Back in this post, kindly linked by Sarah A. Hoyt over at Instapundit, a response was left taking issue with the fact that a prayer I shared dared mention Mary the Mother of God/Theotokos. Since there was no response to the questions I asked in the comments (or to any comments), I e-mailed them and was unsurprised at the responses/non-responses.
It seems the person is in the habit of depositing such nuggets of what they deem wisdom in various punch bowls around the blogosphere. So much so that they can’t be bothered to keep up with all of them (according to one response). Apparently it is a busy life bravely dropping these nuggets on the fly (without even a glance in the rear view mirror).
However, what they regard as nuggets of wisdom can be seen as something else floating in the punchbowl. I also find the response to an old and much used prayer a bit churlish, inconsiderate, and even somewhat ignorant. My amusement at the refusal to answer the questions asked and bidding me “Good Day!” (I’m really surprised given the apparent dudgeon that I didn’t get the full “I said Good Day Sir!”) has sparked an idea for a series of posts.
What follows is not a refutation of the comment, per se; rather, it is an opportunity to lay out for your edification and my clarification some points about early Christianity and traditional faiths and how they differ from non-traditional Christianity. Given how many people there are out there today for whom history begins and ends with their own lifetime, it is good to review real history and how a number of things developed within it.
Please note that I am not a theologian and don’t claim to be one; rather, I am laying out some points and concepts for my own use and growth — a process previously started here and here. If these happen to help others, then that is a happy coincidence for which I am very glad.
Today, I want to look at the Bible, it’s development, and a bit on it’s use — along with other sources — in understanding Christian faith and the teachings of Jesus. Along the way, I think you may pick up on why I think it would be easy to make the case for Sola Scriptura as a heresy; but, I instead see it more as an idiocy. Some may see that as a bit harsh, but I think I can make a good case.
Let’s start with an honest question for you the reader: When did the Bible as we know it come into being? Was it extant before the Passion? Was it created immediately after? Was it created and accepted in the first century after the Passion? Was it created and accepted almost three hundred years afterwards? Was it created and accepted five hundred years afterwards? Is this a trick question?
The answer to the last question is: sorta. It’s not really a trick question except that it would depend on which part, Old Testament or New Testament, is being referred to above.
The proper Old Testament, as I have been taught of late, is the Septuagint. This is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and was the Bible from which Jesus preached in the Temple and elsewhere. It has books not contained in the current Hebrew Bible because the Hebrew faith changed versions of the Old Testament because of the rise of Christianity.
While it is a bit of an over-simplification, what happened was that since Christianity claimed and used the Septuagint, the Hebrew faith elected to switch to a different version of the Old Testament. Of course it’s much more involved than that, but it’s a (fun) rabbit hole that is not terribly germane to the current discussion.
I will note for the record, however, that there are sources (mostly online, caveat emptor) that have different accounts of this. Not having taken formal courses on such (yet), I admit there could be some error in this presentation. It is one reason I very much would like to attend formal seminary training, though I note that given my history geekiness that if I get in and have the chance to dig into this to my heart’s content, you may need to use a nuclear shaped charge to get me out again.
As for the New Testament, it took a bit over three hundred years for a version to be formally accepted. Up until then, the different Churches and bishops used a variety of different sources. That said, I will note that one of the early Apostolic Fathers (the first generation of Church leaders trained by the Disciples) pretty well nailed the books that became the New Testament some 200 years before such was formally ratified.
Side Quest/Note: At least one book of what is currently accepted as the New Testament has never been formally ratified by the Eastern Orthodox Church (and possibly others). It also has not been formally rejected. That book is the book of Revelation. Make of that what you will.
Now, as for those works not included in the New Testament, some were rejected as not being canon. Others were rejected as not rising to the level of Gospel. A category not often discussed (IMO) are the books deemed duplicative. While they might have unique insights and information, the key points were duplicative of the other gospels. As such, they were not included, though some continued to be used as supplementary texts.
Keep in mind also that there were two levels of costs involved with adding texts to the Bible. One was the cost of production. Given that such had to be hand-written and/or illustrated, a single book of the Gospel could cost the equivalent of a year’s wages for a family. The second is the cost of memory, as most scripture was memorized.
Christianity was not based on written tradition; rather, it was based on oral tradition as were most academic and theological undertakings of the time. The fact is, most people — often including priests, Bishops, and others — were illiterate. It does not mean they were stupid, far from it. It simply means that they were not able to read or write. When you read the epistles in the New Testament, find a version and translation that includes the salutations and conclusions as these will have discussion of who wrote the actual letter and how to know it was a faithful rendition of what was said to them. Interesting note, often the actual writer was sent with the letter so they could be questioned and the recipients satisfied as to the accuracy of the epistle.
The fact is, most of the instruction of new priests, bishops, and such was oral. Which is why the Didache was created: it was the written supplement to the oral teachings of the Disciples and Apostolic Fathers. It is also worth noting that a good bit of time is spent reminding the readers (or those to whom it was being read) how to spot False Prophets, which came in two types. One spread false gospel and did not preach the gospel of the Lord, and the second would be described today as grifters, who were in it for money and other riches (including power). I would note that the tests provided can be applied to drive by smuggings even now.
It is also why a number of the epistles included in the New Testament were written (as were a number of those not included for being duplicative). When you look at them, many boil down to: diplomatic greeting; polite description of problem; discussion often about no that is not what the Lord said/meant, that is not what we said/meant, you young punks need to put back those who you removed from being over you and apologize, this is what we are supposed to do, this is how we are supposed to do it, and this is what we told you (did you even listen?); and, a polite conclusion inviting the recipients to get it in gear, straighten up, and fly right.
Such letters were necessary because of the oral teachings. Again, let me emphasize that being illiterate does not mean being stupid. In fact, I would put the average member of the Church then (and even many priests who were not literate) up against most current Christians in their ability to quote, analyze, and discuss Scripture and other related teachings. Fact is, many of them could, would, and did quote not just passages, but entire books of what became the New Testament as well as the Old. They could also chant or sing hymns and prayers that went with them.
One reason for the elaborate decorations in the early Churches was that they created in effect a picture Bible. Each picture sparked the appropriate scriptures, hymns, and prayers associated with the events and people depicted. You still find this in many Greek and Eastern Orthodox Churches (Coptic too I think), and even some Roman Catholic Churches. It was all there to support the oral teachings and traditions of the early Church as memory aids.
Now, those oral teachings and traditions included a lot of discussion not simply on what Jesus said, but what it meant. Just as Jesus explained many of the parables to the Disciples (and in the process to those who heard said teachings later as they were chanted/sung during worship), the Disciples and the Apostolic Fathers also explained meanings, symbolism, and more to their audience. And again, these were handed down in oral tradition for centuries.
Even after Gutenberg revolutionized Western printing, books remained expensive and it actually took some advances in paper making to get prices down where books could be afforded by a wider section of the population. Even so, memorizing large chunks if not whole books of the Bible continued to be a significant factor until roughly a hundred years ago.
When you look at it, Sola Scriptura is based off the idea of everyone having access to the printed word, and that word alone — without any of the supporting words, writings, hymns, and other inputs of the Disciples and Apostolic Fathers (or even major theologians since) — and that such is sufficient for people to find their own special meaning in scripture.
I find that a conceit on more than one level (and meaning). Among other things, it is the idea that only now are we sufficiently advanced to truly understand the Word (all on our own!) and, by implication, that all those who came before were not true recipients of God’s Grace and Salvation because they lacked the intellectual and moral sophistication of their betters who are only now arriving on the scene. Think about it a bit.
As a final thought for the day, consider also that from the original Bible every schism has removed books from both the Old and New Testaments. For that matter, with at least one schism underway now we are hitting a point where it appears line-item exclusion is in process. So, again, which version of the Bible are you using for Sola Scriptura? The entire and complete version? If not, which edited version of the Bible are you using?
Also, which translation as that very much matters. One of the things I enjoy about our Bible study class, as I’ve mentioned before, is that our Sub-Deacon often presents different translations of the same text so we can hear and/or see the differences. Some of those differences can be profound. Again, which version are you using? It does make a difference.
In the next post, unless I get a flash of inspiration to do something different, I plan to go into more of the oral tradition and even (I hope) share some of those early items for your consideration. Until then, God Bless and Keep you.
