From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Fri Sep 12 2003 - 21:26:11 EDT
Don wrote:
> I already knew what Gordon has just written, and I should
> have made this clear in my message. But my intention was to respond to
Richard
> on his own ground. I know for example that 1 & 2 Kings is really one book,
and
> that it is forcing things to regard Ruth and Esther as history and
> Lamentations as part of the major prophets, instead of as part the Hebrew
> Writings. But what Richard is doing is making deductions from the the
modern
> form of the canon, so I have started from there myself.
> Don
>
Hi Don,
I too already knew what Gordon had just written. I've known it for many
years. I'm sure you would agree that such elementary knowledge is an obvious
prerequiste for intelligent discussion of this issue. I have articles
discussing it published on my site. The best for your review would probably
be "A Great Cloud of Witnesses" found here:
http://www.BibleWheel.com/Wheel/CloudOfWitnesses.asp
You are free to assert that I & 2 Kings are "really" one book, just as I am
free to call them two books. But History and the Christian Church seem to be
on my side, since both present us with two books, namely, I & 2 Kings. If
this weren't the case, you wouldn't be forced to assert otherwise, now would
you? It is hard to see how this kind of argument could impact the study of
the Bible Wheel at all, which involves the 2D representation of an object -
the traditional 66 book Christian Canon - that will exist unchanged
regardless of such disputes.
I would be interested in your reasons for denying Ruth and Esther the status
of History. They both appear to be explicitly Historical works. To refer to
their inclusion in the OT Historical section of the Christian Canon as
"forcing" seems itself to be a forced argument because there is no canonical
division known as "Hebrew Writings" in the Christian Canon (the topic under
discussion), which is where you contend they were forced from. It appears
that you take the modern Jewish structure of the Canon as a priori superior
to the ancient Christian Canon. You are free to do this, and there are some
arguments for such a position, but there are also arguments for the
Septuagintal order as represenative of an ancient Jewish tradition as old
as, or older than the modern tripartite structure. We have *explicit*
witnesses of the Septuagintal order from the 3rd and 4th centuries in Canon
lists and Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Is there anything like that
for the tripartite Jewish canon? The strongest argument is biblical, where
Jesus refers to the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, the latter being the
most prominent part of the Writings. But this is not definitive, and even if
it is a witness to the antiquity of the modern Jewish order, it does not
*exclude* the antiquity of the Septuagintal order which the Church has
*ALWAYS* followed (at least since the 4th century). As an aside, note the
reference to the Law and the Prophets. This phrase is used eleven times in
the NT to refer to the OT. Now look at Spoke 1 of the Wheel, which consists
of:
Genesis....First Book of the Law
Isaiah.......First Book of the Prophets
Romans...First Book of the NT Epistles.
Is this not a striking structure? I contend it is absolutely and
incontrovertibly OPTIMAL. I would be delighted to see someone offer a
suggestion of three books that would form a superior primary Spoke of the
Wheel. This, and ten thousand other extremely obvious wonders would be lost
if we followed the structure of the modern Jewish Tanach. But that is a mute
point anyway, since as far as I know, there never has been a Christian Bible
publish that follows such an order. (There may be one published for
evangelism amongst the Jews, but I have never seen one. In any case, it
would be the exception that proves the rule.)
And this leads naturally into your assertion that I am making deductions
from the "modern" form of the Canon. Can you name a single Christian Bible
that follows a different *order* of books? (Note that the Catholic follows
the same order of the protocanonical books, just with others interspersed,
which is a different issue.) I searched far and wide, and I finally found
*one* Christian Bible with a different order.
This is the great mystery. In nearly every interaction I have had with
professional scholars of the Old Testament, I encounter this same old
argument. They typically bring up an imagined "original order" that
supposedly invalidates the primary structure of the Bible that the Christian
Church has always known. Let me repeat. The *order* of the (proto) canonical
books found in *ALL* Christian Bibles on the planet (sans one that I know
of) follow the order seen in the so-called "modern" Canon. And not one
follows the order of the modern Jewish Tanach. This seems to be a *very*
small pebble over which one could be caused to stumble, especially in light
of the fact that even if there were two or three dominant competing orders,
it still would not in any way, shape, or form, detract from the intrinsic
beauty and supernatural wonder that leaps out of the Bible Wheel, which is,
in fact, based on the dominant text form of the Bible found on planet Earth
today (thanks largely to the Protestant missionaries).
In service of the Everlasting Word of God,
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 12 2003 - 21:24:37 EDT