Origins of our Bible

[JRKH]

Thanks Tom for your answer but I think it is too easy to say the men chosen were inspired. If they were inspired why did it take centuries for the Church to finalize the Bible? Why did St. Jerome and St. Augustine have different opinions on what should be included? And just because I doubt this, doesn’t mean “it doesn’t matter.” It does matter greatly, I believe Jesus wanted us to pattern our lives after his teachings, which are described so perfectly by the Apostles. Why did we need a Bible after this? I can think of reasons which is what disturbs me.

My understanding is that the reason the Bible was compiled was to provide a common volume of approved books for use in the Liturgy.
At the time there were a great number of books that were in circulation that were of dubious origin. Others were accepted by one region but not accepted in other places.
The councils who determined the canon were seeking to codify a commonly accepted volume.

Peace
James

 

[tqualey]

Hang on JoeNJ,

It may help you resolve the difficulties you are having if identified the research you have used to arrive at the point you find yourself now. For example:

What bothers me is the human beings, not chosen by God, that selected the books and letters to be included, many written by authors who never claimed to be inspired at the time of writing it.

What are you using as a referecnce to back up this statement?

In Numbers 22 ,24 there is this rather interesting story of Balaam and his *** fisheaters.com/animalsbalaam.html. While there are many lessons from this story, the one I enjoy is that, “God is not limited in how He communicates with you”.

God bless

 

[joeNJ]

You’ve lived over centuries?? Man — You gotta tell me what you’ve been eating…

Seriously - I try not to concern myself too much with matters that occurred in the Church centuries ago. Different times, different ideas, different cultures - just a lot different…

As I said in my closing, Just living Love - today and tomorrow is quite enough…I’ll leave the rest to the apologists…

The answer to your questions is an single - YES.

The Church is both. The Structure that we have today is a necessary result of the desire of the earliest Christians to uphold that Which Christ founded and prayed for.

Consider:
Most any group of any size will develop some sort of structure for the purpose of coordination, governance, handling of monies etc as well as providing a forum for handling rules, disagreements, and other matters necessary for the good of the group as a whole.
So - should it be a surprise that the Christians began developing organizational structures early on?

Christ founded a Church - a community. That community is comprised of people who have committed themselves to “live as Jesus wants us to” ( or at least we try:shrug.
Jesus also prayed that His community be One as He and the Father are one…(John 13:34-35) A veerryy close relationship…
Jesus then gave the Church Authority to Bind and Loose - “Whatever” (Mt 16:17-19 and Mt 18:15-18)…Pretty broad authority wouldn’t you say?
Jesus then told us to take obstinate and contentious issues and “Tell it to The Church”
AND that we are to “Listen to the Church” lest we be treated as a heathen and a tax collector (Mt 18:15-18).

Then - when the early Church faced it’s first doctrinal crisis - the Early Christians demonstrated what would become the trademark method for dealing with such issues. They held a council, came to a decision and promulgated that decision in writing (Acts 15).

As the Church grew bigger and bigger - it became more and more necessary to have better communications, to have a way to review writings, to debate issues and most especially to gather, collate, copy distribute and teach only the Truth of the Gospels.
So - over time - the institutional structures that we have today developed, not as something imposed from outside and separate from the faithful as individuals, but rather as an outgrowth of the desire on the part of the group to “live as Jesus wants us to live”.
They are an outgrowth of the desire to “be one” as Jesus and the Father are one.
They are the result of the needs and desires to protect, defend, copy, distribute and teach the truth of the Gospel.

Not sure I explained that well…I hope it helps you understand some.

Peace
James

James, the only thing this helps me understand is you a little better. Your last sentence comes off as condescending, are you inspired as well to help me understand? I know a large organization needs structure, but not at the expense of misleading the faithful. So If I understand you, it is OK to potentially mislead the faithful in the name of preserving the ideals of Jesus because we are getting very large and need more uniformity. This skirts the crux of my question, Do you believe that the people who chose the men that would select which books/letters were included in the Bible were all inspired? If you believe this then that is great. I have a harder time because I have doubts in my heart that is not what Jesus really wanted.

 

[joeNJ]

Hang on JoeNJ,

It may help you resolve the difficulties you are having if identified the research you have used to arrive at the point you find yourself now. For example:

What are you using as a referecnce to back up this statement?

In Numbers 22 ,24 there is this rather interesting story of Balaam and his *** fisheaters.com/animalsbalaam.html. While there are many lessons from this story, the one I enjoy is that, “God is not limited in how He communicates with you”.

God bless

Tom there is plenty of resources about this, I urge you to look up the “Decree of Damascus.” All the resources basically say the same thing, a council of men, at the urging of bishop St. Damascus, convened to finally determine which books should be included in the New Testament. This debate had been going on for quite some time and it continued after the Council of Damascus until it was reaffirmed in 3 other councils in 393, 397 and 419.

 

[Gaber]

My understanding is that the reason the Bible was compiled was to provide a common volume of approved books for use in the Liturgy.
At the time there were a great number of books that were in circulation that were of dubious origin. Others were accepted by one region but not accepted in other places.
The councils who determined the canon were seeking to codify a commonly accepted volume.

Peace
James

I think that this is so, but I think other considerations were in play as well. There probably were important concerns and motivations, as you describe, but one that fascinates me and is indicative of some possible questions is this: One of the deciders argued that because there were four elements, and four directions, there ought to be four Gosples. I have the reference somewhere, but not imediately at hand. If somone insists on it, I will find it. But with changes in recent editions of our Bible and some questions about attribution, etc, it is no wonder that some of us wonder what is going on.

Cheif amongst these is that, as I’ve reported before, honest psychics and mystics will confess that however clear a message is on “the other side,” or whatever, the task of speaking, writing, or reporting these is heavily influenced by the state ofawareness of the reciever. In other words, such things as culture, beliefs, prejudices, language, etc, all have bearing on the shape of the “final” message. So while there might be claimsof Divine Guidance, it is not the Divinity we might question, but the state of mind of the recipients of that guidance.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JoeNJ

You’re welcome.

OK, you thing it is, ‘…too easy to say the men chosen were inspired…’ now we need to just look at the History and see what it is that we really have to go on. Here is what Wiki says

Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, but the books are in fact anonymous and look back on Moses as a figure from the distant past;[4] some traditions contained in Genesis are as old as the United Monarchy, but modern scholars increasingly see it as a product of the 6th and 5th centuries BC.

Effectively, this makes the Bible one of the oldest books in the world that is still read and followed to this day.

It took much longer then I think anyone would have liked - but there was an on-going persecution of those who followed Christ - from Christ’s death in about 33AD to the rule of Constintine in about 325AD. Seriously, there is no way that any group could set up schools, research facilities and get scholars to work on the Canon - if everyone was fearing for their lives.

Different opinions from Jerome and Augustine… considering that they were just getting started - I think they were in remarkable agreement in the areas that really counted. For example, both of these ECFs in particular believed in the Primalcy of Peter - so that even if Jerome had another opinion, with humility he presented his work to Pope Damasus. Here is an interesting link: newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm Augustine’s famous quote about a matter that had been decided by the Pope, but some were not satisified - and Augustine, is reported to have said, “Rome has spoke, the cause if finished.” Both of these men believed in the Real Presence, Confession, that Christ is True God and True Man, that there are Three Persons in the Godhead, etc. Maybe I am not that familiar as to their disagrements - while I do not doubt that these two men did not see eye-to-eys on everything, you will need to tell me what you hve in mind as to disagreement.

I never said, “It does not matter”. I think it matters a great deal - but, no one can hand you the answer that is going to resolve your questons. Only you can do this with Faith and Prayer and doing some research yourself on this topic.

While saying that Christ wanted us to pattern our lives after his teaching - is one way to exress this idea, I think Christ wanted much more from us - He wanted us to pick up our cross and follow Him. Living His teaching would surely be part of this - but, actually following Him presents much more.

Ultimately, we needed a Bible because God wanted it that way. There were all of these Sacred Writers - and One Sacred Author. If we look back thousands of years we find that God was already working with people to write down what what He wants to tell us. Could we have done this without the Bible - of course - and it would be that God would have designed something else for use in its place. This isn’t a mathematical question you are posing: 2 + 2 = 4 and as long as we share the definition of what we mean by “2” and what we mean by “+” and “=” then we will cosistently come up with ‘4’ - always have and always will. Determining where God wants us and what His Will is for us at any given moment is not always clear and with only lone right answer.

Look at the difficulty that St. Paul had in knowing God’s Will? Paul must be knocied off of his horse, be struck blind and given a ‘thorn for the Flesh’ before God started to inform him what he needed to do. Paul thought he was going to Spain ( Romans 15:23-28) but, as far as we know, this trip never took place. And this is because God had other plans for St Paul.

My suggestion would be to start thanking God for His tremendous gift of the Bible. Managing that position as your orientation, very quickly you will find that thanksgiving will turn into appreciation.

God bless

Thanks Tom for your answer but I think it is too easy to say the men chosen were inspired. If they were inspired why did it take centuries for the Church to finalize the Bible? Why did St. Jerome and St. Augustine have different opinions on what should be included? And just because I doubt this, doesn’t mean “it doesn’t matter.” It does matter greatly, I believe Jesus wanted us to pattern our lives after his teachings, which are described so perfectly by the Apostles. Why did we need a Bible after this? I can think of reasons which is what disturbs me.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JoeNJ,

I know there are an abundance of references. I also know I am not the one that is having a problem accepting that God really did have a direct hand in the writing of the Books and of the men selected to pick them out as Inspired - and totally without error.

By the same token, there are a lot of references about the Battle of Hastings in 1066AD. But, if I have doubts about William the Conquerer actually winning - no set of authentic references will satisfy me. If this is true, then I need to clearly write down what I believe happened and see if anyone agrees with me. If I am using authentic references, and still hold to my doubts, maybe it is time (or past time) to devleop the prayer of St. Augustine who asked for more Faith that he might understand - and not for more understanding that he may have nore Faith.

God bless

Tom there is plenty of resources about this, I urge you to look up the “Decree of Damascus.” All the resources basically say the same thing, a council of men, at the urging of bishop St. Damascus, convened to finally determine which books should be included in the New Testament. This debate had been going on for quite some time and it continued after the Council of Damascus until it was reaffirmed in 3 other councils in 393, 397 and 419.

 

[tqualey]

Hi Gabaer,

My uderstanding is that no matter what the background or education or any other variable that one of the Sacred Writers may or may not have had - it was immaterial to God getting His Message out! We are not getting the message of some ancient writer - but rather the Message of God - written in the words of men.

God bless

I think that this is so, but I think other considerations were in play as well. There probably were important concerns and motivations, as you describe, but one that fascinates me and is indicative of some possible questions is this: One of the deciders argued that because there were four elements, and four directions, there ought to be four Gosples. I have the reference somewhere, but not imediately at hand. If somone insists on it, I will find it. But with changes in recent editions of our Bible and some questions about attribution, etc, it is no wonder that some of us wonder what is going on.

Cheif amongst these is that, as I’ve reported before, honest psychics and mystics will confess that however clear a message is on “the other side,” or whatever, the task of speaking, writing, or reporting these is heavily influenced by the state ofawareness of the reciever. In other words, such things as culture, beliefs, prejudices, language, etc, all have bearing on the shape of the “final” message. So while there might be claimsof Divine Guidance, it is not the Divinity we might question, but the state of mind of the recipients of that guidance.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Does the origins of how are Bible was formed disturb anyone? The fact that men gathered, generations after Jesus was crucified, and picked which documents were included and which were excluded really bothers me. It also bothers me why the Book of Revelations was included. Was the author, John, really John the Apostle? The choices these men made became words inspired by God, but many of the authors never even made that claim. I struggle with this every day, how do you cope with this?

You are forgetting one very important thing - Tradition. I don’t struggle with your issue. (I have my own - lol). But, the books of the bible were chosen based on what they were already using in the liturgy and what conformed to the Tradition that was passed on to them. It was St. Jerome who was commissioned to go to the different churches and see what books of the bible they used and considered inspired. So you see the books were already in use before the canon was made. It wasn’t like they arbitrarily went around saying lets put this book in and oh that book looks nice…

I suggest you get Fr. Pacwa’s CD on the history of the bible
ignatiusproductions.org/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=IP&Product_Code=6595&Category_Code=CD

Another great book to read on the importance of Tradition including how it affected the canon is seen in this book - “By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition”, by Mark P. Shea.

 

[fisherman_carl]

"It also bothers me why the Book of Revelations was included. Was the author, John, really John the Apostle? "

Yes. For this I recommend this book - “Coming Soon: Unlocking the Book of Revelation and Applying its Lessons Today”, by Michael Barber.

Tip: You can download the kindle sample for free and read the reasons why John is the author in the first few chapters since the sample includes the first 5 or 6 chapters of the book.

 

[thistle]

I really like your answer James, thank you.** I’m not so trusting of the church as they have led us astray many times over the centuries.** I think semantics is an issue in understanding your answer. Is the “Church” Jesus was talking about the organized body that we know today? Or is the Church the people that commit to live life as Jesus wants us to.

When has the Church led us astray many times over the centuries?
The Church teachings have remained consistent and the Church has not and indeed cannot make an error in matters of faith and morals.

 

[JRKH]

James, the only thing this helps me understand is you a little better. Your last sentence comes off as condescending, are you inspired as well to help me understand?

I apologize if my comment sounded condescending. That was not my intent. Chalk it up to my clumsiness.
As to the other - well - I don’t know if I am “inspired” to help you understand…But I suppose I am inspired to answer the question(s) you have asked.
If I am inspired it is by God’s Love and grace and nothing more.

I know a large organization needs structure, but not at the expense of misleading the faithful.

Do you feel that the books selected for the Bible in some way misleads the faithful??

So If I understand you, it is OK to potentially mislead the faithful in the name of preserving the ideals of Jesus because we are getting very large and need more uniformity.

If one preserves the ideals of Jesus then the faithful are not misled. It’s as simple as that.

This skirts the crux of my question, Do you believe that the people who chose the men that would select which books/letters were included in the Bible were all inspired? If you believe this then that is great. I have a harder time because I have doubts in my heart that is not what Jesus really wanted.

I believe that you are approaching the question from the wrong direction. It does not matter if the people who chose the men who chose the canon were “inspired” or not - or to what degree they were inspired. The real question is this. When the bishops met - and when they selected the canon - were they protected by the Holy Spirit?
I believe they were, just as I believe that every Council down through the centuries has been protected by the Holy Spirit.

As to the matter of “misleading the faithful”, I can understand where you are coming from and dealing with the problems of past “bad popes” etc IS something that we must all deal with. Something that helped me is from Matthew 23:1-3:
Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
This one passage helped me immensely in recognizing that the Church’s teachings can still be correct, even if the Church’s administration was being poorly run.

We know how Jesus felt about many of the Pharisees and the scribes. The Gospels contain many a harsh word for men of both groups.
Yet here - Note the delicate interplay and the surgical separation between what is taught and what is practiced. “Do as they say, not as they do” - is the message. In this one passage, this one sentence, Jesus upholds that sinful men can still teach correctly.
What is further evident in the passage is that the faithful who are under the jurisdiction of these men are to listen to them and do as they say. The same instruction that Jesus gives to the faithful in His community - His Church. “Listen to The Church” for they have the authority to “Bind and Loose” (Mt 18:17-18)

So - from this I conclude that, so long as I am true to the official teachings of the Church, I am fine. I am not mislead. Those who teach however - they will be held to a higher standard…It is the “shepherd” (pope, bishop, priest etc) and not the flock who would be held accountable for any error or malfeasance.

Hope this helps some

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Now that I have a bit more time - I would like to address this post a bit further…

Thanks Tom for your answer but I think it is too easy to say the men chosen were inspired. If they were inspired why did it take centuries for the Church to finalize the Bible?

To answer this let’s take a look at certain historical factors that contributed to this.

1. In the very first years, there seemed little need to write these things down. Many people assumed that Christ’s return was imminent - so the oral testimonies were sufficient. As time passed and Jesus did not return, the Apostles began to die and as the Church continued it’s growth, certain men, close to the Apostles, began recording things. but they were not gathered together in a single volume.
2. In the first 3 plus centuries the Church was “illegal” in the Roman Empire and even though it was not always persecuted during that time, the fact that it was illegal would naturally put a damper on the ability to meet in council etc.
3. The geographic size of the Church both inside and outside of the Roman Empire, coupled with point two above, further complicated the ability of the Church to regularly meet and has out issues. Each region did the best they could.
4. When the Faith was finally legalized, around the middle of the fourth century, The Church very quickly began coming together to review and discern more fully and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Part of this included the review and codification of the books of the Bible.
5. Once this process of councilior discernment began, it continued even down to today. The Church - at all levels, meets regularly to discuss matters.

The above of course is but a very rough sketch but should give an idea of the difficulties faced by the Church in the early centuries and why it took so long to get the bible codified.
Couple all of this with the fact that the Church tends not to define things unless and until some serious controversy and error, or potential error, crops up.

Why did St. Jerome and St. Augustine have different opinions on what should be included?

This can actually be a very complex question. Without taking away from either saint, it must be said that it is much easier for an individual to be wrong about something than for a group to be wrong. This is why Jesus said “tell it to the Church” and to “Listen to the Church” - not tell it to and listen to some individual.
The great advantage to a council is that each person comes with their own insight. Maybe not entirely right - maybe not entirely wrong. Then through prayerful discernment, what is right in each one’s view is kept, and what is wrong is discarded.
What is often overlooked when Sts Jerome and Augustine are brought up in this regard is the fact that both of these saints, in obedience to Christ’s instruction, “Listened to the Church”. The accepted the canon as set by the Church in council.

… I believe Jesus wanted us to pattern our lives after his teachings, which are described so perfectly by the Apostles. Why did we need a Bible after this? I can think of reasons which is what disturbs me.

If we did not have a Bible, you would be even MORE dependent upon the Church to understand what the pattern of Jesus teaching is. Given the problems you are having with “trust now” do you think it would be easier to trust the Church without the bible??
I mean - How would you know what Jesus taught us if it weren’t for the fact that the Church preserved, protected, defended, gathered, copied, distributed and taught the ancient truths…

Peace
James

 

[Gaber]

When has the Church led us astray many times over the centuries?
The Church teachings have remained consistent and the Church has not and indeed cannot make an error in matters of faith and morals.

Without going into the parameters of the second one, and with all due respect and gratitude for what the Church has done for me, the first statement is a joke, right?

 

[Phyllo]

I’m offended that you would so cavalierly dismiss my issue, “Nothing very earth shattering?” How about the whole idea of the bible supposedly being inspired but compiled by men who had never met Jesus or a disciple? "The bible teaches nothing wrong. We can trace our popes back to St. Peter. [The way there are cross reverences from the OT to the NT and the Bible writers didn’t have computers. "] These comments have nothing to do with my question and thanks for clearing up the question about computers, I thought St. Peter was a whiz on DOS. From what I understand, your answer is, you trust the men chosen to look over the books, letters and documents available to choose and compile,(perhaps edit?), the one uniform book and declare the documents they chose to be the word of God. If this is your answer that’s great and I admire your faith, but you have to see that some people may have difficulties with this.

My apologies.
What I wanted to say was that what" I" had to say was NOT earth shattering and not your concerns.
I guess I didn’t phrase my response properly. I certainly didn’t mean to offend. Please forgive me.
And yes, I do believe the Bible and the CC and her Traditions and how we got the bible really doesn’t bother/concern me. As I stated before it is all we have.
God Bless

 

[Gaber]

… As I stated before it is all we have.
God Bless

Might you mean “it is all we (think) we have?”

 

[thistle]

Without going into the parameters of the second one, and with all due respect and gratitude for what the Church has done for me, the first statement is a joke, right?

It was a question and not a statement. Obviously your sarcasm means you are actually unable to answer it.

 

[Gaber]

It was a question and not a statement. Obviously your sarcasm means you are actually unable to answer it.

I wasn’t being sarcastic; I was asking a question. Thanks for answering. As for myself, I have good and useful answers for both, but do not wih to be unduly controversial among the pious by stating the obvious.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gaber,

That was really thoughtful of you.

Why not take your good and useful answers for all these comments and start a link where you can be as duly controversial as you wish?

We are still working on the Origins of our Bible… and, I would like to stick with the topic.

I think we left off with anothe one of JoeNJ’s trust issues - which none of have been able to successfully address because of our obvious deficits in appreciating real trust issues. I would like for JoeNJ to clearly explain why he does not think the men that assembeled the Canon were chosen by God for that very work - so that there are no UN-inspired books in our Bible.

God bless

I wasn’t being sarcastic; I was asking a question. Thanks for answering. As for myself, I have good and useful answers for both, but do not wih to be unduly controversial among the pious by stating the obvious.

 

[Phyllo]

Might you mean “it is all we (think) we have?”

What do you mean?