Is scripture the highest authority?

[Vicomte13]

And where is that to be found?

It is the canonical Greek text of the Eastern Orthodox Church, as established by the Patriarch of Constantinople.

 

[lesliedellow]

It is the canonical Greek text of the Eastern Orthodox Church, as established by the Patriarch of Constantinople.

You still haven't told me what makes it the "correct" manuscript; given that there are no complete manuscripts of any New Testament book surviving from the first century.

 

[FireDragon76]

Textual criticism smuggled humanism into theology... something I'm not sure Protestants are fully aware of. When you say the Bible is God's Word, are you implying that God providentially uses scholars as instruments of his will? How about the reality that many of these textual critics themselves are not orthodox Christians and some are even irreligious?

It seems to me Protestants often introduce a kind of academic clericalism into theology which academics do not necessarily deserve. The stereotype of the Reformed or Lutheran theologian is the professor that has an answer for everything based on textual and historical criticism, and the study of ancient languages that he studied for years in seminary (what's exactly is so spiritual about that, I don't know - it's almost like the Holy Spirit is an afterthought in this sort of theology, it's all about the scientific approach to the Bible). Whereas Catholic theologians are more like philosophers and Orthodox theologians are mystics.

 

[lesliedellow]

Textual criticism smuggled humanism into theology... something I'm not sure Protestants are fully aware of. When you say the Bible is God's Word, are you implying that God providentially uses scholars as instruments of his will? How about the reality that many of these textual critics themselves are not orthodox Christians and some are even irreligious

Are you sure you know the difference between textual criticism and so called "higher" criticism?

 

[FireDragon76]

One thing about the Textus Receptus that speaks to its favor was that it was used by Orthodox and Protestants for a significant period of time until the mid to late 19th century. The other textual traditions are relatively recently introduced, and do not have anything as near widespread acceptance. Despite the awkward language, many people still accept the KJV as valid, for instance.

 

[FireDragon76]

Are you sure you know the difference between textual criticism and so called "higher" criticism?

Yes, I know the difference but they both rest on a "scientific" approach to theology.

 

[lesliedellow]

One thing about the Textus Receptus that speaks to its favor was that it was used by Orthodox and Protestants for a significant period of time until the mid to late 19th century. The other textual traditions are relatively recently introduced, and do not have anything as near widespread acceptance. Despite the awkward language, many people still accept the KJV as valid, for instance.

There have been many Greek manuscripts of the New Testament discovered since the KJV was produced. Any new translation is quite sensibly based upon critical editions of the Greek New Testament, that utilise the evidence which has become available since the seventeenth century.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes, I know the difference but they both rest on a "scientific" approach to theology.

Textual criticism has got nothing to do with theology. Catholic translators of the Bible can quite happily make use of critical editions of the New Testament that Protestants have produced.

 

[Winken]

As to the OP: I believe that Scripture is the highest authority on earth, but it must be interpreted by the Holy Spirit... the two go hand and hand. Spirit over Scripture= radical Pentecostal. Scripture without Spirit= dead religion.

After all the hair-splitting, perhaps you have offered clarity.

 

[Vicomte13]

You still haven't told me what makes it the "correct" manuscript; given that there are no complete manuscripts of any New Testament book surviving from the first century.

There is a Church that survives from the First Century: the Catholic/Orthodox Church (or both churches, if you will - I won't, it's one Church, divided by a deep and long schism, not two churches).

In the First Century, Jesus gave Peter authority: what he binds on earth shall be bound in heaven, what he looses on earth shall be loosed in heaven. He gave similar authority to the Apostles, but Peter was the head, he was the head bishop of the Church, the Patriarch.

Jesus also breathed the Holy Spirit into the Apostles, and said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church.

So, Jesus imbued the Church with the Holy Spirit, and put the Apostles over the Church, and Peter at the head of the Apostles. That's all in Scripture.

Peter and the Apostles, through teaching and the laying on of hands, made more bishops. This too is described in Scripture, in Paul's letter to Timothy.

The laying on of hands, like baptism and communion at the hands of the clergy, is an important CONTROL function. One could not be made a bishop other than by the laying on of hands from an Apostle, or from the hands of a bishop made by an Apostle, and so on to our day. It isn't enough to want to be a bishop, you actually had to conform to the faith and be so recognized by the existing bishops. Thus, the ability to become clergy is under the control of those who have been given that power through the laying on of hands. This ensures consistency over the illiterate ages and the literate and contentious ages.

Priests are made by bishops. Bishops are made by bishops. And bishops were originally made by Apostles. All through the laying on of hands, per Timothy, the passing of the Holy Spirit of authority, in that manner, just as it was since the beginning.

Peter was the Patriarch of the Church. James was the Patriarch of Jerusalem, until his death.

The head Bishop of a given Church, the Patriarch, sits in the role of Peter. And the laying on of hands through the ages vouchsafes the passing on of tradition. It doesn't protect men from individual error, of course, but it does constrain and control the beliefs and type of faith of those who have that role.

That's why the Patriarch of Constantinople is particularly qualified to make such a choice.

Why Constantinople? Why not Rome? Rome did make that choice. The Latin Vulgate. The language of the Patriarchate of Rome was Latin, and within the sphere of the Church the Pope was in the position empowered through the apostolic succession, and by the fact of having the greatest resources in the Church, to assemble the greatest scholars and to commission the greatest scholar of his age (and just about every age), St. Jerome. Thus was born the Latin Vulgate, the definitive text for Latin speakers.

But Constantinople is in the Greek East. It was Catholic in formal name until the mid-1000s (and it still IS catholic in spiritual reality: the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are in schism - they are not two separate religions - when two brothers strive, they do not cease to be brothers. Romulus killed Remus, but Rome didn't (quite) kill Constantinople back in the day (tried, but God didn't let it happen), and so Rome, and Constantinople, and Alexandria and Antioch, for that matter, are all still there, all still presided over by their patriarchal bishops.

The Greek East speaks Greek, and that is the language in which the Christian Scriptures used by the Greek world were written. Are parts of the Peshitta part of the original Aramaic text of Matthew? Perhaps yes, and it's up to the Patriarch of Antioch to decide on the Aramaic. Constantinople is Greek - Ecumenical, in name and sentiment - but Greek. The language is Greek, and always has been Greek, all the way back to beginning.

As nobody was in a better position than the Pope to assemble the resources to translate into the best Latin, nobody in the Church, with the authority of apostolic succession, is in a better position than the Patriarch of Constantinople to determine what is the best Greek, the most authoritative Greek.

In this endeavor, Constantinople is aided by the unique and powerful gift of Mt. Athos, the likes of which exists nowhere else in the Christian world. There are no scholars in the world better placed to determine the best Greek sources than the Greeks of Mt Athos, and nobody of higher authority in the Greek Christian world than the Patriarch of Constantinople to determine, with the protection of the Holy Spirit, the most authentic and authoritative of all of the Greek texts.

Also, there is no Church that has had to suffer and be submerged, first by pagans and then by the long Ottoman night, not by the troubled world of Islam, than the Greek see of Constantinople. Through the storm and the darkness, the Church stood like a rock. Who has the authority of Greek martyrdom for Christ greater than the Greek Church under Islamic occupation and torment? Who else was preserved by God from dissolution? None. The fact that the Church survived intact, that the Patriarchate is still there, even after Hagia Sophia ceased to be a mosque and was converted into a museum - this is all proof of the abiding protection of God.

All of the Greeks of Greek Christianity look to Constantinople for the authority of the text. Even the Greek Catholics (which is to say, those Greeks whose bishops are in union with Rome) use the Greek text, not the Latin or modern vernacular.

The Patriarch of Constantinople, informed by Mt Athos, selected a certain set of manuscripts as being the definitive text of the Greek Bible. Thus the authority of the apostolic succession, the authority of Peter, the authority of the head of the Church, the only Church that has been there forever, the authority of the Greek speaking Church evaluating its own language, guided by the holy spirit, and the unmatchable authority of Mt. Athos, which is Greek and always has been Greek, combine to mean that the decision of the Patriarch of Constantinople on what IS the Greek text cannot be seriously disputed. Peter has spoken, and heaven and earth are bound to it.

That is why the Patriarchal Text is THE authoritative Greek text. The Eastern Orthodox Bible is translated from that particular text (with cross references to the translations from other textual traditions). It is acceptable for liturgical use in English-speaking Greek Orthodox services. It's the real deal.

If you want to know what the New Testament of the Bible REALLY SAYS, vouchsafed by the authority of God passed down through Peter through the laying on of hands described in Timothy, THAT is your Greek text.

 

[pescador]

There have been many Greek manuscripts of the New Testament discovered since the KJV was produced. Any new translation is quite sensibly based upon critical editions of the Greek New Testament, that utilise the evidence which has become available since the seventeenth century.

An excellent explanatory post! Thanks.

 

[Vicomte13]

Textual criticism has got nothing to do with theology. Catholic translators of the Bible can quite happily make use of critical editions of the New Testament that Protestants have produced.

Sure, but for liturgical use Catholic Churches must use the formal approved texts. For personal scholarship much more is permitted.

Greeks can use all that stuff too, for personal study. But the formal Greek text is the Patriarchal Text, and that's the right one to use too, for liturgy, for the reasons set forth at length above.

 

[Vicomte13]

One thing about the Textus Receptus that speaks to its favor was that it was used by Orthodox and Protestants for a significant period of time until the mid to late 19th century. The other textual traditions are relatively recently introduced, and do not have anything as near widespread acceptance. Despite the awkward language, many people still accept the KJV as valid, for instance.

Sure. The textus receptus is based on a "Byzantine Text Type" manuscript. The manuscript source was valid. The KJV translation's validity depends on the skill, quality, care, and objectivity of the translators. It is a pretty good translation of a good manuscript, all in all.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Jesus started a Church, he didn't write a book.

His Church wrote down his teachings, perserved them, and proclaims them throughout the world.

Your choice of words and brevity misleads the truth.

Statement 1. Jesus started a Church.
Misleading conclusions:
Jesus somehow ordained a certain religious institution that survives today to carry the "torch of truth". Back then church was nothing but a group of followers. Only later under the direction of others, did a central multilevel bureaucracy develop. Jesus did not start the EO, RCC or any surviving church of a specific religious institution. Jesus preached to the Jews in Israel. That church largely rejected him and is dead.

Further, the widest definition of the Church is the group of saved. Jesus did not start this. There were God's people before he came to earth. What Jesus did was to teach and bring a new covenant to the world. This he started with the followers of the old covenant, the Jews. These teachings of Jesus did start the Christian Church, but as John's letters to the seven churches prove, there was not a central sanctioned Protectorate Church.

Statement 2. Jesus didn't write a book.
Misleading conclusion:
Jesus is not the author of the words in the N.T. Scripture states in multiple times that the words in the texts are from Jesus.

 

[lesliedellow]

As nobody was in a better position than the Pope to assemble the resources to translate into the best Latin, nobody in the Church, with the authority of apostolic succession, is in a better position than the Patriarch of Constantinople to determine what is the best Greek, the most authoritative Greek.

Blah, blah, blah. Neither the Pope, nor Jerome, nor anybody else, could make use of textual evidence which was not available to them. Before critical editions could be produced, the printing press had to be invented. Why do you think the Catholic Church is still sponsoring new translations, such as the Jerusalem Bible, today?

 

[pescador]

There is a Church that survives from the First Century: the Catholic/Orthodox Church (or both churches, if you will - I won't, it's one Church, divided by a deep and long schism, not two churches).

In the First Century, Jesus gave Peter authority: what he binds on earth shall be bound in heaven, what he looses on earth shall be loosed in heaven. He gave similar authority to the Apostles, but Peter was the head, he was the head bishop of the Church, the Patriarch.

Jesus also breathed the Holy Spirit into the Apostles, and said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church.

So, Jesus imbued the Church with the Holy Spirit, and put the Apostles over the Church, and Peter at the head of the Apostles. That's all in Scripture.

Peter and the Apostles, through teaching and the laying on of hands, made more bishops. This too is described in Scripture, in Paul's letter to Timothy.

The laying on of hands, like baptism and communion at the hands of the clergy, is an important CONTROL function. One could not be made a bishop other than by the laying on of hands from an Apostle, or from the hands of a bishop made by an Apostle, and so on to our day. It isn't enough to want to be a bishop, you actually had to conform to the faith and be so recognized by the existing bishops. Thus, the ability to become clergy is under the control of those who have been given that power through the laying on of hands. This ensures consistency over the illiterate ages and the literate and contentious ages.

Priests are made by bishops. Bishops are made by bishops. And bishops were originally made by Apostles. All through the laying on of hands, per Timothy, the passing of the Holy Spirit of authority, in that manner, just as it was since the beginning.

Peter was the Patriarch of the Church. James was the Patriarch of Jerusalem, until his death.

The head Bishop of a given Church, the Patriarch, sits in the role of Peter. And the laying on of hands through the ages vouchsafes the passing on of tradition. It doesn't protect men from individual error, of course, but it does constrain and control the beliefs and type of faith of those who have that role.

That's why the Patriarch of Constantinople is particularly qualified to make such a choice.

Why Constantinople? Why not Rome? Rome did make that choice. The Latin Vulgate. The language of the Patriarchate of Rome was Latin, and within the sphere of the Church the Pope was in the position empowered through the apostolic succession, and by the fact of having the greatest resources in the Church, to assemble the greatest scholars and to commission the greatest scholar of his age (and just about every age), St. Jerome. Thus was born the Latin Vulgate, the definitive text for Latin speakers.

But Constantinople is in the Greek East. It was Catholic in formal name until the mid-1000s (and it still IS catholic in spiritual reality: the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are in schism - they are not two separate religions - when two brothers strive, they do not cease to be brothers. Romulus killed Remus, but Rome didn't (quite) kill Constantinople back in the day (tried, but God didn't let it happen), and so Rome, and Constantinople, and Alexandria and Antioch, for that matter, are all still there, all still presided over by their patriarchal bishops.

The Greek East speaks Greek, and that is the language in which the Christian Scriptures used by the Greek world were written. Are parts of the Peshitta part of the original Aramaic text of Matthew? Perhaps yes, and it's up to the Patriarch of Antioch to decide on the Aramaic. Constantinople is Greek - Ecumenical, in name and sentiment - but Greek. The language is Greek, and always has been Greek, all the way back to beginning.

As nobody was in a better position than the Pope to assemble the resources to translate into the best Latin, nobody in the Church, with the authority of apostolic succession, is in a better position than the Patriarch of Constantinople to determine what is the best Greek, the most authoritative Greek.

In this endeavor, Constantinople is aided by the unique and powerful gift of Mt. Athos, the likes of which exists nowhere else in the Christian world. There are no scholars in the world better placed to determine the best Greek sources than the Greeks of Mt Athos, and nobody of higher authority in the Greek Christian world than the Patriarch of Constantinople to determine, with the protection of the Holy Spirit, the most authentic and authoritative of all of the Greek texts.

Also, there is no Church that has had to suffer and be submerged, first by pagans and then by the long Ottoman night, not by the troubled world of Islam, than the Greek see of Constantinople. Through the storm and the darkness, the Church stood like a rock. Who has the authority of Greek martyrdom for Christ greater than the Greek Church under Islamic occupation and torment? Who else was preserved by God from dissolution? None. The fact that the Church survived intact, that the Patriarchate is still there, even after Hagia Sophia ceased to be a mosque and was converted into a museum - this is all proof of the abiding protection of God.

All of the Greeks of Greek Christianity look to Constantinople for the authority of the text. Even the Greek Catholics (which is to say, those Greeks whose bishops are in union with Rome) use the Greek text, not the Latin or modern vernacular.

The Patriarch of Constantinople, informed by Mt Athos, selected a certain set of manuscripts as being the definitive text of the Greek Bible. Thus the authority of the apostolic succession, the authority of Peter, the authority of the head of the Church, the only Church that has been there forever, the authority of the Greek speaking Church evaluating its own language, guided by the holy spirit, and the unmatchable authority of Mt. Athos, which is Greek and always has been Greek, combine to mean that the decision of the Patriarch of Constantinople on what IS the Greek text cannot be seriously disputed. Peter has spoken, and heaven and earth are bound to it.

That is why the Patriarchal Text is THE authoritative Greek text. The Eastern Orthodox Bible is translated from that particular text (with cross references to the translations from other textual traditions). It is acceptable for liturgical use in English-speaking Greek Orthodox services. It's the real deal.

If you want to know what the New Testament of the Bible REALLY SAYS, vouchsafed by the authority of God passed down through Peter through the laying on of hands described in Timothy, THAT is your Greek text.

This is all very interesting and has made me curious about the Eastern Orthodox Bible. I have one problem though: when Jesus said "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18a) he didn't say "you are Peter and on you I will build my church". If that's what he meant he would have said it plainly (and he wasn't speaking a parable). I strongly believe that the rock that the church has been built on is the confession that Jesus is the Messiah. Peter was a man who denied Christ three times and is described in Paul's epistles as man of weak character, vacillating in his behavior according to the circumstances.

I just can't accept the idea of an unbroken succession of men who head the church based on a flawed man whom Jesus called "Satan" just five verses after he said "on this rock I will build my church".

 

[lesliedellow]

Sure. The textus receptus is based on a "Byzantine Text Type" manuscript. The manuscript source was valid. The KJV translation's validity depends on the skill, quality, care, and objectivity of the translators. It is a pretty good translation of a good manuscript, all in all.

What makes the Textus Receptus so valid, when it contains texts, such as the Johanine Comma, which are missing from all the earliest manuscripts? Is the Patriarch of Constantinople endowed with a special ability to know that John wrote something, when all the earliest evidence is that he didn't.

 

[Thursday]

Your choice of words and brevity misleads the truth.

Statement 1. Jesus started a Church.
Misleading conclusions:
Jesus somehow ordained a certain religious institution that survives today to carry the "torch of truth". Back then church was nothing but a group of followers. Only later under the direction of others, did a central multilevel bureaucracy develop. Jesus did not start the EO, RCC or any surviving church of a specific religious institution. Jesus preached to the Jews in Israel. That church largely rejected him and is dead.

Further, the widest definition of the Church is the group of saved. Jesus did not start this. There were God's people before he came to earth. What Jesus did was to teach and bring a new covenant to the world. This he started with the followers of the old covenant, the Jews. These teachings of Jesus did start the Christian Church, but as John's letters to the seven churches prove, there was not a central sanctioned Protectorate Church.

Statement 2. Jesus didn't write a book.
Misleading conclusion:
Jesus is not the author of the words in the N.T. Scripture states in multiple times that the words in the texts are from Jesus.

Your definitions are inconsistent with traditional Christianity. Your view is more similar to the gnostics.

Jesus started one Church. He gave his Church leaders. He gave these leaders his authority to make rules, forgive sins, and teach.

The New Testament was written by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

As to the OP: I believe that Scripture is the highest authority on earth, but it must be interpreted by the Holy Spirit... the two go hand and hand. Spirit over Scripture= radical Pentecostal. Scripture without Spirit= dead religion.

After all the hair-splitting, perhaps you have offered clarity.

There are two completely different questions being argued in this thread.
1) Where is a source on incontrovertible truth found today on earth?
2) How is the correct understanding of that truth obtained?

Yes, question 2 is important, but it is not the question I asked in starting this thread.
Further, if there is not consensus on question 1, there will only be less consensus on question 2.

Some have stated that question 1 depends on your answer to question 2, but I don't see any convincing argument for it. I much more think question 2 depends on the answer to 1.

 

[Thursday]

1) Where is a source on incontrovertible truth found today on earth?
.

If the bible is the source of incontrovertible truth, then why do so many bible readers disagree about central matters of the Christian faith?