Baruch not found in Vulgate until 9th Century?

Bryan77 · #1 Jun 20, '12, 12:36 pm

I read that Baruch wasn't found in the Vulgate until the 9th century. However, the Catholic position is that the cannon of scripture was decided in the late 300s (Was it the council of Nicaea? I can't find an exact statement on when the cannon was decided)

Why would Baruch not be in the Vulgate until much later? There must be some information that I'm missing.

Mintaka · #2 Jun 20, '12, 1:35 pm

First off, there's tons of different versions of the Vulgate, because all of Jerome's buddies were always mailing around copies of various drafts.

Second, St. Jerome didn't actually get around to translating the entire Bible. Some stuff he didn't feel like doing, some stuff he didn't get around to doing before he died.

Third, Baruch was thought of as part of Jeremiah, just like Lamentations and such. So people quibbled about which parts were really supposed to be in Jeremiah and which weren't, and there were all sorts of different divisions made.

Fourth, it took centuries and centuries for it to be common to cram all the books of the Bible into one volume, or even all the OT books. It's a lot easier to look up "Jeremiah" than "the entire Vulgate in one volume."

So yeah, there were plenty of copies of the Bible in the Catholic world with Baruch in them. Whether they also had Vulgate stuff in them, or the whole Vulgate, or which Vulgate, or whether they just ignored Jerome for the good old Vetera Latina of some kind, I can't tell you.

All I know is, Jerome really milked the dog bits of Tobit, whereas Baruch is the cat book. I think this may be the real explanation.

**po18guy** · #3 Jun 20, '12, 3:08 pm

Vulgate or no, Baruch was used in the liturgy since day one, somewhere in the Church. That, combined with its inclusion in the canon, is all we need to know.

patrick457 · #4 Jun 20, '12, 3:10 pm

Just to add to what Mintaka had written (yes, this will be a repost of this):

While popular imagination thinks that St. Jerome translated the whole Bible, in reality the a good deal of Vulgate Old Testament (mostly the books of the Hebrew protocanon) and the gospels are the only ones we can be reasonably certain are his work.

Jerome had originally set out, under orders from Pope Damasus I in 382, to revise the Old Latin (Vetus Latina) text of the four gospels from the best Greek texts available to him; at the same time Damasus gave the seemingly contradictory command to stay as close to the existing Latin versions as possible. By the time of Damasus' death in 384 he had thoroughly completed this task, together with a more cursory revision from the Septuagint of the Old Latin text of the Psalms in the Roman Psalter (now lost). How much of the rest of the New Testament he then revised is difficult to judge, but it would seem that either little of his work survived in the Vulgate text we have today or he did a very hasty job: the Vulgate of the Acts and Epistles is not far from the old Latin versions.

Bereft of his patron, Jerome left Rome for good in 385 due to growing friction between him and the Roman clergy and headed off eastward accompanied by his brother Paulinianus and several friends, and followed a little later by the noblewoman Paula (a close acquaintance of Jerome and part of the reason why Jerome left Rome in the first place: Jerome's enemies insinuated that Jerome and Paula were very close, which would be at odds with his denunciations of clerical indulgence and advocacy of self-denial) and her daughter Eustochium, who had resolved to end their days in the Holy Land. For a period of three years Jerome visited Jerusalem, Bethlehem, the Galilee, and Egypt. By 386 he was back in Israel, and spent the remainder of his life in a hermit's cell near Bethlehem, surrounded by a few friends, both men and women (including Paula and Eustochium), to whom he acted as priestly guide and teacher.

Amply provided by Paula with the means of livelihood and of increasing his collection of books, he led a life of incessant activity in literary production. Jerome first embarked on another revision of the Psalms, translated from the revised Septuagint Greek column of Origen's Hexapla, which later came to be called the Gallican version. He would similarly produce revisions of Job and Song of Songs (both of which still survive) and of Chronicles and the Solomonic books (which are lost).

Jerome's true love, however, was Hebrew: by 390 he dropped the revision of the Old Latin according to the Hexapla, and began translating from the Hebrew instead. Thus it was that for the next fifteen years (390-405) Jerome dedicated himself to translating and revising the books of the Old Testament protocanon and a few besides, from Hebrew. The first to be translated was Samuel-Kings, and its lengthy prologue serves as a kind of programmatic statement for Jerome's intentions and goals in this project. This, along with yet another version of the Psalms (iuxta Hebraicum) was completed in 392. This was followed by the Prophets and Job (394), Ezra-Nehemiah (394-395), and Chronicles (395). The Solomonic books (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs) he managed to complete within three days in the autumn of 398. From late 398 to late 404 or 405, the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth and Esther were completed.

There is some disagreement as to the actual quality of Jerome's knowledge of Hebrew: his extensive use of exegetical material written in Greek, as well as his seeming use of the Aquiline and Theodotiontic columns of the Hexapla, along with the somewhat paraphrastic style in which he translated makes it difficult to determine exactly how direct the conversion of Hebrew to Latin was. One camp suggests that Jerome may have been almost wholly dependent on Greek material for his interpretation of the Hebrew. Others, on the other hand, thinks that there is in some cases evidence that Jerome's knowledge of Hebrew exceeds that of his exegetes, implying a direct understanding of the Hebrew text. As Jerome completed his translations of each book, he recorded his observations and comments in an extensive correspondence with friends and scholars; and these letters were subsequently collected and appended as prologues to the Vulgate text for those books where they survived.

This translation from the Hebrew was largely undertaken at the request of friends and at no official pressure (as his revision of the gospels and Psalms at Damasus' orders was). Indeed, Jerome actually asked one friend not to publicize his translation. Still, his work leaked into public view, causing massive controversy. Jerome complained in a letter that his new version was initially disliked by Christians who were familiar with the phrasing of the old translations. He was even accused of slighting the Septuagint (which was up to this time the standard text for Christians through its various versions and translations), which in the eyes of St. Augustine and other Christians was equally inspired with the Hebrew original.

patrick457 · #5 Jun 20, '12, 3:11 pm

Sometime between 405 and 407 Jerome also translated Tobit and Judith, though not with the same care given his other translations: he only had access to the two works through versions/paraphrases in Aramaic - a language he was not proficient in. To circumvent this problem he had these translated into Hebrew first, and then made his own (rather free) Latin paraphrase from this translated text. So in effect, what we have in this case is the translation of a translation of a (possible) translation.

Certain books, such as Baruch, Sirach, Wisdom, Prayer of Manasses, 1-2 Maccabees, 3-4 (1-2) Esdras, the Epistle to the Laodiceans and perhaps the rest of the NT, are likely to be either Vetus Latina translations either revised by somebody else or totally unrevised that were appended later to Jerome's translation to complete the set, as it were. To be more specific, Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees, and 3-4 Esdras were old Latin versions, while Baruch, Prayer of Manasseh, and Laodiceans were the work of later, unknown revisers. Outside of the gospels, the reviser or revisers of the other NT books are completely unknown, but the methodology was essentially similar to Jerome in his early stage: revision of the old Latin text according to the Greek. It is likely that the letter of Paul (including Hebrews) were revised in a body by a single editor, also unknown; the preface of which group would seem to indicate this. Whether the other books were revised by several people or an individual is not known.

Out of all these books, Baruch is a very interesting case. Even after he apparently deferred to majority opinion regarding the canonicity of six of the seven disputed (by Protestants) deuterocanonicals, Jerome - the champion of Hebraica veritas that he is - continued to have some personal reservations regarding Baruch "which is neither read nor found among the Hebrews", though he realized full well that he would he attacked for his opinion. Consequently, a Vulgate version of Baruch is not found before the 9th century, and is present only in a minority of manuscripts before the 13th century. In his Prologue to Jeremiah he says:

Besides this, the order of visions, which is entirely confused among the Greeks and Latins, we have corrected to the original truth. And the Book of Baruch, his scribe, which is neither read nor found among the Hebrews, we have omitted, standing ready, because of these things, for all the curses from the envious, to whom it is necessary for me to respond through a separate short work. And I suffer this because you request it. Otherwise, for the benefit of the wicked, it was more proper to set a limit for their rage by my silence, rather than any new things written to provoke daily the insanity of the jealous.

This translation - or rather, group of translations - by Jerome originally never had a name. When people referred to it they used very general expressions like codices nostri ('our codices') or editio nostra ('our edition'). In fact, the term versio vulgata (a calque from Greek koine ekdosis) - which BTW did not mean 'vulgar' tongue (i.e. common speech) but means the 'common', 'current' or 'ordinarily used' text - which would be applied later to the collection originally denoted something else: the Greek Septuagint - or to be more precise, that edition of the Septuagint and Theodotion in common use among Christians (what we would call the 'Greek Vulgate'), which would later be extended to mean the form in which the Septuagint was at first known to the West, the Vetus Latina translations. Jerome himself used the phrase to denote the Septuagint: "Hoc iuxta Septuaginta interpretes diximus, quorum editio toto orbe vulgata est" (Comm. in Isa. 65.20; ibid. 30.22) Elsewhere he actually gives the Greek words (of the Septuagint) as found in editione vulgata (Comm. in Osee 7.13). This is also the sense that his contemporary Augustine understood and used the phrase (De Civitate Dei, 16.10): "Fiunt itaque anni a diluvio usque ad Abraham mlxxii, secundum vulgatam editionem hoc est interpretum septuaginta."

This term, vulgata editio, having acquired the meaning of the current or ordinarily used text of Septuagint, was once again extended to mean a corrupt or uncorrected text as opposed to the standard emended Septuagint version of Origen's Hexapla, and in this sense is used by Jerome as synonymous with antiqua or vetus editio ('old edition').

patrick457 · #6 Jun 20, '12, 3:14 pm

The phrase editio vulgata was still at times reserved for the Septuagint or the old Latin versions of the Septuagint down to the Middle Ages. However, as Jerome's translations began to supplant the old Latin translations (and increasingly became the 'commonly-used version' in the West), the phrase was applied to it as well. Friar Roger Bacon (c. 1220-1292) was apparently the first, in the 13th century, to apply the term vulgata with the similar meaning that we do today - though he also used it to refer to the Septuagint/Vetus Latina, as per traditional usage - and this became classic through its acceptance by the Council of Trent ("vetus et vulgata editio"). Only then did the Vulgate become officially labeled as editio vulgata.

As centuries passed after Jerome's death, his translation developed into different textual versions. In Italy, the 71 books as listed by St. Jerome (counting Maccabees as a single book and excluding Baruch), although not in his order, formed the standard text of the Vulgate as it became established in the 5th and 6th centuries. Out of all the versions the Italian-Northumbrian text (represented by Codex Amiatinus and Codex Fuldensis) is currently considered the best, and hence has formed the basis for most recent Vulgate revisions.

The case was slightly different in other areas like Spain. The Spanish text (with Codex Cavensis and Codex Toletanus as representatives) is as old as the Italian, but is less reputable. St. Jerome was reputed to have supervised the work of the first Spanish scribes to copy his translation, but by the time of our earliest manuscripts the type had developed many textual peculiarities and divergences such as the retention of many Old Latin readings (which shows us just how strong the hold of these Latin versions Jerome's translation had to surpass) and some textual quirks (such as the infamous Johannine Comma). Some editions here also included an Old Latin translation of 'missing' book of Baruch as well as 3-4 (1-2) Esdras.

The Irish text, meanwhile, is marked by beautiful manuscripts which represent the best of Insular art (like the Book of Kells) but is marred by textual peculiarities such as conflations and inversions of word order. Some of the manuscripts are thought to have been corrected from the Greek - although it is likely that despite the interest displayed by the Irish towards the language, the number of actual professional Greek scholars in the Celtic Church must have been not many (even so, the situation there was still much better when compared to most other segments of Western Christendom).

Out of all the local versions, the French text is usually considered the worst. Unlike Spain and Ireland on the periphery of the crumbling Western Empire, both long closed to outside influence, France was open to the importation of new texts and subsequently became the land of mixed texts without any local character of its own. Spanish, Italian and Irish Vulgate traditions were all reflected in bibles created in northern France, which by the end of the 8th century featured a wide variety of highly variable texts. Gaul was 'invaded' by the Irish tradition from the north and the Spanish version from the south: not surprisingly, the French text apparently managed to combine the worst of both worlds.

patrick457 · #7 Jun 20, '12, 3:17 pm

Because of the huge variance among the textual traditions, there was a movement during the Carolingian period to produce a 'standard' version of the text. The English scholar Alcuin of York produced a version, which he presented to Charlemagne in 801, based on the Italian recensions, but with the major change of substituting Jerome's Gallican Psalter for his third version from the Hebrew. (It gets the name 'Gallican' for precisely this reason: Alcuin favored this version of the Psalms.) Alcuin seems to not have had no critical sense, as his version is now usually judged to be not particularly good (he concentrated mainly on correcting inconsistencies of grammar and orthography, many of which were in the original text). Still, his revision was issued in the form of many beautiful codices.

Alcuin's contemporary Theodulf of Orleans produced a second independent reformed recension of the Vulgate, also based largely on Italian exemplars, but with variant readings, from Spanish texts and patristic citations, indicated in the margin. Theodulf kept Jerome's Hebrew Psalter, and also incorporated poor old Baruch (and with it, the Letter of Jeremiah) within the book of Jeremiah. However, otherwise Theodulf adopted Jerome's proposed order of the Old Testament, with the five (six) deuterocanonical books at the end. Theodulf's text was widely influential, although initially only the abbey of Fleury followed his example in adding Baruch to the Vulgate. A revision was also undertaken in the early 9th century by scholars in the abbey of Corbie in Picardy, and Bibles from this abbey are the first in France to include 3-4 Esdras, though this practice remained rare. Some have accused Theodulf of contaminating the French Vulgate with Spanish readings, but it appears that Theodulf really was a better scholar than Alcuin, and produced a better edition than Alcuin's which also included information about the sources of variant readings. Unfortunately, such a revision is hard to copy, and it seems to have degraded and disappeared quickly (though a few manuscripts such as Codex Theodulphianus, which are effectively contemporary with the edition, preserve it fairly well). Apart from Alcuin and Theodulf, other attempts to produce a standard text were made by Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury (1070–1089); Stephen Harding, Abbot of Cîteaux (1109–1134); and Deacon Nicolaus Maniacoria (about the beginning of the 13th century).

Although a large number of Bible manuscripts resulted from all this work, no standard Vulgate text was to be established for another three centuries. However, the explosive growth of medieval universities, especially the University of Paris during the 12th century created a demand for a new sort of Vulgate. While heretofore the norm was to assign Scriptural books their own separate volumes which was a lot cheaper and less time-consuming than making a complete Bible with all the books bound under one cover, with the advent of the university, scholars needed the entire Bible in a single, portable and comprehensive volume, which they could rely on to include all Biblical texts which they might encounter in partristic references. (Of course, such a task is rather difficult if you have various thick, separate volumes beside you!)

The result of the demand was the Paris Bible, which reached its final form around 1230. Its text owed most to Alcuin's revision and always presented the Psalms in the Gallican version; but readings throughout were in many places adjusted to be more consistent with patristic citations (which would very frequently have been based on Old Latin or Greek texts). Baruch is now always included, as too were 3 (1) Esdras; and usually, appended to the book of Chronicles, the Prayer of Manasseh. Less commonly included was 4 (2) Esdras, which had originally contained a rather controversial passage:

He answered me and said, "Since you have found favor in my sight, I will show you this also. The day of judgment is decisive and displays to all the seal of truth. Just as now a father does not send his son, or a son his father, or a master his servant, or a friend his dearest friend, to be ill or sleep or eat or be healed in his stead, so no one shall ever pray for another on that day, neither shall any one lay a burden on another; for then every one shall bear his own righteousness and unrighteousness."

2 Esdras 7:104-105 (RSV)

Most Latin editions of 4 Esdras have a large lacuna of seventy verses between 7:35 and 7:36 due to the fact that they trace their common origin to one early manuscript, Codex Sangermanensis (ca. 900), which was missing an entire page. The fact that the page, and along with it, the problematic passage, went missing facilitated its rehabilitation among medieval scholars, and this book too came to be widely copied in late medieval Vulgates.

**po18guy** · #8 Jun 20, '12, 3:28 pm

Being one who, if I drank, would prefer the product of distillation to the process, kindly allow me (over) simplify here: Jerome opined. The Church spoke. The process is always messy, while we may drink in and savor the end product.

Cyklist · #9 Jun 20, '12, 5:02 pm

I find absolutely nothing theologically controversial with the passage. We don't believe in Supreme Unction anyway, and praying for the dead is not something to believe - found only in 2 Mc.

'Since you have found favour with me,' the angel replied, 'this too I will tell you. The day of judgement is decisive and sets its seal on the truth for all to see. In the present age a father cannot send his son in his place, nor a son his father, nor a master his slave, nor a mn his best friend, to be ill for him, or sleep, or eat, or be cured for him. In like manner no one shall ever ask pardon for another; every individual will be held responsible for his own wickedness or goodness when that day comes.'(1989 REB, translated from the Latin text of R.L. Bensly's The Fourth Book of Ezra: according to Introduction to the Apocrypha)
[...] which was written probably in a Semitic Language such as Aramaic. This original version has disappeared, as has also the Greek, save for three verses found on a scrap parchment at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt. Even the Old Latin, taken over by Jerome for hi Vulgate, was defective, but in 1874 the Cambridge scholar R. L. Bensly discovered a ninth-century manuscript with the missing seventy verses.
...This seems to contradict what You wrote, patrick457, but I think You are absolutely more right about which codex had a page missing.
Source: General Introduction by W. D. McHardy, Director of Revision, © 2010 Cambridge University Press

Quote:

Originally Posted by patrick457

2 Esdras[/url] 7:104-105 (RSV)

I know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patrick457

Most Latin editions of 4 Esdras have a large lacuna of seventy verses between 7:35 and 7:36

Very good divine preservation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patrick457

due to the fact that they trace their common origin to one early manuscript, Codex Sangermanensis (ca. 900), which was missing an entire page. The fact that the page, and along with it, the problematic passage, went missing facilitated its rehabilitation among medieval scholars,

Well, and 4 Esdras was read a lot in the Early Church. It's quoted many times in the NT; (evident when I look at most of the commentaries I have, they have references to 4 Esdras).

Quote:

Originally Posted by patrick457

and this book too came to be widely copied in late medieval Vulgates.

I would like to have a friend in the Stockholm/Uppsala -area, Europe. PM me.

Bryan77 · #10 Jun 22, '12, 1:32 pm

I'm confused. So the church decided the cannon when? Nicaea? Hippo? (Wasn't Hippo a local council?) And then Even though the church spoke, Jerome disobeyed by leaving out Baruch? Then when the Paris Bible was put together (and earlier in certain abbeys), they included extra books (3 - 4 Esdras)?

So I guess my questions come down to, When did the church speak on the matter? I can't find a solid answer to that question. Then if The church already spoke on which books are inspired scripture, and should be in the cannon, then why were some books intentionally left out (Baruch), (or added 3-4 Esdras) Who has the authority to leave out, or add books when the church already spoke on the matter? Were some people (Including Jerome) disobeying the church? If so, why weren't they disciplined? Protestants say that this points to Rome not having authority.

Why was this process so messy? If the church spoke, then that should be it. I understand that the Council of Trent is when this issue was officially closed, but The Catholic position states that we compiled the bible as we know it in the 4th Century.

I ask this because I ran into some protestant arguments against the Deuterocannanoicals, and they use arguments such as Jerome's thoughts on the validity of various books, as well as Baruch not being found in Vulgate until the 9th Century. They say the lack of agreement in the early church on the deuterocannanoicals (along with them not being in Hebrew) points to them not being inspired. I hate to say it, but they're arguments are convincing. I don't want to believe lies, so I want to find the real truth.

**po18guy** · #11 Jun 22, '12, 6:59 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan77

I'm confused. So the church decided the cannon when? Nicaea? Hippo? (Wasn't Hippo a local council?) And then Even though the church spoke, Jerome disobeyed by leaving out Baruch? Then when the Paris Bible was put together (and earlier in certain abbeys), they included extra books (3 - 4 Esdras)?

So I guess my questions come down to, When did the church speak on the matter? I can't find a solid answer to that question. Then if The church already spoke on which books are inspired scripture, and should be in the cannon, then why were some books intentionally left out (Baruch), (or added 3-4 Esdras) Who has the authority to leave out, or add books when the church already spoke on the matter? Were some people (Including Jerome) disobeying the church? If so, why weren't they disciplined? Protestants say that this points to Rome not having authority.

Why was this process so messy? If the church spoke, then that should be it. I understand that the Council of Trent is when this issue was officially closed, but The Catholic position states that we compiled the bible as we know it in the 4th Century.

I ask this because I ran into some protestant arguments against the Deuterocannanoicals, and they use arguments such as Jerome's thoughts on the validity of various books, as well as Baruch not being found in Vulgate until the 9th Century. They say the lack of agreement in the early church on the deuterocannanoicals (along with them not being in Hebrew) points to them not being inspired. I hate to say it, but they're arguments are convincing. I don't want to believe lies, so I want to find the real truth.

I speak here of the first few hunderd years of the Church. As to the canon, just know that each and every book in your Catholic bible was used, somewhere, in the Church's liturgy, from day one. The canon took hundreds of years to settle partially because it was a primitive world, with communication taking weeks or months. Not all books existed or were used in all geographic areas at the earliest dates. Several heresies were tearing at Church unity, Bishops were exiled and the faithful were split. Dissension reared its ugly head very early on. And, at that time, the sacred writings had to be hand-copied and sent by foot or caravan, then copied at their destination and distributed again. Examining the tumult of the first 350 years of the Church, it is apparent that Christ's promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against her is 100% true. While it was not open warfare, it was doctrinal warfare. We are speaking of the nascent Church here. It became easier once Constantine converted, but the Arian heresy in particular, (begun in the early 300s by Arius) was finally brought to an end in the late seventh century! Since at least one of the many early heresies lasted for several hundred years, the Church was likely more concerned with maintaining unity and stifling heresy than it was with declaring a canon. Oh, it was probably high on her list of things to do, but the internecine spiritual war had to be quashed first. When things began to sort themselves out, it was time to put an end to the quarrelling and make the declaration as to the proper collection of holy books.

The protestants who attempt to justify (in some cases, they seem obsessed with justification) their separation from the One Church always latch upon the few dissenting opinions that they agree with. Jerome was not a council or Pope. He offered his opinion, and nothing more. However, protestants are, in essence, ruled by opinion (thousands of differing denominations demonstrate this) because they have rejected the Church and her authority, re-defining it from visible to invisible. Thus, any single dissenting voice may be as valid as any Pope or even Church council. And, protestant opinions are believable, unless and until you study Church history - then they fall apart for the thinking, seeking believer. This thoughtful, truth-seeking process lead to the well-known conversion of Saint-to-be John Henry Cardinal Newman, who converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism. He very famously said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant."

You might very well benefit from reading Gary Michuta's Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger.

Bryan77 · #12 Jun 23, '12, 9:43 am

So one thought that just came up was, seeing as there was such disagreement, and the church not putting all her efforts into fixing it, does that mean that the early church saw the bible differently than it does today (or at least the way protestants see it?) If the early church had scripture not on the forefront of issues to be dealt with(although they regarded scripture as very important) Does the fact that not nailing it down 100 percent, and not enforcing it, shows that there was more important things going on, and thus proves that (Although there was disagreement with Rome) Scripture alone isn't the sole authority for the early church? If scripture was the be all end all of our faith,(as protestants see it) then the church should have put the bible together Right away (Without any deuterocannonicals), and strictly enforced it. (Although, who would have the authority to do any such enforcing?)

(I wonder how much of an issue it was for early Jews in Jesus' time who disagreed on which books are inspired scripture or not...I wonder if they fought with one another over who is right. I also wonder what Jesus' opinion would have been on the different Jewish groups)

So I guess that brings up a good question. What is the actual Role of the Bible in the church. Why did the church decide a cannon. Was it mainly for use in the liturgy? Was it to be read by people? The church survived for a few hundred years without defining the cannon. So what brought them to do it in the first place?

So if all our books were used in the Liturgy, why did some bibles contain extra books? Were they used in the liturgy? Or were they used for something else? I don't understand why early bibles would have 3-4 Esdras. If they're not inspired then what use are they?

I might have to check out that book. It looks interesting

**po18guy** · #13 Jun 25, '12, 3:34 pm

First and foremost, we must remember that Christ's Church was not a written, bible-based faith like the protestantism of today is. The Gospel was preached exclusively via oral Tradition for one or two generations, exactly in the fashion that Jesus taught the Apostles to do. The need for written scriptures to back-up the oral Tradition arrived considerably later. When the twelve were dying off, there arose the matter of authority, and of adherence to the original Gospel message. Thus, a written version which did not establish, but only backed up the oral teaching, was needed.

The purpose of the written Tradition is clearly shown in the Prologue of Luke (Luke 1:1-4). From it, we see that Theophilus learned nothing from Luke's Gospel - it only backed up what he had already learned orally. Most of the Apostles had likely been martyred by that time, so the issue of the authenticity of the contemporary teaching began to grow, and questions arose as to the truth of the teaching.

Another excellent resource is Inside the Bible by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. It is a very handy, non-scholarly introduction to each of the 73 books of the bible.

patrick457 · #14 Jun 25, '12, 4:34 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan77

So one thought that just came up was, seeing as there was such disagreement, and the church not putting all her efforts into fixing it, does that mean that the early church saw the bible differently than it does today (or at least the way protestants see it?) If the early church had scripture not on the forefront of issues to be dealt with(although they regarded scripture as very important) Does the fact that not nailing it down 100 percent, and not enforcing it, shows that there was more important things going on, and thus proves that (Although there was disagreement with Rome) Scripture alone isn't the sole authority for the early church? If scripture was the be all end all of our faith,(as protestants see it) then the church should have put the bible together Right away (Without any deuterocannonicals), and strictly enforced it. (Although, who would have the authority to do any such enforcing?)

(I wonder how much of an issue it was for early Jews in Jesus' time who disagreed on which books are inspired scripture or not...I wonder if they fought with one another over who is right. I also wonder what Jesus' opinion would have been on the different Jewish groups)

So I guess that brings up a good question. What is the actual Role of the Bible in the church. Why did the church decide a cannon. Was it mainly for use in the liturgy? Was it to be read by people? The church survived for a few hundred years without defining the cannon. So what brought them to do it in the first place?

So if all our books were used in the Liturgy, why did some bibles contain extra books? Were they used in the liturgy? Or were they used for something else? I don't understand why early bibles would have 3-4 Esdras. If they're not inspired then what use are they?

I might have to check out that book. It looks interesting

I going for a brief answer. Second Temple period Jews did not have a fixed canon (the protocanonical OT books, esp. the Torah were already considered to be authoritative in some way, but the canon was by no means closed - so one could conceivably consider other writings to be 'inspired' as well or even dispute certain books in the protocanon), the Early Christians did not have them as well, in fact there was no 'Bible' in the modern sense (a thick, bulky collection of writings under one cover) but libraries of different scrolls and codices which varied among different communities for a variety of reasons (practical, doctrinal, something like that) and which were open and interconnected with one another.

patrick457 · #15 Jun 25, '12, 4:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by po18guy

First and foremost, we must remember that Christ's Church was not a written, bible-based faith like the protestantism of today is. The Gospel was preached exclusively via oral Tradition for one or two generations, exactly in the fashion that Jesus taught the Apostles to do. The need for written scriptures to back-up the oral Tradition arrived considerably later. When the twelve were dying off, there arose the matter of authority, and of adherence to the original Gospel message. Thus, a written version which did not establish, but only backed up the oral teaching, was needed.

The purpose of the written Tradition is clearly shown in the Prologue of Luke (Luke 1:1-4). From it, we see that Theophilus learned nothing from Luke's Gospel - it only backed up what he had already learned orally. Most of the Apostles had likely been martyred by that time, so the issue of the authenticity of the contemporary teaching began to grow, and questions arose as to the truth of the teaching.

Another excellent resource is Inside the Bible by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J. It is a very handy, non-scholarly introduction to each of the 73 books of the bible.

Yes! And the written word was really secondary to the spoken word. Back then written media (scrolls, later, codices) were not designed to be enjoyed by only one reader - i.e. picking it out of the shelf and reading it quietly in a comfortable nook. On the contrary, 'reading' was a communal, public experience (hey, not everyone could read back then). 'Books' were meant to be read out loud before everyone - in fact, they are supposed to be made to come alive by singing (chanting) and even acting the words. So there's this whole storytelling quality about it - it's comparable to parents reading to their kids before bedtime. If you ever wonder where we get the practice of reading (originally and properly, chanting) the Scriptures during Mass, it's really a highly-formalized version of this ancient book storytelling.

And because reading the text (and trying to understand it) was a communal experience, there was no 'make your own private interpretation' mentality.