But Seriously — Who Holds the Bible’s Copyright?

Catholic Exchange ^ | April 2, 2013 | JOHN ZMIRAK

[NYer]

Q: Okay, so what is the Christian account of how revelation occurred?

As Elmer Fudd might say, “Vewy, vewy swowly.” Divine revelation didn’t happen in a blinding flash—such as God dropping the Summa Theologiae on top of a mountain and waiting for people to invent the Latin language so they could read it. (Though He could have given them magical spectacles that would translate it for them….) It seems that God preferred to slowly unfold His personality and His will for us through the course of tangled, messy human history. We might wonder why, and call up the divine customer service line to ask why in heck human nature arrived in the mail without the instructions. I don’t pretend to know what He was thinking here, but I find it aesthetically fitting that our knowledge of God evolved in much the way that animal species did, over a long time and by fits and starts, with sudden leaps whenever God saw fit, until finally the world was ready to receive the final product: in creation, man, in revelation, the Son of Man. God seems to prefer planting seeds to winding up robots.

So we start with traces of a primitive monotheism among some scattered peoples of the world—which might have been long-faded memories of what Adam told his children about the whole “apple incident,” combined with crude deductions that boil down to “Nothing comes from nothing.” But mankind pretty much wandered around with no more than that for quite some time, and this was when he employed the inductive method to discover the hemorrhoid god.

The first incident in Jewish-Christian scriptures that suggests God revealed Himself to us after that is the rather discouraging narrative of Noah. According to the story, the human race went so wrong so fast that God decided to backspace over most of it, leaving only a single righteous family, trapped on a stinky boat with way too many pets. When they landed, they had no more idea of what to do with themselves than the cast of Gilligan’s Island, so God gave them instructions: We call this the Covenant of Noah. The Jews believe that these are the only commandments God gave to the Gentiles—7 of them, instead of 613—and that the rest of us can please God just by keeping them. That’s the reason that Jews don’t generally try to make converts. (Who are we to run around making things harder for people? Feh!) The Jewish Talmud enumerates the 7 laws of Noah as follows:

• Don’t worship idols.
• Don’t kill the innocent.
• Don’t steal.
• Don’t fornicate.
• Don’t blaspheme God.
• Don’t eat pieces of animals while they’re still alive.
• Resolve your disputes through impartial judges.

Most of this sounds fairly obvious and commonsensical—though we might wonder why it was necessary to tell people to stop pulling off pieces of live animals and eating them. They must have gotten into some pretty bad habits while they were still stuck on that ark.

Q: That ark must have been the size of Alabama…

I know, I know.

Q. …to fit all those elephants, hippos, rhinos, tree sloths, polar bears, gorillas, lions and moose…

Okay, smart guy.

Q. …not to mention breeding pairs of more than 1,000,000 species of insects. Sure they’re mostly small, but those creepy-crawlies add up.

Spoken like a true-believing member of Campus Crusade for Cthulu, complete with a bad case of acne and involuntary celibacy. Maybe you should focus on Onan instead of Noah.

Look, there’s a reason why Catholics don’t read the bible in an exclusively literal sense, and haven’t since the time of Origen (+253). The Church looks at the books of scripture according to the genres in which they were written (history, allegory, wisdom, prophecy, and so on). And this story, clearly, was intended as allegory—which means that on top of some historical content (and there’s flotsam from flood-narratives in the basement of most ancient cultures) the writer piled up details to make a point. Unlike liberal Protestants, we don’t use this principle to explain away Jesus’ miracles and the moral law. Nor are we fundamentalists who take everything in the bible literally—except for “This is my body,” (Luke 22: 19) “Thou art Peter,” (Matthew 16: 18) and “No, your pastor can’t get divorced.” (Cleopatra 7: 14) The Church responded to biblical criticism with appropriate skepticism at first, and accepted the useful parts (like reading original languages and looking for ancient manuscripts), without throwing out the traditional mode of reading the bible in light of how the Church Fathers traditionally understood it.

Q. Why should the Church be the interpreter of the bible?

In the case of the New Testament, the Church had transcribed the books; shouldn’t we own the copyright to our own memoirs? When the list of accepted gospels and epistles was drawn up, there were more surplus candidates milling around than in downtown Manchester, New Hampshire, before a primary—some of them inspirational but probably inauthentic, like the Protoevangelium that tells the story of Mary’s childhood; others creepily gnostic, like the “Gospel of Thomas,” which has Jesus using His “superpowers” to wreak revenge on His schoolmates. (That gospel is always popular, since it shows Jesus doing exactly what each of us would really do in His place.) The decision on which books were divinely inspired was based largely on the evidence of the liturgy: which books had been used in churches for services in the most places for the longest. As I like to tell Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to my door: that bible you’re waving at me was codified by a council of Catholic bishops who prayed to Mary and the saints, baptized infants, and venerated the Eucharist. So you could say that as the original, earthly author and editor, the Church has a better claim of knowing how to read it than the reporters at National Geographic—who every Christmas or Easter discover some new and tantalizing scrap of papyrus containing gnostic sex magic tips or Judas’ “To-do” list.

In the case of the Old Testament, the Church draws heavily on how Jews traditionally read their own scriptures—but with one important and obvious difference. We are the descendants of the faction of Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah and evangelized the gentiles, all the while considering themselves the “faithful remnant” who’d remained true to the faith of Abraham. So we see throughout the Old Testament foreshadowings of Christ, for instance in Abraham’s sacrifice, and Isaiah’s references to the “suffering servant.” The Jews who were skeptical of Jesus believed that they were heroically resisting a blasphemous false prophet who’d tempted them to idolatry. As the Church spread and gained political clout, and Christians began to shamefully mistreat the people from whom they’d gotten monotheism in the first place, there surely was genuine heroism entailed in standing firm. I often wonder how many Jews would be drawn to Jesus if they could separate Him from the sins committed against their great-grandparents in His name….

The version of the Old Testament that Catholics and Orthodox use is different from what Jews use today. Our version, based on the Septuagint translation into Greek, is somewhat longer, and includes some later documents that Jews accepted right up to the time Saint Paul converted—books that illustrate a lot of the mature developments in Judaism which led up to the coming of Christ. The very fact that Christian apostles were using these books may have led the rabbis to eventually reject them. (Since the biblical references to Purgatory can be found in these books, Martin Luther and the Anglicans also excluded them.) Ironically, the Book of Maccabees exists in Catholic bibles but not Jewish ones, and right up until Vatican II we had a Feast of the Maccabees—which means that you could call Chanukah a Catholic holiday. But don’t tell the judges in New York City, or they’ll pull all the menorahs out of the schools.

[Salvation]

**The very fact that Christian apostles were using these books may have led the rabbis to eventually reject them. (Since the biblical references to Purgatory can be found in these books, Martin Luther and the Anglicans also excluded them.) Ironically, the Book of Maccabees exists in Catholic bibles but not Jewish ones,**

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther

Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of Christ
Apostolic Authority and the Selection of the Gospels (Ecumenical)
The Bible - 73 or 66 Books? (Ecumenical Thread)
How Rediscovering the “Plot” of Sacred Scripture is Essential to Evangelization
The Word of God is a Person Not Merely a Text
Are Catholics into the Bible?
Are the Gospels Historical?
What is Biblical Prophecy? What Biblical Prophecy is NOT, and What It Really IS
Biblical Illiteracy and Bible Babel
The Pilgrims' Regress - The Geneva Bible And The "Apocrypha"

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible
The Bible - an absolutely amazing book
Christian Scriptures, Jewish Commentary
Essays for Lent: The Canon of Scripture
Essays for Lent: The Bible
1500 year-old ‘ Syriac ‘ Bible found in Ankara, Turkey
How we should read the Bible
St. Jerome and the Vulgate (completing the FIRST Bible in the year 404) [Catholic Caucus]
In Bible Times
Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament

Translations Before the King James: - The KJV Translators Speak!
EWTN Live - March 23 - A Journey Through the Bible
"Our Father's Plan" - EWTN series with Dr. Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins on the Bible timeline
The Daunting Journey From Faith to Faith [Anglicanism to Catholicism]
Reflections on the Soon to Be Released New American Bible (Revised Edition)[Catholic Caucus]
New American Bible changes some words such as "holocaust"
Is the Bible the Only Revelation from God? (Catholic / Orthodox Caucus)
History of the Bible (caution: long)
Catholic and Protestant Bibles
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ON READING THE BIBLE [Catholic Caucus]

Because I Love the Bible
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
When Was the Bible Really Written?
Three Reasons for Teaching the Bible [St. Thomas Aquinas]
The Smiting Is Still Implied (God of the OT vs the NT)
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
Friday Fast Fact: The Bible in English
Bible Reading is Central in Conversions to Catholicism in Shangai, Reports Organization
Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw
5 Myths about 7 Books

Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible

[Boogieman]

“What I liked about it was the entire bible text would fit on a 3-1/2” floppy. Pretty small footprint.”

True, but just in case we get hit with an EMP attack, it’s always good to have a pocket Bible backup :)

[Texas Fossil]

**Who Holds the Bible’s Copyright?**

The Catholic Church, of course!

Nonsense.

[caww]

.....”The Scriptures, being the Word of God, carry greater authority than the Church which follows them.... You claim the Church “wrote” the Bible, but the Bible is clear that its author is God, and He doesn’t share a credit with anyone else.”......

Indeed...

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“Okay, exactly where does the Bible tell you 2 Timothy is scripture?”

---

2Pe 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; (16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

All the epistles of Paul are considered scripture, as he claimed to be writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is also true of all the writings of the Apostles or their close associates. Paul, for example, quotes the Gospel of Luke and calls it scripture.

[Texas Fossil]

Agreed, but I have several some fairly large. Others that I carry with me to Sunday School and church.

[JCBreckenridge]

“they were in the Vulgate with disclaimers that they were not to be taken as authoritative!”

Not so. You can review Gutenberg’s bible yourself.

The Gutenberg Bible is prefaced with Jerome’s Epistle to Paulinus.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001053.htm

There is the English text.

“You can’t cite the authority of the Vulgate and then dismiss the proclamations contained in the Vulgate”

One, those proclamations are not in the Vulgate.

Two, irrespective to Jerome’s difficulties, it doesn’t change that these books are still canonical. It was not Jerome’s decision to make, whether to include or exclude them.

“It stands to reason that if Daniel is inspired, it was written by Daniel and his scribe, as it attests, and therefore written in the language that was in use at the time, not in two separate languages that were in use at two different times.”

Ok, here’s the problem. The earliest extant manuscript evidence is in Greek - in the Septuagint. And they have all the parts of Daniel. Together. Would you use this one, or would you use a newer extant incomplete Hebrew manuscript that only had parts of Daniel?

[JCBreckenridge]

Ok - so which Epistles count? Does 2 Peter specify them?

[JCBreckenridge]

Same for Luther.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“Ok - so which Epistles count? Does 2 Peter specify them?”

---

Peter was writing of all of Paul’s epistles. He does not need to specify if one is scripture and another isn’t, since all of the Apostles had the authority and the inspiration to be scripture producers, just like the Prophets of old who put together the Old Testament.

[Salvation]

May God forgive you for making fun of me and the Catholic Bible.

The first Bible printed by the Gutenberg press was in Latin and was a copy of the Vulgate (Catholic Bible.)

Please consider yourself re-educated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutenberg_Bible

[JCBreckenridge]

“Jerome translated the vulgate, and says the Apocrypha is not canon.”

It wasn’t Jerome’s decision to make. He was a translator. If they were non Canonical - why does Jerome include them? Why weren’t they excluded?

“Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose.”

And that’s precisely the question Cajetan answers. They are canonical. That is why they were included in the official bible - the Vulgate - long before Luther ever came around.

“There are also substantial reasons why the Apocrypha uncanonize themselves.”

Oh, I see. So the books THEMSELVES decide whether they do or do not belong. Anything to evade the point that the Magisterium decides.

“Tobit 6:5-7, “Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them.”

Hmm, that wouldn’t have anything to do with your church’s proscriptions of Incense, now would it? I can see why Luther might want to chop that out of his bible.

Tobit 4:11, “For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness.”

“Truly, truly. This I tell you - whatsoever you did for the least of these - you also did for me.”

“He’s King of the Babylonians, just so you know.”

You’ve been called out on this before. King of Babylon became King of Assyria when Babylon defeated Assyria.

“It was for 70 years, not 7 generations, just so you know.”

Even to describes an upper bounded limit.

“Maccabees uncanonizes itself, insomuch it tells us directly that it was not written by anyone inspired.”

Oddly fitting to go with the Epistles of the ‘least of the Apostles”.

“Jews rejected the apocrypha”,

Which is why they were an integral part of the Septuagint.

“For the same cause, Origen, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and “Pope” Gregory the first, rejected most, if not all, of these books as canon.”

Ah, so we accept the Magisterium when it agrees with you and disregard the Magisterium when it disagrees with you.

Do you believe that the Magisterium has authority over the Body of Christ?

[caww]

......”An infallible magisterium is not necessary to recognize and establish writings as Scripture,... and/nor does being the steward of Scripture and inheritor of Divine promises and having historical descent make such infallible......”

Agree....

“Grasshopper Here”...

[JCBreckenridge]

So you admit then that it doesn’t give a list of authoritative Epistles from Paul the Apostle.

So where do we get this list of Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Romans, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus and Philemon from?

[caww]

Boggoeman....

Just to say,... my very conversion began the day I picked up a Bible and began to read what God had to say in it. It is truly “powerful”......

[Boogieman]

"Not so. You can review Gutenberg’s bible yourself."

If they aren't in Gutenberg's Bible, then why does GoogleBooks' catalogue say they are?:

The New Testament, The Vulgate version, with Prologues by St. Jerome - by Johann Gutenberg

Why does wikipedia say they're included?

"As Jerome completed his translations of each book of the Bible, he recorded his observations and comments in an extensive correspondence with other scholars; and these letters were subsequently collected and appended as prologues to the Vulgate text for those books where they survived. In these letters, Jerome described those books or portions of books in the Septuagint that were not found in the Hebrew as being non-canonical: he called them apocrypha."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

Why does the 1990 Stuttgart edition of the Vulgate include them? (You can read an English translation from that source here: http://www.bombaxo.com/prologues.html)

"Two, irrespective to Jerome’s difficulties, it doesn’t change that these books are still canonical. It was not Jerome’s decision to make, whether to include or exclude them."

So, you cite the authority of the Vulgate, when it is convenient to your argument, but deny it when it is inconvenient. Duly noted.

Now, since I think I can safely assume you believe it is the Catholic church's decision to make, then the canonicity of those books was only decided by the Catholics after the Protestants had excluded them, at the Council of Trent. Before then, it was left as a matter of individual conscience, which means your accusation against Luther is basically an ex post facto indictment.

It's also just plain silly to expect Protestants to accept an authoritative pronouncement of the Catholics which was made after the schism occurred. It's no more reasonable than expecting the South to have recognized as legitimate the Senators appointed for their states by the North after the South had already seceded. Of course the Catholics achieved unanimity on the matter at that time, because most of the Christians who disagreed with them on the matter were conveniently denounced as heretics and not given a seat at the table.

[Natural Law]

"Word of God is very much a book."

God is not a book and the Sacred Scripture is but a mere shadow of the divine. The Bible is a means through which He chose to reveal a portion of Himself to us.

Creation was an act of origination, bringing something into existence where nothing was. Creation is appropriated to the Father. St. John tells us that what was brought into existence was not chaos, but a universe ordered in its elements; it was a work of infinite wisdom and is therefore appropriated to the Son, the Word of God, Who proceeds by the way of logic and knowledge (a Logos). When the order was brought to disorder by sin, it was the Son Who became man to repair the disorder and make a new order of a redeemed mankind.

Peace be with you

[Boogieman]

Mine as well. I picked it up expecting to scoff at its silliness, as I had in the past, but this time, God’s word had other plans for me :)

[Boogieman]

“God is not a book and the Sacred Scripture is but a mere shadow of the divine. The Bible is a means through which He chose to reveal a portion of Himself to us.”

God is not the physical book, of course not. Yet, the contents of the book are divine, they are the Word of God, and the Word of God is declared to be God. I don’t pretend to understand the exact spiritual technicalities of that mystery, anymore than I claim to be able to explain how the body of an outwardly ordinary man could contain the boundless essence of God. Yet, it is written, so I believe, and there’s nothing you can say to me to dissuade me of it.

I imagine if someone tried to convince you that God can’t be a piece of bread, you would adopt much the same attitude.

[caww]

I well know what you mean!... Though my approach was a bit different....soon thereafter God had A Retired Pastor of Moody Bible Institute come to work for our company.....you can imagine the discussions shared..... Oh how God sets the stage!

Thanks for your posts...I am certainly enjoying some of the arguments...and learning.