Was Bible Possession banned by the Catholic Church

[RedFan]

I read it.

"A minimum of 12 authors of 18 inscriptions, out of the population of Judah which is estimated to have been no more than 120,000 people, it means that literacy was not the exclusive domain of a handful of royal scribes in Jerusalem. The quartermaster from the Tel Arad outpost also had the ability to read and appreciate them."​

​

It proves literacy in a small group in a narrow time frame, not widespread literacy.

Turning to hard historical evidence for ancient Israel, Bar-Ilan notes that the Talmud allows for towns where only one person could read in the synagogue (Soferim 11:2). Since all synagogues that have been discovered can accommodate more than 50 people, we are probably looking at literacy rates, in these places, at about 1%. When this figure is tied to the fact that the land of Israel was 70% rural, and only 10% was “highly” urban, one can take into account all the sundry factors and crunch the numbers: “it is no exaggeration to say that the total literacy rate in the Land of Israel… was probably less than 3%.” Most of this 3% would have comprised wealthy Jews living in the major cities.​

How Many People Were Literate in Antiquity? | The Bart Ehrman Blog

Over the past month I have received a number of questions on the blog about whether it was possible that some of the apostles used "secretaries" to write their books -- so that when 1 or 2 Peter, say, claims to be written by Peter, it actually was written by…

ehrmanblog.org

You've put it better than I did (in #197).

 

[Illuminator]

That’s great – but it’s still just a theory.
The fact is that there is NO evidence that the congregants of the recipients of the Epistles were all walking around with their own copies.

Besides, the argument was that the Catholic Church kept the Bible away from the “common people” which is nonsense. It has been explained, ad nauseam, that the prohibitions of the Council of Toulouse were issued because of the spurious, erroneous and otherwise heretical translations being passed around.

Amen. The Council of Toulouse was a local council held by a local church, not an ecumenical council possessing binding authority over the entire Catholic Church. The Council was called by the local bishop to address the perceived threat from the rapid growth of the Albigensian movement in 13th century southern France.
The anti-Catholic red-flags this tidbit of history, blows it out of proportion, and makes the false claim that the Catholic Church kept the Bible away from the “common people”. That is the source of the myth.

Luther's Protestant Bible came out in 1520 and before his Bible the Catholic Bible had been translated into Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian and English, there was exactly 104 editions in Latin; 38 editions in German language, 25 editions in Italian language, 18 in French. In all 626 editions of the Bible with 198 in the language of the laity, had been edited before the first Protestant Bible was sent forth into the world.

Who are the ones propagating the myth? Mostly fundamentalists and made-in-America Bible cults that invent their own evidence. The myth appeals to those predisposed to bigotry and ends up in forums like this one.

 

[Illuminator]

It depends on the strength of certain core beliefs. Those who have closed hearts and closed minds have a distinct fear of the truth.
The Christian enthusiasm for the truth however is not shared by the secular world. In fact, its citizens, in general, harbor a distinct fear of the truth. This fear may be analyzed on three different levels:

1) that the truth would impose unwanted moral responsibilities on them;
2) that any association with the truth would occasion an air of pretentiousness;
3) that any claim to the truth might expose them to being wrong.

They prefer freedom from moral responsibility, absence of any “holier than thou” attitude and exemption from the possible embarrassment of being in error. Their fears, however, take them from the very light and meaning they long for, and plunge them into a dark void were they are trapped by a misery of their own making. Their flight from the truth is also an entrance into a world of gloom.

These three fears are ill fated, as well as ill founded. First of all, truth is our only avenue to real freedom. “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” John 8:32

Ignorance may at times be blissful, but it is never illuminating. St. Augustine once remarked that he had met many people who had been deceived, but never met anyone who wanted to be deceived.

We have a natural hunger for the truth of things. No one ever asks for the wrong time. It is always the “right” time and the truth about things we want to learn. Untruth is not helpful, but truth is like a beacon that shows us the way. This is why the Pope titled his great encyclical on the freeing function of truth as Veritas Splendor (Truth’s Splendor).

When we are lost we want to learn the truth about our situation so that we can be liberated from our confusion. The truth makes us free; untruth binds us to bewilderment. The truth about ourselves awakens us to our moral responsibilities, but we need this awakening in order to become whom we truly are, to advance toward our destiny, to build a meaningful life. We should welcome the truth that illuminates our moral responsibilities with the same enthusiasm that a person who is lost in the woods and welcomes a compass and a map.

Secondly, the fear that any discovery of truth would make us pretentious is also counterproductive. Truth is not of our own making. Even Christ proclaimed that the truth He illuminated did not spring from Him alone. “My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me” (John 17:6)

Truth is not subjective. It represents the objective order of things. The person who comes to know something of the truth, then should experience humility, not vanity, for he discovers something that is not his.

Christ was emphatic in his denunciation of the Pharisees who claimed to know something of the truth but behaved with a pretentious snobbery. Truth is not he cause of Pharisaism, vanity is.
And both Christ and his Church are unrelenting in their advocacy of humility and in their condemnation of vanity. In fact, it may be far less tolerant of Pharisaism than the secular world. Consider, for example, the comment, “I hate anything fake,” made by Britney Spears, a veritable icon of artificiality and pretense. The secular world awards this kind of duplicity with celebrity.

Thirdly, there is the rather spineless fear that in perusing the truth, we might fall into the embarrassing predicament of being wrong. Again, there is nothing wrong that can reasonably justify this anxiety. We all make mistakes. Not to try something for fear of making a mistake is akin to a paralyzing neurosis that would discourage one from trying anything.

Some people avoid marriage because they fear divorce. Others avoid friendship because they fear rejection. The pursuit of truth presupposes a certain amount of courage. If nothing is ventured, as the maxim goes, nothing is gained.

We have a natural hunger for the truth of things. No one ever asks for the wrong time. It is always the “right” time and the truth about things we want to learn. Untruth is not helpful, but truth is like a beacon that shows us the way. This is why the Pope titled his great encyclical on the freeing function of truth as Veritas Splendor (Truth’s Splendor).

When we are lost we want to learn the truth about our situation so that we can be liberated from our confusion. The truth makes us free; untruth binds us to bewilderment. Continued...

continued

The Church as Guardian of the Truth and Teacher of the Word provides food for hungry minds. She does not impose the truth; no more than do Christians impose food on hungry bodies when they practice this corporeal act of mercy.

She guards it because it needs to be protected against the contamination of error. She teaches it because it is more nourishing than error. Moreover, the truth enables her to teach realistically about the truth of Christ, the truth of the Catholic Church, and the truth of man. Apostles are ministers of love, but they are also servants of the truth.

By Dr. Donald DeMarco, Professor of Philosophy, St. Jerome’s College at U. of Waterloo, he is married with 5 children.
Taken from The Bread of Life Magazine, July / Aug. Volume 26 Number 3, with minor editing by me.

 

[Windmillcharge]

I can't follow the logic. A dozen writers worked on a particular text and THEREFORE the national literacy rate was stupendous? Sorry, I am not convinced.

I don't have a clue how many Jews in Israel could read and write six centuries before Christ. And after reading this science daily article, I still don't.

You are claiming most Jews could not read and write.
The scientific article says that far more Jews were literate then is commonly believed.

Jesus a carpenters son went into the synagogue, as was his custom and was handed the scroll, he sat down to read.
Jesus a common Jew could read.
As people of the bible the Jews valued there scripture, reading it was part of there worship, far more would desire to be able to take part in that worship than you think and synagogue schools would have taught reading and writing in the same way that sunday schools taught the working classes reading and writing.

 

[Illuminator]

You are claiming most Jews could not read and write.
The scientific article says that far more Jews were literate then is commonly believed.

Jesus a carpenters son went into the synagogue, as was his custom and was handed the scroll, he sat down to read.
Jesus a common Jew could read.

Jesus was not a common Jew.
John 1:32 – when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

As people of the bible the Jews valued there scripture, reading it was part of there worship, far more would desire to be able to take part in that worship than you think and synagogue schools would have taught reading and writing in the same way that sunday schools taught the working classes reading and writing.

Your scientific article makes no mention of a per capita ratio and does not give an estimate of the Jewish population of the time in question. You are reading into the article what it doesn't say. All you need to do is ignore the evidence presented by Bart Euhrman and wikipedia, which does not contradict your scientific article, and employ the defense mechanism called cognitive dissonance.

​

 

[RedFan]

You are claiming most Jews could not read and write.
The scientific article says that far more Jews were literate then is commonly believed.

I am claiming no such thing. I am saying only that the article you cite does not prove the contrary.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are claiming most Jews could not read and write.
The scientific article says that far more Jews were literate then is commonly believed.

Jesus a carpenters son went into the synagogue, as was his custom and was handed the scroll, he sat down to read.
Jesus a common Jew could read.

You're forgetting ONE thing:
The Epistles were written in Greek, which was the lingua frnca of many cultures in the first century.

Whereas, some Jews may have been proficient in Hebrew or Aramaic - but whhere is the evidence that they could read multiple languages, including Greek?

As people of the bible the Jews valued there scripture, reading it was part of there worship, far more would desire to be able to take part in that worship than you think and synagogue schools would have taught reading and writing in the same way that sunday schools taught the working classes reading and writing.

Peopple didn't come to Early Church services woith their own papyrus copies of the Epistles.
The Scriptures were read aloud, just as the Jews did in the Synagogue.

The idea that everyone showed up woth their own copies of Scrpture is really just a Protestant fantasy . . ..

 

[RedFan]

Whereas, some Jews may have been proficient in Hebrew or Aramaic - but whhere is the evidence that they could read multiple languages, including Greek?

Well, Peter and John were supposedly “uneducated and untrained men” (Acts 4:13) yet both of them wrote in Greek (presuming that they are the authors of the epistles and gospel that bear their name). Roberts says “If they, humble fishermen of Galilee, understood Greek to such an extent as naturally and easily to write it, that language must have been generally known and used among the people.” Roberts, Greek: The Language of Christ and His Apostles (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1888) p. 91.

I used to think that these apostles may have written in Aramaic and then their works got translated -- but Greek scholars have debunked that theory. They can spot and differentiate "translation Greek" from "original Greek." Unfortunately, I cannot!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well, Peter and John were supposedly “uneducated and untrained men” (Acts 4:13) yet both of them wrote in Greek (presuming that they are the authors of the epistles and gospel that bear their name). Roberts says “If they, humble fishermen of Galilee, understood Greek to such an extent as naturally and easily to write it, that language must have been generally known and used among the people.” Roberts, Greek: The Language of Christ and His Apostles (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1888) p. 91.

I used to think that these apostles may have written in Aramaic and then their works got translated -- but Greek scholars have debunked that theory. They can spot and differentiate "translation Greek" from "original Greek." Unfortunately, I cannot!

Firdt of all most, if God was able to inspire these men to relay His sacred Word to the world - who is to say that He dubd't give them the ability to write them down in the languahe of the day?? For God, who spoke the universe into existence, teaching a few guys how to write would be child's play.

Besides - many scholars don't even believe that Peter wrote his Letters, but that they were written by an assistant.

 

[Hobie]

You are claiming most Jews could not read and write.
The scientific article says that far more Jews were literate then is commonly believed.

Jesus a carpenters son went into the synagogue, as was his custom and was handed the scroll, he sat down to read.
Jesus a common Jew could read.
As people of the bible the Jews valued there scripture, reading it was part of there worship, far more would desire to be able to take part in that worship than you think and synagogue schools would have taught reading and writing in the same way that sunday schools taught the working classes reading and writing.

Well to this day, the Jews are well known for being highly educated or trained in their profession to say nothing of their level of knowledge on the sciences and medicine..

 

[Marymog]

Well, Peter and John were supposedly “uneducated and untrained men” (Acts 4:13) yet both of them wrote in Greek (presuming that they are the authors of the epistles and gospel that bear their name). Roberts says “If they, humble fishermen of Galilee, understood Greek to such an extent as naturally and easily to write it, that language must have been generally known and used among the people.” Roberts, Greek: The Language of Christ and His Apostles (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1888) p. 91.

I used to think that these apostles may have written in Aramaic and then their works got translated -- but Greek scholars have debunked that theory. They can spot and differentiate "translation Greek" from "original Greek." Unfortunately, I cannot!

Presuming is the key word...

 

[Marymog]

I am claiming no such thing. I am saying only that the article you cite does not prove the contrary.

Were most early Christians illiterate? How, then, did they understand Christianity if they could not read the Bible? – Evidence for Christianity

evidenceforchristianity.org

How Many People Were Literate in Antiquity? | The Bart Ehrman Blog

Over the past month I have received a number of questions on the blog about whether it was possible that some of the apostles used "secretaries" to write their books -- so that when 1 or 2 Peter, say, claims to be written by Peter, it actually was written by…

ehrmanblog.org

Amazon.com

 

[Marymog]

I am very slow to say that I am right and that someone else is wrong... even if I believe that. This something I learned to do some time ago in order to converse with a person without bumping heads or at least not too hard. I am certain that I am wrong about some things. I just do not know what they are. This is why I strive to remain open to God directly or through other people. How can one ever be increased even by God if he has closed his heart and his mind?

Amadeus,

Soooo to answer your question: How can one ever be increased even by God if he has closed his heart and his mind?

We are not talking about a person having their heart and mind closed or open to God. You are twisting this conversation around.

Our discussion/conversation is about the Truth. The opposite of the Truth is/was brought into Christianity by false prophets, charlatans, sheep in wolves clothing. The Truth is there, you just deny it if doesn't fit what YOU believe. YOU believe that reading Scripture is eating His body and drinking His blood. What you believe is provably not true! It has never been taught in Christianity because it is not supported by Scripture and it is not logical.

It doesn't matter if YOU have your heart and mind closed. Open or close it all you want, the Truth of Scripture is still the Truth. And in this instance you, by your own admission, have lied to yourself what Scripture says about eating His body and drinking His blood.

And why would you be slow to say that you are right and someone else is wrong? Here is my advice: Since you lack the confidence in KNOWING what you are saying to others is the Truth, you shouldn't say it until you become confident that what you say is the Truth.

I am free.....Mary

And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

 

[amadeus]

Amadeus,

Soooo to answer your question: How can one ever be increased even by God if he has closed his heart and his mind?

We are not talking about a person having their heart and mind closed or open to God. You are twisting this conversation around.

Our discussion/conversation is about the Truth. The opposite of the Truth is/was brought into Christianity by false prophets, charlatans, sheep in wolves clothing. The Truth is there, you just deny it if doesn't fit what YOU believe. YOU believe that reading Scripture is eating His body and drinking His blood. What you believe is provably not true! It has never been taught in Christianity because it is not supported by Scripture and it is not logical.

It doesn't matter if YOU have your heart and mind closed. Open or close it all you want, the Truth of Scripture is still the Truth. And in this instance you, by your own admission, have lied to yourself what Scripture says about eating His body and drinking His blood.

And why would you be slow to say that you are right and someone else is wrong? Here is my advice: Since you lack the confidence in KNOWING what you are saying to others is the Truth, you shouldn't say it until you become confident that what you say is the Truth.

I am free.....Mary

And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Will I win you over to another way of serving God by continuing this discussion? Will you win me over? Only God give increases that matter to Him and to us ultimately. Let us leave it at that.

 

[Marymog]

Will I win you over to another way of serving God by continuing this discussion? Will you win me over? Only God give increases that matter to Him and to us ultimately. Let us leave it at that.

Amadeus,

Our discussion is not about serving God. To twist this into something it isn't is sad.

 

[amadeus]

Amadeus,

Our discussion is not about serving God. To twist this into something it isn't is sad.

For me everything is about serving God.

 

[Marymog]

For me everything is about serving God.

OK. Still has nothing to do with the context of our discussion.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

OK. Still has nothing to do with the context of our discussion.

Serving God is always better than serving a religious organization which is nothing but a social club

 

[Marymog]

Serving God is always better than serving a religious organization which is nothing but a social club View attachment 41544

What you call a "religious organization" is The Church. We all serve The Church which is the pillar and foundation of Truth and decides if you are to be treated as a pagan or tax collector. We serve God thru The Church. Nice try though...

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

What you call a "religious organization" is The Church.

That would be the Body of Christ... not the catholic church which is nothing more
than a social club with rules where their leaders demand money and dress funny