How Can I Resist!
John de Fiesole on Disputions has this great description of the Book of Tobit: "Demons, monstrous fish, love at first sight, bird poop as a major plot device, a hometown setting: it's got it all." Kids just went down for a nap, and I think I have some reading to do!
The introduction to Tobit from the New American Bible points out: "The inspired author of the book used the literary form of religious novel (as in Jonah and Judith) for the purpose of instruction and edification. There may have been a historical nucleus around which the story was composed, but this possibility has nothing to do with the teaching of the book. The seemingly historical data-names of kings, cities, etc.-are used merely as vivid details to create interest and charm. Although the Book of Tobit is usually listed with the historical books, it more correctly stands midway between them and the wisdom literature."
I find this style especially appealing ... which makes me wonder whether I need to rethink, or at least refine the point I was making here.
The introduction to Tobit from the New American Bible points out: "The inspired author of the book used the literary form of religious novel (as in Jonah and Judith) for the purpose of instruction and edification. There may have been a historical nucleus around which the story was composed, but this possibility has nothing to do with the teaching of the book. The seemingly historical data-names of kings, cities, etc.-are used merely as vivid details to create interest and charm. Although the Book of Tobit is usually listed with the historical books, it more correctly stands midway between them and the wisdom literature."
I find this style especially appealing ... which makes me wonder whether I need to rethink, or at least refine the point I was making here.
posted by Ernesto at 12:50 PM
6 Comments:
Thanks, Ernesto (and John de Fiesole), for inspiring me to do something I've long meant to do, i.e. read the Apocrypha.
I wonder if anyone has ever created a "Protestant's Guide" to these quasi-cannonical books.
Ah, you mean the deutero-canonical books? Where, again, did you guys misplace those divinely inspired scriptural texts? ;>
And you are the judge of what is canonical Rick?
Or whose Authority do you accept in rendering the judgement that these writings are 'quasi-canonical'?
The Palestine Canon was not established by the Jews until long after the torch had passed to the Christian community.
The Scriptures that Paul, and all the Apostles, and every Christian from the beginning to the 16th century, read most certainly contained the books that the Revolters left out. By what Authority did they decide to do so? By the way, if Luther would have had his way, you wouldn't have James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John or Revelation in your Bible.
Tobit is a great joy to read, just be wary of New American Bible introductions and notes.
The editors of the NAB are allergic to more traditional, more literal understandings. Egads, you might be labeled a supernaturalist.
I love to read your back and forth. "quasi-cannonical books" and "deutero-canonical books" I'm glad to see your fun excahange about what is really the deutero-canonical books... :)
Doesn't the very fact that the books of the Apocrypha are in some kind of dispute by educated and well-intentioned believers, and are "qualified" even by the Catholics as "secondarily" canonical, cast a certain pall over them? After all, if you are going to devote yourself wholly to something, you probably want to be sure that it is something of the first order in its own nature. What I've read of and about the Apocrypha casts significant doubts upon its integrity. I've read about Luther's rummaging through the canon for other books to toss out. The fact is that he was not the ultimate voice on canonicity. No individual can be. The various councils made many of their decisions by less than unanimous votes, including the decisions regarding the canon. So was it a democratic process that defined it? If so, then perhaps it is the democracy of all of faithful Christendom that has the last word. Assuming (as I do) that the protestants and evangelicals are parts of the church, I would gather that the canon, minus the deuterocanonical books is adequate for instruction, teaching and reproof. If the Catholics believe that some other books are useful, and those books do not contradict the obvious message of the commonly agreed upon books, then no real harm is done. When the Jehovah's Witnesses rewrite scripture to match their heresy, or when the Mormons or Christian Scientists elevate books of fantasy or human opinion to the status of scripture, and those book patently challenge the common understandings of the Gospel, then obviously, that is not OK.
I've done a little research and it's not like there are no reasonable voices who take exception to Binx's comments on the universal and equal acceptance of the books in question. I've been avoiding appeals to authority and attempting to use reason and thought-experiments to "test the spirits." I know this is harder when ones religious tradition is so grounded in tradition. I'm really not trying to engage in sophistry. I'm trying to explain what I believe as clearly as I can.
Post a Comment
<< Home