Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocrypha, Nag Hammadi, Deciding on the Bible Canon

by OnTheWayOut 35 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    I am learning so much about this great collection of ancient "literature."

    The book of Job was a poem. I already knew from JW's that it's authorship and
    time period were always disputed. I have really learned more how it depicts
    "the adversary" as an employee of YHVH whose job is to inspect the earth and
    accuse man of shortcomings.

    I have been learning about the Dead Sea scrolls. WTS told us they gave a wonderful
    proof that the scriptures we have today are accurate. In reality, information was
    suppressed (until it recently became popular to criticize the accuracy thanks to
    THE DA VINCI CODE and other books). WTS told us that "Jehovah" was indeed in
    the Greek of the scriptural writings. I don't have their exact quote, but the truth is
    that a Greek version of the Tetragrammaton is in a Greek version of Deuteronomy.
    That's still the Hebrew scriptures, just translated.

    The Dead Sea Scrolls contain many of the Apocryphal scriptures that did not make
    the final Bible canon. Even included are 3 chapters of Daniel that didn't make the final
    cut. In those 3 chapters, Daniel is a proactive worshipper of his God, and it has better
    flow and explanations of things. I don't remember the exact Daniel story, but you should
    look it up.

    The information found at Nag Hammadi and other sources of "lost Gospels" have helped
    modern people beyond compare. It was clear that 1st Century Christians were "all over
    the map" in their beliefs about the Christ. "He was just a man." "He was a God." "He was
    a man-God." "He took Mary Magdeline as his wife, or maybe just as his close Apostle."
    "Judas was in on his plan and helped him ditch the human shell." The Gnostics lost the
    battle of belief, and by the time after The Nicean Council, all the scriptures
    that should go into the Christian Canon had to be finalized to solidify the beliefs.

    Not chosen was a different Apocalypse credited to Peter. The Revelation credited to John
    almost was rejected. Somewhere in there, the Infant Gospel of Thomas (?) was ditched.
    It discussed Jesus being a brat until he grew out of it, turning clay birds to life and resurrecting
    another boy to prove that he didn't push him off a roof and kill him. The Koran includes much
    of the rejected information about Jesus, making him appear to be just another prophet with
    abilities from God.

    The Books of Enoch, 2 Enoch, and 3 Enoch- some was quoted as prophetic scripture in the
    book of Jude and speculated to be referred to by others in the Bible. Tertullian thinks Jews
    rejected the Book of Enoch because it points to the Christ. WTS basically teaches that these
    writings are unavailable today, and unknown. Between the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ethiopians,
    virtually all of this is available. It would fill in the story of the Nephilim, describing "The Watchers"
    as fallen angels who asked Enoch to mediate with God for them, but were instead cast to the
    depths of the earth.

    I won't ramble on. Basically, any unanswered questions in today's Bible seem to have a book
    or a chapter answering the questions, but the writings didn't get chosen by the Jews or the early
    Christians. Joseph Smith certainly wasn't the first person to write something beyond the
    known scriptures and claim it was "inspired." It is a popular trend right now to examine these
    alternate scriptures, and Christianity would have to be radically different if some of these books
    were included in the "inspired" canon.

    I used to think that David and Solomon would be flattered by a reading of modern scriptures and
    all that is accredited to them, small-time Kings of a small-time kingdom. I now also believe that
    Jesus would be quite upset by what was ultimately chosen as his story.

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    I miss some of the folks who would have regularly commented here and helped
    me with their further enlightenment.

  • 5go
    5go

    Honestly, I think the entire Old testament at least as far as Christianity is concerned needs to be made non cannon to save what little is left of the Bible's legitimacy. It has happened books once considered cannon were tossed to give the bible so more legitimacy to the masses.

  • startingover
    startingover

    OTWO

    Very nice synopsis! I think you are right on track.

    When I discovered that apocryphal books were contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls, that was another of my many epiphanies. SInce then I quit wasting my time trying to understand it all, to me the only way it does is if I consider it to be nothing more than man made mythology.

  • z
  • Meeting Junkie No More
    Meeting Junkie No More

    I agree, very nice synopsis...I wouldn't even attempt to do what you've done!

    I am currently reading The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English (I believe it only includes Old Testament books) but am seeing just how many variants there are of any given scripture even amongst the scrolls that were found.

    The WBTS really needs to do its homework on how out of date any of their comments are vis-a-vis archeological findings since these scrolls were found in 1947 - SIXTY YEARS AGO - especially the All Scripture Is Inspired of God book - WOEFULLY IN NEED OF AN UPDATE. Anyone with half an interest in history and/or literature is well aware of the implications of the new light shed on Biblical studies by the Nag Hammadi scrolls - another reason I think the WBTS likes to keep its adherents 'simple-minded' and discourages reading of any secular material. What probably prevents them from attempting to update the book in light of current research is that very little faith in the Bible as 'THE' Word of God would be left intact...

  • Must obey!
    Must obey!

    Oh lordy, another person swept up in some of the nonsense & common misbeliefs largely popularised by the da Vinci Code. If you really think Jesus married Mary Magdelene or that the gnostic gospels are on a par with the canonical gospels, all I can say is you really need to go back and do some a heck lot more real research of reputable scholarship (and by research I don't mean reading pulp websites).

  • moshe
    moshe

    Well, I know what I believe and a clerk at a Christian bookstore put me on the right track about 12 years ago when she explained why they didn't carry the newly released book, The Five Gospels. " We don't want to stampede the horses (out of the church and out of her store)", was her explanation.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos
    If you really think Jesus married Mary Magdelene or that the gnostic gospels are on a par with the canonical gospels

    Those are entirely distinct issues. Afaik no early Gnostic text suggests that Jesus married Mary Magdalene -- one fairly common feature of "Gnosticism" being aversion to marriage...

    More generally, the very notion of canon ("rule") is related to a definite community of believers coming from different religious and literary backgrounds. What will be accepted as sacred writings by the whole community (remember that "catholic" in its original sense means "universal") is ultimately the result of power struggle and negotiation between the competing segments of the community and their respective books. Another canon would imply another community. If there is no community, or if all members of the community spontaneously agree on the list of authoritative books, there is no need for any canon.

    Thousands of religious books, ancient and modern, are now available to us but they won't add up to a canon unless they also make up the basis for a new religious community. In a sense the modern individual reader constructs his or her own "canon" along the way, but this is quite different from the communitarian perspective where the usual meaning of "canon" makes sense.

    Many "extra-canonical" texts are interesting both for themselves and because they shed light on the "canonical" texts as otwo pointed out. But affirming that they should be in the canon (in addition to, or instead of others) displays a lack of historical sense imo. History occurs just once, it produced a large number of churches with a smaller number of canons. It may still produce new churches with new canons, but that won't change the previous episodes.

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Z, thanks for the websites. I will look at them soon.

    Oh lordy, another person swept up in some of the nonsense & common misbeliefs largely popularised by the da Vinci Code. If you really think Jesus married Mary Magdelene or that the gnostic gospels are on a par with the canonical gospels, all I can say is you really need to go back and do some a heck lot more real research of reputable scholarship (and by research I don't mean reading pulp websites).

    M.O., I don't automatically assume or believe anything. I know the DaVinci Code was fiction. The
    facts are the facts, though. There were competing beliefs and stories and Gospels. The church
    view is that the 4 chosen were "older" or more authentic, but a serious examination shows that they
    probably are not any more authentic than many other writings accredited to Apostles.

    The Lost Gospels did get a boost from The DaVinci Code, that's made the examination popular.
    There's quite a bit to look at and not just dismiss it without proper examination. The WTS told me
    to dismiss things like that, and I am done doing it somebody else's way.

    I don't know exactly what happened in Jesus' life, but the 4 Gospels probably aren't the most
    accurate last word. I have read other books that suggest that the marriage feast in Cana was that
    of Jesus and Mary M. Virtually every Jew at that age got married. The 4 Gospels don't say that
    Jesus did not marry. The church had their reasons for suppressing anything about women and
    the highest of high priests getting married. But I don't automatically accept that this is true, anymore
    than I accept that Boy Jesus resurrected the other boy to say he didn't push him off the roof.

    I don't say that the canon should be expanded automatically, but I don't think the men who chose the
    canon for the Hebrew and for the Christian scriptures were using "Is it God's word or man's?" as their
    criteria. I feel that knowledge of all this great literature would give people a more rounded view of
    the scriptures.

    Am I in doubt of the Bible being God's word at all, yes. Does that mean I will try to convince you that
    you should doubt it, no.

    Thanks, Nark. for the following sentence: What will be accepted as sacred writings by the whole community (remember that "catholic" in its original sense means "universal") is ultimately the result of
    power struggle and negotiation between the competing segments of the community and their respective books.

    I must pursue this as part of my own "spiritual" experience. Thanks. I just wanted to share what I
    am experiencing.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit