What to do with a King James Bible

[Pixie_Dust]

As Padrej points out the doxology comes from 1 Chronicles so we are technically quoting scripture when we say this.

Yes, but our purpose in saying the Doxology is not just to quote Scripture.

True we do not know if Jesus said those words directly, but it would NOT be out of line if He did. True this was not found in the earlier texts and was added later. It is not in Luke’s version of the prayer, but his version was to a Gentile audience and Matthew’s to Jews. So was it added so that it would sound harmonious to them? Could have been. Certainly not out of line with the inspired text, but the Greek versions that it appears are still older than Luke’s version. Being this was part of the sermon on the mount and Luke’s version a chat with the disciples it is quite possible that there were two or more givings of this prayer. notice also the subtle changes that Mathew has versus Luke and we are not arguing over Jesus actually saying that! So why could it not be POSSIBLE that He DID say the doxology added later?

I wasn’t there, so I can’t say for sure one way or the other. We do know that Jesus said and did plenty that isn’t recorded for us in Scripture.

 

[crazzeto]

Yes, but our purpose in saying the Doxology is not just to quote Scripture.
I wasn’t there, so I can’t say for sure one way or the other. We do know that Jesus said and did plenty that isn’t recorded for us in Scripture.

That’s all fine and good, but considering the vey highly likelyhood (since apparently a comparison of the transcriptions of Matthew isn’t good enough to convince us all aboslutly) that Jesus did in fact, not say those words when teaching the prayer they should not be presented as such.

The problem isn’t attaching them to the prayer, the problem is whether or not the faithful (particularly those who base their entire theology only on what the bible says) are really willing to be so laze fair about what Jesus actually did or did not say. If we’re giong to accept just any historical inaccuracy, then that starts begging the question “why did we reject the Gospel according to Thomas” etc.

I feel some effort should be made to research what the authentic gospels should look like. I know based upon reading histories on the subject that this research in fact has been conducted. And based upon my reading, the consense seems to be, Jesus never said those words.

 

[Padrej]

That’s all fine and good, but considering the vey highly likelyhood (since apparently a comparison of the transcriptions of Matthew isn’t good enough to convince us all aboslutly) that Jesus did in fact, not say those words when teaching the prayer they should not be presented as such.

The problem isn’t attaching them to the prayer, the problem is whether or not the faithful (particularly those who base their entire theology only on what the bible says) are really willing to be so laze fair about what Jesus actually did or did not say. If we’re giong to accept just any historical inaccuracy, then that starts begging the question “why did we reject the Gospel according to Thomas” etc.

I feel some effort should be made to research what the authentic gospels should look like. I know based upon reading histories on the subject that this research in fact has been conducted. And based upon my reading, the consense seems to be, Jesus never said those words.

Could you illuminate us as to what sources you have been reading on the subject that you allude to here. Can you also explain how the Textus receptus or Received Text has these words while the critical texts does not?

I do not feel that we should take in the the Gospel of Thomas if you are going on the “historical inaccuracy” route; be careful with comparing apples to oranges here, there is a big difference.

 

[FrJohnB]

That’s all fine and good, but considering the vey highly likelyhood (since apparently a comparison of the transcriptions of Matthew isn’t good enough to convince us all aboslutly) that Jesus did in fact, not say those words when teaching the prayer they should not be presented as such.

The problem isn’t attaching them to the prayer, the problem is whether or not the faithful (particularly those who base their entire theology only on what the bible says) are really willing to be so laze fair about what Jesus actually did or did not say. If we’re giong to accept just any historical inaccuracy, then that starts begging the question “why did we reject the Gospel according to Thomas” etc.

I feel some effort should be made to research what the authentic gospels should look like. I know based upon reading histories on the subject that this research in fact has been conducted. And based upon my reading, the consense seems to be, Jesus never said those words.

You must be careful with the “Jesus never said the words line.” let me cite the catechism:

2760 Very early on, liturgical usage concluded the Lord’s Prayer with a doxology. In the Didache, we find, “For yours are the power and the glory for ever.” The Apostolic Constitutions add to the beginning: “the kingdom,” and this is the formula retained to our day in ecumenical prayer. The Byzantine tradition adds after “the glory” the words “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” The Roman Missal develops the last petition in the explicit perspective of “awaiting our blessed hope” and of the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Then comes the assembly’s acclamation or the repetition of the doxology from the Apostolic Constitutions.

The Didache it mentions is the earliest known teachings of the disciples. So if it was in there, it is likely that Jesus said it. It is also a misnomer to say it is a “Protestant” thing to add the doxology after reading this from the catechism; it is an early church custom would be a correct statement.

In 1963, the Second Vatican Council decreed a revision of the liturgy (undertaken by the ICEL, International Commission on English in the Liturgy). In 1969, the doxology was added to the Catholic Mass, not as part of the The Lord’s Prayer, but following shortly afterwards. In the Mass, the Lord’s Prayer is spoken together, followed by the Priest praying:

“Deliver us, Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day. In your mercy keep us free from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.”

and then the doxology (“For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours, now and forever”) is prayed by the congregation.

This section of the mass falls just before the sharing of the peace, where the priest wishes the congregation the peace of Christ with the words “The peace of the Lord be with you always” and all who are present share God’s peace by shaking hands or embracing each other (depending on the customs of the church).

 

[Padrej]

You must be careful with the “Jesus never said the words line.” let me cite the catechism:

2760 Very early on, liturgical usage concluded the Lord’s Prayer with a doxology. In the Didache, we find, “For yours are the power and the glory for ever.” The Apostolic Constitutions add to the beginning: “the kingdom,” and this is the formula retained to our day in ecumenical prayer. The Byzantine tradition adds after “the glory” the words “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” The Roman Missal develops the last petition in the explicit perspective of “awaiting our blessed hope” and of the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Then comes the assembly’s acclamation or the repetition of the doxology from the Apostolic Constitutions.

The Didache it mentions is the earliest known teachings of the disciples. So if it was in there, it is likely that Jesus said it. It is also a misnomer to say it is a “Protestant” thing to add the doxology after reading this from the catechism; it is an early church custom would be a correct statement.

In 1963, the Second Vatican Council decreed a revision of the liturgy (undertaken by the ICEL, International Commission on English in the Liturgy). In 1969, the doxology was added to the Catholic Mass, not as part of the The Lord’s Prayer, but following shortly afterwards. In the Mass, the Lord’s Prayer is spoken together, followed by the Priest praying:

“Deliver us, Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day. In your mercy keep us free from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.”

and then the doxology (“For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours, now and forever”) is prayed by the congregation.

This section of the mass falls just before the sharing of the peace, where the priest wishes the congregation the peace of Christ with the words “The peace of the Lord be with you always” and all who are present share God’s peace by shaking hands or embracing each other (depending on the customs of the church).

Thank you for clearing this up Fr. John, you cannot argue with the catechism or Didache.

 

[KathleenGee]

Fr John,

Welcome!! I would like you to visit Sabbath that was started by Faithofall but left with the ensuing contention…it turned into an Adventist thread…

 

[crazzeto]

Thank you for clearing this up Fr. John, you cannot argue with the catechism or Didache.

Here is the full Catechism entry:

2759
Jesus "was praying at a certain place, and when he ceased, one of his disciples said to him, ‘Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples.’"1 In response to this request the Lord entrusts to his disciples and to his Church the fundamental Christian prayer. St. Luke presents a brief text of five petitions,2 while St. Matthew gives a more developed version of seven petitions.3 The liturgical tradition of the Church has retained St. Matthew’s text:

Our Father who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
2760
Very early on, liturgical usage concluded the Lord’s Prayer with a doxology. In the Didache, we find, "For yours are the power and the glory for ever."4 The Apostolic Constitutions add to the beginning: “the kingdom,” and this is the formula retained to our day in ecumenical prayer.5 The Byzantine tradition adds after “the glory” the words “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” The Roman Missal develops the last petition in the explicit perspective of “awaiting our blessed hope” and of the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.6 Then comes the assembly’s acclamation or the repetition of the doxology from the Apostolic Constitutions.

So per the CCC, Gospel of Matthew has the Lords prayer minus doxology, then the doxology was added very early on per FrJohn’s posting.

This conversation isn’t that the doxology is a bad thing, it’s about whether or not it should be there in the Gospel of Matthew. The CCC says nothing to suggest it should be there in that gospel.

 

[FrJohnB]

Here is the full Catechism entry:

So per the CCC, Gospel of Matthew has the Lords prayer minus doxology, then the doxology was added very early on per FrJohn’s posting.

This conversation isn’t that the doxology is a bad thing, it’s about whether or not it should be there in the Gospel of Matthew. The CCC says nothing to suggest it should be there in that gospel.

To clarify, You were originally stating that Jesus would have never said this doxology and Protestants added this. According to the Catechism it was the Didache that was the original source. According to Padrej the line is a quote of 1 Chronicles. The point that I made was being that it was from the Didache meant that it came from the teaching of the apostles so it is quite possible Jesus DID say those words in the first place. It would not be out of place at all.

I think it is highly unfair that you seem to want to seemingly change your line of approach to this matter in that you originally claim it is a Protestant thing now that it shows forth to be an early church thing and early apostolic teaching from the catechism that it would not be out of place in the Gospel; what answer are you seeking? A slip up on Padrej’s part to justify that you have backtracked your position in light of the catechism?

In my estimation, there is ample evidence that it (the doxology) could have been there. Now are you satisfied that a Catholic priest has answered the question before a Protestant bishop had the chance to?

 

[tweetymom]

To clarify, You were originally stating that Jesus would have never said this doxology and Protestants added this. According to the Catechism it was the Didache that was the original source. According to Padrej the line is a quote of 1 Chronicles. The point that I made was being that it was from the Didache meant that it came from the teaching of the apostles so it is quite possible Jesus DID say those words in the first place. It would not be out of place at all.

I think it is highly unfair that you seem to want to seemingly change your line of approach to this matter in that you originally claim it is a Protestant thing now that it shows forth to be an early church thing and early apostolic teaching from the catechism that it would not be out of place in the Gospel; what answer are you seeking? A slip up on Padrej’s part to justify that you have backtracked your position in light of the catechism?

In my estimation, there is ample evidence that it (the doxology) could have been there. Now are you satisfied that a Catholic priest has answered the question before a Protestant bishop had the chance to?

Thank you, I am.

 

[greggy53]

To be honest fatherjohnB after you told me in a previous post that the KJV was a Catholic Bible I’m not sure what to make (if anything) of any of your posts.

 

[Padrej]

Here is the full Catechism entry:

So per the CCC, Gospel of Matthew has the Lords prayer minus doxology, then the doxology was added very early on per FrJohn’s posting.

This conversation isn’t that the doxology is a bad thing, it’s about whether or not it should be there in the Gospel of Matthew. The CCC says nothing to suggest it should be there in that gospel.

It seems in light of Fr. John’s post re you changing you stance on this matter as to…

“It’s not anti-biblical, but Christ never spoke the words. By placeing it in the bible as you find in the KJV, it leads one to beleive that Christ actually spoke the words and there for that it is an actual part of the prayer.”

to this one

We do, as we know where the doxology came from! It was scribbled in the margines of a copy (of a copy) the Gospel of Matthew. It was never copied as gospel in any bible not of protestant origin

.
You own catechism sights its source as being from the Didache which is the teaching of the original apostles. You sight NO source of the “scribbled in the margin” comment by the way, nor of the other manuscripts that do have this line.
To now this posting

So per the CCC, Gospel of Matthew has the Lords prayer minus doxology, then the doxology was added very early on per FrJohn’s posting.

This conversation isn’t that the doxology is a bad thing, it’s about whether or not it should be there in the Gospel of Matthew. The CCC says nothing to suggest it should be there in that gospel.

It would seem that you have been suggesting that the KJV has got in wrong in the beginning then were not aware of the doxology’s source as both being part of scripture and the teaching of the Didache. So I would also tend to agree with a priest of your own church; there IS ample evidence that the doxology could be placed there and that Jesus could have said it.

 

[FrJohnB]

To be honest fatherjohnB after you told me in a previous post that the KJV was a Catholic Bible I’m not sure what to make (if anything) of any of your posts.

Was James VI of Scotland and I of England a Catholic??? Yes he was. Would it not stand to reason that a Bible that a Catholic king be labeled by some Catholic? Granted there HAD BEEN a separation of the C of E but if you remember your English history, the Stuarts of Scotland were Roman Catholic and returned the Throne of England to Catholicism much to the dislike of the people. The KJV as had been discussed earlier was a continuation of an earlier Catholic work. The Douay DID BECOME the recognized Roman Catholic Bible to come out of that era, but at the time of its release the KJV was intended to be used as a Catholic Bible by imprimatur of a practicing Roman Catholic King. Up till that time the only real Protestant Bible was the Geneva and this quickly took its place as it had NO anti-Papal slant. Because the Douay received the blessing of Rome not the KJV guess which one of the two we NOW call Catholic? At the time of release this was not the case.

 

[GKC]

I fear that your understanding of the period greatly differs from my own. I need some backup on James I being a Roman Catholic. What would you suggest I read? Certainly nothing in my rather extensive English history holdings is of much help here. I keep running into the Gunpowder Plot. Also some info on the Stuarts returning the Throne to Catholicism would be of interest. Certainly James II was at least highly sympathetic to Rome (as was James I, though far less so). But return the Throne? I need details.

Now, Mary Tudor, OTOH…

The project which produced the KJV began with the Millenary Petition, which led to the Hampton Court Conference, where the King, not in sympathy with the overall thrust of the Puritan wing of the CoE and their demands with respect to the CoE, did agree to the idea of a new translation as suggested by the leading Puritan bishop, Reynolds. In its origin, the KJV was the brain-child of the Puritans.

GKC

Was James VI of Scotland and I of England a Catholic??? Yes he was. Would it not stand to reason that a Bible that a Catholic king be labeled by some Catholic? Granted there HAD BEEN a separation of the C of E but if you remember your English history, the Stuarts of Scotland were Roman Catholic and returned the Throne of England to Catholicism much to the dislike of the people. The KJV as had been discussed earlier was a continuation of an earlier Catholic work. The Douay DID BECOME the recognized Roman Catholic Bible to come out of that era, but at the time of its release the KJV was intended to be used as a Catholic Bible by imprimatur of a practicing Roman Catholic King. Up till that time the only real Protestant Bible was the Geneva and this quickly took its place as it had NO anti-Papal slant. Because the Douay received the blessing of Rome not the KJV guess which one of the two we NOW call Catholic? At the time of release this was not the case.

 

[greggy53]

Was James VI of Scotland and I of England a Catholic??? Yes he was. Would it not stand to reason that a Bible that a Catholic king be labeled by some Catholic? Granted there HAD BEEN a separation of the C of E but if you remember your English history, the Stuarts of Scotland were Roman Catholic and returned the Throne of England to Catholicism much to the dislike of the people. The KJV as had been discussed earlier was a continuation of an earlier Catholic work. The Douay DID BECOME the recognized Roman Catholic Bible to come out of that era, but at the time of its release the KJV was intended to be used as a Catholic Bible by imprimatur of a practicing Roman Catholic King. Up till that time the only real Protestant Bible was the Geneva and this quickly took its place as it had NO anti-Papal slant. Because the Douay received the blessing of Rome not the KJV guess which one of the two we NOW call Catholic? At the time of release this was not the case.

I will agree only in the sense that all Protestant Bibles are descendants of Catholic ones. While James mother Queen Mary ( The English called her bloody Mary) was Catholic the KJV was published in Protestant England. In my opinion your views on the matter are somewhat convoluted.

 

[GKC]

Oh, dear.

James’ mother was Mary, Queen of Scots, father was Lord Darnley.

Bloody Mary was that Mary Tudor I mentioned above. Mary Tudor, Henry VIII’s daughter, was the niece of Mary, Queen of Scot’s grandmother, Margaret Tudor. Who was Henry’s sister, married to James IV of Scotland (before Flodden, that is).

Both these Mary’s were Roman Catholic, yes. James was not.

It’s history. Convoluted, I know.

GKC

I will agree only in the sense that all Protestant Bibles are descendants of Catholic ones. While James mother Queen Mary ( The English called her bloody Mary) was Catholic the KJV was published in Protestant England. In my opinion your views on the matter are somewhat convoluted.

 

[GKC]

(Sigh)

Bloody Mary wasn’t James’ mother. James’ mother was Mary Queen of Scots, daughter of James V of Scotland.

Bloody Mary was Mary Tudor, daughter of Henry VIII.

Questions?

GKC

.

 

[Padrej]

Seems to me James was tolerant of Catholics bot not tolerant enough, hence there Gunpowder Treason plot of 1605 was hatched by staunch Roman Catholics (some sources claim Jesuits but I doubt that) to restore a more Catholic monarch in the Stewart line (Princess Elizabeth, James’ 9 year old daughter) to the throne. I think what Got King James into problems with Catholics was he allowed too much Puritan influence into the picture.

 

[GKC]

Tolerant of Roman Catholics, more or less, yes. The plot was not a Jesuit one, though Garnet was said to be aware of it. Afterwards, things took a different turn.

James tended to slap the Puritans down, in fact, esp. over the issue of the episcopacy. He was a CoE establishment man, as noted in the outcome of the Hampton Court Conference, other than with respect to the new translation of scripture. No revision of the articles, no teaching of predestination, no revision to the vestments, no squashing of the episcopacy. The Puritans did not love him.

GKC

Seems to me James was tolerant of Catholics bot not tolerant enough, hence there Gunpowder Treason plot of 1605 was hatched by staunch Roman Catholics (some sources claim Jesuits but I doubt that) to restore a more Catholic monarch in the Stewart line (Princess Elizabeth, James’ 9 year old daughter) to the throne. I think what Got King James into problems with Catholics was he allowed too much Puritan influence into the picture.

 

[greggy53]

Oh, dear.
James’ mother was Mary, Queen of Scots, father was Lord Darnley.
Bloody Mary was that Mary Tudor I mentioned above. Mary Tudor, Henry VIII’s daughter, was the niece of Mary, Queen of Scot’s grandmother, Margaret Tudor. Who was Henry’s sister, married to James IV of Scotland (before Flodden, that is).
Both these Mary’s were Roman Catholic, yes. James was not.
It’s history. Convoluted, I know.GKC

Yes, I confused Mary Queen of Scots with Henry’s daughter. But I was not confused about James being a Protestant King who ruled a Protestant country and who produced a Protestant Bible. It’s not that complicated.

 

[GKC]

Yes, I confused Mary Queen of Scots with Henry’s daughter. But I was not confused about James being a Protestant King who ruled a Protestant country and who produced a Protestant Bible. It’s not that complicated.

No, that part isn’t.

GKC