Could people know what Scripture was before the Church?

[ratio1]

Do you really think a Jewish rabbi would accept the following historical description:

The Samaritans defined their canon as the Torah.
Later on Jews decide to add the books of Ketuvim and naviim to the Samaritan canon and that becomes the Jewish Tenach.

Somehow I don’t think so. Yet this is true in terms of historical sequence.

What I have a problem is is not the historical sequence but rather the historical viewpoint.

The above viewpoint is perfect from a Samaritan point of view but not from a Jewish perspective.
You choice of the word “add” I think is problematic from a Catholic viewpoint but obviously fine from a Jewish or Protestant viewpoint.

 

[BartholomewB]

Once again, I have to say I think the analogy doesn’t really work. The Torah constituted at one point the whole of Sacred Scripture shared by Jews and Samaritans together, to which the Jews alone later added more books. But I would hesitate to use the term “canon” in this context, because there was not at that early date a clear idea of what a “canon” meant, namely an officially authorized list of duly approved books.

 

[BartholomewB]

You choice of the word “add” I think is problematic from a Catholic viewpoint but obviously fine from a Jewish or Protestant viewpoint.

I’m trying to approach it from a historical viewpoint. That was the OP’s starting point: what happened “before the Church.” It’s in the title of the thread.

 

[ratio1]

The Torah constituted at one point the whole of Sacred Scripture shared by Jews and Samaritans together, to which the Jews alone later added more books.

The day after Pentecost: the Old Testament constituted the whole of sacred scripture shared by Christians an Jews together, to which Christians alone later added the New Testament.

Analogy seems to work rather well here.

 

[ratio1]

historical viewpoin

Are you suggesting that there is a standard historical viewpoint and that viewpoints can be neutral?
One can never completey decouple history from the biases of how history is told.

In any case, using your historical perspective which I think is simply a secular perspective, it is indeed correct to say the Jews added books to the Samaritan Pentateuch. And the Church added 7 books to the Jewish Canon.

So yes what you say is correct from a secular historical point of view. But why use the secular view here?

The OP has asked a question on a Catholic forum, why provide a secular answer? Why not provide a Jewish answer, or a Protestant answer? If the OP wishes those answers I suggest going to quora or similar.

 

[BartholomewB]

Are you suggesting that there is a standard historical viewpoint and that viewpoints can be neutral?
One can never completey decouple history from the biases of how history is told.

Yes, complete objectivity is probably an unattainable ideal. But we keep on trying. We don’t give up without a struggle.

The day after Pentecost: the Old Testament constituted the whole of sacred scripture shared by Christians an Jews together, to which Christians alone later added the New Testament.

Which Old Testament? Which books?

 

[ratio1]

Which Old Testament? Which books?

Same situation with the Samaritans. Which books? They too had the book of Joshua but they don’t regard that as divinely inspired.
Analogy still holding…

 

[ratio1]

Yes, complete objectivity is probably an unattainable ideal. But we keep on trying. We don’t give up without a struggle.

Absolutely agree with you and thats exactly my point all along.
I contend that even from a secular point of view using the concept of “adding” is not objective due to authority issue. Hence I certainly strive for objectivity. Otherwise I wouldn’t have bothered to raise my objection to your post.