James 4:5 -- A Quote From a Lost Apocryphal Scripture

by Leolaia 64 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Ahh, answer a question with a question. Very well, OT Num 35:1,9; Josh1:1; Isa. 1:10,18,24; Jer.1:2; Ezek. 1:3; Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1.

    Nark. you may have me on the NT. However my question remains.

    Nark. what are your thoughts on the Book of Tobits' chronology?

    Well, I really can't do better than summing up what Leolaia said on this subject:

    (1) Canonical and non-canonical works alike do contain "words of God", i.e. short sentences or long discourses ascribed to the speaker "God". Not all of them do (e.g. Esther). And I fail to see any example where the book itself is identified as "God's word". Even the introductory declarations at the beginning of the prophetic books ("the word of Yhwh to so-and-so") would hardly make the narrative portions or later additions "words of God". As to the late globalizing assertions on "Scripture(s)" (2 Timothy 3:15ff; 2 Peter 3:16), they do apply to some texts which happened to fall outside of the Canon border, as has been shown. So nobody can escape the conclusion that the canon is a matter of what is accepted as authoritative in a given religious community... nothing else. This is the well-known Achilles' heel of Protestantism (including JWs for that matter).

    (2) Tobit's chronology is obviously fanciful; so is Daniel's; or Genesis'; or Luke's...

  • ellderwho
    ellderwho

    Thanks Leolaia.

    Do you know if Philo ever quoted the apocrypha?

    Also I cant find any church father who endorsed the apocrypha books.

    ......... pseudepigraphal books,
    Are these just re-writes of books that were outside the OT canon?
    2) Tobit's chronology is obviously fanciful; so is Daniel's; or Genesis'; or Luke's...

    And 1 and 2 Maccabees, 1and 2 Esdras, Judith, Esther Additions, Sirach, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Bel and the Dragon.....

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Ellderwho,

    Philo focuses on the Torah (or Pentateuch, LXX style); apparently he doesn't quote 2 Samuel, 2 Kings, Ezekiel, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Nehemiah, 2 Chronicles either. What does that prove?

    Philo's thinking is so close to Wisdom of Solomon that Luther thought he wrote it himself. Yet he doesn't quote it...

    "Pseudepigraphy" is only the practice of ascribing the authorship of a book to a past, authoritative figure; strictly speaking this applies to canonical (Deuteronomy, Daniel) as well as extra-canonical (Enoch, 4 Ezra) writings.

    Actually 1 Maccabees is more reliable historically and chronologically than many protocanonical books; other books in your list are not concerned with history at all. Again, what does that prove? Historical accuracy is hardly a criterium to distinguish between "baby" and "bathwater" (as you said earlier).

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    Also I cant find any church father who endorsed the apocrypha books.

    Well, what do you mean by "endorsed"? There is a big difference between endorsing their use or endorsing them as "holy Scripture" and endorsing them as "authoritative". As I showed in my last post, even those church fathers who rejected the Apocrypha as authoritative (such as Jerome or Athanasius), still used the Apocrypha as divinely-inspired "scripture". The same goes with Cyril of Jerusalem, Hilary of Poitiers, St. Gregory, Basil the Great, and so forth. If you mean "endorsed as canonical," then Augustine would be an obvious father who took this position. He pushed for the acceptance of the Apocrypha into the canon at the Third Council of Carthage, over the objections of Jerome. Here is Augustine's clear statement on the matter:

    "Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books: Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles, these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom, and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following: Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James; one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of John" (Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, 2.8).

    Note that he doesn't mention all the apocrypha, omitting Baruch. This was because it was considered part of Jeremiah (as was Lamentations, which these canon lists omitted as well). The same books are included in the canon list issued by the Third Council of Carthage (AD 397), at which Augustine attended and where he pushed hard for the canonicity of the Apocrypha:

    "Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the four books of the Kings, the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, five books of Solomon, the book of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, the two books of Ezra, and the two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the epistles of the apostle Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews, one epistle; of Peter, two; of John the apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the Church across the sea shall be consulted. On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read" (Third Council of Carthage, Canon List, 47).

    Similar lists were issued at the other councils I mentioned in my lengthy post on the subject. There were also later post-Nicene fathers who followed Augustine in accepting the Apocrypha as authoritative (such as Isidore of Seville).

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    Clearly to find out that what one thought was scripture is not what the writer of Timothy had in mind,, it must be very upsetting for those that feel the 66 books of the protestant are the untouched pure word of God. So it is logical to expect protest from this group as it causes them to face the "truth" and so the mind reacts with vain atempts at logic,, which dose not exist,, and so in despiration has to distort what is true to remain getting comfort from one's accepted beleif system.

  • Blueblades
    Blueblades

    Hi LEOLAIA! Who needs Barnes and Nobles when I have Leolaia to read.Thanks for taking the time to post these very informative post's of yours.

    Blueblades

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Narkissos.....I've been thinking more about the "scripture" in James 4:5 and why it is cited in this context. First of all, regarding the Society's interpretation of the verse given in Dunlap's Commentary on the Letter of James and in the 1977 Watchtower, where they state that the "spirit" is merely man's spirit or inclination for jealousy, I don't think this is consistent with the punctual aspect indicated by the aorist verb katókisen "dwelt down," which instead would suggest a "spirit" (e.g. the Holy Spirit) that came to dwell at a specific point in time, and not the spirit that has been part of us all along. Moreover, the strong parallels between this passage and Hermas (cf. Mand. 3.1, 10.2.4-5) and Numbers 11:29 are also important because both refer to the indwelling of the "Holy Spirit" or the "Spirit" of prophecy in the flesh.

    But why is the obscure scripture in v. 5 cited at this point in the discourse? I think the preceding verse gives us some solid clues:

    "Adulterers (moikhalides), don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. Do you suppose it is in vain that the Scripture says, 'He yearns jealously (pros phthonon) after the spirit (pneuma) which he has made to dwell (katókisen) in us?' But he gives all the more grace; therefore it says, 'God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.' Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the Devil and he will flee from you" (James 4:4-7).

    There is a strong dualism here between God and the Devil and between being a friend of the world and being an enemy of God. Such dualism is explicit in apocalyptic writings like 1 Enoch (which has a "Two Ways" section) and in the eschatological portions of Matthew, which involve an end-times dualistic division of the world (cf. 25:31-33). Deuteronomy 30:15-20 has Moses giving the "Two Ways," one being a curse and the other a blessing. In the logic of the "Gog and Magog" oracles attributed to Eldad and Modad in the Targums, those who side with "Magog" (= "the world") would indeed be "enemies of God" and would be destroyed by the Lord at his "coming". The reference to people who forsake God as "adulterers" is a common one in the OT prophets (cf. Isaiah 57:3; Jeremiah 3:6-10, 23:10; Hosea 7:4), and I am struck by the possible connection with Numbers:

    "If a man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), and if a spirit of jealousy (pneuma zélóseós) come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure, or if he is jealous (zélósé) and suspects her even though she is not impure, then he is to take his wife to the priest....This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and defiles herself while married to her husband, or when spirit of jealousy come over him (ep' auton) because he suspects his wife" (Numbers 5:12-14, 29-30).

    The close proximity between ch. 5 and ch. 11 of Numbers and the similar linkage between "spirit" and "jealousy" makes me wonder whether, in a midrash interpretation which would have noticed the coincidence and exegetically linked the two proximal passages together, those who were jealous of Eldad and Modad's prophetic gifts would have had the "Spirit of Jealousy". Or is it that God, who gives out his Spirit, is jealous of those who "go astray" like adulterers and is himself the one who yearns "jealously"? This would comport well with Exodus 34:14, which specifically deals with those who leave God for idolatry. On the other hand, maybe the connection is friction between the "spirit of jealousy" and the "spirit of prophecy," since Hermas has this to say: "An angry temper is first of all foolish, fickle, and senseless. Then from foolishness comes bitterness, and from bitterness wrath, and from wrath anger, and from anger vengefulness; then vengefulness, being composed of all these evil elements, becomes a great and incurable sin. For when all these spirits dwell in one vessel, where the Holy Spirit also dwells, the vessel cannot contain them, but overflows. So the sensitive Spirit, which is not used to living with an evil spirit nor with harshness, departs from a person with the evil spirits" (Mand. 5.4-6).

    I think this latter concept works very well with the concept in James. Those who forsake the faith are like adulterers and when the Spirit departs from them, they yearn jealously for the Spirit and are jealous at those who still have the Spirit. The concept in the Eldad and Modad story in Numbers is also of Joshua being jealous at Eldad and Modad having the Spirit. There are differences tho -- one being jealous in ch. 5 is the husband, not the adulterer. So the relation may be more complex. But in any event, this additional observation strengthens my suspicion that a midrash or pseudepigraphon dependent on Numbers is involved here.

  • ellderwho
    ellderwho
    Nark: other books in your list are not concerned with history at all. Again, what does that prove? Historical accuracy is hardly a criterium to distinguish between "baby" and "bathwater" (as you said earlier).

    Im just asking simple questions.

    Actually 1 Maccabees is more reliable historically and chronologically

    How about 4:26-35 which contradicts 2 Macc. 10:37-11:12, which would put Lsysia's defeat after the death of Timothy, 4:30-35 contradicts 2Macc. 11:6-15 which says it was a negotiated peace, 6:8-9 contradicts 2Macc. 9:5-12, which says that the king was struck with a replusive physical disease?

    1Esdras has chronology listed, however doesnt 5:56 have 2nd year of Cyrus, should be 2nd year of Darius? ( Cyrus died 2 years before reign of Darius)

    Leolaia, thanks for your patience.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Leolaia,

    Another interesting connection with Numbers (the "adulteress" and the "spirit of jealousy") and Hermas (the struggle of the spirits). The difference in Greek wording (Numbers LXX zèlôsis vs. James phthonos) is not significant if we are dealing with a Hebrew or Aramaic midrash on Numbers.

    One big question is what does the quotation mean in James 4:5 (regardless of its meaning in its original context)? There is doubt on nearly every issue: is pneuma subject or object of epipotheô? Is phthonos positive or negative? What is the exact meaning of pros + accusative?

    If we construe phthonos as negative (according to the general NT, especially Pauline use -- James is clearly dependent on Romans! -- and the negative use of zèlos and zèloô in the immediate context, 3:14,16; 4:2), against most translators (who take pros phthonon adverbially) but along the line of Hermas, we could understand something like: "He (God, v. 6f) desires the spirit he has made to dwell in us rather than envy" (cf. the comparative use of pros + acc. in Romans 8:18) or perhaps "the spirit he has made to dwell in us yearns against envy"...

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Ellderwho,

    You're right on the discrepancies between 1 and 2 Maccabees of course (btw, 1 Esdras is not deuterocanonical afaik). My remark was explicitly relative ("Actually 1 Maccabees is more reliable historically and chronologically than many protocanonical books). Which means that if you dismiss 1 Maccabees on the grounds of historical inaccuracy, you should dismiss all the so-called "historical" books of the Protestant canon which contain similar or bigger "mistakes". What I do find dishonest is the double standards policy of Protestant apologetics: explaining away the contradictions in the canon as only "apparent" and pointing an accusing finger to the very same things when they occur outside the canon. I guess you perfectly understand what I mean.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit