Journey

“When it comes to matters of final authority there is agreement among the major branches of Christianity with regard to the divine inspiration of the Old and New Testament. However, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches of the church go somewhat beyond the Bible as to their source of authority.” (McDowell 26)

“It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the twenty-two or twenty-four, books of the Hebrew Bible of Palestinian Judaism.…It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuteron-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of the Christians was not the original Hebrew version, but the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Begun at Alexandria about the middle of the third century B.C., this became the Bible of the Greek-speaking Jews of the Dispersion, and most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.” (Kelly 53)

As a child, I always viewed the Bible as a special book. My family had several Bibles throughout our home; I remember one as being extra special. Its dark leather cover had engraved designs trimmed in gold with a metal cross for unzipping. It was placed center stage on the coffee table, which invited second glances from all who looked upon it. For those bold enough to flip through the pages, time instantly reversed itself to days long since past. Today, this book gives more of an impression of a trophy displayed in a house. I never understood why this particular Bible had importance in our home until last week while talking with my mother. She explained that it was “special”; because as a little girl it was the one gift she asked for and received (Jensen).

Being raised in the Catholic tradition she understood the Bible as the “written Words of God” (Jensen). Her Bible study classes she instructed at the Church has always lingered in my mind. It was obvious the Bible had played an enormous roll in her life; however, in my own life, I had not arrived at her same understanding. Yet, I could never quite dismiss it as a mere book.

Like my mother, I grew up within the Catholic tradition. My early education was formed in the Catholic school system. My daily religious classes and my twice a week Mass[1] attendence gave me a jump-start on my faith. Unfortunately, a move away from this school led to a softening of my convictions. I soon concluded Mass was no longer important. Likewise, the Bible lost its appeal!

The big circle of life came hard upon me when I found myself a father of two boys, Shane and Matthew and facing a broken marriage. The divorce hit me hard, resulting in questions that pierced like lightning rods through my heart. What was wrong with me? What did I do to deserve this? How are my kids going to handle the shuffle between two households? With questions of uncertainty, I wanted answers, not only for myself, but also for my boys who now faced a world different from my plan.

Struggling in a broken home gave need for more parental guidance than this single Dad could offer. So, at the age of 27, looking for financial and emotional support, I moved in with my parents. I immediately enrolled the boys in religious education classes and started attending Sunday Mass on a regularly basis. My hope was to educate the boys with a God fearing morality while giving them a sense of belonging. Looking back, this desire for my children was the pivotal moment in my own journey back to faith, which I had allowed to fade long ago, though it had never disappeared from the depths of my soul.

My decision to learn more about Christianity involved more than just attending Sunday service at my local parish.[2] I decided to jump into my truck, travel across town and purchased my first Bible. The cost of my New International Version or NIV was only $10. Randy, a Christian counselor from the Boise Calvary Chapel recommended this version because of its ease in reading and its popularity with other Bible-believing Churches. My initial purchase was two Bibles, one for my wife and the other for myself.

The hope of saving my marriage through counseling still pushed at my heart. Soon, we realized our marriage was no not to be saved. However, the sessions with Randy etched my desire to read and understand this book, which he believed could reveal answers to my questions.

Reading the Bible was not a smooth and systematic task. The bits and pieces I would read did not establish anything new. After a couple of years of sporadic reading I met a self-proclaimed Evangelist or “Bible Thumper” as he called himself, whom I will refer to as John. John was the first to ask some direct questions about my faith. I was captivated by his ability to recall verses within the Bible. I had always understood faith as being unexplainable. However, his approach of being able to proclaim what and why he believed was electrifying. With this new approach towards the Bible, I proceeded to underline, highlight and mark the pages like a textbook studied in school. This book was not to be a trophy in my home.

Once confident in my knowledge about the Bible and its contents, I dared to enter into in-depth discussions. One particular conversation, I had with my brother Dave, led to the discovery that my Bible had fewer books than his. He explained the Catholic Church recognizes more books as belonging to Scripture than the Protestant Churches. His explanation gave rise to a new dilemma. I not only had life questions to answer but also the need to determine which Bible I should use. My newfound doubts about my Bible forced the need to purchase a Catholic Bible. With both Bibles in hand and a bit of curiosity as to which bible might be correct, my journey thickened.

My new problem forced a closer look into today’s understanding of Christianity. As my brother had asserted, Christianity was divided. Josh McDowell, author of Handbook of Today’s Religions, breaks it into three major branches: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant (26). McDowell explains that all three branches recognize the major outline of Christianity (26); Jesus is the Christ[3] who “died for our sins”, “was buried” and who was “raised on the third day” (NAB 1 Corinthians 15:3-4). They also recognize Holy Scripture as being authored by God (McDowell 26). However, this is where the differences begin. The three branches disagree on which books were truly authored by God.

The Protestant Churches was confirmed to have fewer books as being sacred than their Eastern Orthodox and Catholic brothers (All About God Ministries). The Catholics have 73 books; the Eastern Orthodox varies with 73-plus books, while Protestant holds a firm 66 (Spread the Word). To my surprise, the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches held a similar view on which books were to be included within the canon[4] and had similar reasons for their acceptance (McDowell 26).

The similarities of the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches pushed my decision to narrow my focus towards the differences between the Protestant and Catholic view points.

My Catholic background helped me understand some basic beliefs about the Bible from a Catholic perspective. The Catholics accept the same writings as the Protestant Churches. However, the Catholic Church includes seven more books and a few verses in two already accepted books. The books in question are: Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach or Ecclesiasticus and Baruch along with those books two others have more verses; Daniel and Esther (Brown 1041). Many conversations among Protestants touched on the belief that the Catholic Church added books to the Bible; this of course was a shock to me because of my understanding of the Catholic Church being the protector of Scripture the last 2,000 years. So I tried to look into the validity of this claim.

The Christian Bible is separated into two sections the Old and New Testaments. With much debate and turbulence, the majority of Christendom has agreed on the New Testament. This seemingly agreed belief in what books belong in the New Testament gave me the desire to focus, even more narrowly, towards the development of the Old Testament. How did we come to conclude what books belonged into this Testament?

Sacred Scripture played a profound role in early Christianity (NAB Acts 8:27-36). As a young Christian, I never gave the Bible a second thought as to what books belonged. Most people, I would think, know that Christianity emerged from Judaism, which created an overlapping between the two religions. Nevertheless, I find that many people still overlook the obvious and fail to recognize that the early Christians still saw themselves as Jews. This duel identity gave them full access to all the Jewish writings (Brown 1041) which enabled them free use of any writings they thought best to support their faith in Jesus (Currie 105-106). The overlapping caused a rivalry between Christianity and Judaism. Many critical scholars believe the friction between these two groups and the free use of writings the Christians displayed forced the Jewish leaders to canonize their complete list of sacred books (Brown 1040).

With Christianity spreading to the many regions of the Roman Empire, most people could not understand the scriptures when presented in their original language; Hebrew or Aramaic. The limited use of these languages in the Roman Empire influenced the use of the common language translation. This translation is known as the Septuagint or LXX and the common language was Greek (Kelly 53).

The LXX was already in use before the time of Christianity. It proved to be a great tool for early Christians when they showed from scriptures the good news about Jesus. Also, until the latter part of the 2nd century, the Jewish Scriptures were not yet closed for addition or subtraction (Brown 1040).

This unrestricted list of Sacred Writings enabled the early Christians to freely use this translation and/or any writings they believed supported their faith. It is this translation that my Evangelist friend, John, claims the Catholic Church adopted, “in error”, as the Old Testament. He affirms the Hebrew Bible, not the LXX; contain the correct books of the Christian Old Testament. This claim led to another conversation with Dave, who is studying for his Masters degree in Religious Studies. I have been able to utilize his education as a launching point for some inside sources. Dave explained that John has an “incorrect” understanding of history and Catholic teaching. “The historical evidence shows discernment of those books in the LXX”, thus the Catholic Church “chose what books are sacred after much discussion and debate in the 4th century.” Dave provides an illustration for us; “Ezra A” is a book included in all the trusted copies of the LXX. However, it is not recognized by either Protestant or Catholic Churches. “This shows discernment”, explained Dave.

Briefly, my brother demonstrated through verifiable evidence that the Catholic Church did not just adopt the LXX as the Old Testament as John claimed. The Church prayerfully determined, from all the books available which should be used by Christians as Sacred Scripture. Some of the books accepted were not included in the LXX. The Church has always professed the Holy Spirit continues to guide them into the knowledge of God.

The Catholic Church has believed that it was given the authority to decide matters of faith and morals from the birth of Christianity (NAB Acts 15:1-12). They base this understanding on Apostolic Tradition and Holy Scripture. The majority of Christendom has accepted this for the better part of 1,500 years. It was not until the time of the Reformation that this viewpoint changed for many Christians.

The Reformation marks the birth of Protestantism. Today, the majority of our population would associate the Reformation Movement with Catholic monk, Martin Luther. On October 31, in the year of our Lord 1517, Luther nailed his famous ninety-five-theses[5] on the door of the castle church in Wittenberg, a small unassuming city in the Germanic region. This posting was done in the usual practice and as a regular way of life at the University for publicizing any disputations (Buhler).

Luther was educated in theology with an uncompleted background in canon law. He had no intentions of ripping apart his Church and honestly believed the Pope would recognize his position and support a reform within the structure of the Church (Bettenson 205). His actions, directed to expose the abuse of indulgences[6], came on deaf ears within the Church. However, outside of the Church people became intrigued with his arguments and quickly reproduced his theses and distributed them in other cities.

Luther, himself, was not against the pure pious practice of indulgence as his theses affirmed (Bettenson 205-212). His main concern was the practice which members of the Church had developed to acquire wealth under the pretense of indulgence (Buhler).

The overtone of his theses helped beginnings of his teaching against the authority structure of the Church. I concluded with just a cursory reading of his theses the major issue was not the abuse of indulgence but the errors in the Church and the priesthood. He knowingly or unknowingly was targeting the authority of the Church, underneath the blanket of indulgence abuse. Luther could not imagine his theses would spark his eventually path that lead him to recognize fewer books as Scripture.

The invention of the printing press was also a powerful force in the successful outcome of the Reformation. Ideas and thoughts could be multiplied by the masses and distributed faster and farther than at any time known to man thus far. It is believed by many scholars that the Reformations could not have succeeded without the printing press and the Luther movement would have ended in the same way as Jan Hus (1373-1415) had a hundred years earlier—burned at the stake (Buhler).

Martin Luther was not burned at the stake due to many factors that had developed from the time of Hus (Buhler). Luther’s ideas took root and sparked a fire within the people to change the way of life they had been living. Reformation was in the air and ready to emerge. Luther was just one of many flames that burned in the land.

After Luther was excommunicated[7] from the Catholic Church, he became the head Pastor of his new Lutheran Church. His followers gave their fellowship up with the Catholic Church. The biggest differences between the two traditions of Christianity would be in the structure of authority. Lutherans embrace the understanding of a Pastor, teacher of Scripture, as an equal along with lay people. They also profess each and every soul is ultimately accountable for their own faith. This teaching falls in line with the birth of individualism. As previously stated, Reformation was in the air. In my opinion, the Reformation was going to happen with or without Luther and his ninety-five-theses. The desire for individuality was spreading like wild fire. It did not stop and is alive and well today.

Luther soon found every person with or without an education had his own understanding of scripture. Needless to say, they did not always agree with Luther’s understanding. This pushed Luther to develop the authority structure within his own church body to protect the scriptures from being brutally interpreted by uneducated individuals. The Pastor structure was a compromise, which Luther developed, to protect his followers from the spread of individualism. The Pastor was looked upon, as a teacher of Scripture, with no authority from God to Shepard his people. Naturally, Luther became the head Pastor of his Church (Buhler).

“Scripture Alone” became the cry for the Reformation Movement. With the reformers breaking away and/or excommunicated from the Catholic Church, they were left without an authority, only a Pastor, who as an equal had no authority.

A central viewpoint concluded by Luther was the incorrect doctrine of the priesthood and that each Christian is responsible for his/her faith with no need for a Priest. Thus, the priesthood was a rejected practice in his teachings. The lack of priests left the reformers without an authority for guidance. Luther developed his famous doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” and taught each Christian needs only to look and study the Bible to build their faith. This teaching enabled his followers to by-pass the authority of the Catholic Church and look towards Scripture as their authority.

The new doctrine of “scripture only” produced another dilemma for reformers. They needed to know what scripture was outside of Catholic teaching. In order to strengthen the position of the reform, Luther understood the Old Testament to be inherited from the Sacred Writings of the Jewish religion. With this understanding he proclaimed the Jewish Scriptures as the books Christians should regard as the Old Testament. This enabled the Christians to recognize what was scripture without the need of Catholic authority.

In retrospect, my first feelings about Martin Luther were negative. Now, after reading and learning about the turbulent times of the Reformation, I have more respect for him than before. I now realize he was a product of his time and a needed instrument which helped split the ties between church and state. Although, his pride and arrogance pushed him into heretical teachings, he had good intentions and understood the need for reform!

My experience has shown that most Christians do not fully realize the complicated development of the Bible. An email from Professor Charles Odahl, a specialist in Early Christianity, at Boise State University hit home when I found myself deep into research. He explained the development of the Bible “is an extremely difficult topic,” and I needed to learn Latin, Greek and Hebrew in order for me to understand its process. His invitation to enroll into his courses of first and second year Latin, “Early Christianity”, “Constantine” and “Christian Rome” struck me as comical. He noted that I would need to complete these classes in order to be qualified enough to write a paper on this subject. Wow! I first laughed at his email, but now I say; “See you next year Dr. Odahl”, because like most Christians I did not understand the complexities of this topic.

My drive to learn and understand the Bible is the force behind my research. My abilities and/or lack of abilities towards this study had established that the answer to my question, of which Bible to study, is not discovered by logic or proof, but faith. There comes a time when all of the information you have will not be enough to satisfy you with an answer. I can honestly say that both sides have good arguments. However, since I am historically inclined and I look towards historical understanding, I lean toward the Catholic Bible.

The Bible is first and foremost an ancient document. I would be negligent if I did not first look at it with that understanding. I then must look at all the voices that have talked about this document. What do they have say about Scripture?

Augustine is one such individual that is looked upon from both sides of the debate as a Father of the Church. He listed what he understood to be scripture at the end of the 4th century AD. This is also the same list that the council of Trent declared in AD 1545-1563 (Brown 136) and Pope Damasus declared in AD 382 (Brown 1036).

I am compelled to accept as scripture the Catholic Bible. It has more supporting arguments I cannot ignore. I don’t worry if I am wrong in this regard and any person that picks up a Protestant Bible should not either. God knows our hearts and desires. He will lead us through his door if we ask. Jesus did not shut out a person because he did not have the complete Bible. My faith is in Jesus not the Bible. The Bible only helps me in my walk with Christ. As for my life questions that started this quest, well, they are still around and the only answer thus far is the love of Jesus and his Grace of forgiveness.
AMEN!
________________________________________
This research essay was an assignment from my English 102 Class during the Spring semester of 2004 at Boise State University, instructed by Dr. Steve Barrett, May 13, 2004.
________________________________________
Footnotes
[1] A commemoration, renewal and representation of the Last Supper and Calvary (Kolodziej 41)
[2] A local church community.
[3] Anointed one or prophesied Messiah (Savior).
[4] To declare
[5] A disputation from the Catholic Monk, Martin Luther to the scholars at the University of Wittenberg to discuss theological concerns involving the Catholic Church’s practice of Indulgence.
[6] An indulgence is the remission before God of the temporal punishment due sins already forgiven as far as their guilt is concerned, which the follower of Christ with the proper dispositions and under certain determined conditions acquires through the intervention of the Church which, as minister of the Redemption, authoritatively dispenses and applies the treasury of the satisfaction won by Christ and the saints (Pope Paul VI Indulgentarium Doctrina).
[7] Excluded from the rites of the church.

Works Cited

All About GOD Ministries, Inc. Septuagint and Reliablility. http://www.septuagint.net/. March 2004

Betttenson. Henry. Maunder, Christ. Documents of the Christian Church. 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press. NY. 1999

Brown, Raymond E., et al., eds. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Prentice-Hall. USA. 1990

Buhler, Peter. BSU History 101 Lecture. Spring 2004Catholic Answers. http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp 1979-2004

Catholic Encyclopedia. Apocrypha. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm September 2003.

Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Grand Rapids Michigan. 1967

Currie, David B. Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic. Ignatius Press. San Francisco. 1996

Jensen, Angie. Personal Interview. March 2, 2004Jensen, David. Personal Interview. March 20, 2004

Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines. 2nd Edition. Harper & Row Publishers. New York.1960

Kolodziej, Maynard. Understanding the Mass. Catholic Publishing. New Jersey. 1998

McDowell, Josh. Stewart, Don. Handbook of Today’s Religions. Campus Crusades for Christ, Inc. 1983.

McGrath, Alister E. Reformation Thought, An Introduction. 2nd Edition. Blackwell. Malden, Massachusetts. 1997

New American Bible (NAB). Saint Jerome Edition. Catholic Book Publishing. New York. 1992.

New International Version (NIV). Bible. Zondervan Publishing. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1994

Odahl, Charles. “Re: Questions”. E-Mail to the author with permission. 02/19/04 Spread the Word. On the Bible. www.spread-the-word.info/faq’s/on_the_bible.htm

Webster’s New World Compact School and Office Dictionary 4th edition. Wiley Publishing, Inc. Cleveland Ohio`