Bible Origins

[mackbrislawn]

Follow-up question: Since Orthodox say Catholics split from them and not the reverse, they say they are the ones who gave us the Bible. I’m not sure how to answer that. Suggestions?

The Orthodox have a point, but it is a separate one, not germane to us.

The point is, it was the Roman church which gave western Europe the Bible; that is, it was the Roman church which evangelized western Europe and Christianized it. So western Europe owes its belief in Scripture and belief in God to Roman Catholics. Protestantism, also, as part of western Europe, inherits its belief in Scripture and God from the Roman church. The only reason the Reformers believed in the Bible and God is because it was a cultural tradition of western Europe, of the Roman Catholic church, of which they had previously been members.

The U.S. and all the Americas were settled and influenced by western Europe, not by the Orthodox. Therefore, we too, owe our belief in Scripture and belief in God to the Roman Catholic church. Even for us who are Protestants.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto theeBaruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book.*This is our example, to teach us how the bible was penned.

Look at the original Hebrew and Greek. It is one continuous teaching, no page breaks, no paragrahs, no spaces, no punctuation, no verse numberes, no chapter headings, it is one continuous book.

There are a couple of very important points here which tell us how the Bible was penned: upon the roll of a book**. It was penned upon a scroll. This is how it was given to us by God, upon a scroll.

So, my question is, what are we doing when we print the word of God upon pages? Printing the word of God in a man-made codex form? Aren’t we imposing human tradition upon the God-given format? God gave us His word upon a scroll, not upon pages in a man-made book!

Furthermore, EnterCanann is right, the original Hebrew and Greek definitely did not have page breaks, paragraphs, verses, punctuation, chapters and so on. God did not give us those things. Those are simply man-made traditions imposed upon the Word of God, traditions that fragment the Word of God.

What do you think? Do these man-made traditions of book pages, chapter and verses nullify the Word of God?

 

[QuickCat]

Yes, the bible came from the catholic church. It is well known fact that Peter was a catholic and went to church and it is him that is the head of the church, so from the beginning they built churches and told people about the pope (Peter was the first pope).

Luke and John and all the other apostles were catholics and they wrote the rest of the bible and they met together (although they hadn’t moved to Rome yet). So the bible was written by our holy mother the church and although Jesus started out a Jew he finished his life as a catholic and all his apostles were catholic.

The people that say otherwise just don’t know their history.

Cashue: The LORD Jesus Christ is Head of the Church - Ephesians 1:22,23
“And hath put ALL things under His feet, and gave HIM TO BE HEAD over all things to the church, Which is His Body , the fullness of Him which filleth all in all.”

 

[mrhenrik]

Hi,

the Bible was compiled by the Catholic church, but the various sections were written at different times reaching from Paul’s letters around the 40-50’s and Mark’s gospel in the late 60’s and all the way to 2 Peter which is placed somewhere between year 60 to 160. What the church did was basically choose which writings were to be put in the compiled version (there were other texts which did not “make the cut”) - but this was a process over more than a few years and not just decided in a single meeting or anything like that.

Hope that helped somewhat.

Edit: the compilation I believe started around year 300 AD.

Regards,
Henrik

 

[Bengoshi]

The Orthodox have a point, but it is a separate one, not germane to us.

The point is, it was the Roman church which gave western Europe the Bible; that is, it was the Roman church which evangelized western Europe and Christianized it. So western Europe owes its belief in Scripture and belief in God to Roman Catholics. Protestantism, also, as part of western Europe, inherits its belief in Scripture and God from the Roman church. The only reason the Reformers believed in the Bible and God is because it was a cultural tradition of western Europe, of the Roman Catholic church, of which they had previously been members.

The U.S. and all the Americas were settled and influenced by western Europe, not by the Orthodox. Therefore, we too, owe our belief in Scripture and belief in God to the Roman Catholic church. Even for us who are Protestants.

I totally agree with you. However, we have to recognize that the early Church was not only the Roman Church. There were 5 patriarchates and each patriarchate was headed by a bishop. In fact, of those 5 patriarchates, Rome was the youngest one. Amomg those 5 were the churches in Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome. I think the other one was Greek or Indian but I’m not sure, I would have to check my book on that one.

The problem arose when the bishop of Rome declared himself to be the pope and hence supreme over all the other bishops. Hence, the schism. The Eastern and Orthodox churches are just as valid and apostolic as Rome. So it would be inaccurate to say that the Bible per se was a Catholic (Roman) book.

 

[Bengoshi]

There are a couple of very important points here which tell us how the Bible was penned: upon the roll of a book**. It was penned upon a scroll. This is how it was given to us by God, upon a scroll.

So, my question is, what are we doing when we print the word of God upon pages? Printing the word of God in a man-made codex form? Aren’t we imposing human tradition upon the God-given format? God gave us His word upon a scroll, not upon pages in a man-made book!

Furthermore, EnterCanann is right, the original Hebrew and Greek definitely did not have page breaks, paragraphs, verses, punctuation, chapters and so on. God did not give us those things. Those are simply man-made traditions imposed upon the Word of God, traditions that fragment the Word of God.

What do you think? Do these man-made traditions of book pages, chapter and verses nullify the Word of God?

Your argument here is irrelevant. It is not relevant nor important where the word of God was written or transcribed. Whether it was copied on stone, papyrus, wood, in the form of a scroll or a book-bound compilation, doesn’t matter. What matters is the writer of the Bible. Even the addition of chapter and verse numbers do not change the meaning of the text at all. These are all just aids for reading. Yes, they are man-made additions, but so what? They do not alter or change any text anyway.

The point EnterCanaan was trying to make was that the Bible contains the words of God written by humans and these men were not necessarily Roman Catholic. The biblical authors did not even use the term “catholic” as a noun to describe themselves but as an adjective in describing the Church, which is universal.

 

[comfort1st]

Please, oh please, can we have some clear and honest information?

The Bible (capital B please) is the Word of God, as perceived by men, and written by men, for men, in a patriarchal society. As with anything touched by human hands there are errors, distortions and omissions, complicated by the problem of translation.

The Hebrew Scriptures pre-date Christ by at least 160 years and were originally written in Hebrew, but later translated into Greek because a large proportion of the Hebrew people lost their language.

Christ was born and died a Jew. His disciples were all Jews, and very little of what we call the New Testament was written by non-Jews.

The canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was decided by Jews. The councils of the early Christian Church decided what would be in our canon, but they had nothing to do with writing it.

If anyone has been taught that the Bible came from the catholic (ie universal as distinct from the Catholic - capital C) church then those responsible need to be taken to task.

 

[UtSuShImI]

You Catholics don’t read New Testament much don’t you?

Your question is answered in one verse.
No arguments.

John 1:1 :In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

bow

 

[CastingCrown]

The Logos was co-eternal with the Father, sure…I don’t understand your point though

 

[CastingCrown]

Please, oh please, can we have some clear and honest information?
…
The canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was decided by Jews. The councils of the early Christian Church decided what would be in our canon, but they had nothing to do with writing it.

If anyone has been taught that the Bible came from the catholic (ie universal as distinct from the Catholic - capital C) church then those responsible need to be taken to task.

Most of what you say is common ground. However, your final sentence attempts to distinguish between the people who determined the canon at the councils and Catholics.
(try and say that quickly!)

Who were these people and what was their theology? Which of their forebears did they rely upon? What was their theology? Did it look more Catholic or (for want of a better word) Protestant?

 

[fermat]

You Catholics don’t read New Testament much don’t you?

Your question is answered in one verse.
No arguments.

John 1:1 :In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

bow

I don’t get it.

No one here is saying that the bible is not the Word of God. What we are saying is that the task of sorting through the various writings of the time to determine what was scripture and what was not scripture fell to the only Christian church in existence at the time. That Catholic church. That process was guided by the Holy Spirit to ensure that only the books that God wanted to be scripture are in the bible.

The bible didn’t just fall out of the sky looking like it does. There isn’t a list in the bible that says lists the books that should be in the bible. Jesus didn’t say follow this list of criteria if you want to know what my Father wants to be scripture. There had to be a process that took place where human beings, guided by the Holy Spirit, physically put together a canon of books that is to be considered the Word of God. That is what this thread is about. How did that process happen?

 

[mo3]

You Catholics don’t read New Testament much don’t you?

Your question is answered in one verse.
No arguments.

John 1:1 :In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

bow

I will not argue with the scripture you quoted because it is the word of God. However, the interpretation of this verse is another matter. This verse does not say “written” word. Please quote me the “chapter and verse” from the Bible which says only the “written" word is to be trusted.

Then you should not argue about these verses:

1 Timothy 15 - But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

We see here the “church” is the pillar and foundation of truth. The Bible is to be trusted because the church says it is the inspired word of God.

2 Thes 15 - Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

We see here we are to hold fast to what we have been taught, either “oral” or written.

Gob bless.

 

[fermat]

If anyone has been taught that the Bible came from the catholic (ie universal as distinct from the Catholic - capital C) church then those responsible need to be taken to task.

The Bible, as a canon of books, was decided on by councils of the Catholic church. This process happened under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I can point to the Synods of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D.,and later, Carthage 419 A.D to prove this point. The burden of proof that Bible was not compiled by Catholics rests on you.

 

[mo3]

The point EnterCanaan was trying to make was that the Bible contains the words of God written by humans and these men were not necessarily Roman Catholic.

You are using the term “Bible” as if there is only 1 Bible universally accepted.

Please let me know which Bible you are talking about? Jehovah Witness Bible, Mormon Bible, NAB Bible, NIV Bible? Once you answer this, then you will have to defend your “version” of the Bible.

God bless.

 

[CastingCrown]

You are using the term “Bible” as if there is only 1 Bible universally accepted.

Please let me know which Bible you are talking about? Jehovah Witness Bible, Mormon Bible, NAB Bible, NIV Bible? Once you answer this, then you will have to defend your “version” of the Bible.

God bless.

Wouldn’t it just be simpler to talk about the selection of the 27 books which make up the canon of the New Testament?

 

[zz912]

Where did the bible come from.

[2 Peter 1:20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

You REALLY need to pay attention to what you quoted. You need to heed this rule that was formally set down by St. Peter.

 

[PeterK]

A little clarity.

To get back to the original question, one has to establish a clearer meaning for phrases like…
“the Holy Bible was born from the heart of the Catholic Church”
“the bible came from the catholic church”
These and other similar broad generalizations can hurt more than help.

The Old Testament - the Law, the Prophets and the Writings - did not come from the Catholic Church. All of these were written B.C. One can even view the LXX enterprise (c.200 BC) as a canonical effort as well as a translation effort by the plain fact that decisions had to made to determine which books were to be accepted or omitted in the finished corpus.

Regarding the OT, the Catholic Church - under the guidance of the Holy Spirit no doubt - pretty much just put its seal of approval on a pre-existent corpus of writings. They were already held as holy and inspired by the Jewish faithful.

The Catholic Church has Jewish roots - deep ones.

PeterK

 

[mo3]

Wouldn’t it just be simpler to talk about the selection of the 27 books which make up the canon of the New Testament?

Yes but this thread is about the origins of the Bible. It is very important to know the origins because it will help understand how we are to accept, understand, and interpret the Bible.

If someone blindly accepts the Bible, then they could easily accept any Bible. Eg. Jehovah Witness, Mormon, etc. This is a major problem with many who blindly accept any Bible and/or any translation.

God bless.

 

[james62]

To PromiseLand:
Here is a link to Rev. Graham’s, “Where We Got the Bible”, for a free read and download on the internet

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

Or you can order from Amazon or any Catholic book store or site. It is a great book and filled in most of the holes i began to see in Protestant renderings of this history. Ironically, books on the canonization of scripture are VERY hard to find at “Christian Bookstores” - which are truly only Protestant bookstores - which i find terribly ironic. They claim to adhere to “sola scriptura”, yet they seem to be afraid to teach their people how those scriptures came into being. From what i’ve seen, the Catholic Church is very bold and upfront about the topic.

To EnterCanaan:
Regarding John 1, do you believe “the word” in that chapter is the bible (maybe even the KJV?), Jesus, both, or neither? Also, you might want to read the link above. GREAT stuff that enlightened me on my path from modern evangelicalism back home…

 

[inkaneer]

I totally agree with you. However, we have to recognize that the early Church was not only the Roman Church. There were 5 patriarchates and each patriarchate was headed by a bishop. In fact, of those 5 patriarchates, Rome was the youngest one. Amomg those 5 were the churches in Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome. I think the other one was Greek or Indian but I’m not sure, I would have to check my book on that one.

The other was patriarch was Alexandria, Egypt. Origianally there were only four patrriarchs. Constantinople was later elevated [fifth century] to the level of a patriarch as it was made the capital of the Roman Empire by Constantine. The patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch and Rome trace their line of succession directly to Peter as he was the very first bishop in those cities. But the patriarch of Constantinople traces his line of succession to Andrew, Peter’s brother. James, who is commonly thought of as the first bishop of Jerusalem was really the second. He became the second bishop of Jerusalem after Peter left for Antioch. Note that on Pentecost in Jerusalem it is Peter who speaks for the Apostles not James. Elvodius was the second bishop of Antioch after Peter then came Ignatius who is referred to as Ignatius of Antioch. ALexandria also traces its line of succession from Peter as Peter consecrated Mark as a bishop and sent Mark to Alexandria as its first bishop. Also these were not the only towns to have bishops. Smyrna and Ephesus were headed by a bishop as were Crete and other places. Each locality had a bishop installed there originally by the Apostles who were bishops themselves. Later other Bishops would be consecrated and the line of succession would continue down to the present day. Today each bishop in the Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic churches can trace their line of succession to one of the Apostles. That line of succession is the pedigree of the church. However, this does not mean these patriarchs operated independantly from Rome. The evidence is clear that while certain matters were handled locally other matters were referred onto Rome much like the account in Acts 15 regarding the controversy in Antioch. It was referred onto Jerusalem where the Apostles were gathered. There, the scriptures say, there was much debate until Peter stood up and spoke. No more debate, the matter was settled and they agreed on a solution brokered by James [who some alleged was the head of the Judiacizers]. Later, however, in about 80 AD when a controversy arose in Corinth it was referred to Clement the bishop of Rome despite the fact that John the Apostle was not only still living but closer to Corinth than Rome. About 90 years later another controversy in Corinth was dealt with in the same manner. So the early church was indeed heirarchial and unanimous in its recognition of the bishop of Rome as being the successor to Peter.

The problem arose when the bishop of Rome declared himself to be the pope and hence supreme over all the other bishops. Hence, the schism. The Eastern and Orthodox churches are just as valid and apostolic as Rome. So it would be inaccurate to say that the Bible per se was a Catholic (Roman) book.

But the fact is the bishop of Rome never did this. The term ‘pope’ [Greek word papa meaning Father] was applied to all who were in charge of the church. This included bishops. It was only later that the application of the term was restricted to the bishop of Rome but the incident in Corinth in 80 AD shows conclusively that the early church had no question as to who was in charge and it wasn’t Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople or even one of the original Apostles. It was Rome. The Schism of 1054 that you refer to was politically motivated as the Western Empire was over run by the barbarians and Western Europe underwent the “Dark Ages” leaving only the Eastern Empire still standing. Somehow the doctrine of men that Rome could no longer run the church and Constantinople could prompted Photius, with the Emperor’s backing, to split from Rome. The patriarch of Constantinople then became a puppet of the emperor something the bishop of Rome never was.