabbath 30a.b), Proverbs (Sabbath 30a.b), Ezekiel (Sabbath 13b, Chagiga 13a, Menachot 45a), Esther (Sanhedrin 100a) and Ruth (Megilla 7a). On the other hand, during the next several centuries the implicit recognition by Judaism of the books not included in the cannon also continued, as is demonstrated by the Talmud, which often quotes and comments upon non-canonical books.

From the above it is evident that, in Jewish literature, when mention is made of the canon of sacred books it is stated explicitly that it contained only 22 or 24 books (=39). In practice, however, there is an implicit recognition of additional books as being sacred.

 

---