Author Topic: Why Josephus and not the Apocrypha? (Read 3602 times)

soul seeker · « **on:** August 26, 2010, 03:34:42 PM »

I have a question that has bugged me this week about Redemption. Here are the facts and maybe one of the higher ups can answer it.
Fact 1: I am studying, this week, the Intertestamental Period of Jewish History.
Fact 2: Antiochus IV was a major force to be reckoned with in Jewish History.
Fact 3: Antiochus IV is a Redemption Card
Fact 4: Antiochus IV's actions are well documented in the Maccabees in addition to Josephus.
Fact 5: Josephus is well known to be biased and self-serving in scholarly circles.
Fact 6: Maccabees (to my understanding because I don't own one) is in the Catholic Bible.
Fact 7: (Last to my knowledge) Rob is Catholic (probably along with other Redemption players.)

I add all this up and begin to wonder....why is Josephus being used as card references and not books from the Catholic Bible, which in my mind and some scholarly minds have higher standing than a biased historian?

Also in my studies, it brought to light that Alexander the Great and Hellenism would potentially be great evil Greek cards, and both are mentioned in the Maccabees.

Seriously, even coming from a Protestant background...I have to wonder: why is the Apocrypha banned?

crustpope · « **Reply #1 on:** August 26, 2010, 03:39:43 PM »

Probably due to potential anti-catholicism backlash. or a fear of potential anti-catholicisim backlash.

Personally I am all for it. And I dont consider josepthus self serving so much as knowing which side his bread was buttered on. He had been taken prisoner by Vespasian and Titus. since he became their official historian....its all about dancing with the one who brung ya.

stefferweffer · « **Reply #2 on:** August 26, 2010, 09:26:57 PM »

Rather than just put vague -1s out there without people knowing why, I will instead just say that I am not in favor of quoting from a book that is not in most bibles you can buy at the store. I know that the door was "opened" when we started quoting Josephus, and I was personally not in favor of that either for the same reason. If we are going to call it a bible game and teach it to our children this way, then we should all be able to look these passages up in our bibles. I don't want games of Redemption to become soured or distracted by an 8 year old child saying "What is 'Maccabees'?" When we introduced this game to our brethren and friends here, we comforted the parents by telling them that every card had a bible verse on it. (I found out afterward that some promos didn't have verses on them.) If parents begin doubting whether or not the game is strictly based upon the bible (the books that we can all agree on), I don't consider that a good thing for Redemption. Not trying to be unkind - just stating one opinion.

crustpope · « **Reply #3 on:** August 26, 2010, 09:37:23 PM »

Quote from: stefferweffer on August 26, 2010, 09:26:57 PM

Rather than just put vague -1s out there without people knowing why, I will instead just say that I am not in favor of quoting from a book that is not in most bibles you can buy at the store.

I guarrantee you that any christian book store you walk into will have a catholic bible.

Quote

If parents begin doubting whether or not the game is strictly based upon the bible (the books that we can all agree on), I don't consider that a good thing for Redemption. Not trying to be unkind - just stating one opinion.

Why not look at it from the position of say the 60 million catholics in the United States, why should this card game be so "protestant-centric"? why should the protestants get to have their portions of the bible without including those that might be used by catholics as well?

-just stating one opinion

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #4 on:** August 26, 2010, 09:43:48 PM »

Personally, I'm not going to complain until I see a the Book of Mormon as a reference.

.

drb1200 · « **Reply #5 on:** August 26, 2010, 09:45:15 PM »

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on August 26, 2010, 09:43:48 PM

Personally, I'm not going to complain until I see a the Book of Mormon as a reference. .

EPIC.

You are now my favorite person.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #6 on:** August 26, 2010, 10:32:09 PM »

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on August 26, 2010, 09:43:48 PM

Personally, I'm not going to complain until I see a the Book of Mormon as a reference. .

So anything from the JW's is ok?

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #7 on:** August 26, 2010, 11:20:59 PM »

I dont like where this is going.

DDiceRC · « **Reply #8 on:** August 26, 2010, 11:44:28 PM »

As a staunch Southern Baptist of the conservative wing, I wouldn't have an issue with using a verse from the Apocrypha the same way as a quotation from Josephus-to provide a quote from a historical source for a character who is either (1) mentioned in a prophetic passage of the OT a la Antiochus Epiphanes or (2) a figure who had a historical impact on Biblical history but is otherwise unnamed, such as Emperor Caligula. I would not want to see characters from the Apocrypha such as Judith and Tobit made into Redemption cards, for the reason stated below.

As for why Redemption uses the "Protestant" Bible, Rob Anderson is the only one who can answer that, but I suspect it is because those are the books that Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox all agree on. Using a character from the OT or NT raises no questions with Catholics, but using one from the Apocrypha would raise questions for Protestants. It's about our common faith.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #9 on:** August 26, 2010, 11:56:16 PM »

I fully agree with DDiceRC.

soul seeker · « **Reply #10 on:** August 27, 2010, 12:33:15 AM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on August 26, 2010, 11:20:59 PM

I dont like where this is going.

Just know that it was not my intention for it to go that way. I just found the combination of all those facts to add up to an odd answer.

My guess that DDiceRC is probably pretty close with his guess which is what Crustpope seem to allude to with his guess. You guess?

Bryon · « **Reply #11 on:** August 27, 2010, 01:46:49 AM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on August 26, 2010, 11:56:16 PM

I fully agree with DDiceRC.

I fully agree with RSTmaniac in his agreement with DDiceRC.

When Jesus said "Give to Caesar..." and when Paul appealed to Caesar, there was a specific Caesar who was ruling at the time for each, but their names were not neccesarily mentioned in the Bible. But the people were. So, we consult History to see who that specific Caesar was, and put it on the Redemption card. Rob (and Doug, maybe?) suggested a Josephus reference so that we could actually have the person's name in the reference, rather than just a general "Caesar."

That does get tricky, though. For example, Jannes and Jambres, the Egyptian magicians from the Exodus, were only named in the New Testament. Rather than list the NT reference on the card, and have players confused and treating them as NT characters, we left a general Exodus reference on them.

For the older Pharaohs we have the problem of conflicting views among historians. There is not a definitive answer on the names of the Pharaohs during Joseph's time, Moses' young time, and during Moses' appeal to "let my people go." There is a "traditional" thought of Ramses for one of those, but it is not confirmed in history nor stated in the Bible. So, we have a general "Pharaoh." Maybe for those guys we should come up with substitute names like we have done with the angels (like "Angel in the Path" which references location, or "Angel of Warning" which references an action, or "The Strong Angel" which refers to the Angel in Revelation which was noted as being strong.). Perhaps "The Pharaoh in the Famine" or "The Dreaming Pharaoh" for the Joseph story. Maybe "The Hard-hearted Pharaoh" for the one during the Exodus. Perhaps "The Murdering Pharaoh" for the one who had the boys thrown into the river. Hmmm.

stefferweffer · « **Reply #12 on:** August 27, 2010, 03:07:50 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on August 27, 2010, 01:46:49 AM

Quote from: RTSmaniac on August 26, 2010, 11:56:16 PM
I fully agree with DDiceRC.
I fully agree with RSTmaniac in his agreement with DDiceRC.

When Jesus said "Give to Caesar..." and when Paul appealed to Caesar, there was a specific Caesar who was ruling at the time for each, but their names were not neccesarily mentioned in the Bible. But the people were. So, we consult History to see who that specific Caesar was, and put it on the Redemption card. Rob (and Doug, maybe?) suggested a Josephus reference so that we could actually have the person's name in the reference, rather than just a general "Caesar."

That does get tricky, though. For example, Jannes and Jambres, the Egyptian magicians from the Exodus, were only named in the New Testament. Rather than list the NT reference on the card, and have players confused and treating them as NT characters, we left a general Exodus reference on them.

For the older Pharaohs we have the problem of conflicting views among historians. There is not a definitive answer on the names of the Pharaohs during Joseph's time, Moses' young time, and during Moses' appeal to "let my people go." There is a "traditional" thought of Ramses for one of those, but it is not confirmed in history nor stated in the Bible. So, we have a general "Pharaoh." Maybe for those guys we should come up with substitute names like we have done with the angels (like "Angel in the Path" which references location, or "Angel of Warning" which references an action, or "The Strong Angel" which refers to the Angel in Revelation which was noted as being strong.). Perhaps "The Pharaoh in the Famine" or "The Dreaming Pharaoh" for the Joseph story. Maybe "The Hard-hearted Pharaoh" for the one during the Exodus. Perhaps "The Murdering Pharaoh" for the one who had the boys thrown into the river. Hmmm.

I don't have a problem with this. It's already been done with several un-named Pharisees.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #13 on:** August 27, 2010, 01:28:36 PM »

Is Bryon just thinking out loud? Or is he giving spoilers this soon after Disciples came out?

Smokey · « **Reply #14 on:** August 27, 2010, 02:51:19 PM »

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on August 27, 2010, 01:28:36 PM

Is Bryon just thinking out loud? Or is he giving spoilers this soon after Disciples came out?

I think he's trying to explain to people how to make generic card titles.

Daniel TS RED · « **Reply #15 on:** August 27, 2010, 03:34:16 PM »

If the maker of the game, who is Catholic, hasn't yet made cards with references from books from the Apocrypha, i'd say he has good reasons, why he hasn't.

Daniel

p.s. comma splice attacks.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #16 on:** August 27, 2010, 04:57:53 PM »

He wants to keep this a "Christian" game, not a Protestant game or a Catholic game. Being Catholic himself, I'd say this is a noble cause.
You'll also notice that our cards don't sway toward a particular theology, and when we do, they have both sides (Falling Away vs. Guardian).

I do agree, however, that Apocryphal scriptures could be used as long as they stick to the same restrictions there are for Josepheus.

The whole point's moot anyway, there's 1.5 Bazillion cards that could be left with the scriptures we all agree on. I heard a rumor that we haven't even touched one book (I don't know which one.)

Professoralstad · « **Reply #17 on:** August 27, 2010, 05:09:05 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on August 27, 2010, 04:57:53 PM

I heard a rumor that we haven't even touched one book (I don't know which one.)

II John. Not much material, but I had a few New Card Ideas from there once.

TheJaylor · « **Reply #18 on:** August 27, 2010, 05:15:31 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on August 27, 2010, 05:09:05 PM

Quote from: SomeKittens on August 27, 2010, 04:57:53 PM
I heard a rumor that we haven't even touched one book (I don't know which one.)

II John. Not much material, but I had a few New Card Ideas from there once.

IIJohn is the only book of the Bible we don't have a card from?...we'd better get to it.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #19 on:** August 27, 2010, 05:16:09 PM »

We should see how long we can go before we have to do a card from there

Nameless · « **Reply #20 on:** August 27, 2010, 05:16:57 PM »

The Warrior · « **Reply #21 on:** August 27, 2010, 08:14:23 PM »

Joe Is OT but would the Appy have its own testament?
im thinking Game problems not Neutrality problems

soul seeker · « **Reply #22 on:** August 27, 2010, 08:41:21 PM »

Josephus is neither Testament...it is consider Intertestamental (between the testaments)

browarod · « **Reply #23 on:** August 27, 2010, 08:46:02 PM »

I thought Josephus was NT (the gray emperors, for one)....

DDiceRC · « **Reply #24 on:** August 27, 2010, 08:47:21 PM »

For game purposes, characters that lived after the time of Christ are considered NT. I would think if Apocryphal references are used, for game purposes they would be considered OT on the grounds that those characters existed before Christ.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #25 on:** August 29, 2010, 12:05:19 AM »

Antiochus is O.T. Josephus, and Nero is N.T. Josephus. It has nothing to do with reference and everything to do with chronology. Anyone whose life overlapped or came after the life of Christ is N.T.

As a side-note, Alexander the Great is totally doable without using anything extra-Biblical (although Josephus would probably end up being used to get his actual name in the reference, like the Emperors and Antiocus).

crustpope · « **Reply #26 on:** August 29, 2010, 06:03:32 PM »

You cold reffer to the prophecy concerning greece in the book of Daniel for Alexander the great perhaps

But he is explicitly mentioned in Josephus...and in a positive light so would he be a greek Hero?

possibly redemptions first bisexual greek hero?

The Warrior · « **Reply #27 on:** August 29, 2010, 07:07:27 PM »

Quote from: crustpope on August 29, 2010, 06:03:32 PM

possibly redemptions first bisexual greek hero?

The Must Fail Thing on this forum(above) will prompt the following...

Quote

This thread is provocative

irontheologian · « **Reply #28 on:** August 29, 2010, 07:16:41 PM »

I hope there are non from the Apocrypha.
I must say that I have always been pleased that Rob uses the Masoretic and Textus Receptus renderings. How odd given that the Catholic Church looks down on these manuscripts.

DDiceRC · « **Reply #29 on:** August 29, 2010, 08:28:37 PM »

I suspect that the reason for this is business rather than theology, in that the AV is now in the public domain so no royalties have to be paid.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #30 on:** August 31, 2010, 12:06:25 PM »

Quote from: DDiceRC on August 29, 2010, 08:28:37 PM

I suspect that the reason for this is business rather than theology, in that the AV is now in the public domain so no royalties have to be paid.

There's no Apocryphal in the PD?

News:

Author Topic: Why Josephus and not the Apocrypha? (Read 3602 times)

Rawrlolsauce!

drb1200

Rawrlolsauce!

browarod