POST TWO OF TWO
The historical world of religion is changing significantly because of the vast early religious texts. For example, Solomon Zeitlin contended many years ago, that much of the pseudepigrapha were written “in opposition to normative Judaism. Normative Judaism regarded the Apocalyptists as destructive.” (in “Jewish apoc Lit, 1974). This is similar to Christians who claimed only the Heretics wrote testimonies and produced early Judeo-Christian literature (since so much of it disagreed with their theology).
This was part of the motivation for gathering pseudoepigraphic material by Charles and others such as Charlesworth who created the 1st and 2nd great volumes of Jewish Pseudoepigraphs. That is, the need to demonstrate to non-historians what the historians had long claimed, i.e. that the pseudepigrapha were not anti-canonical works partly by pointing out the “close intertwining of pseudepigraphic and earliest rabbinic thought in pre-70 CE Judaism.”
This changed the nature of worldviews regarding BOTH Christianity AND Judaism. For example, the earliest scholars went through a period when they initially felt that both were contaminated by non-Jewish ideas. The vast literature discovered in the 19th century (and are still being discovered) provides evidence that it was an old myth to believe that there were no foreign influences in “so-called official Judaism”. Much of what was seen as “foreign”, was indeed “jewish” and “old” but critics were simply unaware OF their providence as authentic jewish concepts.
Part of this error was due to the initial tendency for scholars to “emphasize too much the visionary aspect of the Pseudepigrapha” to the point of systematically neglecting the pseudepigraphical writings.
The changes in the attitudes of scholars feels like the texts are funneling scholarly conclusion in parallel historical directions. It feels like a “silent revolution” is going on surrounding the changing nature of discussions regarding early Judeo-Christian doctrine. MANY great Scholars of early texts are making this shift.
For example, Michael Heiser phD is the Academic Editor of Logos Bible Software accomplished his PhD (a version is available on line) on the theme of henotheism in early Israel. If you look at the list of scholars Dr. Heiser uses for support of his thesis (many of whom are developing theses along very similar lines and for similar reasons using similar texts…), it is quite long and includes many notable names such as Frank Moore Cross, David Noel Freedman, N. Habel, Nathan McDonald, P. Sanders, Yair Hoffman, J.T.A.M. van Ruiten, in fact, both B. Metzger and H.H. Rowley moved independently toward the idea of “uniqueness” as a designation for a God.
The point is that Enoch, which was in the early Canons is retained in early Judeo Christian literature and was quite popular (it was the ONLY book outside of the Pentateuch and psalms to be found in double digits in the Qumran/Dead Sea Scroll library…).
I think part of it’s decline in popularity was not merely the old did not represent the newer evolutions of Judao-Christian beliefs, but the Rabbinic Jewish prohibition of discussion of pre-creation themes was also to play a part in the Jewish loss of such traditions and knowledge that the early Jews had.
There are other reasons, of course, but this prohibition would have affected MUCH of early Judeo-Christian literature in the same ways as it would have affected enoch since one cannot READ early Judeo-Christian literature without coming face to face with pre-creation history of what was happening before God created the heaven and the earth and what his plan was.
In any case @Xavier Graham SA , good luck with your attempt to come up with a model regarding canon and text.
Clear
φισινεω
The historical world of religion is changing significantly because of the vast early religious texts. For example, Solomon Zeitlin contended many years ago, that much of the pseudepigrapha were written “in opposition to normative Judaism. Normative Judaism regarded the Apocalyptists as destructive.” (in “Jewish apoc Lit, 1974). This is similar to Christians who claimed only the Heretics wrote testimonies and produced early Judeo-Christian literature (since so much of it disagreed with their theology).
This was part of the motivation for gathering pseudoepigraphic material by Charles and others such as Charlesworth who created the 1st and 2nd great volumes of Jewish Pseudoepigraphs. That is, the need to demonstrate to non-historians what the historians had long claimed, i.e. that the pseudepigrapha were not anti-canonical works partly by pointing out the “close intertwining of pseudepigraphic and earliest rabbinic thought in pre-70 CE Judaism.”
This changed the nature of worldviews regarding BOTH Christianity AND Judaism. For example, the earliest scholars went through a period when they initially felt that both were contaminated by non-Jewish ideas. The vast literature discovered in the 19th century (and are still being discovered) provides evidence that it was an old myth to believe that there were no foreign influences in “so-called official Judaism”. Much of what was seen as “foreign”, was indeed “jewish” and “old” but critics were simply unaware OF their providence as authentic jewish concepts.
Part of this error was due to the initial tendency for scholars to “emphasize too much the visionary aspect of the Pseudepigrapha” to the point of systematically neglecting the pseudepigraphical writings.
The changes in the attitudes of scholars feels like the texts are funneling scholarly conclusion in parallel historical directions. It feels like a “silent revolution” is going on surrounding the changing nature of discussions regarding early Judeo-Christian doctrine. MANY great Scholars of early texts are making this shift.
For example, Michael Heiser phD is the Academic Editor of Logos Bible Software accomplished his PhD (a version is available on line) on the theme of henotheism in early Israel. If you look at the list of scholars Dr. Heiser uses for support of his thesis (many of whom are developing theses along very similar lines and for similar reasons using similar texts…), it is quite long and includes many notable names such as Frank Moore Cross, David Noel Freedman, N. Habel, Nathan McDonald, P. Sanders, Yair Hoffman, J.T.A.M. van Ruiten, in fact, both B. Metzger and H.H. Rowley moved independently toward the idea of “uniqueness” as a designation for a God.
The point is that Enoch, which was in the early Canons is retained in early Judeo Christian literature and was quite popular (it was the ONLY book outside of the Pentateuch and psalms to be found in double digits in the Qumran/Dead Sea Scroll library…).
I think part of it’s decline in popularity was not merely the old did not represent the newer evolutions of Judao-Christian beliefs, but the Rabbinic Jewish prohibition of discussion of pre-creation themes was also to play a part in the Jewish loss of such traditions and knowledge that the early Jews had.
There are other reasons, of course, but this prohibition would have affected MUCH of early Judeo-Christian literature in the same ways as it would have affected enoch since one cannot READ early Judeo-Christian literature without coming face to face with pre-creation history of what was happening before God created the heaven and the earth and what his plan was.
In any case @Xavier Graham SA , good luck with your attempt to come up with a model regarding canon and text.
Clear
φισινεω
