Timothy Jay Schwab, also known as The God Culture, has finally released volume 2 of his testing of the Apocrypha. You can read my review of volume one at this link.
.png) |
| Apocrypha Scrolls Found In Qumran And Those Not Present, Vol. 2 |
As I noted in my review of volume one there has been so much ink spilled about these books that Tim's contributions are absolutely not needed and they are in no way helpful. I am not interested in rebutting or affirming the canonicity of these texts but in showcasing Tim's awful methodology.
The fact is the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox consider the Apocryphal books to be canonical scripture. For some reason Tim is under the impression that the exclusion of these books from Protestant Bibles is a conspiracy to hide the truth. That is simply not the case as prior to the 19th century all Protestant Bibles contained these books. The reason they were removed was purely a cost saving measure by Bible translation societies.
In 1826, the National Bible Society of Scotland petitioned the British and Foreign Bible Society not to print the Apocrypha, resulting in a decision that no BFBS funds were to pay for printing any Apocryphal books anywhere. They reasoned that by not printing the secondary material of Apocrypha within the Bible, the scriptures would prove to be less costly to produce. The precise form of the resolution was:
Similarly, in 1827, the American Bible Society determined that no bibles issued from their depository should contain the Apocrypha.
This removal then became the standard for all Protestant Bibles. Yet Tim writes:
Though Wisdom of Solomon direct fragments are not found in Qumran, it is clear the community read and used it as inspired. When our modern Canon is not following this firmly established precedent, one must wonder what the agenda of modern scholars may be.
pg. 37
Is this guy so stupid as to not realize that scholars do not, have not, and never will determine the Biblical Canon? Is he also so stupid as to not realize anyone can buy a Bible with these books in it? Take note that Tim admits no fragments of the Wisdom of Solomon were found in Qumran. Of course he cites a few scholars to help him prove otherwise which is rather hypocritical of him.
Now, keep in mind that Tim's guiding principle as to what is and is not scripture is "Was it found at Qumran?" The Wisdom of Solomon was not found at Qumran but that does not stop Tim from rejecting it because a few passages from the Dead Sea Scrolls appear to cite it. Tim then proceeds to prove Wisdom was quoted in the New Testament and says something rather interesting:
This is extremely compelling that the Wisdom of Solomon was quoted in the New Testament and most importantly, whether attributed to that book or not, the doctrine is there.
pg. 41
So, something can be in the Bible without being directly spelled out? Did Tim forget that he denies the Trinity because the word is not the Bible? The concept certainly is though.
The History of Susana was also not found at Qumran but again that is not stopping Tim from declaring it was because of a tiny fragment that appears to have "a few points of contact."
In our view, a "few points of contact" to Susanna's one chapter in fragments this small is solid in being able to affirm it found there. Fragments are all we have of most of the scripture found there and they had no problem trying to stretch the Proto-Esther Fragments belonging to 1st Esdras over to Esther in fraud.
pg. 52
In "vetting" Susana Tim claims one scholar, J.T. Milik, actually thought the book was found at Qumran but changed his mind due to "pressure."
Initially. J.T. Milik suggested this fragment as belonging to the story of Susanna. He changed his view in the end but likely due to pressure.
pg. 53
In fact many scholars are covering-up the truth due to "pressure."
Basically, the math is simple. Out of 10 criteria, Susanna passes on 8 of 10 with an 80 percent score. The two criteria in which it doesn't agree, also do not correspond to Judges. However, Judges 19 fails miserably with a 50 percent score fitting 5 of 10 criteria. What kind of scholar cannot conduct such a simple test to decide? The kind that does not wish to perhaps due to pressure. This is gross negligence. This Qumran fragment squares to Susanna in content as Susanna was found there.
pg. 58
Of course Tim does not tell us who is pressuring these scholars or why they are doing it. It's simply ad hoc nonsense because Tim thinks he is right and everyone is wrong.
Both Bel and the Dragon and The Prayer of Azaryah were also not found in Qumran.
In light of the ancient association of Daniel and its addendum of Susanna, which was found in Qumran, it is more than reasonable to connect both Bel & The Dragon as well as Prayer of Azaryah as all three small books were once considered part of, and attached to, the Book of Daniel.
Though no direct Qumran fragments exist for this one chapter, the association is firm as demonstrated by the Greek Septuagint (LXX)from the B.C. era, Theodotion's Greek Version 1811, and the Egyptian find of Papyrus 967 especially (McLay [108]). Bel & The Dragon was also found in manuscript form in Cod. Ambmsianus (MS) [oaf. Cyprian (257) quoted Danie114:5 which is Bel & The Dragon published as the Book of Daniel [84]1811. Origen defended it as canon. Pope Damasus I (305384) included Daniel as “one book" incorporating Susanna, Bel & The Dragon, and Prayer of Azaryah. The tradition is well established. It does not matter that there may be some publishing from the ancient era which separated these books. What matters is that they were together in some form published within Daniel.
pg. 63
Just as with Bel & The Dragon, even without fragments in Qumran, we find the association strong enough that Daniel did include these addendums as his practice. When one reviews this powerful prayer, it certainly rings true in content as well. There is nothing to be afraid in perusing this small book. At the end of the full publishing of this book, we will vet the plausibility of the details.
pg. 68
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.
Apocrypha Scrolls Found In Qumran And Those Not Present, Vol. 1, pg. 68
Also known as the "Book of Wisdom" or simply as "Wisdom" in some translations and quotes, direct fragments of the Wisdom of Solomon were not found present in Qumran. However, it was used by the author °floral community documents such as 4QInstruction. It appears this book was included in the original Greek Septuagint which dates in origin to the 300-200 B.C. era. Unfortunately, many scoffers would claim we do not know if Wisdom of Solomon was originally there even though it carried through tradition for thousands of years. However, with the connection to Qumran, there is no debate on that point. It was certainly perceived and used as inspired scripture in that time and more importantly than Egyptian translators or the Pharisees such as Josephus, by the actual Qumran/Bethabara exiled Temple Priests. They are the final word on the Old Testament Canon from the time of Moses and really Jacob to the First Century.
Apocrypha Scrolls Found In Qumran And Those Not Present, Vol. 2, pg. 31
Old Testament Canon from the time of Jacob? But there is no scripture until the time of Moses. This undoubtedly means that Tim believes the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs are scripture.
 |
| https://youtu.be/sWflamM2Bu4?si=OBx-g5VsylRPBw0f |
These three additions to Daniel as well as the Book of Wisdom were not found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran. Therefore, according to Tim's criteria, they are not part of the Old Testament canon. End of story.
Needless to say there is a lot of nonsense in this book. In an attempt to defend the historicity of Bel and the Dragon Timothy Jay Schwab has an entire section devoted to proving dragons existed.
 |
| pg. 193 |
Were dragons real? Who cares! That's NOT what Bel and the Dragon is about! Did he even bother to read this book? And it goes on for 10 pages!
%202.png) |
| pg. 197 |
The Incredible Hulk shows up on page 173 as Tim attempts to prove that the demon Asmodeus from the Book of Tobit was actually a demon possessed Nephilim giant.
 |
| pg. 173 |
Actually this image is titled "3D Illustration Giant Monster" and you can buy it for $9.98 at Shutterstock. But if you search this image on Google you get the Incredible Hulk because it's clearly a rip-off.
Probably the most important section in this book is Tim's attempted dismissal of Maccabees as falsified history. This section is 40 pages long and is a very convoluted interpretation of history that barely cites from Maccabees except in derision. Let's take a look at a few things he says.
By 165 B.C., Greece was distracted and otherwise engaged as they were in decline. Multiple battles with Rome for over live decades were taking a toll. Greek resources were shifted back to Greece to fight the Romans and it makes no sense for a Greek ruler to begin to act as a dictator. The entire narrative of Antiochus IV Epiphanes needing to enter the Temple to sacrifice a pig instigating another front of war with Judaea would not just be incredibly stupid timing, it never happened, It was the Samaritans who sensed the absence of Greek power and in that vacuum, they seized the opportunity to assault and capture the Temple never returning it to the Levites. They claim to be Levites yet all the sons of Zadok were in the Temple at that time managing worship and none lived in Samaria from where the Maccabees originated. The problem for Maccabees is they came from a foreign country, not Judaea. No sons of Zadok were there in Modrin, and they were not Levites. They were foreign invaders conquering the Temple which they had desired for many centuries.
pg. 257
Ah yes, it was the Samaritans who assaulted Jerusalem and took over the Temple. Where is this history recorded in the New Testament or anywhere else? It isn't. It's not there. At no time when Jesus encounters the Samaritans does he mention such a history and when he condemns the priests he never calls them fake Samaritans.
Tim goes on to interpret Daniel 8:9.
And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
He interprets it this way:
This passage also identifies that this Little Horn rises from inside of the same horn in which Jerusalem is located. Thus, this is not a mystery in the slightest. Jerusalem is in Ptolemy and this enemy, which is not Greece though part of its conquest, are just to the Northwest of Jerusalem which must still be Ptolemy. They cannot be the Seleucids who are already an identified horn and this one is new rising out of Ptolemy which narrows this down. The area there falls outside of Judaea in Samaria but Southern Samaria at this time was still part of Ptolemy's region still. The locals still observed the separation of Judaea from Samaria but Greece and even Rome later, never really did. The Seleucid area begins just North of that which would no longer be Ptolemy and cannot conform to Daniel's prophecy. It is a complete lie that Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a Seleucid, defiled the Temple according to Daniel.
This most be a power within Ptolemy, smaller than all of Ptolemy, that rises, thus was not risen as a power yet in those days. It cannot be a full horn of four, but a Little Horn rising as a portion of one of the four, and it attacks Ptolemy's portion of Jerusalem including the Temple especially. This means Daniel defines Josephus and Maccabees as a false history as both fail to even understand the geography of those days. The Seleucid Antiochus IV Epiphanes was not from Ptolemy, is not a new power, and cannot rise out of Ptolemy when the horn of his authority was already in power since Alexander's death, and not new. That traditional interpretation has always been harebrained and uneducated. The Dead Sea Scrolls fully reveal this.
pg. 259-256
1 Maccabees 1:16 Now when the kingdom was established before Antiochus, he thought to reign over Egypt that he might have the dominion of two realms.17 Wherefore he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots, and elephants, and horsemen, and a great navy,18 And made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt: but Ptolemee was afraid of him, and fled; and many were wounded to death.19 Thus they got the strong cities in the land of Egypt and he took the spoils thereof.20 And after that Antiochus had smitten Egypt, he returned again in the hundred forty and third year, and went up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great multitude,21 And entered proudly into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels thereof,22 And the table of the shewbread, and the pouring vessels, and the vials. and the censers of gold, and the veil, and the crown, and the golden ornaments that were before the temple, all which he pulled off.23 He took also the silver and the gold, and the precious vessels: also he took the hidden treasures which he found.24 And when he had taken all away, he went into his own land, having made a great massacre, and spoken very proudly.
Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
20 But the mother was marvellous above all, and worthy of honourable memory: for when she saw her seven sons slain within the space of one day, she bare it with a good courage, because of the hope that she had in the Lord.21 Yea, she exhorted every one of them in her own language, filled with courageous spirits; and stirring up her womanish thoughts with a manly stomach, she said unto them,22 I cannot tell how ye came into my womb: for I neither gave you breath nor life, neither was it I that formed the members of every one of you;23 But doubtless the Creator of the world, who formed the generation of man, and found out the beginning of all things, will also of his own mercy give you breath and life again, as ye now regard not your own selves for his laws' sake.
For us, there are others we feel Charles and the 1611 KJV may not have found but this is good enough for the connection in secondary evidence. One fascinating controversial scripture is Luke writing of Paul's citation of Yahusha in Acts 20:35 "how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." Yahusha did not appear to have said that in the Gospels anywhere and many scholars scoff instead of reconciling. However, it is a direct quote of Tobit 12:8: It is better to give alms than to lay up gold." Did Luke attribute the quote to the wrong person? Perhaps. Does that undermine the whole of scripture? Only for an idiot who is incapable of elementary understanding in these days of scoffing.
pg. 27
However in volume 1 Tim says Acts 20:35 is a citation from 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.
Apocrypha Scrolls Found In Qumran And Those Not Present, Vol. 1, pg. 73
Which one is it?
This book is just more worthless garbage from Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture. There will be more. Tim hints at that in this book he is "testing" more texts in an attempt to restore the Bible. Not that the Bible needs restoring as we have the full Word of God despite Tim's assertions to the contrary.
No comments:
Post a Comment