Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?

Catholic Exchange.com ^ | 02-06-07 | Mary Harwell Sayler

[Salvation]

Mary Harwell Sayler	Other Articles by Mary Harwell Sayler Printer Friendly Version
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?

---

March 6, 2007

Question: What's the difference between a Catholic Bible and a Protestant one? Is our Old Testament the same as a Jewish Bible? If not, why?

Answer: The most noticeable differences occur in the number of books included and the order in which they have been arranged. Both the Jewish Bible and the Hebrew canon in a Protestant Bible (aka Old Testament) contain 39 books, whereas a Catholic Bible contains 46 books in the Old Testament. In addition, the Greek Orthodox, or Eastern Orthodox, Church accepts a few more books as canonized scripture.

To give you a quick overview of a complicated subject, here's what happened: Several hundred years before the birth of Christ, Babylonian conquerors forced the Jews to leave Jerusalem. Away from their Temple and, often, from their priests, the exiled people forgot how to read, write, and speak Hebrew. After a while, Jewish scholars wanted to make the Bible accessible again, so they translated Hebrew scriptures into the Greek language commonly spoken. Books of wisdom and histories about the period were added, too, eventually becoming so well known that Jesus and the earliest Christian writers were familiar with them. Like the original Hebrew scriptures, the Greek texts, which were known as the Septuagint, were not in a codex or book form as we're accustomed to now but were handwritten on leather or parchment scrolls and rolled up for ease in storage.

Eventually, the Jewish exiles were allowed to return to Jerusalem where they renovated the Temple. Then, in A.D. 70, warring peoples almost completely destroyed the sacred structure, which has never been rebuilt. Without this central place of worship, the Jews began looking to the Bible as their focal point of faith, but to assure the purity of that faith, only Hebrew scriptures were allowed into the Jewish canon. By then, however, the earliest Christians spoke and read Greek, so they continued to use the Septuagint or Greek version of the Bible for many centuries. After the Reformation though, some Christians decided to accept translations into Latin then English only from the Hebrew texts that the Jewish Bible contained, so the seven additional books in the Greek translation became known as the Apocrypha, meaning "hidden." Since the books themselves were no secret, the word seemed ironic or, perhaps, prophetic because, in 1947, an Arab boy searching for a lost goat found, instead, the Dead Sea scrolls, hidden in a hillside cave.

Interestingly, the leather scrolls had been carefully wrapped in linen cloth, coated in pitch, and placed in airtight pottery jars about ten inches across and two feet high where, well-preserved, they remained for many centuries. Later, other caves in the same area yielded similar finds with hundreds of manuscripts no longer hidden. Indeed, the oldest copies of the Bible now known to exist are the Dead Sea scrolls of the Septuagint.

Because of this authentic find from antiquity, many publishers in the twentieth century added back the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, as well as additions to Esther and Daniel. So now, when an edition of the Bible says "with Apocrypha" on the cover, the extra books from the Septuagint will usually be placed between the Old and New Testaments or at the end of the Bible. Catholic Bibles already contained those books, however, so you'll find them interwoven with other Old Testament books of history and wisdom writings. 

For the New Testament, it's a different story — and short. All of the books were written in Greek or Aramaic from the start. Although some debate occurred about which Gospels or Epistles should be included, all Christians eventually accepted all of the same 27 books in the same order. So, as long as you choose an edition that does not add explanatory notes opposed to a Catholic perspective, any reputable translation of the New Testament is fine.

 

© Copyright 2007 Catholic Exchange

[Marysecretary]

They're wonderful. We hear and see them on the Gaither Homecoming Series. They're outstanding.

[Quix]

That makes 2 of us! LOL.

[Quix]

The scribes of God's written WORD were not mindless recorders--even if God did dictate Moses books to him letter by letter

That sentence proves my point which you can't seem to grasp.

I have a full and functional capacity that grasps fairly well anything you've written hereon--i.e. anything written with a respectable amount of clarity.

I still have the bulk of the IQ I was born with. My reading skills are not greatly deteriorated. I'm still pretty logical. My analytical skills are still pretty well intact. I still understand English above average. My vocabulary is still markedly above average. My linguistic skills are still above average.

I just fail to see how "can't grasp" fits me much at all--even in terms of your writings.

The scribes of God's written WORD were not mindless recorders--even if God did dictate Moses books to him letter by letter

Now, what I have failed to do, evidently . . . is communicate very effectively with the above sentence. Or, perhaps there's just a belief bias that prevents the remotest understanding of the sentence.

Moses was not a mindless recorder.
Paul was not a mindless recorder.
John the beloved was not a mindless recorder.

Those are merely factual statements. Of course, I suppose one could PERHAPS walk up to them in Heaven and assault them with the label and question--"Why were you such mindless recorders of God's written Word?" But I have a hard time imagining that they'd be impressed with the label or the question.

Assuming for a moment that Moses received his 5 books letter by letter--especially Genesis--which has a very uncommon statistical combination and sequencing of letters vis a vis the whole rest of the Scriptures. And, evidently, is deeply encoded even in holographic multidimensional ways.

Anyway--let's imagine dear old Moses patiently writing down every letter as God dictated each character one at a time. Now, was Moses sitting there bored to tears with his mind utterly idling while his fingers plodded through the task?

Not very likely being on the other end of a direct line with God Almighty. I suspect the atmosphere itself was charged very dynamically. I suspect that God was imparting to Moses layers upon layers of understanding and insight with each letter--certainly with each phrase or sentence.

I suspect Moses was energized and awash in blessing each microsecond of the dictation. I suspect he wanted it to go on and on and on. ANYTHING WITH GOD ALMIGHTY ON THE OTHER END OF THE DIRECT DSL LINE/PHONE CONNECTION is likely to be like that.

But, hey, if you want to call God's buddy and scribe a soft shelled mindless robot, be my guest. Just allow me to avoid standing very close to you when you do so. I'm allergic to lightening bolts.

I have failed to grasp the remotest importance of this distinction you seem so doggedly bent on ranting on and on about. Perhaps you could elaborate more and more clearly about the purpose of all that.

[kosta50]

Perhaps you could elaborate more and more clearly about the purpose of all that

First, I never wanted to imply hat you don't have the faculty or knowledge to grasp something I say. If that's how you took it, I apologize. I was talking about our mindsets.

Our faith is founded on different mindsets, from the very subject of this now pretty much extinct thread, which Bible we read, to the concept of salvation and atonement, how we believe, etc.

If God were dictating your own thoughts, word by word, you'd have no time to think, let alone enjoy. You'd be focused on writing down everything exactly as He said, perhaps the only thought in the back of your mind being the knowledge and any distraction (your thoughts or desires) would and thereby commit a sin.

The story of +Peter walking on water as long as he was focused on the presence of Christ in front of him, and sinking the moment his attention was taken away is what I mean by 'mindless.'

If you love something with all your heart, mind and soul, there is no room for anything else, let alone your own thoughts, distractions and desires.

And Alamo Girl not so long ago said that Christ's commandments tell us, as she paraphrased, to love God absolutely. I have no doubt that Moses, in his humility, did just that.

+Paul reminds us that we are to become "slaves to righteousness." There is no freedom in slavery. The true bliss is to be with God 100% in your heart, mind and soul. That leaves no room for independent thinking, personal desires, or distractions.

I seriously doubt that anyone in the presence of God would be thinking of anything else. He would be so awestruck that he would for all practical purposes be mindless. And that's what the eternal bliss is all about.

I don't think that in heaven the souls are running around fulfilling their needs and desires, having ciritcal discussions and disagreements. I's pretty much mindless state of eternal joy, not thinking.

Lastly, I do not believe God dictated the Five books of Moses to him word by word because I don't believe Moses could have written all of them, but that's opening another thread, so I will just leave it at that.

[ScubieNuc]

That leaves no room for independent thinking, personal desires, or distractions.

That is your assumption of what God wants. You are assuming God doesn't want us to have personal thoughts or desires. Maybe, God wants us to have personal thoughts and desires, it's just that he wants them to be under His guidance and will.

Sincerely

[Quix]

Our faith is founded on different mindsets, from the very subject of this now pretty much extinct thread, which Bible we read, to the concept of salvation and atonement, how we believe, etc.

INDEED. At least.

Though I don't think that the wide divergeance is near as attributable to the written Scriptures as seems to be contended.

If God were dictating your own thoughts, word by word, you'd have no time to think, let alone enjoy. You'd be focused on writing down everything exactly as He said, perhaps the only thought in the back of your mind being the knowledge and any distraction (your thoughts or desires) would and thereby commit a sin.

In my experience and observations, that's just not true--for a number of reasons.

1. GOD is NOT UNIdimensional. Multiplexing; multichannel; multi-everything does not begin to define nor describe God. When God plays an individual--plucks an individual's strings, He easily uses all His fingers and toes.

2. EVEN IF God were to focus the experience in some sort of unidimensional way--that one dimension would STILL have SOOOOO MUCH INTENSE AND DENSE CONTENT as to be still at least somewhat overwhelming on a number of levels.

You make it sound as though God would only be pouring water through a clear lucite pipe. NOT SO! God created us individuals with unique personalities FOR HIS PLEASURE. He has plenty of angels utterly devoted to robotish roles and tasks. And even they are evidently far from robots. But we are a far different order of critter. I'd have thought that was as obvious in the Orthodox/RC Scriptures as in the Protesty versions.

Moses transcribing text dictated letter by letter would have ended up being more enriched and FULL of content, intimacy, meaning, robustness than Nixon watching 9 TVs at one time by far.

But inspired scripting via Holy Spirit can also be incredibly subtle . . . sometimes one is aware only on reflection or later realizing what just happened and how awesome the content was through no agency of one's own mind or doings. Sometimes it's so intense and multidimensional and dripping with Holy Spirit goose bumps that one is kind of standing aside watching one's self and Holy Spirit do their dance dumbstruck and awestruck and hopeing it doesn't end very soon.

NEVER is it a dull robotish mindless thing as you characterize it. NEVER. That idea seels like one from the pit, to me.

Regardless, I still do not understand the point. I insist that your point is not valid--the furthest thing from the truth. But even if it were true--what does it gain your side of the discussion? I don't get the point.

The story of +Peter walking on water as long as he was focused on the presence of Christ in front of him, and sinking the moment his attention was taken away is what I mean by 'mindless.'

Doesn't wash for me. Focused on, feeding on, intimate with, dancing with Christ is far from mindless. It is the most MIND-ENGAGED, MIND-ALIVE, MIND-ENLIVENED, MIND-ENERGIZED, MIND-EXPANDED, MIND-ENLARGED, MIND-FLOWER-EXPLODING sorts of experiences one can imagine. Looking at the water and taking one's mind OFF Christ would be the beginning of mindlessness.

If you love something with all your heart, mind and soul, there is no room for anything else, let alone your own thoughts, distractions and desires.

Ahhhhhh, but we are not talking about just someone else here. We are talking about GOD ALMIGHTY. And He is pouring a fire hose worth through a drinking straw or a hollow hair. And HE IS NOT doing so while obliterating one's personality in all it's richness. NO! HE IS ENGAGING THAT PERSONALITY OF RICHNESS WHICH HE CREATED FOR HIS PLEASURE.

And Alamo Girl not so long ago said that Christ's commandments tell us, as she paraphrased, to love God absolutely. I have no doubt that Moses, in his humility, did just that.

Of course. See above. All the more so for the dance of the two personalities--the robust one God created as Moses with God's own infinitely robust personality.

+Paul reminds us that we are to become "slaves to righteousness." There is no freedom in slavery. The true bliss is to be with God 100% in your heart, mind and soul. That leaves no room for independent thinking, personal desires, or distractions.

So, on the wedding night, the true bliss of hubby is that wife has become so one with him that there's no personality of the wife left and hubby is sort of having sex with himself?

I don't think so.

If God had wanted mindless robots, He'd have made mindless robots and we'd not even be aware of it enough to have this 'dialogue.'

God didn't walk in the Garden with Adam in the cool of the evening to enjoy mental . . . manipulation . . . with Himself. For some reason, He enjoyed the fellowship with Adam. The dance. The robust personality to personality dance.

I seriously doubt that anyone in the presence of God would be thinking of anything else. He would be so awestruck that he would for all practical purposes be mindless. And that's what the eternal bliss is all about.

Actually, Roland Buck's experiences and those of a host of others indicates otherwise. You can check out his ANGELS ON ASSIGNMENT as a free online book here:

FREE ONLINE BOOK LINK: http://www.angelsonassignment.org/index2.html

Now, it can be true, as with so many who are "slain in The Spirit" that the ATTRACTIVENESS of God and what God is pouring through and into an individual is SO INTENSELY PREFERABLE to other considerations that other considerations are in the background and hardly noticed, if at all. But one is ABLE to notice the range of things including individual silent thoughts as well as what's going on in the environment. There can be exceptions but that's a fair general rule, imho.

I don't think that in heaven the souls are running around fulfilling their needs and desires, having ciritcal discussions and disagreements. I's pretty much mindless state of eternal joy, not thinking.

Evidently you have not read of many such visits. Your description is wholesale inaccurate. Not that there are disagreements. But the idea of everyone being on some sort of robotic mindless lock-step unified mind meld obliterating all personality and individualized thought--just is not so. NO ONE I've read (amongst probably more than 100 such reports) has EVER described Heaven to be any such place with any such sort of state for those there.

Lastly, I do not believe God dictated the Five books of Moses to him word by word because I don't believe Moses could have written all of them, but that's opening another thread, so I will just leave it at that.

I just think you're wholesale wrong about that. God enabled Moses to do all kinds of things. Scribing the 5 books would have been RELATIVELY child's play--for the super educated Moses and especially with Holy Spirit's pouring through Him and assisting him. And the more I study the Bible Codes, the more I'm inclined to think that the Jewish tradition is right about letter by letter. At least with Genesis.

[kosta50]

Maybe, God wants us to have personal thoughts and desires, it's just that he wants them to be under His guidance and will

Thast makes us robots, which is my point about the Protestant mindset to begin with.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the ping to your sidebar with kosta50!

I will address only one part of it to consider once again a metaphor we have previously discussed, namely the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem as described in the book of Revelation.

Each of the gemstones has a different color. Moreover, the color of a stone is determined by how much light is absorbed v passed through v. reflected off the surface.

Rubies, emeralds and sapphires – for instance – let some light through but absorb quite a bit in the process. Opals are translucent and the onyx reflect light off the surface but are dark inside. Diamonds allow the most light to pass through – but they too can be different colors. But the clearest of the diamonds disappear when dropped in water.

The gemstones to me are metaphors for how we choose to live in God's Light.

My prayer is to be like a diamond, i.e. that His Light may shine through me unobstructed. Even so, I'll be happy to end up as an amethyst. LOL!

The stones and colors in Revelation 21:

Jasper - green or clear
Sapphire – blue
Agate – circles of brown and white
Emerald – green
Onyx – bands of color
Carnelian – deep red or reddish white
Chrysolite – olive green
Beryl – green or bluish-green
Topaz – yellow
Chrysoprase – apple green
Jacinth – reddish orange
Amethyst – deep purple

[hosepipe]

You know the gemstones in Revelation relate to the breastplate of the High Priest.. and Urim and Thummin.. In the Holy Place they were for communication.. between God and man.. No doubt in revelation too.. The 12 breastplate gemstones also represented the 12 Hebrew consonants.. the vowels were assumed(jots and tittles).. Gemstones were biblically for communication.. The metaphorical nature of gemstones are pregnant in the Bible...

Also are precious metaphors when Gods children are represented as gemstones.. to miss the metaphorical nature of these things is to miss much..

i.e The Spirit/spirit being light that lights the gemstones.. is more real than metaphor, I think.. Humans not born again are stones, but born again become precious stones(gemstones).. The church is made of stones.. The Bride of Christ is made of Gemstones.. communicable with the head.. The metaphor is rich and deep and not anyway nearly fully displayed among us..

[Alamo-Girl]

What beautiful, beautiful insights, dear brother in Christ! Thank you!

[fortheDeclaration]

6 But that no such effect may ensue, let us give strict heed unto the things that are written ...Something about that you do not understand? Your response is non-sequitur. Never did I suggest the scriptures were generated ar random or had no purpose; nor did I say they should not be heeded. You may wish to stay on the subject if you want to make sense.

Well, it seems to be you that is moving all over the place.

The Scriptures are to be heeded-period.

To this end, that divine revelation might be preserved more exactly and unchangeably. In holy Scripture we read the words of the Prophets and Apostles precisely (emphasis added) as if we were living with them ... Obviously not, since different bibles yield different words, and different inferences, so precision is not there.

So Chrysostom is incorrect?

Actually, Chrysostom had the correct Bzyantine text type so I would trust his view on Bible more than yours.

Let's just look at the Gospels. The account of the last moments on the Cross are as different as night an day. And yet the only Apostle close enough to have heard Christ would have been +John! Others scattered out of sight, and +Luke wasn't even an Apostle at that time.

The accounts of the Gospels on the last moments are not 'different as night and day' they in fact compliment each other.

Each man was revealed what happened by the Holy Spirit and wrote under His inspiration.

You just reject the Inspiration of Scripture.

Both Christianity and Judaism depend to a large extent on oral teachings (tradition). How precise is that?

Christianity does not depend on oral tradition, but on the written word, which Chrysostom said was if the Apostles and Prophets were speaking to us directly.

+John Chrysostom was using the Scriptures you call 'forgery.' yet, you find his writing agreeable. What he believed was precise rendering of Scriputre could be as different as night and day to you. And he also considered the "Apocrypha" as Scripture.

He was using the correct text Byzantine text type.

We are not discussing what he regarded as scripture, only that scripture were to be trusted as the perfect revelation of God.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle. 2 Thess. ii. 15...Those are statements that any Bible believing Christian could agree with Of course. There is nothing in this that one could disagree with!

Nice dropping the context what was actually said.

since this Creed showed that some of your theologians agreed with us regarding the Hebrew scriptures, Apocrypha and importance of Scripture +John Chrysostom (5th c) did not subscribe to Hebrew scriptures, but to the same Scriptures the Orthodox subscribe to even today: Septuagint OT (with "Apocrypha") and the New Testament (sans Revelation, which was accepted after the 9th century AD)

We were not talking about Chrysostom in that regard, we are talking about the theologians who made up your Catechism which I cited.

Chrysostom was a bible-believer who believed that God had given us Scriptures that ought to be believed and obeyed.

That is something that you clearly reject.

[Quix]

Thanks for your kind reply, Dear Heart,

I think I understand well your logic.

You seem rather firmly rooted in the notion that the clear glass/lucite/diamond pipe is best and allows the most of God to flow thru most purely etc.

Perhaps the analogy just breaks down at some point.

Perhaps God has a different priority than assumed.

Have you noticed the gemstones mentioned in the foundation stones you listed?

There's no diamond.

There's no purely clear stone.

Evidently God has a different priority list.

PERHAPS GOD ALMIGHTY LIKES color in HIS gemstones, more.

He COULD have created us all as clear glass/lucite/diamond pipes.

He did not.

St Paul at his best; John the Beloved at their best; Roland Buck at his most saintly; . . . all . . . even face to face with God Almighty . . . Roland was still Roland. And God delighted in him.

There are likely mysteries here . . . but I remain convinced that the solution is NOT the obliteration of personality. That doing so would be offensive to God as very counter to what He's about with us mortals.

[Quix]

Sorry, END TIMES LIST PING . . . this assertion [2nd paragraph] is so outrageously incredible I just felt like the list needed a chance to at least pray about it, if not respond to it.

Maybe, God wants us to have personal thoughts and desires, it's just that he wants them to be under His guidance and will

Thast makes us robots, which is my point about the Protestant mindset to begin with.

Guess I must have sensed there was some vile, horribly inaccurate Protesty slam there somewhere. Nice to finally have it stated point blank clearly.

I’m almost fingerless at hearing someone assert from the perspective with some of the most rigid rote written prayers, customs, ceremonies, rituals strictly kept to some long traditional lock step script . . . is asserting that it’s THE PROTESTIES who are the mindless robots! That’s rich. That’s wholesale off-the-wall rich.

Sounds like we are in the rubber dictionary galaxy again.

It does not appear that we have sufficiently shared vocabulary to have a meaningful dialogue.

I have clearly outlined how
—from a Biblical perspective;
--a logical perspective
--an observational perspective and even from
--an experiential perspective

That inspiration directly From God to the printed page does not remotely qualify as a mindless robot experience. Denial of such a fact is not that surprising though it is disappointing.

It appears that those with a compulsive or whatever other bent to throw outrageous rocks at Protesties will conjure up a plethora of trumped up excuses to do so. That will have to be between such and God.

Thankfully, I know in Whom I have believed and that He is able to keep that which I’ve committed to Him until that Day.

And I know that He knows that I know that He’s not into robots with us troublesome critters. He deplores robot religiosity with a passion. He was forever throwing monkey wrenches into such habits throughout the Old Testament. He does it to this day. Robotism is closely akin to RELIGION—which He also seems to loathe rather intensely.

[ladyinred]

I SO disagree with you! Wow!!

[kosta50]

NEVER is it a dull robotish mindless thing as you characterize it

If God were talking to you, I iamgine you'd be paying attention to Him without commenats. If He said "Write this down..." you'd write it obediently. Your comments and thoughts and feelings would not be relevant.

I would say: that's pretty "robotish."

I just think you're wholesale wrong about that. God enabled Moses to do all kinds of things...

Perhaps, but some parts of the Pentateuch are not very likely his writing.

[kosta50]

Well, it seems to be you that is moving all over the place

Really? Because I never did I suggest the scriptures were generated ar random or had no purpose? That really makes lot of sense (not!).

So Chrysostom is incorrect?

In his assertion that "In holy Scripture we read the words of the Prophets and Apostles precisely as if we were living with them ..." — yes.

Each man was revealed what happened by the Holy Spirit and wrote under His inspiration

The favorite "escape clause" when logic fails, isn't it?

You just reject the Inspiration of Scripture

Only when it is used by others as an excuse to "prove" their point.

Christianity does not depend on oral tradition...

Wrong again. Christ didn't write anything (except in the sand), and His disciples preached for many years before anything was written down by them (take +John, he wrote at the end of the 1st century, and all this time he had to have preached by word of mouth only). I would call that "oral tradition."

We are not discussing what he regarded as scripture, only that scripture were to be trusted as the perfect revelation of God.

The revelation may be perfect, just like the soul God gives us is flawless. Somewhere along the line it becomes "less flawless."

We were not talking about Chrysostom in that regard, we are talking about the theologians who made up your Catechism which I cited

Every Orthodox so-called 'catechism' I read was different. The EOC does NOT have an official 'catechism.'

Chrysostom was a bible-believer who believed that God had given us Scriptures that ought to be believed and obeyed. That is something that you clearly reject

I reject robotoic obedience to something that was obviously havily tainted with human fancy, agendas, and errors. If we had the originals, that would be a different story.

[bobjam]

That is very interesting. The comment of mine to which you responded was a response to another on this discourse who stated that the Protestant practice of head coverings (I Coirnthians 11) and hair maintenance is inconsistent with Catholic practices.

I was not aware of the Nazarite Vow in Numbers 6. Da Vinci Code devotees (I am certainly not one of them) contend that Jesus, as a proper Jew, would have had a wife and children by age 30. The Nazarite Vow could be used to refute that silliness.

[kosta50]

Your theatrics amuse me. End of Times ping list. Are you 'telling on me?'

There is nothing "vile, horribly inaccurate" in asserting that if my 'thougths and desires' are under somone else's 'guidance and will' I will be but someone else's robot.

I know you have difficulty grasping this, even by your own admission. I am very sorry about that.

It does not appear that we have sufficiently shared vocabulary to have a meaningful dialogue

No. Our vocabulary if perfectly suffcient for any meaningful discussion, but if you believe in unicorns and I don't, no vocabulary will lead to a meaningful discussion.

I have clearly outlined ... That inspiration directly From God to the printed page does not remotely qualify as a mindless robot experience

No. You have stated that God dictated, word by word, to Moses. That's not 'inspiration.' You seem to have difficulty distinguishing the two, but I won't qualify that with a 'dig' as you have "not that surprising though it is disappointing." Sorry to disappoint you.

I’m almost fingerless at hearing someone assert from the perspective with some of the most rigid rote written prayers, customs, ceremonies, rituals strictly kept to some long traditional lock step script...

You write a lot for someone who's left 'fingerless.' Trouble is, it makes no sense. Rigidity of prayer is not rigidity of minds, or absence of a mind. And, by rote, as you say, I recite the Lord's Prayer rigidly written down for us by His Apostles. The prayer itself is not mindless; our approach to it may be — if you believe that your desires and thoughts are not your own will but someone else's, that is.

[xzins]

Let's just look at the Gospels. The account of the last moments on the Cross are as different as night an day. And yet the only Apostle close enough to have heard Christ would have been +John! Others scattered out of sight, and +Luke wasn't even an Apostle at that time. Both Christianity and Judaism depend to a large extent on oral teachings (tradition). How precise is that?

This is entirely conjecture on the part of some scholars who are a bit illiterate, imo.

There was no need for this so-called "oral" period of scripture transmission. Jesus' culture was an extremely literate culture, and evidently, one could hardly throw a rock without hitting a scribe. Jesus took the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue one day. What does that tell us? It says that a carpenter's son was being taught to read in that era.

For us to pretend there was no education, when it's clear that this culture had long treasured their scriptures is a bit disengenuous.

Luke very clearly points out at the beginning of his gospel that he collected the sources available, compiled them in chronological order, and then passed that account of the life of Christ on to his friend Theophilus.

It is common to assume an underlying text or texts were consulted as the foundation for the life of Jesus. These pre-gospel records make perfect sense, since there were a number of scribes who attended Jesus' every move. (It is possible that 7Q5 and its Genessaret text that so closely parallels Mark is a piece of a scribal record, if it is not a piece of Mark itself. That fragment has dated earlier than 50 AD. That's roughly 17 years after Jesus' crucifixion, and one must allow time for its having been penned and saved.)

BTW, Luke's not being an apostle is totally vindicated by his going to sources approved by the apostles to compile his account.

The only reason this oral period is brought up is so doubt can be cast on scriptures. And it is brought up with absolutely no regard for the advanced culture of the time.

Everyone else in the entire Roman empire kept records, made reports, transacted business, conducted trials, and wrote and read extensively.

Except for Christian Jews and Gentiles. They were all out in left field playing the telephone, message-garbling game. /sarcasm.

[kosta50]

Everyone else in the entire Roman empire kept records, made reports, transacted business, conducted trials, and wrote and read extensively.

Except, of course, when it came to such important figures as Jesus Christ, or the slaughter of the innocents by Herod, and other major events (Exodus) described in the Bible and nowehere else.

It is possible that 7Q5 and its Genessaret text that so closely parallels Mark is a piece of a scribal record, if it is not a piece of Mark itself. That fragment has dated earlier than 50 AD

This is an old theory. The work done on 7Q5 was shown to have been the result of researcher's bias. Subsequent computer matches yielded sixteen possible matches, not unique to +Mark.

Cave 7 in Qumran yielded many non-biblical texts. The "gge" fragment that was interpreted as "Gennesaret" can also be part of "eggenesen" (begot) someone's genealogy. The Q75 has so little information, everything about it is practically a conjecture. The picutre is worth a thousand words.

Luke very clearly points out at the beginning of his gospel that he collected the sources available

Well, he didn't collect them from +John for sure. If he was 'inspired' as +Paul says he was, then he wouldn't need a collective memory of others, but would be guided by the Spirit to write word by word, correct?