What was first?

[Esdra]

Hi!

What was first: The egg or the hen?
Ehm, no. - Just kidding.

What was first? The Church or the Bible?

In another thread we came on the topic what was first: The Bible or the Church.

Here the original Quotes:

The BOM was written to try to prove that Mormonism is a true religion even though a man invented it.

The Bible *came from the church *that was founded by Christ. The church was here before the Bible.

I’ll play advocatus Diabolus now: Are you sure the Church was *before *the Bible?
Hm, what about the Septuagint then? (The first “Bible” of the first Christians)? - It was, well, a hundred to two hundred years before Christ?!

Some of us beleive the “church” took it’s “myth” and “theology” from isolated passages of the LXX…sort of “re-heroed” the LXX stories with “Christian characters” now that had a distinct “Christian” theme. The stories of the NT are OT stories “re-told” with Jesus as the “new Moses” and “prophet”.

The Jewish scriptures WERE the writings the NT authors used to develop their “Christian story”…when Christianity broke away from it’s Jewish roots after 70CE, the theology took on a distinct “Greek” mythic tone.

// Actually, you’re thoughts here are pretty intersting. I’d like to talk about that a little bit more in depth, Publisher. //*

Some of the texts were written before the Church was founded. Some were written after.

Any of those texts were either true or false (taken in the strict sense of “not 100% true”) as soon as they were written.

But the knowledge of whether a particular text was true or false did not come about until later, when the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, declared that certain of them were true.

It is at this point that the various writings became “The Bible,” that is a collection of works which are known to be absolutely undeniable true, worth of study, etc etc. Until then the writings of, say, Paul were only known to be important thoughts of an important and intelligent person (much like some of the papers released by the various Vatican departments today).

I think much more discussion on this might be more well suited for another thread though (and I imagine there are several threads devoted to it elsewhere).

in Christ,

 

[Esdra]

Some of us beleive the “church” took it’s “myth” and “theology” from isolated passages of the LXX…sort of “re-heroed” the LXX stories with “Christian characters” now that had a distinct “Christian” theme. The stories of the NT are OT stories “re-told” with Jesus as the “new Moses” and “prophet”.

The Jewish scriptures WERE the writings the NT authors used to develop their “Christian story”…when Christianity broke away from it’s Jewish roots after 70CE, the theology took on a distinct “Greek” mythic tone.

Actually, you’re thoughts here are pretty intersting. I’d like to talk about that a little bit more in depth, Publisher.

 

[Esdra]

Some of the texts were written before the Church was founded. Some were written after.

Any of those texts were either true or false (taken in the strict sense of “not 100% true”) as soon as they were written.

But the knowledge of whether a particular text was true or false did not come about until later, when the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, declared that certain of them were true.

It is at this point that the various writings became “The Bible,” that is a collection of works which are known to be absolutely undeniable true, worth of study, etc etc. Until then the writings of, say, Paul were only known to be important thoughts of an important and intelligent person (much like some of the papers released by the various Vatican departments today).

Actually, most parts of what we call know Bible, has already been scripture by the First Christians (which you, Catholics, normally refer to as First Catholics).
And the last parts of the Septuagint have been translated around 100 BC from Hebrew (or Aramaic) into Greek.

The Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic (I suppose) Churches still use the entire Septuagint as their Old Testament.
The only books, they miss are the Psalms of Solomon and the Odes of Solomon (As I have written in another thread, I bought myself the Septuaginta translated into German. - And there it says about the Odes of Solomon that this could be regarded as the first Prayer or Song Book in Christian History. It contains songs and prayers of important figures in the OT. - Later on also other prayers and songs [One for example of the Blessed Virgin Mary: Luke 1:46-55.68-79]).
Yeah, and the Psalms of Solomon were regarded as pseudoepigraphic by the Council of Rome.

So, to conclude, the “Bible” was 100 to 200 years before the Church.
As (until the Council of Rome) the what we call NT now was: “It is at this point that the various writings became “The Bible,” that is a collection of works which are known to be absolutely undeniable true, worth of study, etc etc. Until then the writings of, say, Paul were only known to be important thoughts of an important and intelligent person (much like some of the papers released by the various Vatican departments today).”

 

[Publisher]

Actually, you’re thoughts here are pretty intersting. I’d like to talk about that a little bit more in depth, Publisher.

I’d recommend “This Hebrew Lord” and “Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalists” for an overview…these two books are by John Spong…not a well liked figure on this board…but I enjoy his writings and insight greatly.

Bruce Fieler’s book “Abraham” touches on the “multiple composite” of Abraham…also discusses the prominence the three faith traditions that call Abraham their “spiritual father.”

Throughout the NT…OT figures are “reworked” to be used as characters in the new story of Jesus. The story of Israel was “continued” in Jesus of Nazareth…Israel’s “story” was now told as “midrash” with “Christian characters”…

 

[simspt]

So, to conclude, the “Bible” was 100 to 200 years before the Church."

I would recommend

Paul M. Blowers, The Bible in Greek Christian Antiquity (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997).

Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale, 1995). A superb and original study of how early books were made, collected, and used.

Christine Helmer and Christof Landmesser, eds., One Scripture or Many?: Canon from Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Larry W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006).

James L. Kugel & Rowan A. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation, Library of Early Christianity 3 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986).

Joseph T. Lienhard, The Bible, the Church, and Authority: the Canon of the Christian Bible in History and Theology (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995).

Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (New York: Clarendon / Oxford University Press, 1987).

Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origins, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977).

These are by both Catholic and Protestants
These references are taken from William Harmless bibliography website if you are interested

 

[Publisher]

Another book that touches upon the subject is “The Unauthorized Version, Truth and Fiction in the Bible” by Robin Lane Fox. Great history of how the Bible was formed and what role the “redactors” in the 5th century BCE played in organizing the books of our modern “Old Testament” and how the writings of the NT were compiled and for what reasons.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Actually, most parts of what we call know Bible, has already been scripture by the First Christians (which you, Catholics, normally refer to as First Catholics).

As I recall, many of the books that we refer to as the Old Testament were being used as Scripture. Many of the books of what we now call the the New Testament were also, shortly after they were written.

That is, various groups were teaching from various writings, some said certain ones were scripture, some said certain ones weren’t. The question wasn’t settled until the council of something or the other. (Carthage, I think was the final one that accepted new books as cannon, but I don’t recall.)

Until the council they were not formally known to be true in an infallible way. It was, in fact, the problems within the Church at the time that caused the council to be caused. (I think Gnosticism at the time.)

Note that when I say “the Bible”, I personally mean a collection of specific works which are known to be infallible. Without the requirement that they are known to be infallible, the works may be interesting, but they aren’t particularly special over any other interesting theological work.

If it all it took for something to be scripture was (reasonably) wide acceptance and use as a teaching aid, then the Bible would be an awful lot bigger than it is.

To summarize: some of the OT was written a long time before the Church. Some of the NT was written and used as though it were scripture before the council. Some false writings were used as scripture before the council. It was the council that labeled the books as true or false and hence made some rather interesting works into “The Bible.”

Hence the Bible did not come about until after the Council of Thingy, which most definitely was a product of the Church.

 

[Esdra]

Yep the Septuagint was there. But, it was not what we know of as the canon of books that we call the Bible.

That canon was determined by the Catholic Church.

The Septuagint is and was the whole OT, this means the bigger part of what we call now Bible!

You see, most Eastern Churches still use the LXX as their OT!

So, the greatest part of the Bible was indeed BEFORE the Church.

But, actually, I’ve started a new thread. - Maybe we should switch there…

 

[Iron_Donkey]

…that caused the council to be caused.

Yeah, this is what happens when I don’t reread my posts. But in any case, it was confusion within the Church that led to the council which issued the definitive determination of the Canon of scripture, and it’s the definitive-ness that makes it the Bible rather than just some cool stuff.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Church birthday was at Pentecost long before the New Testament Letters were beginning to get recorded. At pentecost the scriptures record thousands coming into the body of Christ. This event occurred long before the traditional author of Acts “Luke” records it. In fact Luke was a disciple of Paul who comes on the christian scene long after the resurrection. The Church is already spreading before Saul is converted to Paul who records his later epistles long after the Church is already celebrating the liturgy and the oral memoirs of Jesus and the apostles in Liturgy and song.

The Septuagint “old testament” is already in circulation during Jesus 3 year ministry. The Catholic Church canonized both the Old Testament and gathered the apostolic letters authenticated them from her earlier apostolic eyewitness accounts and first century liturgies which canonized “authenticated” the new testament and old testament as inspired by God and approved these old testament and new testament letters for her Catholic liturgy world wide in the fourth century.

In short, history proves the Church came first before the bible was canonized four hundred years later, and the Church came first before the New Testament was written.

Peace be with you

 

[beafedor]

1 Timothy 3:15
“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

 

[Vicktoria]

Hi!

What was first: The egg or the hen?

The answer to that one, is actually inherent in the system, like most things in science, when you stop trying to factor God out of them…

Besides the simple answer that God made them Both, which is obvious to Us, the part egghead philosophers seem to miss, maybe because they don’t understand infinite recursion… is that, without outside influences, and just keeping the idea of the egg and hen as separate (ignoring health factors and such)…

The egg grows up to be a chicken, and lays and egg, then grows up to be another chicken, that lays another egg… and it just keeps going like that, potentially, infinitely… which in one sense is a description of the only “thing”… or Being, to be more precise, that is Infinite, and anyone with any sense should be able to see that it just leads back to God, where it came from, in the First place =)

Maybe philosophers need to playing with those little Jacob’s Ladders toys while they’re in their “deep thinking”… they say the same thing

 

[Pax_in_Veritate]

Actually, most parts of what we call know Bible, has already been scripture by the First Christians (which you, Catholics, normally refer to as First Catholics).
And the last parts of the Septuagint have been translated around 100 BC from Hebrew (or Aramaic) into Greek.

The Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic (I suppose) Churches still use the entire Septuagint as their Old Testament.
The only books, they miss are the Psalms of Solomon and the Odes of Solomon (As I have written in another thread, I bought myself the Septuaginta translated into German. - And there it says about the Odes of Solomon that this could be regarded as the first Prayer or Song Book in Christian History. It contains songs and prayers of important figures in the OT. - Later on also other prayers and songs [One for example of the Blessed Virgin Mary: Luke 1:46-55.68-79]).
Yeah, and the Psalms of Solomon were regarded as pseudoepigraphic by the Council of Rome.

So, to conclude, the “Bible” was 100 to 200 years before the Church.
As (until the Council of Rome) the what we call NT now was: “It is at this point that the various writings became “The Bible,” that is a collection of works which are known to be absolutely undeniable true, worth of study, etc etc. Until then the writings of, say, Paul were only known to be important thoughts of an important and intelligent person (much like some of the papers released by the various Vatican departments today).”

The Bible, to me, is the Old and New testament. And the old testmanet is older than 100-200 years whether it is in Greek or Not.

The old testament, or Tanakh surely served Jews before and after Christ. It also surely served Jesus and the Apostles and the Church he created while on earth until the New testament was actually written. Before the New testament was written, the stories of the New testament were surely oral(even while Christ was alive)and wiritten history until combined to form the bible.

The new testament began to take shape as soon as Jesus began his preaching.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Jewish religion does not know the exact date when they made their canon of books, it is guessed after the second century long after the resurrection. Secondly they removed 7 books from their Septuagint to disprove Jesus a false prophet, because it is revealed that Jesus teachings are revealed in the 7 books, which at that time they lost the Hebrew counter parts to these books and only possessed the Greek, making the false claim Jesus was a false prophet.

The Old Testament existed in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek before Jesus ever took on flesh. The books do not get canonized by either Jews or the Catholic Church centuries later after the resurrection.

I agree with you that the Oral Traditonal teachings came first before any new testament letters were ever written. And not everything Jesus taught and did got written. That is why Scripture is clear we need both what is written and what was handed down by Oral Traditions that one recieves the “full deposit of faith” from Jesus and His apostles.

Peace be with you

Pax in Veritate;7503021]The Bible, to me, is the Old and New testament. And the old testmanet is older than 100-200 years whether it is in Greek or Not.

The old testament, or Tanakh surely served Jews before and after Christ. It also surely served Jesus and the Apostles and the Church he created while on earth until the New testament was actually written. Before the New testament was written, the stories of the New testament were surely oral(even while Christ was alive)and wiritten history until combined to form the bible.

The new testament began to take shape as soon as Jesus began his preaching.

 

[rinnie]

Hi!

What was first: The egg or the hen?
Ehm, no. - Just kidding.

What was first? The Church or the Bible?

In another thread we came on the topic what was first: The Bible or the Church.

Here the original Quotes:
// Actually, you’re thoughts here are pretty intersting. I’d like to talk about that a little bit more in depth, Publisher. //*

in Christ,

Well let’s see. Think about it. What does the N.T talk about the Church, or does the Church talk about the N.T? Thats a no brainer

 

[Pax_in_Veritate]

The Jewish religion does not know the exact date when they made their canon of books, it is guessed after the second century long after the resurrection. Secondly they removed 7 books from their Septuagint to disprove Jesus a false prophet, because it is revealed that Jesus teachings are revealed in the 7 books, which at that time they lost the Hebrew counter parts to these books and only possessed the Greek, making the false claim Jesus was a false prophet.

The Old Testament existed in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek before Jesus ever took on flesh. The books do not get canonized by either Jews or the Catholic Church centuries later after the resurrection.

I agree with you that the Oral Traditonal teachings came first before any new testament letters were ever written. And not everything Jesus taught and did got written. That is why Scripture is clear we need both what is written and what was handed down by Oral Traditions that one recieves the “full deposit of faith” from Jesus and His apostles.

Peace be with you

Thank you very much for the information. I had thought that the Tanakh was constant since Babylon, but reflecting on what I had learned, this is not necessarily the case. In fact a Jewish friend from school had even told me the story of the 72 rabbis writing the old testament into greek (the septuagint).

He didn’t mention the removal of books, but he did mention a Jewish apocrypha. I guess that was what he was referring to.

As with all things, its a complicated subject that for me and many others needs continually straightened out.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Hi!

What was first: The egg or the hen?
Ehm, no. - Just kidding.

What was first? The Church or the Bible?

The church was established by God just after the fall. Gen 3:15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

There was obviously no bible then. So, what’s your point?

 

[Esdra]

Esdra;7502426:

Hi!

What was first: The egg or the hen?

Ehm, no. - Just kidding.

What was first? The Church or the Bible?

The church was established by God just after the fall. Gen 3:15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

There was obviously no bible then. So, what’s your point?

Mhm, it depends what you understand under Church, IMO.
Would you consider the people of Israel as “the Church”?

 

[Esdra]

The Jewish religion does not know the exact date when they made their canon of books, it is guessed after the second century long after the resurrection. Secondly they removed 7 books from their Septuagint to disprove Jesus a false prophet, because it is revealed that Jesus teachings are revealed in the 7 books, which at that time they lost the Hebrew counter parts to these books and only possessed the Greek, making the false claim Jesus was a false prophet.

Wait. I have always thought that most prophesies concerning Christ are in the Prophets or the 5 Books of Moses?
Do you want to say that the 7 Deuterocanonical Books (that were “removed” by the Protestants and the Jews) proves that Jesus is the Messiah?
Could you give me some reference from these books?!

The Old Testament existed in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek before Jesus ever took on flesh. The books do not get canonized by either Jews or the Catholic Church centuries later after the resurrection.

But they were there. So the Scriptures were most definitely there before the Catholic Church even started to exist. - Especially if you consider Jesus ministry in Israel to be the NT. (So this was “oral Scripture” then; although that’s a paradoxon then! XD)

I agree with you that the Oral Traditonal teachings came first before any new testament letters were ever written. And not everything Jesus taught and did got written. That is why Scripture is clear we need both what is written and what was handed down by Oral Traditions that one recieves the “full deposit of faith” from Jesus and His apostles.

Actually a little bit off-topic question: How can one learn ST if he is was not raised Catholic an converts?
I mean I was risen Catholic (more or less) and I just remembered various Saints-legends I know, like the one of St. Martin, or St. Barbara or St. Niklas…
Or how to pray a rosary etc.
That’s also a part of the ST, right?

Peace be with you

And with you.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Mhm, it depends what you understand under Church, IMO.
Would you consider the people of Israel as “the Church”?

The Bible as a whole, Old Testament and New Testament, came through men of the Christian Church. We can see that Christ building a Church is authored in the New Testament. We can also see the New Testament confirming authority upon a Church and not scriptures alone.

Maybe what you’re sincerely asking is if the synagogue existed prior to the Old Testament.