|
Edited on Mon Feb-18-08 08:03 PM by happyslug
One of the question is WHY are these seven books NOT in the protestant bible?
I gave the official line in my previous post, that no direct citation of these books in the New Testament (Probably because they were written in Greek instant of Aramaic, Aramaic was the language of Jesus and his disciples). Now they were accepted by 300 AD and into the original Christian bibles (The Greeks had become the largest group of Christians by that time). Thus the original "exclusion" and subsequent "inclusion" may be the result of what a language was in use at what time more than anything else.
To understand what happen you must understand how society was structured during the Middle Ages. At the bottom you had the peasants, most were serfs (Tied to the land, but other wised free). The Serfs fell into two classes, those with a strong tie to the land, and whose with a weak tie to the land. These terms, were used to describe what rights the Serfs had to relations to their masters. A Serf with a Strong tie to the land, meant that the master was limited in what he could do to that peasant. The peasants had rights, those rights were subject to duties such peasants owned to the master, but if the duties were preform, the peasants rights were absolute. The best way to look at this is to compare Enlisted personnel to Officers, Enlisted personnel have certain rights, i.e. that they be issued uniforms, food, weapons and anything else needed to perform their duties and these items HAVE to be provided if the enlisted personnel do what he enlisted to do (Which can be maintenance, clerk work, or fighting depending on what his duties are). As long as the Enlisted personnel does his job, he has the right to his pay, food and uniforms. This continues until the enlistment period is up, the rights to pay, food and clothing can NOT be ended by the Officers except for just cause (and then only after a trial). A strong right to the land was similar, but did NOT exist for a set time period. The time period was forever, i.e. can and did go to the children of the Peasant. If the land was sold by the Master, the peasants went with the land not the master, but the new owner bought the land subject to the rights of the Peasants, i.e. The peasants could NOT be driven off without just cause even if the land had changed hands. More often then not tied in with raising horses or Oxen for use by the Lord, since these animal required some skill to be used properly and had to be taken care of on a daily basis.
On the other hand, Serfs with a Weak claim to the land were like modern private employees, could be left go and driven off the land at any time the Master wanted them off (Just like modern employers can fire an employee for any or no reason at any time). Such peasants could be kicked off the land at any time, for any or no reason. These were the unskilled day workers on most farms in the Middle ages, poor and with few rights.
A third group existed, these were "Freeman" or "Franklin" who had independent skills ls that were sought after, but owned no duty to any single lord. These were the village Blacksmiths and other skilled workers.
The above three groups were your peasants. They often intermingled and intermarried. Most could NOT read or write (And most did NOT have to given they duties in society). The local Priest came from the same class, but could read and write (Through one of the reason for the protestant reformation was the number of local priests who could NOT, thus most could read, many could not especially in more remote areas like Scotland).
On top of the peasants were the Nobility (including the King) and the Catholic Church Hierarchy. The Nobility controlled most of the land, but this was to be able to raise and equip troops for the King. Land ownership and military duty were intertwined. Thus the Nobility had a habit of viewing their peasants more in a military view than an employer view. The Church had the same doctrine thus the Seven books in question were NOT a problem during the Middle ages, they were used as a check on the power of the Nobility over the Peasants (This extended to the Maccabees which emphasis the RIGHT of a people to overthrow bad government, a concept perfectly in harmony with dark age and middle age social contract).
Come the Renaissance, you see a reemergence of Roman Law, which viewed peasants more like employees than Soldiers. This was Parrnell by the raise the of Modern Middle Class, which tend to view workers as employees NOT soldiers. This was complicated by the fact the Black death had cause a population shortage that saw the raise of pay of Freeman and Peasants with weak claims to the land, followed by a slow decline in the pay and rights of Freeman and Peasants with weak claims to the land as the number of such peasants increased. A fourth movement came out of the Great Schism, Which lead to a demand for reform of the Catholic Church (Which even the Catholic Church accepted, but the corrupt parts resisted till the Council of Trent, which occurred AFTER Martin Luther was dead).
All five movements were well on they way when the Protestant Reformation started. Martin Luther seems to first object to the corruption of the Vatican more than anything else, thu his first attacks was on the Vatican and its corruption (and even the Catholic Church admit as to the Vatican of his time, the Vatican was corrupt). Martin Luther then allies himself with certain military groups, who wanted to undo some of the restrictions on who they could attack and steal from. And in turn allies himself with the Northern German Prices and the growing Middle class in those Northern States against both the German Emperor and the Pope. Martin Luther then embraces a peasant reform movement, but turns against it when it started to demand reform not only of the Church but of their master and of society as a whole in regards to the rights of the peasants. Martin Luther tells them to stop, and then released his military allies against the peasants (Martin Luther then rites some beautiful songs and other works, but after the suppression of the peasants, for after the suppression he had little affect on the reformation).
After Luther's death, John Calvin became the new spark of the Reformation. Unlike Luther, who was more demigod than intellectual, Calvin was an Intellectual. Luther seems to have gone with the wind of change, i.e. whatever was popular at the moment he supported, when it became unpopular with the people he was working with he opposed it. Thus his support of the suppression of the Peasants, while supporting the growing power of the State and the Middle Class.
Calvin was different, he came out of the Middle Class (Luther had been a monk and then a Priest) and wanted reform that helped the Middle Class. Calvin wanted a Church that reflected what the Middle Class wanted NOT want the Vatican wanted. Even Catholics view him as one of the Greatest religious philosophers in Western History, often compared to St Augustine as to the width and depth of his view of where the church should be in Society (and Calvin in turn viewed St. Thomas Aquinas as a main source of inspiration).
Now as part of his movement of "reform" Calvin wanted to end a lot of what he considered paganism that still existed in the Catholic Church. Most of these items (Worship of Saints, relics etc) had long been part of Catholicism, but interfered with control of the Church by the Middle Class (The Catholic Church, in turn, view these acts as religious in themselves, through you can view such worship of relics as an independent source of revenue for the Church that Calvin opposed and the Catholic Church wanted to keep). Like Luther Calvin wanted to end various "evils" such as selling indulgences and relics. The affect of this reform was to break the Church from any independent source of Income other than the Middle Class donations. This dependence was opposed by Catholics, who accepted the fact the Relics and indulgences may be abused, but the greater abuse was if the Church came under the control of just one part of Security.
Thus I finally get to the Seven books, accepted by Catholics, but Rejected by Protestants. These books are the most anti-Rich and pro-poor books of the Bible. They are the book that demand the most of those people with money, when it comes to other people. Those terms are often duplicated in other parts of the bible, but not as clearly. Given the background of the Reformation (i.e. the raise of the Middle Class) this change may reflect that change. In simple terms, these Seven Books may have been opposed by the Protestants of the reformation, do to perceived anti-wealth prejudice of the books more than anything else (i.e viewed as Anti-Middle Class, as opposed to be pro-poor). Since the Reformation was a pro-Middle Class movement, anything that was anti-Middle class had to be "Reformed" out of the church and thus why these seven books are in the Catholic Bible but not the Protestant Bible.
Please note, since the Great Depression and then ONLY in the US and Canada, the term "Middle Class" meant those people below the 1% Rich, but above those people viewed as Poor, working poor or Working Class. At the time of the Reformation the Middle Class is believe to have been around 10% of the population. It increased afterward, but never exceeded 50% (and most historians do not think it ever came close to that figure). Even in the US, when polls are taken, and the term Working Class in one of the options including that of Middle Class, poor and working poor, more people call themselves Working Class not Middle Class. Thus in the above I use the term Middle Class to describe NOT the richest 1-2% of the population, but those people just below that group. I exclude the Working Class, for that includes what the bible call the poor (Poor is a term disliked in the US, I have even had people on Welfare call themselves "Middle Class" rather than poor, that is how bad the term "Middle Class" has become , it means almost everyone in the US today, when in historical terms its meaning was much narrower, and it is that narrower term I use the Term, Middle Class above).
One last comment, why are these books NOT in the Jewish bible? Seems to be for similar reasons but set in the period AFTER 132 AD. The surviving Jews after the Revolts of 70 AD and 132 AD, wanted to show the Romans they could be trusted. Thus the Jews firmed up their bible to exclude these same books to show they no longer believe in the right to revolt against a tyrant (The Maccabees) in addition to removing any anti-wealth books. The Jews knew these books could be kept in the Synagogues separately, thus if the Romans asked for their "Holy Book" the "Holy book" produced would NOT have these books. Similar to the later Protestant Rationale, but as a defensive act NOT an act of defining what is Judaism. The Early Christians could point out to they refusal to participate in the 132 AD revolt, Christ's "To Caesar what is Caesar's, to Gods what is Gods" sentence. Christs turning the other Check speech AND that the Christian Bible did NOT firm up until Constantine. Prior to Constantine, the books could be added or deleted as needed. After Constantine's time, no longer a worry. Just a side comment on why Sirach is in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles but NOT the Jewish or Protestant Bibles.
Please also note, Sirach, while NOT in the Protestant Bible, it is still considered a Holy Book, just NOT in the Bible.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(63 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
