Auctores

I can almost see one of your faces and see the glint in your eyes as you read through this post.

As I have progressed through this latest book I have had a more sinister thought creep into my brain. Being mostly protective of the scriptures because of my background I shoved it aside for a while, but it persistently nagged at me. I got to bed this morning about 2 or 3 minutes after midnight. Not too bad considering I didn’t leave work until just about 9 pm. Got home and had a snack and watched some medical TV, then went on to bed after my obligatory shower.

But it is 2:30 and I am back up putting down on paper some thoughts I don’t want to risk to more sleep for fear of them fading.

I mentioned in an earlier post that I wondered if the Jewish fathers were reluctant to have their oral tradition penned to paper because of a fear of a dynamic story becoming static words on paper.

I have not found any substantiation for that idea, but have, instead, been stumbling across a number of points made by this author that I want to quote, and see if you don’t see in the passages what began to emerge to me.

I can do this at this time because I don’t work today or tomorrow. Not because I have the holiday off because it is a holiday, it is one of the store’s biggest sales days of the year, but rather because of luck of the schedule rotation.

Let me first put forth 4 assumptions about scriptures that was emerged in the years BCE. I presume you know that BCE is Before the Common Era, or BC, meaning Before Christ, but a more politically correct statement of time when considering those who believe that Christ was not the Messiah.

1. It was assumed that the Bible was a fundamentally cryptic text. In other words, it wasn’t to be believed literally, but was allegorical.

2. It was assumed that the Bible was a book of lessons directed at the readers of that time. It was not fundamentally history, but rather a guide to daily living.

3. It was assumed that the Bible contained no contradictions or mistakes.

4. Lastly, it was believed that every word and phrase was divinely given by God as text to be related by each author.

Now it gets to the point that began to awaken a large dragon in my brain.

I quote, “…the very idea that Scripture has layers and layers of significance entered into the popular imagination. In Medieval Europe, the Bible became a vast, mysterious, and infinitely complicated world. The front and back of this book were held together by hidden correspondences between Old and New; the most fundamental doctrines were nestled inside apparently innocent narratives, indeed inside a single sentences made up of words that seemed to be talking about something else entirely.

To enter the world of scripture’s mysteries was thus a matter for trained professionals; only a priest or a monk schooled in the ways of fourfold interpretation, and especially in the interpretations of his processors, could say for sure what this or that scripture meant. It never occurred to ordinary people to try their hand at interpretation-to begin with they did not own their own Bibles, and they could not read.”

This lead, the author, continues, to an attitude towards scriptures called auctores in Latin. It means both author and authority in English.

The meaning of the Bible was left to the auctores. Their interpretations could never be challenged. Auctoritas was all powerful and unquestioned: the Bible meant what the authorities had always said it meant.

Ding, ding, ding. Wait on the siren. There’s the factory whistle. What do we have in many churches today? A new wave of auctores.

Rather than allowing the masses to interpret what modesty is, we will tell you what modesty is. Instead of you deciding what you will listen to and watch we will tell you what you will listen to and watch.

We have come full circle. We may look like we are living in the 1940s, but we are behaving like we are in the Medieval ages.

I realize this is NOT what I was hoping to find in my research, but it certainly answers many other questions.

The Jewish leadership didn’t want nor would allow private interpretation of the sacred text; and that mindset carried on until it was the persuasive attitude where ever the Bible was used by Medieval times.

Scary what you might discover when you begin to question.

Loosening the strings

I decided this morning (it is 1:15 am here) to loosen things up a bit. You would not have noticed unless you read all the way back to the end of the first post, but I deleted the email address for responses. I also turned commenting off on the blog.

So, if you know of someone you want to invite to read any of this, you can give them the link without me knowing who they are and without them knowing who we are.

I don't care who reads it. Just don't want to hear from disagreeing people. I don't really care what others think of what gets written here. It is an exercise for myself, after all. And I am not inviting comment except from the original ones I invited. I may invite more, but in that case I will give them the email address.

Cool? No one's feelings hurt? Hope not. If you would want to include someone whose comments you would like to hear, you can either ask me if they can have the email address, or give them yours.

I recently was given a book I had not heard of before but has so captivated me I can't even get to bed even though I seriously need to.

It is titled, "How to Read the Bible" by James L. Kugel. Powerful stuff. And it is answering a million plus questions I have had about the ancient biblical text and questions all Christians and Jews should be asking as well.

I'll comment more on it as I get further. Only been reading about an hour and a half so far.

Table Conversation

Georgiann and I ate out tonight. Something we are doing less of now that the budget is tightening. Mostly because of gasoline prices. Jill and Mari, Todd and Diana came along. I mentioned the fact that I was up for about an hour or so around 3 am this morning researching some things on the Internet and Todd was curious.

In my reading I have been made aware that the origins of the Bible were for many years only oral tradition handed down from generation to generation. I have not found out in actual fact but I get the feeling that the Jewish leadership during the time before Christ came on the scene did not want the oral tradition written down. It seems they were afraid that the dynamic story would become static with the commitment to words.

I think I wrote about that before and may have explained some of it.

In addition, I did not know until last night that the Bible was first written in Hebrew in 3 separate books. The "Torah" whose authorship is attributed to Moses, "Nevi'im" also known as the "Prophets," major and minor. And "Ketuvim" also known as the "Writings" consisting of what is known to us now as the Psalm, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Ruth and Lamentations."

At some point, believed to be between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC, those three Hebrew books were combined and translated into Greek and called the "Septuagint." This translation was done by 72 Jewish Hebrew scholars in Alexanderia, Egypt.

Todd, I was wrong about BCE being different than BC. Seems to be the same. I'll post you that once I get a few minutes to research it.

The "Septuagint" was and is often referred to simply as LXX which is the Roman Numerals for 70. 70 being a round number representative of the 72 scholars.

My quest in all of this is to find someone who may have insight into the mindset of the Jewish leadership in their resistance of taking the dynamic oral history and entombing it for all time in static written form.

I understand in part how a story has emotion and power in an oral tradition that it might lose when written down and especially when translated.

But to me that is where the Holy Spirit must be at His post of duty to provide the real translation and application to our understanding.

More as time permits. Does anyone really know what time it is? Who put that into a hit song in 1971?

Cerebral Language

One of you commented about getting a dictionary to follow along. Well, I will endeavor to use the precisely right verbiage in each entry. That's who I am. When I am writing I have the luxury of structuring my comments and using the right word because I can research it while I write.

Now if that seems artificial to you, I offer my apologies. But writing should always entail one's greatest efforts to be perfect. We don't typically have that opportunity when speaking. Unless you have spent a life time studying the language.

I had an English professor in college that was perfectly precise in her conversation and lecturing. Her name was Kathleen Rousseau. She dressed like a 20th century carryover from the Victorian age of the century before. Always in a long dress normally with a shawl or jacket and her ever present umbrella. I developed a special relationship with Professor Rousseau in spite of some 45 or 50 years difference in our age, and worlds of difference in education and knowledge of the language. She always encouraged us to be precise in order to be understood. I took three classes with her, one of which was Etymology, the study of words. I believe it was the class I loved the most in college.

But, if it gets too much for you, I'll try to use more explanations than precision in the way I word things. Let me know.

I sat in the break room at work today trying to eat my lunch and was quite annoyed at three people who were having a riotous time talking about their small children, ages between almost 3 and about 7, who used vulgar language in their every day conversation. They thought it was extremely funny, and I was horrified. I can not imagine teaching or encouraging a child to use four letter words. I see no room for them in any conversation or writing. Bad scene.

My reading lately has consisted of three books. One book I interrupted the other two so I could read it straight though. The title is "The Last Oracle" and is written by James Rollins, author of "Map of Bones." It is a book along the same lines as the "Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown, another book I very much enjoyed. One of the books I have also finished, "Are Men Born Sinners, The Myth of Original Sin" by Alfred T. Overstreet. An compelling read and seems to be on solid ground. The third book which I am having to read carefully because it references events and people I am unfamiliar with is "Whose Bible Is It?" by Jaroslav Pelikan.

Pelikan died in 2006 before I discovered him, but is considered by many to be one of the world's leading scholars in Christian history. He wrote about Christian history extensively, publishing some 30 books. He was fluent in at least 12 different languages, mostly in the languages of the ancient world.

The imperfect quote I made in my earlier post about the oral history of the Jews being dynamic was from this book.

I wish I was able to spend my waking moments reading rather than spending so much time making a living. But alas, such is the results of decision making I have done.

Thanks for coming along. I've heard from two of you. Glad to have you along.

Adventure Beginnings

Only three of you have been selected to participate in this adventure. One of you is bound to me genetically, the other spiritually. Not using the term spiritually in it's normal connotation, but within its broader sense of being bound in soul. The third person is bound to me by cords of attachment that amaze even me, but the cords are bound deep.

I think I may open this to the three of you so you can post blogs of your own. Right now I am researching the feasibility of that.

Until then, this blog will consist of thought process, or in neurological terms, dendrite activity of my own. Not that I believe all dendrite activity is from within one's own cerebral environ, but it will be dendrite activity that will be processing through the neurons in my own environ.

I hope to stretch my own environment in this process as I put into static words what has been processing as dynamic bursts of electron energy. It is claimed by many Christian historians that the early Jews resisted their oral tradition of their peoples story being written down because it would take something that was fluid and dynamic and put it into static words with finite definition. They were opposed to setting the history into print until they were persuaded, read that influenced by money, to do so by the Greeks at Alexandria.

I hope to put down dynamic thought processes in simple enough terms that I can make it understandable yet not loose its force. Two of you being younger by considerable years than myself will understand much of the processes going on in my mind, I just hope to make it all recognizable by me!!

I may need to keep this blog address very secluded, so until I get to a point where I know what direction it will take, I presume you each will keep it to yourselves.

Thanks for coming along. If, indeed, you are still willing to come along. Until I sort out the direction, you might want to refrain from posting comments here, but rather use an email address I created just for this blog: Deleted by the author. It is not a meaningless address plucked out of the air, but one that resonates with me and is a tribute to a person I love dearly.