100 years ago............

[Hobbit]

Can't vouch for all of this, but interesting none the less.:):)


The year is 1902, one hundred years ago ... what a difference a century makes.

Here are the U.S. statistics for 1902. Theodore Roosevelt was serving his first term as US President.

The average life expectancy in the US was forty-seven (47).

Only 14 Percent of the homes in the US had a bathtub.

Only 8 percent of the homes had a telephone. A three-minute call from Denver to New York City Cost eleven dollars.

There were only 8,000 cars in the US and only 144 miles of paved roads. The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph.

Alabama, Mississippi, Iowa, and Tennessee were each more heavily populated than California. With a mere 1.4 million residents, California was only the 21st most populous state in the Union.

The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower.

The average wage in the US was 22 cents an hour. The average US worker made between $200 and $400 per year. A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000 per year, a dentist
$2,500 per year, a veterinarian between $1,500 and $4,000 per year, and a mechanical engineer about $5,000 per year.

More than 95 percent of all births in the US took place at home. Ninety percent of all US physicians had no college education. Instead, they attended medical schools, many of which were condemned in the press and by the government as "substandard."

Sugar cost four cents a pound. Eggs were fourteen cents a dozen. Coffee cost fifteen cents a pound.

Most women only washed their hair once a month and used borax or egg yolks for shampoo.

Canada passed a law prohibiting poor people from entering the country for any reason.

The five leading causes of death in the US were:
1. Pneumonia and influenza
2. Tuberculosis
3. Diarrhea
4. Heart disease
5. Stroke

The American flag had 45 stars. Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Hawaii and Alaska hadn't been admitted to the Union yet.

The population of Las Vegas, Nevada was 30.

Crossword puzzles, canned beer, and iced tea hadn't been invented. There were no Mother's Day or Father's Day.

One in ten US adults couldn't read or write. Only 6 percent of all Americans had graduated from high school.

Marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over the counter at corner drugstores. According to one pharmacist, "Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach and the bowels, and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health."

Eighteen percent of households in the US had at least one full-time servant or domestic.

There were only about 230 reported murders in the entire US.

What an amazing difference a 100 years makes!!

:):)

[Sponsored Links]

[John Bridge]

The American Automobile Association is founded in Chicago.

The first Studebaker automobile is introduced. It's electric.

Rayon (fabric) is patented.

The first Rose Bowl football game is played. Michigan defeats Stanford, 49 to 0.

The Teddy Bear is introduced.

U.S. engineer Willis Haviland Carrier designs the precursor of modern air conditioning.

International Harvester company is founded.

Pepsi-Cola is founded.

Source: The People's Chronology, James Trager, New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1992

[tomtuttle]

I don't at this moment have the gumption to cite a source, but another compelling fact for me about "The American Century" is the mass migration from an agrarian society to an urban one. In 1900, the vast majority of Americans lived on farms or at least in very rural areas. Obviously that has completely changed. It continues to fascinate me how Europeans have managed this same type of growth so much better than we have - especially preservation of agricultural land.

I'm also fascinated that the american public school system has retained the agrarian calendar. I work for the Washington Education Association (the state teachers' union) so don't go off and start bashing public education on me, but I do think for myself. Seems that the "summers off" calendar is a relic from the days when you needed the children home for harvest.

btw, I'm a lapsed historian. Got a BA in American History half a lifetime ago. The facts fade but the fascination does not.

[Hobbit]

Welcome to the History forum TT. This is a haven where not all come, but all are welcome! You will discover that among our members are an inordinate number of educated people. We count among our members more than a few who love history and the lessons it teaches.:)

The urban migration halted some years ago. American inner cities have been shrinking for several decades. Suburbia, the middle ground, is growing however.

The "American Dream," as President Herbert Hoover saw it, "a car in every garage, a chicken in every pot," does not allow for the luxury of a quiet laid-back lifestyle. It is unfortunate, but true, that if it "doesn't make dollars, it doesn't make sense." In today's economy it takes more than a "will" to make a farm a success. The only truly successful farming operations these days are big business.:(

:):)

[tomtuttle]

Thanks, Howard. I can't promise to pull my weight, but I do still love this stuff.

"History does not repeat itself; historians just plagarize each other"

Your observations about farming and suburbia are dead-on. I was just trying to add another data point to those fascinating tidbits you and John submitted.

The single-season record for Home Runs was Ned WIlliamson's 27 in 1884 until Babe Ruth hit 29 in 1919 and 54 in 1920. Talk about shattering a record.

[John Bridge]

I want to know how the Europeans have handled the move to urban centers better than we have. Without having ever really considered the comparison, I would have to disagree.

A thought on modern historians. I can't remember exactly when it began, but for some time now it seems historians have been reading into their subject matter. The writers of nearly all the books I've read in the past several years have all spent a lot of words on conjecture, as in: "He probably did . . ." "It's almost certain that . . ." "It would be difficult to believe that she didn't . . ."

It can be argued, of course, that qualifying the statements with words like "probably" keeps them within the realm of legitimate history. I can't help wandering along with the writers, though, and I wonder if that's really the way history should be portrayed.

I, of course, have my own mental images of TJ and GW and the rest, but I don't profess them as history. :)

[flatfloor]

I don't think Europeans have done any better it's just catching up in fact London seeems to be the most expensive overall. http://working.monster.ie/articles/finance/cost/3/

[Gene Beery]

Just running around and stopped to read this post. Tom, you have a new judge up your way (he wasn't born in 1902)but he is a heck of a guy. Guthberson, Frank and his wife Jacki. Don't know your politics but as people these are great folks. And as we will all atest history is only made up of folks.

John Good to hear you here!
Ansal Adams was born in 1902!...... well he was, oh and Calamity Jane died the next year 1903.

[Hobbit]

Wow Gene!! Do you know how long its been since I've even heard the name "Calamity Jane?" Brings back memories!!!

BTW......Ansel Adams is "The Man"!!!!!!! Without a doubt, the foremost photographer of his era and probably of all time. He understood light. Like none of us since have been able to.:)

I haven't given much thought to the urban migration either. Tom, Why do you say the Europeans have handled it so much better?? You mention the preservation of agricultural land. Is Europe really that much more "preserved" than we are?? I am asking.......I don't know. It would seem logical that the independent nations of Europe would not be acting in concert with respect to agriculture. Although.........???

BTW Tom, History or Historians never lapse!!! We just become temporarily disoriented!!:)

John; I tend to agree with your summation about the historical premise today. I wonder if its just a philosophical difference in the way modern writers approach the subject..??? Everyone tries so hard to be politically correct, they are almost afraid to take a stand. Of course its true that history is written by the victors, but in victory there should be common ground. I can't figure it either.:)

:):)

[John Bridge]

Several years ago a guy chewed me out for saying to the effect that so what if Patrick Henry didn't make the speech, it's still a good story. ;)

Turns out Patrick Henry didn't make the speech at all. There are no eye witnesses to the event, no written record, no primary sources at all. The guy who wrote about it was not there, knew no one who was there and wrote about it over a decade after the fact. Yet it became (and remains) history.

I've become a bit more critical of conjecture in American History books since then. Of course, without a few embellishments, it wouldn't be all that much of a story, would it? :D

P.S. Jefferson spoke of Henry's oratory. He said that one could sit and listen to Henry speak for hours, completely enthralled. But when Henry finally took his seat, one had trouble remembering what the man had said. :D

[cx]

Boy, John, if I hadn't seen the context of your statement, "The guy who wrote about it was not there, knew no one who was there and wrote about it over a decade after the fact. Yet it became (and remains) history", I would have guessed you were discussing the Christians' Bible. 'Course you would hafta make decade plural. ;)

One of the most recent disputes raging right here in our fair state of Texas about the reporting of things historic is taking place over the inclusion in a public school history text of the very substantial number of whore houses that were part of the makeup of the towns of the Old West. Now, that wasn't someone's opinion of the Old West, or conjecture about the Old West, but simply reported fact about the Old West, and from not so long ago as to make it difficult to document.

Seems we can't even agree on the factual things, let alone be trying to document motives and intentions. I don't agree much with the "Politically Correct" argument, I think it should more accurately be called "Politically Incorrect".

Harold:

I think the best thing about Ansel Adams photography was that he worked at a time when so much of the country was still unspoiled and "unsophisticated". Guy was a genius in his field to be sure.

[JC]

History is only as true as to who is telling it. I think politics and religion play more of a part in the history books then actual scientific fact has over the years.

[Chuck]

I recently read or saw a program about Ansel Adam's landscapes (he shot lots of other subject matter too.) They mentioned it is a common mistake to credit his great photographs with the fact that he took them when landscapes were "unspoiled", as in fact nearly every location where Adams took a famous photograph looks exactly the same today as it did when he took them! Maybe with the exception of those nasty jet vapor trails cluttering up his very contrived and glooming dark skies. The older he got, the more he burned those thing in in print. This is not to deny urban sprawl hasn't eliminated may scenic spots - only to emphasize the expertise he had.

Also - looking over that list of things the way they were 100 years ago...consider how many thing radically changed in the first 30 years or so of the last century and how few changed in the most recent 30 years.

[John Bridge]

Chuck,

Go another hundred years and the same thing might be said. :)

CX,

There are not many historians who consider the Bible as history. There are, of course, a great many who understand the significance of how the Bible has affected history. It has had a most profound effect on how we manage the English language. It has been said that a man (or woman) who has no knowledge of the Bible cannot possibly converse intellegently in our mother tongue. So I value the great book in that regard. I don't have to believe what it says.

Have you ever read TJ's version of the New Testament? It's one of the smallest books you'll ever read. :)

[cx]

Yep, I like TJ's version. :)

I agree that the Christian Bible has to be considered historically, but not as history. There is no doubt some historical information therein, but considering the context and dilution of any such data, it can hardly be considered very useful.

I can't say as I understand your comment about its usefulness in our English language. To the best of my knowledge, it's only within the last twenty years (can't recall just when I read about it) that the original writings were actually translated directly into English - and I've not seen said translation, nor even heard much about it. Prior to that, it is my understanding that it had all passed through at least one other language before even being available to the English speaking world.

I'm obviously missing your point, so perhaps you can clarify a bit?

[John Bridge]

No, you didn't fail to get the point. I guess I failed to make it. :)

Amongst my collection of books on the English language I have a thing called THE DICTIONARY OF CULTURAL LITERACY, written by three guys in the nineties -- E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett and James Trefil.

The authors state that cultural literacy, knowing what people are actually talking about, derives from sources other than dictionaries, thessaurii, and usage manuals. They dwell upon Myth and Folklore, classical writings and a score of other areas, but they begin the "dictionary" with the Bible.

I'll give you just a very few examples of what you know and use almost daily that comes from that tome.

How about saying of someone "he walks on water," meaning he can do no wrong, or he can do anything? Without a knowledge of the Bible, this would make no sense whatever.

"Wolves in sheep's clothing."

"Doubting Thomas."

"salt of the Earth."

"Prodigal Son."

"manna from heaven."

There are hundreds of entries. Without a basic knowledge of the Bible (no matter what religion or non-religion you believe) you will be lacking in "cultural literacy" not only in this country but in any other where English is spoken.

You won't quite be with it. ;)

[Cami A]

Do you think that might become less true with each passing generation?

I don't actively associate any of those as a Biblical reference, even though that's obviously where they came from. To me, (yes, I'm a bit of a heathen...) they're no different than "it's a dog-eat-dog world"- more of a proverb or idiom.

[kdzgon]

No, Cami - I don't agree. There seems to be a movement of a return to religion, so I think actually more might be familiar, not less.

Found some more interesting facts, too. I enjoy this so much, I am going to get this book from the library. (it is all graphs and charts)

U.S. Trends in the 20th Century

Demography
U.S. population nearly quadrupled, despite a fluctuating population-growth rate.
Life expectancy increased by 26 years for males and 29 years for females, thanks largely to significant decreases in infant mortality.
Minorities make up a larger proportion of the population, up from 13% in 1900 to 28% in 2000.

Economics
The per capita GDP, measured in constant dollars, grew eightfold during the century.
Post-Depression era business revenues grew ninefold--from $2 trillion (in 1999 dollars) in 1939 to $18 trillion by 1996.
The proportion of the population who owned stocks rose from just 1% in 1900 to 52% in 1998.

Environment
Energy efficiency doubled during the century, but energy consumption per capita nearly tripled.
The National Park system comprised just 3 million acres in 1900, soaring to 77 million acres in 1998.
Despite the rise of the automobile culture, bicycles did not disappear: The number of bicycles sold annually in the United States increased tenfold in the century.

Government
Women swelled the ranks of the armed forces, from none to 14.1% of enlisted personnel and 13.9% of officers by 1998.
Spending on police protection rose from just $13 (in 1999 dollars) per capita annually in 1902 to $207 in 1996.
Voter participation declined in the first two decades of the century. Then women received the right to vote (1920), and participation increased until mid-century. When 18-year-olds won the right to vote, participation rates declined slightly.

Society
Marriage decreased in popularity while cohabitation and premarital sexual activity increased.
Overseas travel has greatly increased, both among Americans going abroad and international visitors coming to the States. Numbers of foreign visitors have surpassed Americans abroad since 1990.
Membership in religious organizations increased, from 41% of the population in 1906 to 70% in 1998.

Technology
More patents are going to corporations than to individuals: In 1901, 20,896 patents were granted to individuals, compared with 4,650 for corporations. In 1999, 140,164 patents went to corporations and 27,826 went to individuals.
The number of personal computers (virtually nonexistent before the early 1980s) escalated with the advent of the Internet and World Wide Web. By 1998, 42% of U.S. households had a computer.
The popularity of e-mail late in the century did not stem the growing tide of paper delivered to people's mailboxes: The average person received 93 pieces of mail in 1900 and 729 pieces in 1998.

Source: The First Measured Century

[Cami A]

So, if marriage decreased in popularity while cohabitation and premarital sexual activity increased, while
membership in religious organizations increased, are they just going for the cookies and coffee and skipping the sermon? ;)

My point was that language changes with each generation. What may have been considered a Biblical reference in my grandmother's time is simply an everyday expression now. For instance, "Doubting Thomas"- I never knew who the Thomas was, but I simply accepted it as a saying, no different than "Big Bertha" or "Little Mary Sunshine".

I've never reached under a chicken's butt to grab an egg, but I don't put 'em all in one basket, either. ;)

[John Bridge]

That's a good point, Cami, and I can't answer your question. I think, though, that people who take a particular interest in language arts, say, at the college level, have much to gain by becoming familiar with the English Bible. I believe none of the dogma, but I have two copies of my own, one is the King James, which I still prefer.

Your point could be made about any classic. How many people are familiar with the Tortoise and the Hare who don't know whence the story comes?

Laurie,

Religion seems to be a cyclical thing in this country. It comes and goes. There was the Awakening, for example. Then there was the Enlightenment to counter balance it. And then in the early eighteen hundreds there was the Second Great Awakening, partly in response to the Englightenment. Then came the Roaring Twenties, followed by the evangalism of the forties and fifties. Then the sixties, and so forth.

And I think the percentages you site are of people who answer yes when asked if they go to church. They may not actually "belong" to a church. Don't know.

[Hobbit]

I think perhaps a tad overstated. While it is not necessary to know from whence something originated to understand its implications, it deepens and broadens our viewpoint to have such understanding. I believe that the philosophy behind many of our customs and axiomatic sayings is in many ways more important than the lesson itself, and almost always more interesting!!;)

If we can learn from our study, we are better for it. The study of our Bible is certainly a case in point. Personal beliefs aside, the English translation of the Bible is full of important ideology and is certainly worth the time to read and understand. By also studying a timeline of the era, it is possible to gain some understanding of conditions and the metamorphosis that has occured across the intervening years.

In the case of the axioms quoted by John B., I believe it is important to understand the original context as well as its modern day usage. The original context lends credence and gives us a deeper understanding of the time, place and people. This history is important to our understanding of the events that took place during that time and the way in which those events affect us today.

Knowledge is power!;):)

:):)

[Cami A]

I would never disagree that the Bible shouldn't be studied. I enjoy language, word origins and obscure references of all sorts...I've read the Bible myself, as a preteen and an adult, but the second time around raised more questions than it answered. ;)

What's that book say about the contributions of William S, John? I bet his musings have impacted our language to nearly the same extent as the Bible.

Howard, overstated? Moi? :D

[IBJT]

I’ve heard that the Bible is still the most published book in existence. Unfortunately it’s often not read and understood. In fact, there are many interpretations of messages The Bible offers.

I'll not direct this at anyone in particular, since that would require much more scholarship than I'm up at this point in the evening.

The King James Bible is not the original source of the examples that have been cited. The King James Version of the bible was translated from previous versions of the scriptures (by order of King James). Which in turn were transcribed and translated from earlier ones too. The original subject matter of the Old Testament was passed down from generation to generation as both a religious and social/civil history.

The New Testament carries on the religious and social history after the Birth of Christ. If my memory is correct, the individual books of the New Testament were often written years after the people involved died. There were one or two church councils that got together in the years afterward to agree on what was to be included in the collection of books we now know as the Bible.

Therefore I would submit to you that the stories of the bible originated in folk history during a period without mass communication. The stories (proverbs) used must have rung true to the people of the time, and many will say that they ring true even to this day because they describe the actual human experience and the human/spiritual interface.

Some people take the Bible to be the actual word of God. Others, myself included believe the Scriptures are more of a set of instructions that include both spiritual guidance and just plain common sense.

Remember too that until the advent of the printing press, the bible was a closely held document. Church leaders, Kings and the very rich were the only ones who had access. The masses were left to trust their religious leaders for guidance.

Now, I’m not advocating that we all learn Hebrew, Greek and Latin and go back to the original source documents. Just keep in mind that mankind has molded and shaped the words of the scriptures throughout recorded time. I believe that the Scriptures contain valuable guidance that speaks to men and women of all ages.

Because language changes, and civilization changes, the message of The Bible may not be as clear now, as it was when the various interpretations of The Bible were written. I enjoy the rich text of the King James Version, but I understand it better when I compare the King James to newer English language versions, and with the aid of biblical scholars who can actually go back to the source documents and offer their interpretation.

[kdzgon]

John,

I agree religion ebbs and tides, but we also have many more religions here than 100 years ago. Funny, but my guess re: the cited percentages would be just the opposite. I know my church has many more registered than attend most Sundays.

My opening comment though has more to do with local stories and my personal experiences. It seems there are more people nowadays that will mention praying, participation in religious based activities, returning to celebrations of their religious holidays, make reference to their God or religion in conversation or even on answering machine messages ("..have a bless-ed day...").

I do think for many it is a less formalized return (to faith) in that many pick and choose which doctrines they will follow. Many co-habitating couples will attend services within a religion that does not condone it, more people "skip" services than attend, and if so many Catholics did not ignore the ban on birth control, by now even Montanta's population might rival some of the states here on the east coast. ;)

Besides, figures never lie; liars figure. :D

Just look at the technology figures. While so many more patents have been awarded to corporations, how many individuals feel the need to be incorporated even if he or she is the sole employee? That says more about our convoluted tax system and/or our suit-happy environment than it does about the shift in origins of patents, IMO.

I just found many of the statistics interesting, although at a second glance the rationale behind the changes becomes more clear. Besides, Howie started it! :D :D :D

[Cami A]

For an extra grins, my word of the day from http://www.wordsmith.com:

doubting Thomas (DOU-ting TOM-uhs) noun

A person who is habitually doubtful or someone who refuses to believe something until given proof.

[After Saint Thomas, apostle, who doubted Jesus Christ's resurrection, according to the Bible.]

[Hobbit]

Blame it on me!!;)

For those who are interested.

The following is a bit of history that I believe to be correct. Please don't hold me to exact dates.........??? Also, I could be wrong!!! If you know differently, please let me down easily!!! I don't have the time or the inclination to do the necessary research to "prove" this.;)

There are 39 books in the Old Testament of the Bible and 27 in the New Testament. In addition to these, there are 14 (??) books that are part of the original Septuagint (Greek) manuscripts which was the original translation of the Hebrew text. I'm not completely sure, but I believe that the original Hebrew manuscripts were completed between 400 and 500 BC. Obviously these manuscripts contained only the 39 books of the Old Testament. The Septuagint was completed around 200 BC (??) and included the original translation of the Old Testament and the 14 additional books that are known as the Apochrypha. In the first century AD, the Greek manuscripts were completed that consist of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Somewhere around the beginning of the fifth century (400 AD) the Latin Vulgate translation appeared. This was the first translation that contained the Old and New Testaments and the Apochrypha. This is historically important because the Catholic Bible (and indeed the modern day Catholic Bible) is based on the Latin Vulgate. Some modern Catholic Bibles include the Apochrypha and some do not.

The first English translation of the complete Bible appears in the late 14th century. Its called the Wycliffe Bible for the author of the translation, Wycliffe (John???).

And of course, in 1455 Johann Gutenberg perfected the printing press and the Gutenberg Bible was the first book printed (in Latin). This is the period of time known as the Renaissance. The "modern" study or revival of ancient Greek and Hebrew during this period formed the basis for study of the original manuscripts. Subsequent to this time most of the translations were based on the original manuscripts as well as the Latin Vulgate. I think the most important of these translations occured in the early 16th century. William Tyndale completed his translation of the New Testament. In doing so he defied the Pope which ultimately caused him to be tried for heresy and executed. The Tyndale translation is historically important because it forms the basis for all modern translations including the KJV.

The King James translation appeared in the very early 17th century (1611??). It was a "remake" of all of the translations to date. It also used the original manuscripts where discrepancies were noted. The KJV was a collaborative effort involving teams of translators (there were thirty or more actual people working on this project at the same time). The King James translation was originally printed with all 80 books (including the Apochrypha). In the late 19th century the English Revised Version was printed and a few years later, the American Standard Version. The Apochrypha were left out of these and all subsequent versions of the Protestant Bibles. The Catholic Bible (Rheems-Duoay sp???) was also revised around this time but the Apochrypha were left in. Subsequently, some Catholic Bibles include these "lost books" and some do not!!

[IBJT]

Howard... Wow. That's good! You did that from memory?

I can't even remember where my bible is right now. ;)

I'm impressed.

So.... Which one of them is the best?

[John Bridge]

Thanks, Howard. An excellent history of the book. The Duoay, to my knowledge, is still the official Catholic Bible. I'm a dropout, though, and haven't kept up with things since I was 18. I know there has been a liberal influx into mainstream American Catholicism. Flatfloor is still in the flock, I think. :)

I'm glad you cleared up the thing about King James. It wasn't that James wanted to re-write the book (as Henry VIII would have liked to); it's only that James wanted to consolidate and make sense of the various renditions that were circulating.

Cami,

Of course the authors go on to Willy S. Nobody can have a complete understanding of the English language who doesn't remember at least a "smattering" of Shakespear. ;)

And that is the point, I think, and Howard expressed my thoughts quite eloquently. I think it is important to know where all this stuff comes from. In fact, I did a piece on the English language some years ago. It was never published, and I don't even know if I can find it. But I might. :D

A parting note. No scholarship here, but "Septuagint." Wouldn't the "sept" indicate seven?

Good account, John T. And Laurie, maybe this is the beginning of the Third Great Awakening. :)

[JC]

Don't forget Cami that the population also increased thus both religion and pre-marital sex can each increase without meaning anything.


Biblical trivia anyone?


Why do we celebrate Sunday as the day of rest?

When was the idea of confession started.

What does "tithe" really mean?

Why do we celebrate Jesus's birth on Christmas?


The answers are very interesting(at least I think so)

[cx]

Tres interesting indeed, Howard. Somewhere in a past life I recall discussions with some Religion students at TCU (Texas Christian University), during which they spoke of two books that were left out of ALL the known English translations completely, allegedly because they were too controversial. I believe it was the earliest instance of Political Correctness that was ever brought to my attention. I don't recall any of the details of the controversy.

You have any knowledge of the accuracy of such information? Or lack thereof, perhaps. :)



I agree ain't nobody can claim no good holt on the English language as ain't read all or most of Willy S's work. Boy was a wordsmith nonpareil (that how you spell that, John?). And I bet there would have to be some references to ol' Ben Franklin in that Cultural Literacy book, too. That boy could turn a phrase now and again.

But most of the really good, historical, literary phrases that are part of our everyday conversation came from Leo Durocher. He in the book? :D

[Hobbit]

As was alluded to by John T., there were several councils that met during the age who were charged with deciding which of the books were accepted as Holy Scripture. The first of these councils was called Jamnia. It was a Jewish council that met shortly after the rise of the first century AD (date=???). They had some interesting criteria-----I don't remember it all, but one of the more important criteria was that the books of the Canon had to written before 400 AD. This resulted in the Apopchrypha being "officially" removed from the Canon (Old Testament).

A second council met several hundred years later (date=??). This one was called Laodicia(sp??). I believe this is the one to which you refer CX. This council met to decide which books were to be accepted as Holy Scripture. Sound familiar??;):) Interestingly, this council acknowledges the Septuagint for the Old Testament which in effect placed the Apochrypha back into the "official" category!!! Since these folks met after the publishing of the New Testament, they were also charged with ruling on that body of work as well. This council also had several criteria by which to evaluate the books in question. I don't remember what it all was (I guess I should look all of this stuff up!!), but as part of their work, there were several books that were excluded from the New Testament. I remember at least two (the Shepard of Hermas and the Didache), and there may have been more.

This discussion has piqued my interest once again. I will review with religion professors here at the college and get back with more definitive answers.;):)

:):)

[flatfloor]

FF is sorta in the flock since there are a lot of things the RC Church professes that I don't agree with. When I go to church it is to a RC Church on my terms. Hope I don't get zapped for that.

http://www.hallo-spass.de/gif/fantasy/fantasy014.gif

[Cami A]

RC Church on my terms...sounds like the Lutheran Church that Jack grew up in. I call it RC Lite when Jack's out of earshot. ;)


JC, I know that Christmas and Easter are based on the pagan celebrations of the winter Solistace and....ummm...spring? Anyhow, it seems like many of the things we associate with the Christian holidays (Twelve Days, caroling, lights, eggs, rabbits, etc) were used in pagan celebrations. I'm not familiar with the origins of confession and tithing, though.

[flatfloor]

I wouldn't go so far as to say Christmas and Easter were based on pagan celebrations rather the calendar was gerrymandered to coincide with them. Rather than plunge the pagan populace into ice cold water the church assimilated the festivals and turned them into Christian celebrations.

[Cami A]

Hmmmm- ya got me there, Jim. "Based on" wasn't the best choice of words. :D It does make you wonder if Christmas and Easter would be such large celebrations if there hadn't been festivals already in place, though.

Seems like the Church tried to get Christians to stop with the pagan partying for a while, and that didn't work. "If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em" kinda thing. ;)

[IBJT]

Cami, I think it was more of a conversion effort. Infiltrate the existing activities and turn them into religious celebrations. :confused:

[Cami A]

Howard will be back with some definitive (well- as definitive as history and religion get...) answers, I bet.





hurry, hobbit, hurry...the lightening is getting closer since I typed that "rc lite" comment... ;)

[flatfloor]

Depending on what religion and what period in time there were many efforts to supress Christian celebrations. Merry Old England was not so merry when Cromwell controlled it and as recently as today The World Church of God, Herb Armstrong's group, did not celebrate Christmas nor Easter. They have only recently decided it's okay to celebrate in order to keep converts and the cash flowing.

[JC]

Thats pretty much correct.

From the best that can decipher.
Christmas was derived from Saturnalia http://www.candlegrove.com/sacaea.html

Saturnalia was a Roman holiday(as well as the Mardi Gras and Easter) one that represented the shortest day of the year..this was of major significance to the anceints since agriculture was very important.
The day represented a time when the old tear was done and everything had a rebirth.
There are many structures still around in the world that were used to know this exact day like the domes in scotland,prymids etc.. where they used a hole in the structure that would only line up with the sun on those days.
Anyways this day was a day of feasting..gift giving was done by adults exchanging candels and other gifts.
A big feast was also incorporated.
There is also the basis for the 12 days in there somewhere but I can't remember it right now.
It was also a custom on that day when the masters of the households would swicth rules and serve there slaves.

Well if we remember the Christains were prosecuted in Rome from the time of Christ till Contantine took over in 312 AD. when he made Christianity the official Roman religion.
When folks were accused of bieng Christians they had to prove there innocent by renowncing Jesus...or face..punishment..often death.
So it is not hard to imagine how if you were Christian in Rome and you wanted to celebrate Christ you would have to do it on Roman holiday to escape prosecution..Also not hard to imagine parents telling there kids the day was the birth of Jesus and after only a few generations it would be accepted freely as such.
In the time of Rome when slaves were freed they wore a "freedom cap" this cap was Red and closely resembled Santas cap. This cap also became popular during the French Revolution and is even on some US ensignias..(I think the army's).
It is the same process that alot of Christain Holidays were adopted from pagan holidays.

Now Sunday bieng the day of rest is another Roman change.
The Romans had there own special calander that was very specific about what days to rest,what days to go shopping,what days to whatever. Sunday was there day of rest. As many of us know however in Judiasm Saturday is the Jewish sabbath. So guess what happened..the cultures blended once again religion changed due to politics.Constintine simply changed the day. Now in the US we seem to have both days off.



Tithe means in Hebrew "to party". I forget the exact scripture but it says to save 10% of your earnings or crops for a party that will be held at a spot appointed by G-d. And to buy any food you desire and wine and to share it with the poor. It also says that if you cannot make it to give the money to someone who is going to the party...
Now how it turned into what it is today I am not sure but I suspect greed in there somewhere.

Confessions were a way for the rich to find out if the pheasants were stealing from them.


Perhaps the most debated and controversal change of all is the issue of Trinity that was also incorporated by Constantine...perhaps as a way to appease Christains and non-Christians who accused Christains of worshipping Jesus above G-d.
The basis of Trinity so important that it defines everything that Christianity is....If G-d is not the same entity as Christ is then Jesus would indeed be a false idol. Jehova Witnesses, Mulims and a plythoria of religions do consider Christains at fualt for this...funny that this did not come to play untill the Roman Catholic Church adopted it in the middle of the 3rd century under Constantine.

Even the idea of heaven and hell can be said to originate as a way for Christains to have blind faith and stand up against Roman prosecution...The "mayrtr" effect if you will The concept of heaven and hell was quite differant to the anceints before that time.

I am with FF. My faith is a personal thing and I try to ignore the many half truths of traditional churches the folklore, the brainwashing,the interpetations etc...,even though I will worship with them, I have my own beliefs.
Biblical teachings now-adays are so off the mark that you just have to follow your heart as to what G-d expects of you I suppose.

I have also always been quite fascinated with the many similarities of African tribal rituals and Old Testiment teachings..There is a real connection there somehow..how they are connected has been glossed over thru the ages I suspect mainly due to prejudism to the point that it is not reconized. Some of the tribes sound like they are right out of the Torah.. Perhaps this info is in one of the lost books.

The Dead Sea Scrolls got censored also...it's a shame so much great history lost.

[Edited by JC on 10-05-2002 at 12:42 AM]

[flatfloor]

JC, I thought the Scrolls were still being translated.

[Bud Cline]

"STILL BEING TRANSLATED"???

JC hasn't finished writing them yet!

[John Bridge]

I don't know who to credit with the coup, but this thread has diverged from the original theme. It's masterful, I tell ya. :)

Originally, we talked about how the English Bible (as currently translated) has affected the knowledge bank of those of us who wish to consider ourselves literate. The history of the Bible is interesting, no doubt, but I would like to pull off a counter-coup and return to the point at hand. ;)

That would be Leo Durocher, who said, "Nice guys finish last."

C'mon, CX. Durocher? ;)


From the Bible, the authors jump to Mythology and Folklore, with the first entry being "Achilles," and I'll leave you all to ponder what lesson emerges from that source. :)

But reverting to the tangent, I'm not quite sure Christmas was established quite that early. Doesn't Christmas have something to do with the Gregorean Calendar? I mean, when was the first "Christmas"?

[JC]

They are still bieng translated but it has been found that much evidence was covered up by the Jewish scholer incharge of the project..of hind the one thing that I remeber was the 30? sets of human bones that were supposedly escapees of the commune that his in the caves. These people are supposedly credited for hiding the scrolls...Well it is quite the embarrasment as amoung these bones were alot of pig bones and ashes...can you say scandel? Well this was covered up amound other things discovered that did not fit into the Jewish Orthodox investigaters political correctness.
Basically in the academic circles the investigation is a joke.

John the origins of Christmas and the name of Christ-Mass may indeed be two differant dates. However some of the traditions of Christmas have been traced back by some to be as far back as 3000 B.C.
I tend to consider the actual beginning of Christmas as the Roman era since it was the first time the day was actually used to worship Christ instead of other gods. Even if the name was not coined yet.

http://logon.org/english/s/p235.html


Ever wonder where the 12 days of Christmas song came from...not sure if this is true but never heard any other explanation either http://www.byrum.org/misc/christmas/origin.html

[Hobbit]

I have to say that most of the material I posted previously is pretty close. A few small additions and explanations.......

Sayeth Cami,
hurry, hobbit, hurry...the lightening is getting closer since I typed that "rc lite" comment... ;)
Don't worry girl----God has a sense of humor!!;)

The original Hebrew manuscripts were completed in 443 BC and the Septuagint (the original Greek translation)was completed in 200 BC. So in the intervening 243 years the Apochrypha was written. Note that although the Apochrypha was not written until after the original 39 books of the Old Testament, it is still considered to be Canon because it pre-dates Christ.

The date for the original Greek manuscripts that make up the New Testament is 60 AD.

The Latin Vulgate translation by someone named Jerome was produced in 390 AD. It was in wide circulation throughout the Roman Empire and even the fringes where Latin was the official language. Interestingly, this included the Celtic monastaries in Britain.

There were apparently several attempts at an English translation before the Wycliffe Bible appeared. Two scholars named Aldheim and Bede were working on an English translation in the seventh century AD. Bede apparently died before he could complete his translation. Both of these early translations were based on the Latin Vulgate instead of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The John Wycliffe translation appeared in 1384.

The Tyndale translation was indeed the basis for all of the English language translations that followed. It was completed in 1525. Tyndale used the Latin Vulgate as well as Erasmus' Greek text for his translation. Tyndale also drew upon the expertise of Martin Luther who had previously done a German translation. William Tyndale was executed in 1536 before he could complete his Old Testament translation. Subsequently a student of Tyndale named Myles Coverdale produced a Bible that included all of Tyndale's work and the unfinished Old Testament as well. In 1537 the Matthews Bible was completed. It was really just a compilation of the Tyndale work supplemented by the Coverdale translation. This is important because this is the first English language Bible that is allowed to be distributed throughout Britain. Apparently Cromwell had some influence with King Henry VIII who gave his permission.

The information on the KJV was all essentially correct except there were apparently 54 individual men working on the translation, not thirty. I also managed to misspell the name of the Catholic Bible (Rheims-Douay). Incidentally, this Bible (Rheims-Douay) was completed in 1609. The New Testament was completed first in Rheims, France in 1582 followed by the Old Testament in Douay in 1609.

The Apochrypha remained in all of these Bibles until late in the 19th century. The Catholic Bible retained the Apochrypha in the order written (between the Old and New Testaments). The KJV had the Apochrypha as a separate section. The English Revised Version was printed in 1885 and the American Standard Version in 1901. In both of these versions, the Apochrypha has been omitted.

I now have more information on CX's question about the books lost to all translations.

Their were two councils as I previously mentioned. The first was the Council of Jamnia. It was a Jewish council that met to revise the books of the Old Testament. This occured between 90 and 95 AD. I found out there were four criteria that were applied. (1) The books had to conform to the Pentateuch, the first five books. (2) The books had to be written in the Hebrew language. (3) The books had to have been written in Palestine. (4) The books had to have been written before 400 BC. This last resulted in the Apochrypha (14 books) being removed from the then "official" version of the Old Testament.

The second council was the Laodocia Council. It met in 360 AD. This council accepted the Septuagint as the official Old Testament. This, in effect, over ruled the Council of Jamnia by allowing the Apochrypha back into the Bible. The criteria they used for the New Testament is what caused the books (three of them) to be lost from all translations. The criteria include that (1) The books must be written by an Apostle or during the time of the Apostles. (2) The books must support true doctrine. And (3) The books must have wide spread usage. These criteria caused three books to be excluded from the Bible. These three were the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the First Letter of Clement. The council said even though they were considered true doctrine they were not apostolic nor connected to the apostolic age, or were local writings without support in many areas.

[cx]

Most excellent, Mr. Hobbit. Thank you.

Are the three missing books actually missing, as in forever lost, or have they still just not been translated into English? Hard to believe somebody wouldn't have translated them by now, but it also doesn't make sense that they are widely known about but the contents are completely missing.

[flatfloor]

My question also CX.

Nice work indeed Hobbit.

[Cami A]

Tangents are the best...:D:D:D

[flatfloor]

Cosines aren't far behind. ;)

[JC]

>>>The date for the original Greek manuscripts that make up the New Testament is 60 AD.<<<

Was this book pretty incomplete? It seems to me a few of the books in the NT were written after this date...or am I mistaken?

[Hobbit]

You guys ask the tough questions!!:) Actually, that's one of the reasons I really like this forum. Like I've related in the past, the level of knowledge and intensity in this place is almost beyond belief!!

First things first. JC asked about the named date for the Greek canonical writings of the New Testament (listed as 60 AD). This is my understanding of the date for the Greek writings. Understand this, the original manuscripts for the Old Testament were Hebrew writings and were translated into Greek (Septuagint). The New Testament writings were not necessarily Hebrew. Some of the books were written entirely in Greek, others were translations (this is my understanding). The original Greek manuscripts made up the entire 27 books of the New Testament as we know it today. So, how is it that some historians date several of the New Testament books after the Greek writings??:confused: The truth is, no one alive today really knows. We do know the Greek manuscripts were complete. We also know there is some difference of opinion about dating several of the books of the New Testament.

I suspect the truth lies in understanding the calendars in use during the era. Our modern reckoning of time didn't come about until about 525 AD when Dionysus Exiguus was commissioned by Pope St. John I to create a method of determining the exact date of Easter in perpetuity. Prior to this time, many calendars were used all dating from different important events or people. This calendar was used for hundreds of years before becoming the standard. Dionysus Exiguus was also responsible for the "BC" "AD" method of year numbering which we now know is only an approximation. The Gregorian calendar came much later and was only a "remake" to allow for the extra six hours each year that was not accounted for previously (leap years). When this calendar was officially adopted, there was a "time shift" that occured instantaneously.

Hmm...this belongs in another thread perhaps.

Anyway, prior to 525 AD, there were so many calendars in use dating from different events or people that it is almost impossible to date specific events correctly to the exact year.

CX and FF asked about the "lost books" and if they were really lost or just not yet translated. First of all, let me say that there were many books that were not considered canonical, not just three. A fourth book, Letter of Barnabas, was also considered to be true and correct. I suffered the same fate as the previously mentioned three. In addition there were many books of the era that were considered historical but for various reasons were not considered "canon." These books have come to be known as Pseudepigraphal. The books of the Apochrypha are considered "canon" by the Catholic church and are referred to as Deuterocanonical. The short answer (yeah, I know;)) is that most if not all of these books have been translated into English and are available to read. There are one or two that are referenced in Old Testament writings that have truly been "lost." We know of their existence only because of references to them in existing writings.:)

:):)

[John Bridge]

This may not be scholarly (and I'm certainly not a Bible scholar), but what about the Gnostic books? I've got a pop history book I got through the History Book Club called something about Thomas ... The Gospel According to Thomas? I'll have to dig it out.

This would, of course, pertain to the New Testiment and not the Old.

[Hobbit]

You can't fool me!! You know a lot more about this than you let on.;)

The Gnostic Gospels were part of 52 texts that were discovered in Egypt in 1945. Named the Nag Hammadi texts because they were discovered at or near a town or region by that name (Nag Hammadi). These particular books (the Gnostic Gospels) did include the The Gospel of Thomas as well as three others I believe. These books are considered historical in nature, not Canon. Therefore they are incorporated by reference into the group of Pseudepigraphal books.

BTW....These Gospels were supposed to contain the words of Christ, (secret communications).:)

:):)

[John Bridge]

Apparently, I CAN fool you. :) I've read only several books on the history of Christianity and only two on the origins of the Old Testament. Doesn't make me a scholar by any stretch. :)

I unearthed the little book I mentioned earlier. It's not very big.

THE SECRET TEACHINGS OF JESUS
Four Gnostic Gospels
Translated by Marvin W. Meyer
Random House, 1984

Contained are translations of the Gospel of Thomas, the Book of Thomas, the Secret Teachings of James and the Secret Book of John. If you want an interesting read, check it out at the Liberry. :)

It is stated in the introduction that these and other Gnostic books were not considered for inclusion, primarily because Gnostics didn't pay a lot of attention to priests and other officials of the "church." Since they apparently didn't knuckle under, they weren't considered credible.

Howard,

It strikes me you are an unusually well-educated fella for a teacher. You sure you're not a tile setter in disguise? :D

[JC]

Heck no they are not going to be included.They will NEVER be accepted.

The gnostics were and STILL are considers heresy. After all they teach and give a totally differant account of what happened in the time of Jesus.. Not many orthodox churches wanna here this..especially now after everything is set in stone pretty much.
The gnostics may indeed be heresy but some of them do seem to sound much more realistic then some of the more far-fetched accounts we have now although they do tarnish the "perfect entity" storyline of the NT.

There were many versions of Christianity back in the first few centuries even more and even more radical differances then we have now.
The first version of Christianity that got condoned by Constantine and somehow managed to blend into previous Roman religions without causing too much of a ruckas won the race, then with the great power of the Orthodox Roman churches controlling the police the other versions then got censored and banned regardless of what may or may not be true in them. In fact other then the books that were discovered basically the only other way we knew about the gnostics were from people condeming them.


Ya know the more you learn about how the bible was formed and transformed the less credibilty the book has. Im not an athiest by any means but it is hard to overlook the politics/history of the book without questioning some things.

[Edited by JC on 10-12-2002 at 06:09 PM]

[drew]

Got to agree with that last comment JC, I think the bible is a work of fiction based loosely on fact.

[John Bridge]

Hey Hobbit,

Some forty years after the fact I have just begun reading THE HOBBIT. :)

[Hobbit]

I think you'll really enjoy reading it John. The Hobbit is the first of the "fantasy" books published by J.R.R. Tolkien. I'm not sure what "forty years after the fact" means, but its never too late!!!;) The Hobbit and The Silmarillion were started very early in Tolkien's career. Interestingly, The Silmarillion wasn't completed until after Tolkien died. His son completed the editing and published it a few years later.

I think The Hobbit was published in the 1930's sometime. The rest of the "ring" trilogy, The Lord of the Rings wasn't published until the middle 1950's.

The last time I read this series, I read them all (four books) in eight evenings. Just couldn't put them down!!

Have fun!! :)

:):)

[John Bridge]

Didn't look to see when the book was published. I just remember that a lot of people were talking about Hobbits and Munchkins back in the sixties. :)

[Hobbit]

I remember first reading the series about 1966 or 67. There must have been a resurgence of popularity about that time. This predated the entry into the fantasy genre of the dragon tales, or at least their real popularity.

The first attempt at making them into a movie was sort of an animated cartoon. It failed miserably. I don't even remember exactly when it was, just that I thought it was almost sacrilegious. And, as bad as that first attempt was, the current movies (at least the first one!!) are very well done.

These books have become cult classics. There is sort of (kinda like..?!!) a Tolkien "underground" that exists for the purpose of discussing and promoting his works. The Internet has "made" the popularity of these discussion groups.

Anyway, like I said, you can't go wrong experiencing them at least once!! Tolkien Lives!!;):)

:):)

[kdzgon]

Useless factoid:

I was a hobbit in our senior class play. There's even a (sad)photo of it out there on the internet, but I'm not revealing the location. :)

Laurie

[flatfloor]

Aw c'mon, I'll show you mine. :)

[bbcamp]

http://membres.lycos.fr/angel/Barbarella/Pseudo%20barbarella.jpg




Ok, it's not really Laurie. ;) Who it is, I don't know.

[flatfloor]

Check with Sonnie, he's got someone like that locked in his basement. Even JJ doesn't know. Have you asked the Stankhammers? :D

[Hobbit]

Leave me hanging like that!!;)

Now I have to know. C'mon give it up.:) Where is it?? Please!!

:):)

[Hobbit]

Its Barbarella, of course!!;)

Its not really important who she is. Its what she is doing that counts, and there are three possibilities. She's either swearing in, waving good-bye, or waving hi. In any case it doesn't matter, as long as she keeps doing it!!:D

(sigh) So many beautiful women, so little time.;):)

:):)

[kdzgon]

C'mon, Bob...I'm smart enough to know that belly does not warrant that costume (not to mention the thighs)...

[Bud Cline]

M-m-m M-m-m M-m-m She-e-e-e-'s Ba-a-a-a-ack. I love white.

[flatfloor]

Yoo Hoo!

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:hfGTb8cYi5EC:cdkenterprises.com/coloring/animals/sheep.gif

[Bud Cline]

I said "I love white". What more does she want from me? What's wrong with that?





"slurp"

[John Bridge]

Laurie,

You can't just come in here and leave Hobbit hanging like that. Cough up the pic. ;)

[Hobbit]

Yeah!!!

What John said!!;)

Laurie, you know the Internet is "public domain." If its already out there, we ought to get to see it. I mean, really Laurie. I am all ready to gaze with rapt adoration upon your smiling countenance.

Give it up!;):)

:):)

[kdzgon]

Yup. It's public domain - so if you can find it, you can see it. I didn't post it, so it's not like I put something in a public place and then said "don't look".

Barbarella looks great compared to my pic. I was a geeky 17 yr old with bad stage makeup, in a goofy school play. (Actually, usually I did not wear makeup at that point of my life, and was "made up" for the play. Found out I was allergic to the makeup, and looked like a raccoon - just red-rimmed, instead of black - for about a week after the fact.)

[Gene Beery]

This is a great subject. It is interesting to "hear" all the differant views and conclusions that we all reach with in our limited experiences which have crossed our paths in the last 60 years. It seems funny to me how we feel that we are more enlightened in our path today, and in understanding and interpetting the paths that came before us, because we are alive today (verses the ancients or even our grandparents in what they believed, for that matter). It's funny how technology can give a false cense of footing. It did not take human nature long in the wake of losing the advantage of technology to leave all of us in a mode of survival. I went to the King Tutte exhibition in LA: amazing what these people did with so little (except the human spirit). And the intricate art work and inlays.
Well I am enjoying this thread, but I have to go learn how to direct and make movies...........More later. Oh, one source for the group that maybe interesting to the group is Dr. Gene Scott and his research into these issues surrounding ancient texts.

[John Bridge]

Hi Mltr, and hi Gene, :)

Listen, I don't know whether you folks noticed, but this thread is pretty old. Most of the folks who participated don't hang around much anymore. Kinda like Gene. :D

[flatfloor]

If Gene is working on our movie John, leave him alone. He's probably been busy selling the concept to some big time movie moguls and lost track of time. Three martini lunches will do that. :D