Comments on: Sunday School Lesson – Between the Testaments

By: Julie M. Smith

Julie M. Smith — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 03:56:48 +0000

nhilton:

I would not choose to spend limited study time on Josephus. I say this because he is somewhat peripheral to the NT and somewhat unreliable. I think the time would be far better spent working through, say, the footnotes to the netbible, a solid commentary series such as Anchor or Word or NICNT, or even http://www.soniclight.com‘s notes.

As far as NT writers reading apocrypha: lots of it predates the NT texts–they probably knew of it.

By: nhilton

nhilton — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 03:52:51 +0000

BrianJ, I don’t think the NT authors read much of what is considered the Apocrypha since most of it was written after the death of the apostles, the authors of the Gospels, and much of it was written after Paul, too, thus the rejection of so much of it from the cannon. I’m familiar with the D&C comment on the Apocrypha, however, these writings questioned by J.Smith were small in comparison to what’s in that category today. Check out http://www.apocryphile.org/apocrypha.html for an overwhelming list of these books. I don’t think J.Smith was considering all of them. Knowing what, if any, of them are of value is where the D&C comment is helpful.

By: BrianJ

BrianJ — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 21:15:27 +0000

nhilton: It is interesting to note that most of the NT authors probably studied the books which are now in the Apocrypha. Those books were rejected by a later group who canonized the Jewish scriptures. You might also want to see what the D&C says about the Apocrypha (sorry, no time to look up the section #).

I’ve never read Josephus, though I’d like to.

By: nhilton

nhilton — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 00:37:35 +0000

JWL & Robert C. & BrianJ, Thank you. I appreciate your sharing information regarding the origins of the NT. Your comments always help me in my study. I have been reading the new 2006 BYU Sperry Symposium from Oct. book re: origin of the NT. It is timely considering the increased interest in the gnostic gospels. I think these issues must be addressed so that we know why we consider the KJVNT cannonical vs. the Roman Catholic bible. In researching apochryphal books I saw that non-LDS consider the Book of Mormon in that category. Ha! This did give me a moment to consider what apochrypha is.

Question for anyone with the experience: have you read the Josephus history and found it helpful in teaching the NT? Deseret Book has a book ABOUT Josephus & his history (thus an LDS perspective) & then of course there’s the real thing by Josephus himself. As a student of history with the obligation to teach LDS doctrine from a pulpit, do you think reading the Josephus history would be of benefit or a waste of time?

By: BrianJ

BrianJ — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 03:42:13 +0000

Robert C, #9: I’ll add my barely informed comments to yours. Aramaic arose from a Semitic language group and is therefore better seen as a sister langauge to Hebrew–as opposed to a derivative of Hebrew (see this language tree.). The Jews for the most part stopped speaking Hebrew after the exile and took up Aramaic. Alexander’s conquests introduced Greek, which became the common language for commerce and the learned. So it’s safe to assume that Jesus primarily spoke Aramaic, was familiar enough with Hebrew to read in synagogue, and had limited use of Greek.

Nevertheless, most of the NT was written in Greek because the writers were writing to the world at large, so they needed to use the common language of the helenized world.

So if one had to choose a language to learn in order to better understand the Bible, it would be Hebrew for the OT and Greek for the NT. Aramaic would be of lesser use.

By: Robert C.

Robert C. — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:16:41 +0000

JWL #7: I would think Aramaic would be the secondary candidate, not Hebrew. My rough understanding is that Aramaic is an off-shoot language of Hebrew (or somehow closely related) and that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic but likely learned his bible (something like what we call the Old Testament) in an older Hebrew dialect. Here is a relevant wikipedia article which I've only skimmed (not that I'd know how accurate it is if I did read it carefully...). If this, my rough understanding, is off-base, I'd appreciate anyone who could correct me.

By: Victoria Wilcox

Victoria Wilcox — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:35:34 +0000

Thanks for this great info, which I stumbled onto today while studying for my lesson tomorrow. As a teacher, I was bewildered about the empty space between the testaments, and will use this to tie it all together!

By: JWL

JWL — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 05:46:00 +0000

Re: #6 — Almost all of the New Testament was originally written in Greek, not Hebrew. Because of the conquests of Alexander the Great, Greek had become the most widely spoken language in the time of Jesus and the early Church, so that is what the New Testament writers used.

Sometimes it is helpful in understanding the New Testament to study what words and phrases mean in the the original Greek form. A good example of this is Matthew 5:48 where the word translated in the King James as “perfect” — telos — really means “whole” or “complete” rather than “without flaw” which is the more common understanding of the meaning of the English word (see footnote 48b on page 1195 in the LDS edition of the Bible). This can give us a whole new perspective on this important commandment by the Savior.

By: nhilton

nhilton — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 04:00:51 +0000

JWL #5: could you explain your thinking regarding this comment: “Any time understanding the NT text is illuminated by understanding the Greek words or phrases that are used, it helps students understand why it is that we study about Jesus in Greek rather than Hebrew.” What value do you see in studying the Greek vs. the Hebrew? Wouldn’t the original Hebrew be better in getting the original message…forgive me but I don’t know much about NT origins.

By: JWL

JWL — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 01:46:50 +0000

The specific figures don’t necessarily appear in the NT. However, they are instrumental in establishing the social environment which permeates the NT. Understanding the anti-Hellenization tensions helps students understand why Jews expected a political Messiah or why Jewish Christians were so disturbed by the conversion of Gentiles. Jesus’ message and manor stand out more starkly when contrasted against an age which universally idolized the ruthless masculinity of Alexander. Any time understanding the NT text is illuminated by understanding the Greek words or phrases that are used, it helps students understand why it is that we study about Jesus in Greek rather than Hebrew. Understanding that Greek was the “English” of its time, and that Hellenistic ideas were the modern, progressive elite views also lends itself to relating various NT incidents to our times. There is also a possibly amorphous value to simply seeing the “big” picture — how Jesus was a real man in real history (“in the world …”) which means that we can strive to be like Him as real people in our contemporary real history.