Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI was only replying to a hypothetical question. I have no knowledge of professional or amateur scribes in early Christianity.
There were no "Amateur scribes": God's Omniscience knew precisely by whom and how the Word of God would be transmitted and preserved.
Edit Footnote: Unsubstantiated speculation ["would probably"] has no place in an online spirituality forum by you or me or any believer in Christ.
Well, you've opened a can of worms with this thread...
First, one has to distinguish the OT from the NT. The Jewish tradition had already 'canonized' their sacred 'books' (scrolls, actually) long before Jesus.
The NT 'books' (scrolls) were written over a period of about a hundred years, the earliest no sooner than about 80 years after Jesus's death. There were very many scrolls (hundreds or possibly thousands) in circulation in the Levant and No. Africa for several hundred years before canonization in the 4th c. AD. No collection was definitive, and many such collections existed which included texts held to be sacred but later excluded from the canon. There were countless gnostic, hermetic, and other pagan texts in circulation, too, and some early Christian communities had such collections of mixed Christian and pre-Christian texts. See the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library for examples.
As to their authenticity, there were learned disputes even in ancient times. Modern scholars generally agree that none of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) was written by a person who actually knew Jesus, but were compiled later. Moreover, it was common practice to attribute texts to some person assumed to have been authoritative but not actually written by him. The Gospel of John in particular appears to have been written not by John himself, but more likely by someone who knew John and interviewed him late in his life.
Nothing in the gospels suggests that Jesus thought of himself as founding a new religion separate form Judaism. When he said "I come not to break the Law but to fulfill it" (Matt 5:17) the Law he meant was the Torah. There is no indication in the gospels that Jesus expected his teaching to be passed on in written form. There are two reasons to think he never intended his teaching to be passed on in written form:
1) The Jewish Law had already been codified, and Jesus had no intention of revising the Torah (Matt 5:17, as noted above), so there was no need to write anything more about it.
2) The people to whom Jesus came (the poor in spirit, whores and other outcasts) were illiterate.
Finally, I'm going to open yet another can of worms here and assert something which very many Christians in the Protestant tradition refuse to accept. And that is that the Bible is not the primary source whereby the Holy Spirit makes the will of God known to man. The primary source is the institution of councils of bishops (known as Ecumenical Councils). Every Catholic and Orthodox bishop can trace his lineage back through an unbroken succession of bishops to one of the apostles ("go forth and make disciples of all nations ..." Matt 28:19) through a rite known as the laying on of hands. The principle is known as Apostolic Succession and that is the primary source whereby the Holy Spirit continues to make the will of God known to man. The Bible is frozen in time, a snapshot as it were; it is the council of bishops which matters because that is the living body of Christ in the world. This is not my private opinion; it has been official Christian doctrine since before the NT scrolls were written.
Now, if you throw out Ecumenical Councils as the primary source (as Protestants do), then you cannot fall back on the Bible as a primary or even secondary source, because it was the council of bishops which determined which of many thousands of scrolls in circulation to canonize and which to discard as apocryphal. The Bible is only as inerrant as the council of bishops. This is not my private opinion; this has been the official doctrine since the first generation of bishops, the ones taught by the apostles directly, before the NT scrolls were written.
Every Catholic and Orthodox Christian will tell you that the Bible is only the menu, not the real meal.
I expect a storm of protest from Protestants.....
Originally posted by moonbusExcellent post. (Though i am not a Protestant).
Well, you've opened a can of worms with this thread...
First, one has to distinguish the OT from the NT. The Jewish tradition had already 'canonized' their sacred 'books' (scrolls, actually) long before Jesus.
The NT 'books' (scrolls) were written over a period of about a hundred years, the earliest no sooner than about 80 years after Jesus's death. Th ...[text shortened]... Bible is only the menu, not the real meal.
I expect a storm of protest from Protestants.....
Originally posted by moonbusRight, so you would basically subscribe to an idea of ecclesial authorisation, that the codification of the texts happened within a religious community. I'm not Catholic but this seems like a coherent idea, and it seems like the only way to escape the minefield of historical squabbling and disagreeing over biblical authenticity. I'm not sure what to say about Grampy Bobby's idea of a divinely inspired scribe. It doesn't seem to fit with the evidence.
Well, you've opened a can of worms with this thread...
First, one has to distinguish the OT from the NT. The Jewish tradition had already 'canonized' their sacred 'books' (scrolls, actually) long before Jesus.
The NT 'books' (scrolls) were written over a period of about a hundred years, the earliest no sooner than about 80 years after Jesus's death. Th ...[text shortened]... Bible is only the menu, not the real meal.
I expect a storm of protest from Protestants.....
Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorumThe idea that the Bible was written by men inspired by God is so often repeated as to be a platitude. My answer to that is that Torquemada was also inspired by God.
Right, so you would basically subscribe to an idea of ecclesial authorisation, that the codification of the texts happened within a religious community. I'm not Catholic but this seems like a coherent idea, and it seems like the only way to escape the minefield of historical squabbling and disagreeing over biblical authenticity. I'm not sure wha ...[text shortened]... out Grampy Bobby's idea of a divinely inspired scribe. It doesn't seem to fit with the evidence.
I was relating what the mainstream Christian position is and always has been, not that I personally subscribe to it.
It does have the virtue of being intellectually tenable so long as the bishops can maintain an unbroken historical link back to the apostles. It was specifically designed to suppress the squabbling which arose during the early Church (actually "early churches," plural), to impose a single coherent doctrine on the whole of Christendom, and to distinguish early Christianity from gnosticism (which was a great rival at that time). The idea of apostolic succession owes much to the writing of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, in the early 2d c. AD.
However, there are other problems with it, even if they can maintain an unbroken historical link. It assumes, for example, that God will not let bishops be deceived. There have been enough instances in which they were wrong about something (e.g., geo- vs helio-centrcity), to discredit the idea (my personal opinion).
Originally posted by moonbusThat is why there are protestant Christians. 😏
The idea that the Bible was written by men inspired by God is so often repeated as to be a platitude. My answer to that is that Torquemada was also inspired by God.
I was relating what the mainstream Christian position is and always has been, not that I personally subscribe to it.
It does have the virtue of being intellectually tenable so long as the ...[text shortened]... ng about something (e.g., geo- vs helio-centrcity), to discredit the idea (my personal opinion).
Originally posted by moonbusI'm not sure that the idea of apostolic succession precludes the fallibility or deception of bishops. They can err; their collective dogmatic judgments cannot (at least how Catholics understand it).
The idea that the Bible was written by men inspired by God is so often repeated as to be a platitude. My answer to that is that Torquemada was also inspired by God.
I was relating what the mainstream Christian position is and always has been, not that I personally subscribe to it.
It does have the virtue of being intellectually tenable so long as the ...[text shortened]... ng about something (e.g., geo- vs helio-centrcity), to discredit the idea (my personal opinion).
But anyway, the point is not quite settled still - the Catholic Church does not strictly speaking authorise any particular bible as the Word of God even if a canon has been decided upon; there is are liturgically approved translations but these are always contingent. Biblical scholars may decide that another reading is better, another variant has better support, or another translation better captures the idea.
Originally posted by RJHindsGoodness gracious, and such a multitude you are, too! Baptists, southern Baptists, Anabaptists, Unitarians, Trinitarians, Methodists, Pentecostalists, snake handlers, Lutherans, Calvinists, Moravians, Adventists, Anglicans, Zwinglians, Waldensians (yup, still practising in Italy), Puritans, fundamentalists, evangelicals, Branch Davidians, Presbyterians, Reformed Presbyterians, Huguenots, Congregationalists, Amish, Mennonites, River Brethren, Pietists, The Salvation Army, Church of the Nazarene, Irvingites, Charismatics, Neo-Charismatics, Apostles of Johane Marauke, Celestial Church of Christ, Messianic Judaism, Quakers, Shakers, Restorationists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Subbotniks (I kid you not), Christian Scientists (Mary Baker Eddy), ... I apologize if I missed a few.
That is why there are protestant Christians. 😏
Originally posted by moonbusNo need to apologize. No one would expect you to list them all. That is just evidence of God's power.
Goodness gracious, and such a multitude you are, too! Baptists, southern Baptists, Anabaptists, Unitarians, Trinitarians, Methodists, Pentecostalists, snake handlers, Lutherans, Calvinists, Moravians, Adventists, Anglicans, Zwinglians, Waldensians (yup, still practising in Italy), Puritans, fundamentalists, evangelicals, Branch Davidians, Presbyterian ...[text shortened]... niks (I kid you not), Christian Scientists (Mary Baker Eddy), ... I apologize if I missed a few.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Give me the highlights.
And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.
As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
(Ephesians 4:11-16 NASB)