www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings How we got the Bible

I found a neat site explaining how the Bible was put together:

http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm

http://www.catholicapologetics.net/gallitzin.htm

What do you think Forum?

Another site that explains it as well:

http://fisheaters.com/septuagint.html

And all the Books of Holy Writ:

http://fisheaters.com/booksofbible.html

From fisheaters.com---Bottom line: the Septuagint was the version of the Old Testament accepted by the very earliest Christians (and, yes, those 7 "extra" books were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which date between 168 B.C. and A.D. 68




After all the debate between the Septuagint and the Massoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown a much older version that BOTH share in common - to some degree. As for the 7 "extra" books, the earliest editions of the King James Bible included them. More Bible editions are including the 7 "extra" books. Both the Septuagint-Massoretic Text and the 7 "extra" book debates are becoming obsolete polemics between Christian denominations.

Eddie

What is a "Christian denomination"?

Alexandr

I would disagree that Septuagint vs. Masoretic text debates are obsolete. To the extent they are obsolete, it is very unfortunate.

It is vital to recognize the canonical character of the Septuagint, and that is inspired in its own right.

You do not have critical prophesies to support orthodox Christology with out the Septuagint.

What is a Christian denomination? Look at the root word in denomination................ demon. Does that help Brother Alexandr?

Hah! That's very naughty! On a serious note, perhaps denomination can be likened to species? There are different species of Christians, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist, etc. Each species is organized into a communion with other members of the species. Some species have apostolic succession and the substance of the apostolic faith (RC and Orthodox), whereas others have enough of the apostolic faith to fit into the genus of Christian, though they have not kept all of it.

Joe

Alexandr:

The concept of a "denomination" is a Protestant concept. According to Protestant teaching there is no "visible" Church, the Church is an "invisible" collection of all the groups who call themselves Christian. This idea, of course, excludes Catholics and Orthodox Christians who maintain doctrines like the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the priesthood. etc.

It's a way of trying to make sense out of the idea that the Reformation could have so many interpretations when one of its basic tenants is that Scripture is self-evident in its meaning and that the Church to 1517 was somehow corrupted after the death of the Apostles. So by looking at the "plain sense" of Scripture, anyone could see how the Church should be structured. We know that doesn't work, so the many interpretations are now "denominations" of the Church: other ways of "naming" it.

BOB

Alexandr:

Here is a snippet of an article about Protestants and the idea of an "invisible" Church. I understand that this is totally alien to the Orthodox Christian since it is not part of the history of the Orthodox Church and the Reformation fight was between Western Christians.
________________________________________________________________
Against the Reformers
< prev article | next article >
St Alphonsus Mary De Liguori (1696-1787)
Bishop and Doctor of the Church
St. Francis Jerome, when he visited the parents of St. Alphonsus shortly after his birth, made this prophecy: "This child will be blessed with length of days; he shall not see death before his ninetieth year; he will be a bishop and will do great things for Jesus Christ." This prophecy certainly came true. One of the most accomplished of all the saints is Alphonsus Liguori. He was a lawyer in both civil and Church law before he dedicated his whole life to serving God. He was founder of a religious order, author of more than a hundred books, originator of modern moral theology, renowned preacher and confessor, bishop, musical composer and painter. For all of his 91 years on earth, he was also a man of prayer and deep personal holiness.

"A church which is not one in its doctrine and faith can never be the True Church ... Hence, because truth must be one, of all the different churches ... only one can be the true one ... and out of that Church there is no salvation. Now, in order to determine which is this one true Church ... it is necessary to examine which is the Church first founded by Jesus Christ, for, when this is ascertained, it must be confessed that this one alone is the true Church which, having once been the true Church must always have been the true Church and must forever be the true Church. For to this first Church has been made the promise of the Savior that the gates of Hell would never be able to overturn it (Matthew 16:18) ... In the entire history of religion, we find that the Roman Catholic Church alone was the first Church, and that the other false and heretical churches afterwards departed and separated from her. This is the Church which was propagated by the Apostles and afterwards governed by pastors whom the Apostles themselves appointed to rule over her ... This character can be found only in the Roman Church, whose pastors descend securely by an uninterrupted and legitimate succession from the Apostles of the world (Matthew 28:20)

"The innovators themselves do not deny that the Roman Church was the first which Jesus Christ founded ... however, they say ... that it was the true Church until the fifth century, or until ... it fell away, because it had been corrupted by the Catholics ... But how could that Church fall which St. Paul calls the "pillar and ground of truth" (I Timothy 3:15)? ... No. The Church has not failed ... The truth is ... that all the false churches which have separated from the Roman Church have fallen away and erred ... To convince all heretical sects of their error, there is no way more certain and safe than to show that our Catholic Church has been the first one founded by Jesus Christ; for, this being established, it is proved beyond all doubt that ours is the only true Church and that all the others which have left it and separated are certainly in error ... But, pressed by this argument, the innovators have invented an answer: they say that the visible Church has failed, but not the invisible Church ... But these doctrines are diametrically opposed to the Gospel.

"The innovators have been challenged several times to produce a text of Sacred Scripture which would prove the existence of the invisible church they invented, and we are unable to obtain any such text from them. How could they adduce such a text when, addressing His Apostles whom He left as the propagators of His Church, Jesus said: "You cannot be hidden" (Matthew 5:14)? ... Thus He has declared that the Church cannot help but be visible to everyone ... The Church has been at all times, and will forever be, necessarily visible, so that each person may always be able to learn from his pastor the true doctrine regarding the dogmas of faith ... to receive the Sacraments, to be directed in the way of salvation, and to be enlightened and corrected should he ever fall into error. For, were the Church in any time hidden and invisible, to whom would men have recourse in order to learn what they are to believe and to do? ... It was necessary that the Church and her pastors be obvious and visible, principally in order that there might be an infallible judge ... to resolve all doubts, and to whose decision everyone should necessarily submit. Otherwise, there would be no sure rule of faith by which Christians could know the true dogmas of faith and the true precepts of morality, and among the faithful there would be endless disputes and controversies ... "And Christ gave some apostles, and others pastors and doctors, that henceforth we be no more children tossed to-and-fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph. 4:11-14)

For full text:

http://www.drbo.org/againstreformers.htm

Another interesting item is the letter sent to a Protestant minister who had attacked him, by our own Father Demetrius Gallitzin, the first priest to receive all his training in the United States. Father Gallitzin is from my own area and his cause for canonization is being actively pursued here.

http://www.demetriusgallitzin.org/D...ter%20to%20A%20Protestant%20Minister.htm

Your brother,

BOB

Hello brothers and sisters! sorry about the wrong word being used - denomination. I feel that i once again derailed the topic with wrong terminology on these forums. i was going to say that "Santa" is another way of saying "Satan" but that would get me kicked off the forum for good. Anyhoo, "Santa" really means "Saint" So i was just joking for fun.

But the topic is about the origin of the Bible. I find it strange that the one thing Jews and Christians don't know is the origins of their own sacred Scripture.

I was doing searches on religion databases for scholarly articles and seen so much stuides in source criticism. To me it seem that most of the articles are guesses not rock solid answers.

has anyone ever seen the Q-document?

I once met bishop John Spong when he was giving his talks on the Bible. OK - you all probably think he's a wacko. But hold your horses. Even wackos raise questions better than the standard scholarly ones. One might not haveto like or agree with the answers (he is entitled to his own conclusions) but Spong makes a good point. The Gospels at least are synagogue texts/sermons arranged according to the feasts of the Jewish year. Is there anything wrong with that? In fact the Gospels like Matthew run the full course of the Jewish year for every Sabbath. Why not? Is this a bad way to write a Gospel? Eventually the Christ sermons which were based on the Torah, replaced the acutal Torah readings. That is one theory from Spong.

I found a website on the byzantine lectionary and see how you all read all for Gospels in one year by spreading out the reading over the weekdays too. This makes it possible to read all of them but then you all only get to hear 1/7 of them in church on Sunday. When these things happen one can understand how difficult it is to see the origins of the Scriptures.

of course there is always the theory thta the Bible fell from heaven.

Eddie

People are allowed to attend the Divine Liturgy every time it is celebrated. So everyone has the ability to attend and hear the Gospel.

There are enough resources for anyone who wishes to read the Bible at anytime s/he wants.

I read the Bible (all 73 books!) in 9 months by reading 5 Chapters per day. I'm currently on my second go 'round.

From what I've read, the Byzantine Codices are actually direct translations from the Koine.

Dr. ERic. I wasn't implying that you or anyone was NOT allowed to hear the Gospel. I was pointing out the fact that since the byzcath lectionary spreads its readings of all four Gospels across weekdays, only 1/7 of the Gospels are read on Sundays. I was just stating a fact not accusing any partciluar church of withholding the Word of God. according to Spong, each individual Gospel was used in its community and read continuously across the entire year (except for Mark whose Gospel only covered 6.5 months since it focused on Jewish feast days and Matthew remedied that by adding material to cover all Sabbaths). Spong believes that the Q-source (mostly teaching material that Mark did not include in his Gospel) was added to fill the void. Matthew was a scribe and saw to it that there were 'Christ' sermons to follow the themes and feasts and Sabbaths of the Jewish year. There is no Q-document no matter how much scholars study and discuss it. There are no copies as evidence that a Q-source document was an independent sourc ethtat Matthew and Luke used to expand their Gospel to cover a year. Matthew took Jesus teachings and put them in some order. Luke mentions in the first verses in his Gospel that he intends to put the account of Jesus in proper order. What order? Biographical order? If so then it is missing a lot of bio-graphical material (like almost 30 years!). it would seem more like liturgical order (feasts and Sabbaths of the Jewish year).

Fast forward. The Church accepts four Gospels and is now faced with the task of determining how to read them over the course of the year. So the church decides to read ALL of them in one year but must include readings during the weekdays in order to do it. John's Gospel does not follow the Jewish festive and Sabbath themes; his is very different. Many argue and debate on who is right when John disagrees with Matthew, Mark and Luke. John's Gospel is very different and theological; so it gets read from Easter or Pascha to Pentecost (both derived from the Jewish Pascha and Pentecost). Matthew is read after John and not Mark since Mark is an embarrassment and is tucked away in the Byzcath lectionary (out of most Sunday readings). Luke follows next. Then this is solidified as the Byzantine lectionary. By then the Old Testament readings have long disappeared and the reason why there is no Old Testament lectionary similar to the Gospels. THE GOSPELS ARE THE NEW TORAH!!! THE CHRIST LECTIONS MODELED AFTER THE JEWISH YEAR AND FEASTS IS KEPT AND THE TORAH READINGS ARE DROPPED.

Eddie

St. Mark's Gospel is an embarrassment?

To you?

Not me. Not Fathers Anthony, Serge, John, or Bohdan here on Byzcath.

Your theory doesn't make any sense.

I think you need to go and read Eusebius and his histories of the Church.

Not an embarrassment in any sense you might be thinking. andI certainly am not embarrassed by his Gospel. Please read my post again. I was telling about Bishop Spong. Many bible scholars, including Catholic ones, refer to this. The story goes that Peter instructed Mark in the writing of this Gospel. Even Luke writes how he had to set the order straight. If Mark's Gospel was good enough then why did Matthew and Luke need to expand it so much? It was missing a lot. Compare Mark's Resurrection narrative to Matthew or Luke's. Mark's traditional ending was later expanded to fill the void instead of having the women just run away (Mark 16:9-20). Mark is also very harsh on Jesus and the scribes. Jesus is considered a nut case in his own hood. The scribes are made out to be wretched creatures. Matthew fixes that by dulling Mark's harsh criticism. Embarrassment is a critical literary observation. I, like you and other Christians, accept Mark's Gospel. However, the byzcath lectionary, i notice, tucks him away. yes Mark is read like the other three Gospels. John's Gospel is given prominence in the new Christian cycle of readings between Pascha and pentecost. Matthew comes next.

Eddie

Some quotes on what Bible scholars mean by embarrassment---

"Mark created one of the great conundrums for later Christian theologians when he wrote that Jesus, though greater than John, was baptized by John. Later gospel narrators demonstrate some embarrassment over this: Matthew re-wrote Mark's episode with John protesting that Jesus should baptize him; Luke re-wrote it in such a way that John is imprisoned before Jesus is said to have been baptized."

The author of Mark retains some traditions that were an embarrassment to followers of Jesus that later gospels expunged.
"Mark 1:41 refers to the anger of Jesus; Matthew and Luke omit the reference, and scribes quickly changed 'moved with anger' into 'moved with compassion' in many copies of Mark. Similarly, the claim of the opponents of Jesus that he was mad (Mark 3:21) was omitted by both Matthew and Luke. The reference on the lips of Jesus to his ignorance of the time when the end would come (Mark 13:32) is not included by Luke." [Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), paperback, p. 157]

"The criterion of embarrassment (so Schillebeeckx) or "contradiction" (so Meyer) focuses on actions or sayings of Jesus that would have embarrassed or created difficulty for the early Church."(p168). [Meier (1987) defines it thus, a definition echoed by Brown (1994):]