Do Protestants know where we got the Bible?

[ESMDHokie77]

Do Catholics know where we got the Bible?

We adopted the OT canon from the Jewish faith. Our Hebrew text is still their MT.

the LXX also from the Jews but most of its transmission from the Orthodox.

The NT, apart from the Old Latin and Vulgate have mostly been through the transmission of the Orthodox and the semi recent discovery of Codex Sinaiaticus (Aleph) from St. Catherines is an Orthodox Monastry.

So, you may as well say that Protestants have most of their Bibles from Jewish and Orthodox sources.

Your last sentence makes no sense. You would rather get your O.T. from the Jews who had no authority to define the canon, since none existed before Christ. Or you would rather get your O.T. from a group that didn’t exist until the 10-11th century; which is not all that good since they hold the deuterocanon and you do not!

 

[christosdavid]

Your last sentence makes no sense. You would rather get your O.T. from the Jews who had no authority to define the canon, since none existed before Christ. Or you would rather get your O.T. from a group that didn’t exist until the 10-11th century; which is not all that good since they hold the deuterocanon and you do not!

Im pretty sure by your assumption that I dont hold to the deutero-canon that im a Protestant, perhaps because I labelled myself a Christian.

Do you deny that we got our OT from the Jews? whether MT or LXX? If I limited my textual sources to what the Roman church handed down, I would have some significant resources, such as Codex Vaticanus (B) but most other Greek bibles have continued on in Hellenised and Greek speaking areas of the Church.

Almost all of our Bibles today, whether Catholic or Protestant, are translated from the Hebrew and Greek, using other translations such as Latin, Syriac, Coptic as other ancient sources but not authoritative for the archeological expression of the originals.

So our most authoritative texts come from Jews and Orthodox (as for coming from the 11th C, the text in question, Codex Sinaiaticus - was from the 4th C and is undoubtedly the best, complete edition of the NT and was preserved by, shock - horror a schismatic church)

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Im pretty sure by your assumption that I dont hold to the deutero-canon that im a Protestant, perhaps because I labelled myself a Christian.

Do you deny that we got our OT from the Jews? whether MT or LXX?

(…)

So our most authoritative texts come from Jews and Orthodox (as for coming from the 11th C, the text in question, Codex Sinaiaticus - was from the 4th C and is undoubtedly the best, complete edition of the NT and was preserved by, shock - horror a schismatic church)

Apologies, I did make that assumption.

I affirm that we get the OT from the Jews of the B.C. era. I affirm that Jesus and the Apostles used and cited from the LXX. I also affirm that Jews in the A.D. era have no authority to define the Christian canon.

Yes, we owe the Orthodox for its keeping and preservation. But isn’t it safe to say that in the 4th century the Orthodox were Catholics? And that simply the Orthodox inherited the, (for lack of a better word), “property”?

Peace,
Phil

 

[christosdavid]

Apologies, I did make that assumption.

I affirm that we get the OT from the Jews of the B.C. era. I affirm that Jesus and the Apostles used and cited from the LXX. I also affirm that Jews in the A.D. era have no authority to define the Christian canon.

Yes, we owe the Orthodox for its keeping and preservation. But isn’t it safe to say that in the 4th century the Orthodox were Catholics? And that simply the Orthodox inherited the, (for lack of a better word), “property”?

Peace,
Phil

I was thinking something similar, but of course, the Monastic life at St. Catherine’s probably has very little to do with the reasons for the schism and probably in proportion suffer the least dramatic results.

After all, nobody denies their apostolic heritage. THe differences of opinion between East and West is largely a matter of politics between pontiffs and Patriarchs.

Still, we do owe a debt to the Orthodox in this regard. After the fall of Constantinople, the Greeks who came over to western Europe aided the literary and philosophical explosion that resulted in much of the renaisance and early Christian humanism.

Erasmus’ edition and others wouldnt have happened without Providence occuring in the way it did. Which in turn meant that the Bible which Protestants have does come in a large extent due to their continual appreciation and returning to the original languages, particularly the Greek.

 

[Nicea325]

Do you deny that we got our OT from the Jews?

No Catholic is going to deny we got the OT scriptures from the Jews,but the OT canon is an entire different issue. The Jews had NO FIXED canon prior to Jesus,even though many Protestants throw Josephus into the mix. Josephus never gives the list of so-called “canonized” books nor does he give names,dates or location as to WHO canonized the OT and under WHOSE authority. This is where advocates of an OT canon prior to Jesus fail miserably.

 

[Kouyate42]

In all my time as a Baptist Christian the origins of the Bible were NEVER (and I mean this) discussed. I only learnt about the Catholic origins of the Bible because I studied Early Church History at university.

 

[Nicea325]

In all my time as a Baptist Christian the origins of the Bible were NEVER (and I mean this) discussed. I only learnt about the Catholic origins of the Bible because I studied Early Church History at university.

I hear the same many times when I meet Protestants wishing to be initiated as Roman Catholics. They know their chapters and verses,but Bible background is very limited.

 

[Kouyate42]

I hear the same many times when I meet Protestants wishing to be initiated as Roman Catholics. They know their chapters and verses,but Bible background is very limited.

You know something is wrong when in discussion with a fully ordained minister you know more about the Bible’s background than they do. I was telling my minister stuff he hadn’t even HEARD about, yet alone actually studied.

 

[Wesley7]

Re: Do Protestants know where we got the Bible?

I presume a Church Father (Origen)? put all the fragments & manuscripts together and presented it to a council of Bishops for canonization.

 

[christosdavid]

You know something is wrong when in discussion with a fully ordained minister you know more about the Bible’s background than they do. I was telling my minister stuff he hadn’t even HEARD about, yet alone actually studied.

Ive found that a lot, especially with ‘radical reformation’ churches. It can sometimes be taken of a badge of honor that the clerics mind is untainted with actual knowledge or thoughts…

 

[pablope]

You prove my point of arrogance by claiming rights to authoring the bible.

I do not claim it for myself…it is an undeniable historical fact. It is only denied by those who cannot accept a true historical fact.

Let me ask you this…which would you prefer…prove a point of arrogance by speaking the truth or disprove a point of arrogance by lying (thereby committing a sin)?

I agree there was only one church at that time and we all owe that historical church our gratitude for preserving and publishing the bible.

 

[Anna_Scott]

There are not two rules – only one. Priests of the Latin Rite may not marry. (Married Eastern Catholics may be ordained priests in their own Rites.) All bishops are celibate. Anglican priests (and the occasional Lutheran) who are already married may become Catholic priests of the Latin Rite under an ***exception ***to the rule. However, if their spouse dies, they may not remarry. It is a pastoral provision granted by the Holy Father at the request of a large number of Anglican priests. But the discipline remains in force.

Anglican priests are ordained de novo, having invalid orders. I recently attended the oridination of an Anglican priest. His wife and four children were witnesses, including three-day-old Peter.

Jim Dandy

Jim,
I’m sorry I missed this post. I suppose this does make sense.

DOCTRINE

A doctrine is any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the Natural Law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it a doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed.

DOGMA

Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God. A dogma is part of Divine Revelation.

DISCIPLINE

Any of the laws and directions set down by Church authority for the guidance of the faithful.

Source: Modern Catholic Dictionary, Father John A. Hardon, S.J.

---

IOW, all dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas.

The celibacy rule for priests of the Latin Rite is a discipline. Disciplines may be suspended or changed by the Church (she created and imposed them). Doctrines and dogmas may not (they come from God)…

Jim Dandy.

Jim,
Thanks for clarifying these terms.

It’s always good to hear from an “industrial strength Catholic.”

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[Rag_Hanger]

Hi JD, I have yet to meet any protestant who knows where the bible came from!

My experience is just the opposite. I have yet to meet any Protestant that doesn’t know where the Bible came from.

When i told her the bible came out of The Catholic Church, she was in complete shock! In so many words she stated that can’t be. I asked her did it just fall out of the sky…
I look forward to read the (name removed by moderator)ut on this thread for sure.

Sorry I erased the first part of your quote. If your friend really told you this, then she’s the exception, not the rule. Most Baptist churches take church history very seriously.

 

[Anna_Scott]

My experience is just the opposite. I have yet to meet any Protestant that doesn’t know where the Bible came from.

Sorry I erased the first part of your quote. If your friend really told you this, then she’s the exception, not the rule. Most Baptist churches take church history very seriously.

Rag,

Welcome to CAF!

My experience has been the opposite of yours, as I posted earlier on this thread:

Izdaari,

I had the same experience growing up in Southern Baptist Churches. When I started studying the history of the transmission of Scripture (on my own,) I was rather shocked. More shocks came when I studied the history of the different faiths. I was most shocked by the origins of the Southern Baptist Church. There have been discussions among Southern Baptists, for a few years now, regarding changing their name. When you read the history of the SBC, you can see why.

Peace,
Anna

Hope you enjoy the forums.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Rag_Hanger]

Rag,

Welcome to CAF!

My experience has been the opposite of yours, as I posted earlier on this thread:

I’m sorry you had that experience. Based on all of the Baptists I know, the Baptist churches I’ve been involved with, and the culture that exists within Baptist churches, I believe it’s the exception and not the rule.

 

[Eliphaz15]

Well, as a former Presbyterian, and former Atheist, I found that Atheists tend to know more about the bible than protestants. the protestants never brought it up, or even knew, it was just there in the pew for everyone to read, but with a 3 minute Google search I found the Old testament is the Hebrew scriptures broken up into three parts, The Torah , Nevi’im, and Ketuvim. The new testament is scriptures written around the time of Jesus, some after and some during, written mostly by Paul. Later, after returning to the Catholic church, I learned where the bible as we know it came from, ie. the catholic church, aka the original church.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m sorry you had that experience. Based on all of the Baptists I know, the Baptist churches I’ve been involved with, and the culture that exists within Baptist churches, I believe it’s the exception and not the rule.

Rag,
I hope that is the case.

Most Southern Baptists do not even know why the Southern Baptist Church came into being.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Rag_Hanger]

Rag,
I hope that is the case.

Most Southern Baptists do not even know why the Southern Baptist Church came into being.

Peace,
Anna

That’s really odd that you would say “most Southern Baptists”, because in all my years in Southern Baptist churches, I’ve never met any who didn’t know the history of the SBC, particularly since it’s included in the classes most SBC churches require for membership.

 

[Anna_Scott]

That’s really odd that you would say “most Southern Baptists”, because in all my years in Southern Baptist churches, I’ve never met any who didn’t know the history of the SBC, particularly since it’s included in the classes most SBC churches require for membership.

Rag Hanger,
What do those classes say about the origin of the SBC? Did they include the “Resolution” (which was really an apology) the SBC eventually made concerning its origin?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Rag_Hanger]

Rag Hanger,
What do those classes say about the origin of the SBC? Did they include the “Resolution” (which was really an apology) the SBC eventually made concerning its origin?

Peace,
Anna

Do you mean the slavery issue? If so, yes.