Was the Bible forbidden in the Middle Ages, as some have claimed?

[brotherhrolf]

It was after the Bible was made? Prithee sir, an when would that have been? Wait! I know! Twas when bonny King James published it!

Let’s ignore what went on way back when during the Anglo-Saxon period:

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum, si þin nama gehalgod. To becume þin rice, gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg, and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum. And ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele. Soþlice.

(Hint: all those funny letters are pronounced “th”. Recognize it? Now tell me how many Saxons could have read it in 890 AD?

And let’s just concentrate on the English, shall we? Let’s look at England under Henry VIII. Have you read how a Yorkshireman from the period would not understand a Cornishman from the same period - in English? Were not Henry and Luther contemporaries? Was not Henry named defender of the Faith by the Pope?

Old Scholar, you have been deceived by those who say “if they read the Bible, they will come”. England at the time of the beginning of Henry’s reign was the most Catholic country in Europe. The protestants were all in mainland Europe - mostly in northern Germany.

This argument is getting increasingly circular. What was the literacy rate in Tudor England? Which dialect of English was used? Go back and do the research, sir. Do the research. This dream of a noble protestant England is just that - a dream. History is written by the victors who often leave out inconvenient facts.

I have heard time and time again how much people were mislead because now “they could read the Bible” for themselves. Propaganda. Balderdash. Retro-history. The English during the early Tudor era were “more Catholic than the Pope”. It was politics which fueled Henry - not some kind of altruistic version of reform. So let’s not start this round with the myth that all those yeoman English sat around and read their Bibles and said “Yea, the Church hath deceived us!” They had no choice but to follow their king.

BTW, I am descended from English Catholics and as a Southerner I know firsthand how history gets distorted. And let me tell you about my Irish ancestors vis-a-vis the English.

Drop the slogans and look at what history has to say.

 

[Wolseley]

That’s just what I thought. That’s a typical RCC dodge. Deflect the question—don’t dare and try to answer it, because you can’t.

That’s a little disingenuous, referring someone to a site like that. You can’t answer the question because you don’t have the answers so you simply deflect it…Great way to do it!

I’ll have to remember that one. When someone asks me a question, I’ll simply give them a site for the Bible…

Well, unfortunately, O.S., I spent most of the day today sleeping, because I have to work all night tonight. I have to patrol a large area, much of it outdoors (and it’s supposed to get mighty nippy tonight, I may add), while dealing with lunatics and troublemakers, and hopefully I won’t have to pull my gun.

In short, I apologize for not being entirely at your disposal, but I have other things to do at the present time. If it soothes your precious ruffled feathers, I will try to take the time to answer each one of your laundry list above, if I get time for it.

Now, I really have to fly, because I need to shower and brush my teeth and get on the old uniform, because duty calls. A man has to make a living, n’est ce pas?

 

[ChristianRoots]

I’m sure then you won’t mind showing Scriptures that support the following:

Not everything you mention is a doctrine of the Catholic Church, i.e. celibacy of priests is not an article of faith but a discipline issue. I suspect there is a lot of confusion about what you think is supposed to be believed by the Catholic faithful. For edification purposes, doctrine never changes and must be believed by the faithful and discipline practices may change from time to time, and is not necessary to be believed by the faithful.

Anyway, the following is not an all inclusive list. For starters, please see the following:

Purgatory

 

[Old_Scholar]

You obviously didn’t bother to even click on the link before writing that screed if you think it’s just a site for the Bible

It’s in fact a Catholic apologetics website, not dissimilar to parts of this one, giving the scripture passages that Catholics use to back up all the points you’ve mentioned and many more besides. Well worth looking at if you’re genuinely interested in why we believe as we do.

You are in error. I did click on the site and perused it for quite awhile. However, it’s the same as Me referring someone to the Bible as an answer when I am asked a question.

It would seem that when debating and you are asked a question, you should answer it, not simply refer someone to another site. This leads me to believe that one’s belief is not very concrete if they can’t refer me directly to the refutation.

And I am very much interested in why you think as you do. The problem is that I continually get (from some) answers diverted and there is no attempt to support what the poster said when posting. A proper debate would have been for you to direct me directly to the answers since you are the one who made the claim. To simply say, “you will find the answer here” is too
obsequious and oleaginous.

If you aren’t willing to discuss the issue, just say so…

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar, why is it that when YOU provide support for your assertions via “essays written by a man,” it’s perfectly okay, but when Catholics do it, all of a sudden the source isn’t credible?

Why is it that when YOU provide support for your beliefs via a web link to another site, it’s okay, but when a Catholic does it, it’s called “dodging the question”?

Scriptural support for the doctrines you listed IS found at scripturecatholic.com. How is that dodging your questions?

Seems like you have quite the double standard going on.

At least if I do what you are suggesting, then I provide the proof and then give a reference to back it up. I don’t just tell you to go somewhere and find the answer. You should admit that’s a litle different…?

 

[LilyM]

You are in error. I did click on the site and perused it for quite awhile. However, it’s the same as Me referring someone to the Bible as an answer when I am asked a question.

It would seem that when debating and you are asked a question, you should answer it, not simply refer someone to another site. This leads me to believe that one’s belief is not very concrete if they can’t refer me directly to the refutation.

And I am very much interested in why you think as you do. The problem is that I continually get (from some) answers diverted and there is no attempt to support what the poster said when posting. A proper debate would have been for you to direct me directly to the answers since you are the one who made the claim. To simply say, “you will find the answer here” is too
obsequious and oleaginous.

If you aren’t willing to discuss the issue, just say so…

Umm, not the same at all. If you just said ‘here’s a Bible, it’s got all your answers’ that would be unhelpful - not like the Bible is conveniently arranged into topics for you, is it? The site, on the other hand, you can click on any particular issue that’s of interest to you and it goes straight to the scriptures relevant to that issue.

Besides which, I trust you noticed how many different topics you threw up there. We’d have to write several books’ worth of posts to adequately deal with them, not to mention that they’ve all been thoroughly hashed and rehashed in other threads on this site and on others.

Besides which, forum policy is one question or issue per thread. So penance is a different issue from purgatory, which is a different issue from transubstantiantion etc. You really need to start twenty different threads, one for each of your ‘issues’.

And much as I respect you, at this point you’ve not said anything at all unusual that many other posters haven’t said before. In other words nothing startlingly original or needful of a unique refutation.

No purpose would be served by reinventing the wheel if it’s already there for you so do a couple of searches and do your own homework. We none of us get all knowledge handed to us on a platter, y’know.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Well, unfortunately, O.S., I spent most of the day today sleeping, because I have to work all night tonight. I have to patrol a large area, much of it outdoors (and it’s supposed to get mighty nippy tonight, I may add), while dealing with lunatics and troublemakers, and hopefully I won’t have to pull my gun.

In short, I apologize for not being entirely at your disposal, but I have other things to do at the present time. If it soothes your precious ruffled feathers, I will try to take the time to answer each one of your laundry list above, if I get time for it.

Now, I really have to fly, because I need to shower and brush my teeth and get on the old uniform, because duty calls. A man has to make a living, n’est ce pas?

Si fait, je comprends. I worked many, many years in order to be able to retire and retire comfortably. Your work has to come first. By that I mean, of course, first in matters such as this. Certainly not first to God and Family.

Although I have all the time in the world, I also have many, many things to do that keeps me away from this computer. I have a limited amount of time to spend as well and unfortunately I get critized for not answering someone quickly enough. And when you make a post and get 15 who respond to it, you want to answer them all but it takes time, hence the criticism.

I want you to know however, that I am sincere in trying to find out why you guys believe as you do. I am not trying to be confrontational but I find that when a little confrontational, I get better responses.

There are some on this forum who are quite well versed in what they write and it is a pleasure to correspond with them. Others don’t know what they are talking about and those are usually the ones who won’t even try to understand the why.

Go to work, support your family and God and be sure to put away a little so that when you retire, you can do it easily. From some of my friends, I can see it is difficult if you didn’t prepare for it properly. Bonne chance…OS

 

[ChristianRoots]

Ohhhh O.K. then burning a man alive is O.K., let’s all hope some Christian sect doesn’t come into power and believe your Catholic Bible is a “corrupt version” and tie you to a post put kindling at your feet and roast you alive…

Like I said spin it how you want, people were burnt alive for translating the Bible into English. Whatever rationalization you need to use to convince you it was O.K. and necessary for “Christ’s Church” to continue is your busniess and not mine.

Of course, it’s not OK to burn someone alive. These were events from 500 years ago, and unfortunately, are part of the historical record. I was just giving the historical rationale for these events.

By the way, which translation of the Bible do you prefer? If you prefer only one, then you are inadvertently condemning all who do not subscribe to your Bible version. You’re right then, I should hope your Christian sect doesn’t come into power and offically condemn my “Catholic” Bible.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Not everything you mention is a doctrine of the Catholic Church, i.e. celibacy of priests is not an article of faith but a discipline issue. I suspect there is a lot of confusion about what you think is supposed to be believed by the Catholic faithful. For edification purposes, doctrine never changes and must be believed by the faithful and discipline practices may change from time to time, and is not necessary to be believed by the faithful.

In order to believe any of these support what you are saying, they have to be taken entirely out of context and even then they do not say what you claim. Some of them don’t even address the issue at all and I can’t imagine why you listed them.

You can believe what you like but those things are not Scriptural.

 

[wanner47]

In order to believe any of these support what you are saying, they have to be taken entirely out of context and even then they do not say what you claim. Some of them don’t even address the issue at all and I can’t imagine why you listed them.

Which is EXACTLY how Protestants justify their allegedly “Scriptural” doctrines.

You can believe what you like but those things are not Scriptural.

Yes, they are – they just don’t jive with your interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Which is EXACTLY how Protestants justify their allegedly “Scriptural” doctrines.

Yes, they are – they just don’t jive with your interpretation of Scripture.

Please give us an example of your claim so we can see what you are talking about.

 

[teadough]

Where does Christ say anything here about mere man being infallible? This one is a joke. Probably the most twisted Scripture of all.

OLD Scholar, I don’t understand how you can’t see how Catholics get their Infallible Papacy theology from Math 16:19. Even if you don’t interpret scripture the same way I,for the life of me, can’t see how you can’t understand that one. It so obvious. There would be nothing wrong with you going “ahhh, I see what you are saying” and still holding on to your protestant faith.

 

[Old_Scholar]

OLD Scholar, I don’t understand how you can’t see how Catholics get their Infallible Papacy theology from Math 16:19. Even if you don’t interpret scripture the same way I,for the life of me, can’t see how you can’t understand that one. It so obvious. There would be nothing wrong with you going “ahhh, I see what you are saying” and still holding on to your protestant faith.

I can see where Christ said that He would build His church on the confession of Peter that Christ was the Son of God. The Scriptures do not say that Christ would build His church on Peter but on a large rock. He called Peter a small rock and the early church fathers knew what He was talking about. Read this quote from Augustine:

“I have said somewhere of St. Peter that the Church is built on him as the ‘Rock’; but I have since said that the Word of the Lord. ‘Thou are Peter, and upon this Petra I will build my church,’ must be understood of Him [Jesus] whom Peter confesses to be ‘the Son of the Living God.’ Peter so named after this ‘Rock’ represents the person of the Church, and has received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. It was not said of him, ‘thou art Petra,’ but ‘thou art Petros,’ and the Rock was Christ; through confession of whom Simon received the name Peter.”

In addition, The popes’ spurious claim of succession from the Apostle Peter is founded on Jesus’ declaration that He would build His church of believers upon “this rock:”

Now … Jesus … asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” … Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ … And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter [Petros in Greek], and on this rock [petra in Greek] I will build my church [body of believers], and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…

Later on in Matthew, Jesus gives the same authority to all the apostles. Did they all become popes? Of course not, neither did Peter. The Bible never places Peter in Rome at all and it is doubtful that he was eve there. He could not be the first pope because the office of pope wasn’t even established until the 5th century.

James was the first bishop of the church and this was the first church started and it was in Jerusalem. That is all Biblical and there for anyone to see.

All the claims about Peter are not in Scripture but came hundreds of years later. In fact, even the Roman Catholic Church did not claim infallibility for the pope until 1870.

You can read Matthew any way you like but it’s meaning is clear to and hermenuetically it can not be proven to be as the RCC claims.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Later on in Matthew, Jesus gives the same authority to all the apostles. Did they all become popes? Of course not, neither did Peter. The Bible never places Peter in Rome at all and it is doubtful that he was eve there. He could not be the first pope because the office of pope wasn’t even established until the 5th century.

Yes, the Apostles were given the authority to bind and loose. However, they were not given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. That alone was given to Peter and to his successors.

James was the first bishop of the church and this was the first church started and it was in Jerusalem. That is all Biblical and there for anyone to see.

He is the first bishop of Jerusalem. Peter is the bishop of the entire Church.

All the claims about Peter are not in Scripture but came hundreds of years later. In fact, even the Roman Catholic Church did not claim infallibility for the pope until 1870.

The infallibility of the Pope declare that when the he speaks in moral and faith issue, it is infallible. The Council also share this infallibility when she speaks.

The infallibility stems out of binding and losing is based out of Matthew 16:18. Whatever your bind and lose on earth. This authority gives the Church to pass down Church law and use it mainly to guide the faithful.

You can read Matthew any way you like but it’s meaning is clear to and hermenuetically it can not be proven to be as the RCC claims.

It has. However, Matthew’s Gospel is not only the only passage in Scripture that support Peter’s primacy.

Peter is mentioned 155 times more than the other Apostles. He is listed first when the Apostles and Judas is always placed last. When the tax collector came to collect Jesus tax, he came to Peter first in Matt. 17:24-27. This is after Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom. In Matthew 18:21, Peter ask about the rule of forgiveness, one of the many example that shows Peter’s leadership. In Matthew 19:27, Peter speaks in behalf of the Apostles that they have left everything for Jesus.

Jesus held Peter accountible for allowing John, James, and himself to fall sleep in Matthew 14:37. In Mark 16:7, the angel instruct Mary tell the Apostles and Peter. You wonder why he mentioned Peter rather than just mention the Apostles. There is a hidden meaning to this.

I can go on giving you the spill on Peter’s primacy in the Gospels. The primacy of Peter is very much implied in the Scripture. You just got to look at the key chapter and verses.

 

[guanophore]

It was after the Bible was made so that most people could read it that they started seeing how they had been mislead by the RCC and that is when all the trouble started.  People understood that many of the doctrines and dogmas they had been taught were not Biblical.  That's what started Martin Luther and the others on their path.  You only have to read the Bible to see the falsehoods taught by the RCC.

If you really believe this, then you have a very distorted understanding of scripture. Luther was well educated, and a monk, and was intimately acquainted with the scriptures. He did not begin rebellion out of lack of familiarity with scripture!

 

[teadough]

Old Scholar
I can see where Christ said that He would build His church on the confession of Peter that Christ was the Son of God. The Scriptures do not say that Christ would build His church on Peter but on a large rock. He called Peter a small rock and the early church fathers knew what He was talking about. Read this quote from Augustine:

Where is this exact quote from Augustine taken from by the way? Unless I am ill informed the word Petras in the Greek language is actually stone,hence the small “rock”. In aramaic Jesus would have been saying " You are Cephus(Rock),
and on this Cephus(Rock) I build my Church." There is no “cephas” in aramaic

 

[teadough]

Here is a great link. I have not read this entirely but I have a similar talk on CD. This is in regards to Papacy.

catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

On a side note:I would print the section from the above link and maybe sit down somewhere early in the morning with your coffee and breakfast. Sometimes it is hard to read things on the internet when you are in a defensive mode on a forum.

God Bless you

 

[teadough]

below is a cut and paste from this following link.

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus’ teachings.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus’ curse on the fig tree.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the “fisher of men.”

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter’s formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter’s death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the “barque of Peter”) is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus “more than these,” which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

 

[teadough]

cont

y lambs," “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord’s ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn’t it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 - Peter’s shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon’s quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.

Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the “whole Church” offered “earnest prayers” for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church’s first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter’s definitive teaching. “Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited…”

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn’t want to build on “another man’s foundation” referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ’s Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by “exhorting” all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from “Babylon” which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that “Babylon” meant Rome. Rome was the “great city” of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.

2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul’s letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Literacy was minimal and the books of the Bible had to be hand written copies. Very slow and very expensive. Not in English, for the most part.