POST ONE OF THREE
1)
James 2kO said “As I alluded to Katzpur earlier in this thread, this doctrine has gnostic overtones. Thanks for chiming in and confirming it You will find no evidence whatsover in the writings of the 66 books of the "official" biblical canon supporting this doctrine.”
James, I believe you are quite correct that the belief was very widespread and it was NOT simply the normative Jews, essenics, and orthodox christians that believed that spirits were cognizant after death, but ALSO gnostics, manicheans, and MANY, MANY other forms of Judao-christians who ALSO inherited this doctrine from normative Christians. And, many different other doctrines were shared as well.
Try to think of the orthodox christian doctrine of baptism by water, as a simple example of a doctrine shared by multiple groups. It is a rite that is shared by multiple types of modern christianities. Catholics, baptisms, mormons, normative Christians of several types; and many types of christianities share this single doctrine of baptism as well (the gnostics also inherited the doctrine of a type of baptism from early normative christianity as well). Or you might consider that the Christians who still believe in the 10 commandments, inherited them from the Jews. In this manner, the jews and christians have a common set of shared text and shared doctrines (though the 10 commandments were also different in different bibles).
2) Regarding your reference to your modern “official” biblical canon and the attempt to apply this modern canon to the ancients. I know that these may be difficult principles if you do not have much of a historical background, but try to remember that we are having a
historical conversation and that
the new testament did not exist in the earliest centuries.
NONE of the individuals mentioned in the New Testament ever HAD a New Testament. We are dealing with Christianity of a different type and time than you are used to referring to.
Also, remember, the term “canon” is a relative and arbitrary term that is defined differently in various times and various places. If we are to use the
first “official” “canon” of the new testament, then 54 of your books are not "official" since the first canon included only eleven books. (Among them, only one gospel). Other “official canons” included more.
There is a difference between a list of "official books" and books from an "official list".
In trying to determine how authoritative a book was viewed to the ancients, it is important to scholars to see HOW a book was used. For example, If it was used by a number of writers as authoritative for doctrine, or used by a number of individuals to settle disputes, then it was authoritative to those who used it.
For example, regarding Enoch, Obviously, the writer of Jude included Enoch IN his personal canon of authorized books since he quotes from it. However, he’s not the only one to quote from it.
Many of the writers of New Testament text used Enoch for source material. The great apocryphologist James, pointed out more than 128 quotes or references from Enoch in the new testament. Also try to remember that, among the early canons, the early 4-5th new testament DID include some of these books you do not personally consider canonical. For example, sinaiticus includes hermas and barnabas and sinaiticus is arguably one of the two most important 4th century uncial witnesses in existence. Though the Codex Sinaiticus may not represent a “canonical” New Testament to you, it certainly was to the 4th century Christians who read it as scripture.
Try also to remember that bibles, even nowadays, differ regionally. For example, you have inherited and believe in and use a western “roman” based bible, while easterners such as the ethiopian orthodox (45 million in that congregation alone), have bibles that still included Enoch and Barnabas and other books you might not recognize. Their canon of 81 books is different than yours and their eastern canon is as sacred to them as your western canon is to you. Your belief is, to this extent, arbitrary and based on the tradition you have inherited.
Also, remember, some of the text in the current western text is spurious and was not included in the earliest manuscripts as well as missing some of the text that used to be included in early bibles. Also remember that some parts of our scriptures are not understandable in current form without referencing external texts and histories.
However, it is not merely the ancient sacred texts which are important in describing early Judao-Christian Doctrines, but early Christian diaries and romance literature and the earliest Christian hymns are wonderful sources of information, describing what the early Judao-Christians believed in.
What typically happens in non-historical forums is two individuals interpret a few pet scriptures differently and then argue regarding their interpretations and rarely do they have the historical background to simply look at what the early christians THEMSELVES said they believed. Clement’s texts are incredibly important since Clement was a convert to christianity and a close colleague of Peter. Thus Clement’s descriptions of what Peter taught are profoundly important. Papias was a “hearer” of John and so his descriptions of what the apostles taught are also important sources to illuminate the earliest type of christianity. Not only that, but the early hymns and texts and christian diaries and romance literature ALSO tell us what the earliest christians believed just as Luther’s diary tell us what HE believed or, in one thousand years, we can read your diary and see how you describe YOUR beliefs.
POST TWO OF THREE FOLLOWS
)
