Posted on 02/12/2005 11:59:27 AM PST by NYer
Rome, Feb. 11, 2005 (CNA) - Forensic scientists in Italy are working on a different kind of investigation—one that dates back 2000 years.
In an astounding announcement, the scientists think they may have re-created an image of Jesus Christ when He was a 12-year old boy.
Using the Shroud of Turin, a centuries-old linen cloth, which many believe bears the face of the crucified Christ, the investigators first created a computer-modeled, composite picture of the Christ’s face.
Dr. Carlo Bui, one of the scientists said that, “the face of the man on the shroud is the face of a suffering man. He has a deeply ruined nose. It was certainly struck."
Then, using techniques usually reserved for investigating missing persons, they back dated the image to create the closest thing many will ever see to a photograph of the young Christ.
“Without a doubt, the eyes... That is, the deepness of the eyes, the central part of the face in its complexity”, said forensic scientist Andrea Amore, one of the chief investigators who made the discovery.
The shroud itself, a 14-foot long by 3.5-foot wide woven cloth believed by many to be the burial shroud of Jesus, is receiving renewed attention lately.
A Los Alamos, New Mexico scientist has recently cast grave doubt that the carbon dating originally used to date the shroud was valid. This would suggest that the shroud may in fact be 2000 years old after all, placing it precisely in the period of Christ’s crucifixion.
The Septuigent, in it's original form, would have been a direct translation into Greek from the Hebrew Canon. It's kindof difficult to translate something as canon if one does not first know what canon is. So, yes, it is a wise question and an underlying point that perhaps I failed to make clear in my presentation. The LXX topic is a mess. And that mess seems to be purposed in the hopes of acceptance based on an obscurity begged in absence of any actual obscurity.
I think you'd need to point out where anyone on this thread stated that Jewish canon was closed by 200bc. I think the source I cited put it 200 years before Jamnia, which would be about 100bc - that is inline with what the history texts state as the end of the period in which the three parts of Jewish canon was considered from 300-100bc. You're astonished at a point not made. What's more, this is not the first time you've been corrected on it.
The Christian books, including the Gospels, were rejected at Jamnia, but it is clear that the earliest reference to the 24 books of the Jewish canon is not made until the 2nd century AD. First century references list only 22 books which suggests that the canon was not closed.
If there was no canon, then the apocryphal books could not have been considered non-canonical. The rabbis at Jamnia felt necessary to specifically reject the Christian books precisely because the Jewish canon was not closed yet.
They made sure that such books would not be considered in the future because they required the Jews to curse Jesus of Nazareth by name. The whole purpose of the meeting at Jamnia was to reject and curse anything Christian precisely because the canon was still subject to additions at that time.
Everyone knows what makes up Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant canons, because they are all closed. No Jamnia-like meeting needs to be convened because no books can be added to any of them, and no confusion exists as to which books make up each of them. That was not the case with the Jewish canon in 90 AD.
Uh, yes, that is a large part of the issue. How you can say it is not is beyond anyone here I'm sure. We're discussing authority. And adding books requires the authority to do so. Thusly, whether books were added and under what circumstance is central to knowing what authority resides in them.
Secondly, Whether the canon was closed or not in the 1st century is a moot point. Christ fulfilled the covenant - thus closing the old and opening the new. That being the case, whether the Jews closed the canon by the 1st century or notj, Christ's actions did it for them by about 33ad. As it stands, history shows that the canon was set by about 100bc. That is a matter of history. Either way, the canon was closed by the death and resurrection.
Ultimately, the question is NOT whether the canon was open - that is your attempt at a fishing expedition to excuse anything that might have happened later.
The strongest evidence that it was not closed comes from Jsephus (100 AD) who does not include Ecclesiastes in books of the Bible -- a book that is universally accepted by Christians and Jews today.
Jsephus=Josephus
"Again, the issue is not whether Christians added anything to the canon or not but whether the Jewish canon was closed or not. ..." ~ kosta50
"...by the time of Christ all of the Old Testament had been written and accepted in the Jewish community. The last book, Malachi, had been completed about 430 b.c. .....
By Christ's time, the Old Testament canon had been divided up into two lists of 22 or 24 books respectively, each of which contained all the same material as the 39 books of our modern versions. In the 22 book canon, Jeremiah and Lamentations were considered as one, as were Judges and Ruth. Here is how the 24 book format was divided.
The Hebrew Old Testament
Law
1. Genesis 2. Exodus 3. Leviticus 4. Numbers 5. Deuteronomy
Prophets
A. Former Prophets 6. Joshua 7. Judges 8. Samuel (1 & 2) 9. Kings (1 & 2)
B. Latter Prophets 10. Isaiah 11. Jeremiah 12. Ezekiel 13. The Twelve (minor prophets)
Writings
A. Poetical Books 14. Psalms 15. Proverbs 16. Job
B. Five Rolls (Megilloth) 17. Song of Solomon 18. Ruth 19. Lamentations 20. Ecclesiastes 21. Esther
C. Historical Books 22. Daniel 23. Ezra-Nehemiah 24. Chronicles (1 & 2)
...... The revelation of God was captured in the writings of Scripture by means of "inspiration." This has more to do with the process by which God revealed Himself than the fact of His self-revelation. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. . ." (2 Tim. 3:16) makes the claim.
Peter explains the process, ". . . knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet. 1:20,21).
By this means, the Word of God was protected from human error in its original record by the ministry of the Holy Spirit (cf. Deut. 18:18; Matt. 1:22).
A section of Zech. 7:12 describes it most clearly, ". . . the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets."
This ministry of the Spirit extended to both the part (the words) and to the whole in the original writings.
Over 2,000 times in the Old Testament alone, the Bible asserts that God spoke what is written within its pages. From the beginning (Gen. 1:3) to the end (Mal. 4:3) and continually throughout, this is what Scripture claims.
The phrase "the Word of God" occurs over 40 times in the New Testament. It is equated with the Old Testament (Mark 7:13). It is what Jesus preached (Luke 5:1). It was the message the apostles taught (Acts 4:31; 6:2). It was the Word the Samaritans received (Acts 8:14) as given by the apostles (Acts 8:25). It was the message the Gentiles received as preached by Peter (Acts 11:1). It was the word Paul preached on his first missionary journey (Acts 13:5,7,44,48,49; 15:35,36). It was the message preached on Paul's second missionary journey (Acts 16:32; 17:13; 18:11). It was the message Paul preached on his third missionary journey (Acts 19:10). It was the focus of Luke in the book of Acts in that it spread rapidly and widely (Acts 6:7; 12:24; 19:20). Paul was careful to tell the Corinthians that he spoke the Word as it was given from God, that it had not been adulterated, and that it was a manifestation of truth (2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2). Paul acknowledged that it was the source of his preaching (Col. 1:25; 1 Thess. 2:13).
Psalms 19 and 119, plus Proverbs 30:5-6, make powerful statements about God's Word which set it apart from any other religious instruction ever known in the history of mankind. These passages make the case for the Bible being called "sacred" (2 Tim. 3:15) and "holy" (Rom. 1:2).
The Bible claims ultimate spiritual authority in doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness because it represents the inspired Word of Almighty God (2 Tim. 3:16,17). Scripture asserts its spiritual sufficiency, so much so that it claims exclusivity for its teaching (cf. Is. 55:11; 2 Pet. 1:3,4).
God's Word declares that it is inerrant (Pss. 12:6; 119:140; Prov. 30:5a; John 10:35) and infallible (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). In other words, it is true and therefore trustworthy. All of these qualities are dependent on the fact that the Scriptures are God-given (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20,21), which guarantees its quality at the Source and at its original writing.
In Scripture, the person of God and the Word of God are everywhere interrelated, so much so that whatever is true about the character of God is true about the nature of God's Word. God is true, impeccable, and reliable; therefore, so is His Word.
What a person thinks about God's Word, in reality, reflects what a person thinks about God.
http://www.bibleteacher.org/hwgtb.htm
Yes it did. See my post #667.
I have seen this picture before, and it is not a nice picture.
So why did Josephus leave one book out as late as 100 AD? Besides, no one is arguing whether the Word of God is true or not. The issue that started all this was between Havoc and another poster over what books were used by the Jews, both Christian ad non-Christian by the 1st century AD.
I have no personal preference. I am only interested in historical facts. Whenever the Christian Jews started using the books know as Apocrypha, the Jewish priests and rabbis did nothing to reject them as they did in Jamnia (when the entire situation has changed for Judaism).
If this was an issue that was easily solved, no dispute would exist even among experts. And Josephus was a pretty reliable historian. For him to leave one book out -- the one we all agree on today -- as late as the end of the 1st century AD is indicative of some sort of confusion as to what was canon and what was not.
With that in mind, I think there have been some liberties taken with the events at Jamnia. I believe the simple fact is, there isn't a solid historical record of what took place at Jamnia. There certainly is no actual record of the Hebrew Canon being defined there that I am aware of. And while you've stated the Hebrew Canon did not exist until after Jamnia, your posts reference time and again a Hebrew Canon that did, in fact exist before Jamnia.
You've referenced 2 Esras 14 as the first reference to 24 books of the Jewish Canon, but that reference is to a period just after the destruction of the first temple, which happened in 587BC. And Esras was most likely written by a Christian and is not considered part of the Biblical canon in any church (Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish or Protestant). So I'm not sure its use as an authoritative source on the development of the Hebrew Canon is that useful.
Finally, you stated "the issue is not what Septuagint was based on but whether the books other than the "canon" (the apocrypha) were also considered canonical." OK. But as I read that sentence a few times it makes less sense everytime I read it. If the issue really is whether the books other than the "canon" were considered "canonical", then you must agree that there was a Hebrew canon at the foundation of the Septaugint. Otherwise, there would be no "apocryphal" books, most of which were not even written in Hebrew, and none of which were written by authors Jews consider prophets.
You made perhaps the most insightful comment earlier in this thread that I've read on any of these threads. It was this..."In short, there are a lot of holes everywhere in the history of Judaism and Christianity that cannot be ascertained by rock-solid facts and enough doubt exists to imply that human nature had a considerable amount of say in what goes and what doesn't go." I agree completely. And if we limit our discussion to "rock-solid facts", much of the debate that has taken place on this thread wouldn't have happened. Because the Orthodox church does put such emphasis on accurately recording history, could you give me insight into what "rock-solid facts" exist concerning Jamnia?
Isn't it a fact that one of the first statements of Christian Canon is found in Athanasius's 39th Festal Letter? To quote him..."Since some have taken in hand to set in order for themselves the so-called apocrypha and to mingle them with the God-inspired scripture, concerning which we have attained to a sure persuasion, according to what the original eye-witness and ministers of the word have delivered unto our fathers, I also, having been urged by true brethren and having investigated the matter from the beginning, have decided to set forth in order the writings that have been put in the canon, that have been handed down and confirmed as divine, in order that every one who has been led astray may condemn his seducers, and that every one who has remained stainless may rejoice, being again reminded of that." He then proceeds to list the books currently found in the Hebrew Canon and Protestant Old Testament Canon.
I believe your first statement here. That is why I think it would be useful to review exactly what historical facts exist from Jamnia. One of the known facts is that the college at Jamnia was formed in response to the second destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. I would imagine that if a Moslem or Hindu army demolished the Vatican and killed millions of Catholics in the process, you still wouldn't have the disruptive influence on the Catholic church that destroying the Temple and killing millions of Jews had on Judiasm. I would argue that Jamnia didn't cause the entire situation to change for Judiasm. That change happened when the Temple was reduced to dust.
"If this was an issue that was easily solved, no dispute would exist even among experts."
Another statement I agree completely with.
What were the facts about Jamnia? My understanding is that Jamnia was not a council, not authorized to set canon. The subject of this meeting or college as you more appropriately called it was to review two books (Song of Songs and another one I can't recall now). Part of its work included requiring all the Jews to curse the Jesus of Nazareth and to reject Gospels. It also rejected the so-called Apocryphal books, which form Christian canon, because they were not written in Hebrew.
Again, the answer I am seeking is not about Jamnia, Apocrypha, etc. but whether the Jewish canon was closed or not. Josephus (100 AD) fails to list Ecclesiastes as part of the jewish Bible, a book that is now considered part of the Jewish, Orthodox, Cathoic and Protestant canon. Was that an "omission" of a very detail-prone historian? I seriously doubt it.
It took almost 400 years for the Christians to close their canon and then again, 1000 years later during the Protestant Reformation, to redeifne and close it again. It took almost two centuries for the early church Fathers to agree on Gospels alone.
When I encounter a matter of fact statement that the Jewish canon was closed by the second century before Christ, I want to know what evidence is there to support that statement. So it is not whether a canon existed, but whether that canon was closed, when it was closed, where, by whom (authority) and why.
What I was trying to say (perhaps lacking in grace and elegance) is this: The Torah (and possibly the Prophets) were undoubtedly part of the canon (Bible) for most Jews, but the question is whether other books -- outside of this canonical "core" -- were also considered canonical? The Ethiopeans have a few extra books, so did the Essens and so did the Christian Jews (who considered themselves Jewish and their faith Judaism). The Samaritan canon, for example, consists only of the Torah and the book of Joshua!
Who had monopoly on Judaism? Is there any record that says that the issue of canonicity was raised by anyone, or that a college of Sanhedrin had to convene to discuss "non-cannonical" sources? I am not aware of any. Was there a precedent of a meeting such as Jamnia? I believe not. There was no religious college that convened to curse any one particular prophet or rabbi, or sect for "straying" from the canon.
All this suggests that the canon was evolving, with the Torah at the core, but also that the canon was not closed.
And my research (albeit very limited) on Jamnia agrees with yours. I believe those are the rock-solid facts of Jamnia as we know them.
Also the fact that the festival of Purim is mentioned as being not biblical (yet) indicates that the book of Esther was not included in the canon.
I also understand that some books were considedered one book and this only leads to confusion, but Ecclasiastes and the Song of Songs were specifically debated at Jamnia as such.
Interestingly, Athanasius also did not include it in the Canon, and neither did Eusebius. Perhaps it doesn't really belong there?!
"but Ecclasiastes and the Song of Songs were specifically debated at Jamnia as such."
And getting back to "rock-solid" facts, I believe those are the only two books that any evidence exists were discussed. So while I agree with your statement that debate on those books indicates the Jewish Canon was still a subject of debate, I'm missing any evidence that debate at Jamnia resulted in THE closed Jewish Canon that did not exist prior to that time. I am also missing any evidence that Apocryphal books were ever subject of Canonical debate within the Jewish faith amongst anyone but the Hellenic Jews that translated Hebrew Scripture into the Septuagint. But you brought up an excellent point several posts ago. You said..."Does that prove the Christian canon? Absolutely not! In fact, there is no such thing as "Christian canon."" You support that by listing the various Canons associated with various Christian churches. Since the Rabbinical Jews that met at Jamnia were but one sect of Judaism, it could be argued that any Canon resulting from that college would have as much relevance to Judaism as a whole, as the Council of Trent had on Christianity as a whole. In other words, just because one sect declares a Canon does not mean that other Canons haven't already been set, or that other Canons won't be "closed" in the future. And because I've grown especially weary of being told by some members of our catholic (lower case "c" intentional) church, that their Canon is the ONLY "true" canon, I found yet more of your earlier comments especially on target. "So, my point is that we don't know. We believe (with imperfect knowledge). Humility is a Christian virtue and humbling ourselves before God, and admitting that we don't know Him is not a shameful act. As one famous Orthodox spiritual leader once remarked, all we can do is pray -- the ultimate knowledge is recognizing that we know nothing (because we can't)." I know Havoc jumped on you for saying "we don't know God", and I understand his point. But I also understand yours. And I think in a different discussion format, Havoc would probably agree that there are things about God that we don't know or cannot understand. And I imagine you would agree that you do in fact, "know" God, who is your loving and very personal Creator. What we don't seem to "know" is how God uses man to spread His message of truth. Based on the "rock-solid" evidence we have, it would appear God uses a variety of ways. I can accept that.
The only "evidence" is that the canon hasn't changed since then! The college of rabbis actually established the Masoretic Text -- the last of the four different known Jewish canons (Pre-Masoretic, Palestinian, Septuagint, and Masoretic). Your parallel to the Trent (which canonized Rom Cath Apocrypha) and Jamnia, I think, is very valid -- with Judaism at that point diverging into two main branches (rabbinical or Masoretic and Christianity). Jamnia was also openly anti-Christian.
In defense of Apocrypha, not all Apocrypha and not all Gospels that circulated were accepted as inspired and treated as Scripture by the Christians. They struggled for almost two centuries before they accepted the Gospels, let alone the rest! But not even Christians can agree on which Apocrypha are Scripture, while those like Epistle of James, have been eventually accepted by all Christians.
I believe those are the only two books that any evidence exists were discussed
Well, those were the ones they eventually accepted at that time, and were added to the Masoretic canon, but they didn't just discuss those two books. They discussed Apocrypha (Hellenistic sources, some of which seem to have a Hebrew counterpart in the Qumran sources), which were rejected because they didn't know of any Hebrew sources. But they were rejected also because the interrupted age of prophets ended long before that. So, the rabbis argued that no inspired works could have been written!
The second set of books were the Gospels (also presumably written in Greek -- possibly with the exception of Matthew), and rejected on the same grounds, and would have been, even if Jesus were by some miracle acceptable to the rabbis. The Christians, on the other hand, accepted certain givens, and from them could claim inspired works. It all boils down to faith, which is what I was trying to explain to Havoc.
As for not knowing God -- Orthodoxy holds God and everything Divine to be a profound Mystery which is not ours to solve. It is a humbling experience to believe in God! Blessed are those who believe but have not seen! say the Gospels. Orthodox Liturgy is full of "ineffable, unknowable God" references. Our theology is based on apophatic knowledge -- we know what God is not more than what God is.
What we do know are His energies through which He manifests Himself to us -- His Wisdom, Word and Spirit (the Trinity), three Divine Manifestations of one Divine Being, the only real Existence, the unconditional Self, the Eternal and Unchanging, Simple and Indivisible God. None of this we can understand or know. We know of His Wisdom by the Creation, and His love through His Word, through which we feel His Spirit. That doesn't mean we know God, any more than I know that Rokke is a person, who has a mind, which generates his words, through which I know your spirit. So, while I may know a lot about you, the plain truth is: I don't know Rokke -- for that is probably not even your name -- yet I am having a remote and real discussion with you, having never physically met you or seen you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.