Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture has released another book. This is volume one of a two volume series "testing" the apocryphal books. This book is part of his project to rewrite what he calls "the Pharisee Bible" and "restore the true Bible." It's a lot of Godless, Christless, faithless nonsense and quite frankly there is so much written about these books we really do not need the ridiculous armchair ravings of a magazine editor who knows neither Greek nor Hebrew except from what he gleans on the internet to tell us about them! Let's take a look anyway.
.png) |
| Apocrypha Scrolls Found In Qumran And Those Not Present. Vol. 1 |
Thankfully this book does not insert the Philippines where it does not belong but it does follow the pattern of Tim's other editions of Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Enoch, Jubilees, and 1st and 2nd Esdras.) He begins his "foreward" by dumping all over scholars of every stripe. This tirade continues all throughout Tim's introductory materials. Here is one of many examples.
For those scholars requiring that Pharisee to tell the truth in quoting Baruch, perhaps someday they will mature to elementary levels where we could allow them to participate in discussion. For now, many undermine their own credibility.
pg. 81
Next there is a long section about who really lived in Qumran followed by a "Torah Test" for the books in this volume. That would be The Wisdom of Sirach, The Prayer of Manasseh, Baruch including the Letter of Jeremiah, and additional proof for 1st and 2nd Esdras being found in Qumran.
His interpretation of the material is tedious and longwinded and I will not attempt to unravel them. Funny enough Bigfoot makes an appearance for his "case!"
Another text by perhaps the brother, mentioned a creature akin to Big Foot thus, that must be discredited because modern scholars cannot capture and prove there is such a creature. Again, that is their paradigm and their shortcoming they then, apply to everyone else in a false paradigm blocking knowledge. That is as Pharisee as any behavior could be. They would ignore even former President Teddy Roosevelt as not academic enough nor credible enough for them when he wrote of an account of a Big Foot-like creature in Idaho and Montana in The Wilderness Hunter published in 1893. Another scholar would pile on in consensus noting that there were no known Big Foot legends in that area in 1850 but not until 1912.
In other words, that scholar would be claiming this could not be the first legend because other scholars already decreed the 1912 was the first. Do they even know that? No. Did Big Foot, or whatever creature this may have been mistaken, come into existence in 1912? Would not the very fact that it is reported in that area in 1912 prove this family history credible whether it was Big Foot himself or not? How could one call themselves academic and even think that way? They do.
pg. 47-48
Yes dear readers, Big Foot is real!! Tim writes in these ridiculous terms because he despises academia and is appealing to the lowest common denominator.
This is why we are publishing this series in layman’s terms as we have had enough of the so-called academic rhetoric that surrounds the Dead Sea Scrolls, and really the entire Bible.
pg. 50
That is what we are up against here folks.
In this review I will focus on several huge errors Tim makes that shows he is totally unreliable as a "scholar." Of course that is always the case with Tim. He sounds like he knows what he is talking about but when one washes away the mud his deceit is made plain.
The first major error, and the one that shuts down his entire project, is that the only test of what is true scripture is what was found or not found at Qumran. If it was found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls it is scripture, if it was not found then it is not scripture.
We will determine which of these was and still is Bible Canon and which should not be. We will use the Qumran Scrolls as a framework as well as establish historicity continued from there to the Early Church.
pg. 13
The first and sole true judge of historicity is whether or not a text was found affirmed in the Dead Sea Scrolls where the Temple Priests were who kept the only official Bible Canon to the First Century.
pg. 68
This is problematic on many levels and not just because it eliminates the New Testament which was not found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. I will let Bible scholar Lee McDonald speak.
What was discovered in and around Qumran cannot be affirmed to be a complete library of what was actually stored there, for the residents made no list of what they stored, and we do not know if one day another cave will be discovered with many more ancient manuscripts. Therefore, a certain amount of caution is necessary before making strong statements about the contents of the Qumran library. And because of this uncertainty, it is wise to soften conclusions about what was not found there.
Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon, pg. 131
“There is no way to know with certainty whether either collection in 4 Ezra included Ruth, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Ecclesiastes, or Song of Songs, the books more commonly disputed in the rabbinic tradition. Also, it is not certain that Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach were excluded. One should be very careful about attributing to 4 Ezra a definition of canon that cannot be established. Nothing prior to the second century C.E. identifies which books made up the sacred writings in the various sects of Judaism at the turn of the era. It is possible to hazard a guess of the identity of some of the books in the emerging biblical canon by observing the way that various writings were cited at Qumran or by Josephus, but what specific books were in these categories is debatable.”
Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon, pg. 163
There was no list of official books found at Qumran nor does Josephus provide a list. He only gives a number which could mean any number of things. Yet Tim is quick to condemn Josephus for not including Baruch in his list of Bible Canon.
When Josephus, then, quotes a list of what is referred to as Bible Canon, he most certainly is not representing the true sons of Zadok who were exiled by these factions to Qumran/Bethabara.
pg. 11
However, even closer in 90 A.D., Josephus, who was a Pharisee who did not include Baruch in his Pharisee Bible which is impertinent to any discussion, well knew the skill of Baruch, not just as Jeremiah’s scribe but as the mouthpiece of the prophet.
pg. 81
How does Tim know that Josephus did not include Baruch in his Bible canon? He does not. He is making stuff up because he despises Josephus. Tim admits Baruch was usually compiled with Jeremiah into one book.
In fact, you will find the Book of Baruch confused with Jeremiah often in ancient times because it was once part of the Book of Jeremiah in treatment.
pg. 78
It could very well be the case that Josephus's unnamed canon included Baruch as part of Jeremiah.
Tim even claims that the Protestants derive their canon from Josephus!
No Pharisee ever qualifies as being ordained to keep Bible Canon to the First Century either but the opposite. This includes especially Josephus, the Pharisee, whose publishing of the Pharisee Canon now proves archaeologically to be a changing of Bible Canon also coalescing with the Pharisee Council of Jamnia oddly the same year. Generally, the Protestant Old Testament Canon today is driven by Jospehus’ listing from 90 A.D. or so and one could not be more uneducated especially in the face of the many rebukes of Pharisee doctrines, oral traditions and their Canon.
pg. 8
Tim offers ZERO PROOF for that claim which is no surprise because there are many claims made in this introduction which he never backs up. Claims such as The Wisdom of Sirach being penned by a family of "Biblical sages."
He and his grandfather share the same name but this is a family effort of Biblical sages qualified to write scripture. Thus, there are three consecutive generations of Sirach’s who authored or contributed to the content of this book as a grandfather, father and the culmination written by the grandson, “the son of Sirach” identifying the wisdom of “My grandfather Yahusha.”
pg. 39
What is Tim's proof that the author of Sirach is part of a family of Biblical sages? What does it even mean to be part of a family of Biblical sages? Tim never says. He makes this assertion and never proves it!
This is a good segue into his other test of canonicity and that is that the book must prove to be a "second witness" to the Bible.
This is a basic foundational principle that undermines the whole of scripture as they censored witnesses to the Bible that the Bible requires, per scripture, as where are the second witnesses especially of some of the most important doctrines of both the Old and New Testaments?
pg. 9
Tim never explains what it means that the Bible requires second witnesses attesting to its veracity. His argument is actually circular as he says the Bible requires the Bible to prove itself! The Bible needs to refer to itself to be deemed true? SAYS WHO!? Again, he does not say. Likely this false hermeneutic is based on the following scripture:
Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Is there ancient precedence for Yahusha’s famous statement about knowing men by their fruits? This is extremely significant as he was quoting the Wisdom of Sirach, not creating new doctrine. Yahusha says: “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” This is worded even more closely in the NRSV Sirach as “...the fruit discloses the cultivation.” Yahusha quoted the Wisdom of Sirach. Why would any church avoid it? The scoffer may exclaim these are different because Yahusha editorializes as if the Son of Yahuah is not allowed to do so. We all know that is just plain stupid.
Messiah expresses He is the vine and we are the branches. He speaks of the sinner’s heart representing rocky soil in which good seeds cannot take root. The sinner does not bring forth many branches as a result and bad fruit, if any. This is all wrapped up together with the previous wisdom that you shall know them by their fruits. Believers bear good fruit and are pruned and flourish. The wicked will be cut off and burned in the fire. This entire analogy is not original to Yahusha. He read and understood the Wisdom of Sirach. One of the most important passages in all of the New Testament where Yahusha defines salvation, derives from the Wisdom of Sirach. He quoted it and editorialized in deeper explanation.
pg. 71
Mark 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all thesethings are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?
Matthew 7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
One can read many commentaries and books which note Yahusha’s words that one who will not forgive their brother will not be forgiven. Oddly, most of those scholars do not research the origin of such a paramount statement which better come from scripture with a second witness. There are even some who will assert this was Messiah creating new doctrine which is illiterate. For Yahusha was quoting Sirach 28 in this regard.
pg. 72
Of course, not all Old Testament books contain prophecy of the coming Messiah. One can force archetypes or types of Christ as some attempt, but there is never a need to do so and we will not in this testing in which all six of these texts already pass as identifying with Biblical Israel.
pg. 90
This betrays a complete misunderstanding of the scriptures. Let's hear what Origen has to say.
...we must approach the whole of Scripture as one body, we must not lacerate nor break through the strong and well-knit connections which exist in the harmony of its whole composition, as those do who lacerate, so far as they can, the unity of the Spirit that is in all the Scriptures.
Note, this account is specifically affirmed by Origen around 200 A.D. as he quotes First Esdras with attribution in his response to the scoffer, Julius Africanus who sounded like many modern scholars. Origen wrote he was reading 1st Esdras as historical and Biblical fact one would call inspired. He confuses Nehemiah and Zerubbabel which is a simple mistake as both were involved in the rebuilding.
185-254: Origen:
“Again we read in Esdras, that Neemias, a cup-bearer and eunuch of the king, of Hebrew race, made a request about the rebuilding of the temple, and obtained it...” – Origen’s Letter to Africanus
pg. 54
This is false. 1st Esdras does not contain this story. But the book of Nehmiah does! This error stems from the fact that Tim does not understand that in the early Church Ezra-Nehemiah were combined into one book known as 1st Esdras while what we know as 1st and 2nd Esdras were called 3rd and 4th Esdras and were not included in the canon. He further complicates his error in the following passage:
We also know historically, there was a practice among the very early church that included 2nd Esdras as the same book as 1st Esdras.
“Origen, in his Commentary on Ps. i, gives the second list that we know of, which belongs to a time not later than A.D. 231 ; he reckons as belonging to the Canon the twenty-two books of the Hebrew Old Testament. But, strange to say, Origen includes in his list the First Book of Esdras (he treats 1, 2 Esdras as one book) and the Epistle of Jeremiah, neither of which had ever been regarded as canonical by the Jews. Origen’s list is adopted by Athanasius, Cyril, and Epiphanius, as well as in the Laodicean Canon, in each case with the addition of Baruch.
Scholars noting that some quote or kept 1st Esdras but not 2nd Esdras because they do not break it out in the ancient mindset, do not represent the ancients and do not understand the pattern associated with how they kept scripture.
pg. 65-66
Any honest examination of canonical lists shows beyond dispute that Ezra-Nehemiah were combined into one book known as 1st Esdras while 3rd and 4th Esdras were EXCLUDED from the canon. Historically speaking 1st Esdras is Ezra, 2nd Esdras is Nehemiah, and 3rd and 4th Esdras are what we know today as 1st and 2nd Esdras.
 |
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esdras#Naming_conventions |
It can be a little confusing but Tim cannot even handle the title of Ecclesiasticus for the Wisdom of Sirach so it's no wonder he gets this wrong.
Some refer to it as Ecclesiasticus as well, though a confusing title.
pg. 38
Let me conclude with Tim's contradictory statements about Jesus Christ and Josephus. As I noted above Tim takes umbrage with the fact that Josephus cites Baruch but never names him. However he claims Jesus Christ cited Sirach, never named him, and to think that he would do so is illiterate.
For those that require Messiah to always attribute every word He spoke to the book from where it originated, that is one of the most illiterate of false paradigms.
pg. 70
Except that is exactly what Jesus does. Every time he cites scripture he says IT IS WRITTEN. While Jesus may echo the sentiments of Sirach he never says IT IS WRITTEN and then cites Sirach. But he does that with Moses and the Prophets of which Sirach is not a part. Sirach even acknowledges that the book is neither law nor prophets in in the prologue.
1
The Prologue of the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach. Whereas many and great things have been delivered unto us by the law and the prophets, and by others that have followed their steps, for the which things Israel ought to be commended for learning and wisdom; and whereof not only the readers must needs become skilful themselves, but also they that desire to learn be able to profit them which are without, both by speaking and writing: my grandfather Jesus, when he had much given himself to the reading of the law, and the prophets, and other books of our fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn on also himself to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom; to the intent that those which are desirous to learn, and are addicted to these things, might profit much more in living according to the law.
pg. 104-105
One last thing and that is Tim's comments on Acts 20:35:
I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.”
Tim says this is a quote not from the Lord Jesus Christ but from Jesus Ben Sirach!
Also, Acts 20:35 credits Yahusha for saying “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” That is not a quote documented of Yahusha Messiah. This is a quote from Yahusha Ben Sirach 4:31 exactly.
pg. 73
Really? Despite the text saying that is a quote from Jesus Christ Tim claims it is not! Now he is contradicting the scriptures. And what does Ben Sirach 4:31 say?
Let not thine hand be stretched out to receive, and shut when thou shouldest repay.
Does that look like an exact quote to you? Even the sentiment is wrong because this verse is not about GIVING but about REPAYING! His note on the text says:
Cf. Acts 20:35, credits Yahusha for saying: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” He has no such quote in the Gospels but Yahusha Ben Sirach does.
Does Tim honestly believe that EVERYTHING Jesus spoke or did was written down? Even the Gospels say this is not the case!
25
John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Ame
Acts 20:25 is often cited as a proof text for the authority of unwritten tradition but you won't find Tim wading into those waters. He can hardly swim as it is!
To put it bluntly this book showcases how Tim undermines the Scriptures and thinks he knows more than anyone else especially scholars who have devoted their entire lives to studying the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. This man is ignorant beyond belief and every publication reveals his stunning lack of basic knowledge when it comes to these things. As I noted at the beginning there are so many commentaries and papers about these books that we do not need the musings of Timothy Jay Schwab to muddy the waters.
No comments:
Post a Comment