The Bible Canon of Shermana

[fredonly]

The Gospel of John wasn't even written until around the timeline I suggested around 100 A.D. (i.e. around 90 A.D.). I think John and Revelation were some of the earliest books to see some Trinitarian redaction to be specific. This issue should have its own thread, especially what I consider to be Canon, which may include things like the "Acts of Thomas" minus some Syrian Catholic additions.

OK Shermana, here's your special thread. Define and defend your Biblical canon.

Questions for debate:
(for Shermana): What books are in your Bible?

What is your basis for selecting these books?

What portions of these books do you dispute because of attribution to redaction? How do you decide what is redacted?

For the books (or portion thereof) that you accept, what is their level of accuracy? i;e. are they literally true? Are they (just) generally true? How do you know this?

(for everyone else): Do you take issue with Shermana's accounts?

[JehovahsWitness]

The biggest problem I have of Jesus of Nazareth is that there is no evidence that a town named Nazareth existed in the 1st century c.e.

Firstly absence of evidence is not evidence of absense, lack of evidence is no evidence at all. We cannot assume that the lack of archaeological evidence for an ancient city or town proves that the city/town did not exist, only that its existence is not yet proven.

Most scholars identify Nazareth with En Nasira (Nazerat) in Galilee. If this view is correct, Nazareth was situated in the low mountains just N of the Valley of Jezreel and approximately halfway between the S tip of the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean Coast. It seems the area was well populated, with a number of cities and towns. [Some believe the marble fragment of Caesarea Maritima which dates from early c. 300 (discovered in 1962) refers to Nazareth under the Hebrew name of nuntsadereshtav.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tiamu ... ite_note-4

In any case, the biblical account indicates that Nazareth was not a signifcant metropole, but was looked down on, even by people of Galilee(John 1:46) and archaeological excavations indicate that the region did indeed have a number of small agricultural villages during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Nazareth's relative insignificance in comparison with other towns around it (perhaps a small holding of homes)would explain both its lack of mention and the lack of significant structual remains.

[Shermana]

Ahem....as of now...

The entire Old Testament minus Ruth. Ruth directly violates the commandment to not marry

Can you clarify? Ruth married. Twice.

To not marry a Moabite "even unto the 10th generation".

[JehovahsWitness]

To not marry a Moabite "even unto the 10th generation".

This is incorrect. The MARITAL prohibition did not apply to the MOABITES. Deuteronomy chapter 7 lists the nations covered by this prohibition and the moabites are NOT in the list.

When Jehovah your God at last brings you into the land to which you are going so as to take possession of it, he must also clear away populous nations from before you, the Hittites and the Girga-shites and the Amor-ites and the Canaan-ites and the Periz-zites and the Hivites and the Jebu-sites, seven nations more populous and mighty than you are. [...] And you must form no marriage alliance with them. Your daughter you must not give to his son, and his daughter you must not take for your son

Regarding the restriction of the "10 generations" (Deut 23:3), this was not a maritial restriction but a restriction on full membership to the nation of Israel, of any children born of that interracial union. H O W E V E R Legally, the child born to Ruth and Boaz, through the law of the repurchaser replaced Elimelech's sons (which is why the community referred to the child as being Naomi's - See Ruth 4:17) and as such would bear the name and have the full inheritance rights of Naomi's husband. This is logical because while inheritance is usually apportioned at the death of the father but since the family moved away (leaving their inheritance) and the subsequently the father (Naomis husband) died prematurely, as did his sons. Thus the repurchaser was buying the inheritance (name and tribal rights) of ELIMILECH (not his sons) and that child would therefore carry the name and rights of this one and not be under the restriction of Deut 23:3.

[sarabellum]

I will say that Shermana's take on God seems to be different than some....

I've been thinking on this for a bit....

What if the landscape of the "Bible" is tougher to navigate than one would expect?
Should it be easy??

What if the "true word" is spread out more than we would assume?

Can anyone prove that any canon is true and accurate?

I would think not...

An appeal to popularity?

[Shermana]

New International Version (1984)
No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation.

De 23:3

e law of the repurchase

Where is this law of repurchase stated? I have no idea where your statement that this marriage of a Moabite has scriptural basis of a "repurchase law", is this scriptural or extra-scriptural?

Did Ruth just not enter the Congregation?

What is up with this episode in Nehemiah?

Nehemiah 13:1 On that day the Book of Moses was read aloud in the hearing of the people and there it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever be admitted into the assembly of God,

And how does it jive with the ending of Ezra?

were sitting in the square before the house of God, greatly distressed by the occasion and because of the rain. 10Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, You have been unfaithful; you have married foreign women, adding to Israels guilt. 11Now make confession to the Lord, the God of your fathers, and do his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples around you and from your foreign wives.

12The whole assembly responded with a loud voice: You are right! We must do as you say. 13But there are many people here and it is the rainy season; so we cannot stand outside. Besides, this matter cannot be taken care of in a day or two, because we have sinned greatly in this thing.

Personally I think Ruth was written by one of these people who didn't want to give up their gentile wife. But that's just my opinion.

What's NOT my opinion is the fact that this is also stressed in Nehemiah as well as Ezra, to not even marry such. Is it only about marrying people of a different belief?

[Shermana]

Additionally I find the inclusion of Rahab the Canaanite prostitute (as well as mothers in general, since NO OTHER JEWISH GENEOLOGY INCLUDES MOTHERS), though blessed may she be for helping the Spies, it's a bit of a headscratcher why she's included. Was Jesus descended from a Canaanite Prostitute?

[JehovahsWitness]

Additionally I find the inclusion of Rahab the Canaanite prostitute (as well as mothers in general, since NO OTHER JEWISH GENEOLOGY INCLUDES MOTHERS), though blessed may she be for helping the Spies, it's a bit of a headscratcher why she's included. Was Jesus descended from a Canaanite Prostitute?

Why was Boaz, the Son of a Canaanite, not disqualified from full membership of the Nation of Isarel (Deut 23:3) ?

Although marriage was forbidden with aliens, there were certain conditions when a marriage was permissible, namely with a woman taken captive in WAR. Deuteronomy 21:10-13 reads:

• In case you go out to the battle against your enemies and Jehovah your God has given them into your hand and you have carried them away captive; and you have seen among the captives a woman beautiful in form, and you have got attached to her and taken her for your wife, you must then bring her into the midst of your house. She must now shave her head and attend to her nails, and remove the mantle of her captivity from off her and dwell in your house and weep for her father and her mother a whole lunar month; and after that you should have relations with her, and you must take possession of her as your bride, and she must become your wife. "

It should also be noted the REASON for the marital restriction was to protect the nation from being influenced to worship foreign Gods, so the Israelites could marry people who accepted true worship. (Deut. 7:3, 4, NW). In his commentary on the subject, James wrote that men and women of old who exercised strong faith in Jehovah and his promises were {quote} "declared righteous" by Jehovah on the basis of their faith, thus Rahab's faith legitimized her descendents (see James 2:23-25). So Boaz (Rahab's son through legal marriage to Salmon) was a as full members of the Nation of Israel, in line with both the spirit and the letter of the law.

[Shermana]

I would also like to add that in his "Against Heresies", Iraneus only lists 72 generations in Luke's geneology, as opposed to the 77 counted by Augustine's time.

Did Iraneus just count incorrectly....?

I would also like to ask...how do we know that Boaz was Rahab's son other than some other woman that married Salma, other than Luke?

Find me a scriptural verse in the OT that defines Rahab marrying Salma.

Otherwise, its VERY unusual for a geneology to include Mothers, and we already know that Iraneus only counted 72 generations in his version, so I'd say the case can be easily made that something's fishy here.

You're totally welcome nonetheless to believe that Jesus descended from a Canaanite prostitute whose only mention is in a questionable geneology (that was questioned by the Church Fathers themselves and questionably includes mothers which no other Jewish geneology does and only for those 2 apparently special cases of Canaanite and Moabite women) who was not taken in war and thus illegitimate according to Nehemiah and Ezra, but I'll believe that there's something not right with this picture.

[Shermana]

"It should also be noted the REASON for the marital restriction"

To not have a paganizing influence was ONE reason, but I imagine it had something to do with why those of a "forbidden union" (Mamzers) are forbidden.....do we want incest-origin moabites in our line?

[Shermana]

And this is most telling....I'll let Wikipedia summarize it better than me, but it appears they weren't sure who David's daddy was....and I doubt it's the "Legal Inheritance" thing.

And correction on above post, it is in Matthew, not Luke that Ruth is mentioned.

And I'd really like to know if Iraneus made a counting error or if an extra 5 generations got snuck in between his time and Augustine.

And I'd like to know if they intentionally left out the some of the Kings as well.

The Mannicheans, heretical as they were, seemed to have some good ammunition from this at least.

The two Biblical genealogies seem to disagree not only on on the name of Josephs father, but on the entire lineage back to David.

This apparent contradiction has been a source of great difficulty.[48] Augustine, for example, took great care on several occasions to refute every purported inconsistency in the gospel genealogies, not only because the Manichaeans in his day were using these inconsistencies as fodder for attacking Christianity,[49] but also because he himself had seen them in his youth as cause for doubting the veracity of the Gospels.[50]

Several theories have been advanced to explain the divergence of the two gospel genealogies, most notably:

* That Joseph had two fathers"one natural and one legal"as a result of a levirate marriage involving uterine brothers.
* Legal inheritance.
* That Lukes genealogy is actually through Mary rather than her husband Joseph.
* That Matthews genealogy is actually through Mary rather than her husband Joseph.
* That one or both of the genealogies are invented.