 |
 |
Dear John "Some old Greek thanslations of the Scriptures" was my first thought - but they are not medieval as a rule. I don't think as well that the matter concerns some books of Apostolic Fathers. And I have a counter-question: why Kipling opposed the Catholic Universities to 'the old church' (also Catholic, I think)? And - does 'the old medieval' mean 'the early medieval'? I think the text below I've found in the Net may be related to the question. All good wishes, Yan *************** http://reidbooks.exactpages.com/ With the exception of two or three of the above books, no-one seriously questioned their authority until the Reformation in the 16th century. Since the Reformation, many Protestant Christians (though not all) have rejected all these books except "Proverbs and "Psalms" on two grounds: (1) They were not written in Hebrew and therefore did not form part of the Hebrew Bible; and (2) these books were never quoted by New Testament writers because, in the main, they were not accepted as Scriptural. Over the centuries, the second argument could easily have been disproved simply by consulting any Catholic or Orthodox Bible where a wealth of cross-references detailing both direct quotations and allusions from these so-called "apocryphal" books could be found. However, the lie was finally given to the "no quotes" assertion in 1966 by a line-up of extremely conservative Protestant organizations: American Bible Society, British and Foreign Bible Society, National Bible Society of Scotland, Netherlands Bible Society, and Wurttemberg Bible Society. The Greek New Testament published by these bodies identifies many direct quotations from "apocryphal" books by New Testament writers, from which there can be no doubt that inspired authors like Paul, Matthew, Luke, John, James, Peter, and the authors of Hebrews and Revelations regarded "The Wisdom of Solomon", "Jesus ben Sirach", "The Psalms of Solomon", "The Adventures of Toby", "Baruch", and possibly Greek Ezra and Susanna (both are quoted by Matthew), as Scripture. In fact, the only New Testament writers who do not make a direct quote from any of the so-called "apocryphal" books are Jude and Mark. Answering the first argument is more complicated. "Ben Sirach", for example, was most certainly composed in Hebrew. No-one denies this. But one of the problems that faced the Protestant reformers appears to be that no Hebrew text was available to them and they distrusted the Greek translation. There is likewise a fair degree of certainty that "Psalms of Solomon". "Adventures of Toby", "The Visions of Ezra" and the older section of "Baruch" were also written in Hebrew. But as with "Sirach", no reliable Hebrew texts could be found in 16th century Europe. Mind you, the reformers had good reason to distrust the Greek versions of the Old Testament that were current at the time, since the medieval Greek manuscripts they were using for the New Testament were also somewhat deficient (and light years away from the accurate editions available today). Yet, oddly, this latter fact does not seem to have worried them. They seem to have adopted a policy of "better a New Testament with many accidental errors and occasional editorial/copyist changes and/or intrusions than no New Testament at all!" It's a pity they didn't apply this same "live and let live" policy to the Greek books and chapters of the Old Testament that they decided to exclude.' JR> In his "Letters to the Family" in Letters of Travel JR> (1892-1913), when writing about his visit to Canada in 1907 JR> (p.141), and talking about the Catholic Universities of Canada, JR> Kipling writes: JR> '...though they are reported to keep up the old medieval JR> distrust of Greek, (they) teach the classics as lovingly, tenderly JR> and intimately as the old church has always taught them.' JR> What does he mean by 'the old medieval distrust of Greek' JR> Most grateful for any thoughts. JR> Good wishes to all, John R