mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,990.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We are used to having access to scripture. I have bibles all over the house and can simply look up stuff online also from laptops or mobiles. That freedom of access comes from technology that was not available in the time of Jesus and the early church e.g. printing press, digital media and the internet.

There is reference to Jesus reading scripture in a synagogue so maybe it is a good bet that most rabbis had a copy of the bible but you would have to go to a synagogue to hear it.

1) Who else owned copies of the Septuagint or ancient Hebrew or Aramaic translations of scripture. How could you get a copy of the scriptures.

2) If you were rich enough could you buy one and from whom. Would any copy you had have to be hand copied.

It seems the early church mainly used the Septuagint when quoting from the OT and it seems most of the NT if not all was written in Greek also.

3) But how much access did the churches have to the written word in the earliest days of Christianity
 

TuxAme

Quis ut Deus?
Supporter
Dec 16, 2017
2,422
3,264
Ohio
✟169,197.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
In the early Church, any copies of Scripture (especially in the days of scrolls) would more than likely be kept in the church. I'd imagine this would have been the case in Israel as well, as everything had to be written by hand, making the copies of everything expensive and rare. The invention of the printing press helped to solve this problem.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,990.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In the early Church, any copies of Scripture (especially in the days of scrolls) would more than likely be kept in the church. I'd imagine this would have been the case in Israel as well, as everything had to be written by hand, making the copies of everything expensive and rare. The invention of the printing press helped to solve this problem.

We know that the synagogues (even small town ones like in Nazareth) had scrolls from scripture.

Luke 4:16-20
He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: 18"The Spirit of the LORD is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, 19to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor." 20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down.

It seems from this passage that the scrolls were specially looked after and only given when used by an attendant. There is a degree of reverence and concern for the scrolls in that protection process.

But if only Jewish Rabbis had copies then how did the early church get their hands on them.

What evidence have we got that Christians acquired these by copying, by purchase, because available in a wider academic context or however.

How did the early church obtain ownership of the Old Testament when most of those who had copies were hostile to them?
 
Upvote 0

Silverback

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2019
1,306
853
61
South East
✟66,756.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
We are used to having access to scripture. I have bibles all over the house and can simply look up stuff online also from laptops or mobiles. That freedom of access comes from technology that was not available in the time of Jesus and the early church e.g. printing press, digital media and the internet.

There is reference to Jesus reading scripture in a synagogue so maybe it is a good bet that most rabbis had a copy of the bible but you would have to go to a synagogue to hear it.

1) Who else owned copies of the Septuagint or ancient Hebrew or Aramaic translations of scripture. How could you get a copy of the scriptures.

2) If you were rich enough could you buy one and from whom. Would any copy you had have to be hand copied.

It seems the early church mainly used the Septuagint when quoting from the OT and it seems most of the NT if not all was written in Greek also.

3) But how much access did the churches have to the written word in the earliest days of Christianity

I think they were the property of the local church, I would imagine that you could pay for a copy of you had the means.

According to a Rabbi I new in the Navy, a good transcribed copy took about a year to complete, and the people who did the work were very careful to not make any mistakes. There reputation was of the utmost importance, and chances are there father, and grandfather also transcribed scripture, which was the case for most skilled trades I guess.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,990.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think they were the property of the local church, I would imagine that you could pay for a copy of you had the means.

According to a Rabbi I new in the Navy, a good transcribed copy took about a year to complete, and the people who did the work were very careful to not make any mistakes. There reputation was of the utmost importance, and chances are there father, and grandfather also transcribed scripture, which was the case for most skilled trades I guess.

Yes 1 man years work for a good copy is about right. So a man who did that for 40 years could theoretically produce 40 copies. But what I am trying to find is any evidence about how the church got a hold of those copies and how? Did they buy them from people for whom it was a family business, did they obtain access and copy them themselves, did they own them like family heirlooms, did they copy large junks of them down through a childhood education process that probably involved scriptures. What actual evidence have we got for this?
 
Upvote 0

Silverback

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2019
1,306
853
61
South East
✟66,756.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Yes 1 man years work for a good copy is about right. So a man who did that for 40 years could theoretically produce 40 copies. But what I am trying to find is any evidence about how the church got a hold of those copies and how? Did they buy them from people for whom it was a family business, did they obtain access and copy them themselves, did they own them like family heirlooms, did they copy large junks of them down through a childhood education process that probably involved scriptures. What actual evidence have we got for this?

Just speculation here, but everything kind of started over once the Jewish people returned from the exile in babylon, that's where synagogue worship started.

It would be my guess that the Jewish religious leaders arranged for this, through there various council functions. I could also see a wealthy member of the congregation gifting a copy, and it could be that a collection was taken and when they had enough money buying one.

Perhaps all three, or, I could be completely wrong on all points.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,990.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It seems that kings commissioned copies of the text and placed them in libraries like the Great Library of Alexandria. Indeed the Septuagint was created in this way on the request of Ptolemy II, even if the letter below is somewhat apocryphal in character

The Septuagint Version is first mentioned in a letter of Aristeas to his brother Philocrates. Here, in substance, is what we read of the origin of the version. Ptolemy II Philadelphus, King of Egypt (287-47 BC) had recently established a valuable library at Alexandria. He was persuaded by Demetrius of Phalarus, chief librarian, to enrich it with a copy of the sacred books of the Jews. To win the good graces of this people, Ptolemy, by the advice of Aristeas, an officer of the royal guard, an Egyptian by birth and a pagan by religion, emancipated 100,000 slaves in different parts of his kingdom. He then sent delegates, among whom was Aristeas, to Jerusalem, to ask Eleazar, the Jewish high-priest, to provide him with a copy of the Law, and Jews capable of translating it into Greek. The embassy was successful: a richly ornamented copy of the Law was sent to him and seventy-two Israelites, six from each tribe, were deputed to go to Egypt and carry out the wish of the king. They were received with great honor and during seven days astonished everyone by the wisdom they displayed in answering seventy-two questions which they were asked; then they were led into the solitary island of Pharos, where they began their work, translating the Law, helping one another and comparing translations in proportion as they finished them. At the end of seventy-two days, their work was completed, The translation was read in presence of the Jewish priests, princes, and people assembled at Alexandria, who all recognized and praised its perfect conformity with the Hebrew original. The king was greatly pleased with the work and had it placed in the library.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Septuagint Version


Also it seems the Essenes (DSS) had an extensive library of scrolls but that they did not necessarily create all of them as many are older than the Qumran community (being dated to 2nd Century BC). Josephus seems to indicate that the sect had a lot of resources and so it is possible they simply bought a lot of them which would then indicate a market for bible scrolls.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Silverback
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,649
6,108
Massachusetts
✟583,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There is reference to Jesus reading scripture in a synagogue so maybe it is a good bet that most rabbis had a copy of the bible but you would have to go to a synagogue to hear it.
I think I have been told that a copy of the Jewish bible was kept in a synagogue or the Temple. I don't think people had their personal copies at home. It might be that only a Rabbi was authorized to read it . . . since the name of God would be read, and ones had a tradition of not repeating His name. So, in order to protect the name, may be only specially authorized people could have a copy, and it was understood they must not openly repeat the name.

I am guessing, from what I've been told. Anyone please do better :)

Going by how certain ones in power could be, I also would bet that ones might try to control the Jewish copies.

But I have been told how ones could memorize the scriptures . . . no need to make a copy!

1) Who else owned copies of the Septuagint or ancient Hebrew or Aramaic translations of scripture. How could you get a copy of the scriptures.
Like I have said, I think they controlled the copies, but ones could memorize, including by having special studies with qualified teachers, or just keep listening to readings in public until you learn scriptures.

2) If you were rich enough could you buy one and from whom. Would any copy you had have to be hand copied.
Earlier on, all were hand copied. And the king was directed to write a copy for himself so he could read it daily and not depart from the LORD > Deuteronomy 17:18.

It seems the early church mainly used the Septuagint when quoting from the OT and it seems most of the NT if not all was written in Greek also.
Our Apostle Paul had been a well-taught Pharisee; so maybe he had had better access to or memorized familiarity with the Septuagint or Hebrew scriptures; and so this might have been a practical reason . . . included . . . why Jesus chose Paul to be an Apostle, since he would be used to write various letters of our New Testament, with Septuagint and/or Hebrew scriptures included.

3) But how much access did the churches have to the written word in the earliest days of Christianity
2 Corinthians 3:1-3 > we had it written in our hearts, in any case, growing by growing in Jesus who is the Word > the living love meaning.

And ones could write down things they heard in synagogue or the Temple, and got in prayer. But writing sheets possibly were expensive. So, I consider that Jesus people would share. And memorize so they would not need to carry the weight of large amounts of written material.

One time, Paul told Timothy to bring writings. This to me shows that Paul did not always care to carry all the writings he could have kept in his possession > 2 Timothy 4:13.

I remember how I would carry all my college books to classes, just in case I might want to study in them, at any time. And ones would say, please, you can keep them home and use them there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mindlight
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
i
I think they were the property of the local church, I would imagine that you could pay for a copy of you had the means.

According to a Rabbi I new in the Navy, a good transcribed copy took about a year to complete, and the people who did the work were very careful to not make any mistakes. There reputation was of the utmost importance, and chances are there father, and grandfather also transcribed scripture, which was the case for most skilled trades I guess.

Being a scribe certainly was a skilled trade but mistakes were still made. We now have in our possession some ten thousand ancient manuscripts ranging from scraps right up to (nearly) complete Bibles. However in comparing these manuscripts no two are ever identical in every respect. Most differences are fairly obvious scribal copy errors but in some cases the discrepancy seems to have been quite deliberate.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Silverback
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,990.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
i

Being a scribe certainly was a skilled trade but mistakes were still made. We now have in our possession some ten thousand ancient manuscripts ranging from scraps right up to (nearly) complete Bibles. However in comparing these manuscripts no two are ever identical in every respect. Most differences are fairly obvious scribal copy errors but in some cases the discrepancy seems to have been quite deliberate.

The sheer volume of these manuscripts speaks of a literate culture with a high valuation of scripture but so also of individuals who tried to force their own interpretations on to the manuscripts in the copying process or simply made mistakes in what was afterall a year long process. This seems also to be the biblical portrayal of Israel. It would also explain why Judea by contrast to less literate parts of the empire was so hard to control. An educated population steeped in the traditions of scriptures that placed them at the centre of the world was not going to take kindly to being dominated by a warrior culture most of whose representatives outside of the aristocratic class could barely read or write.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,990.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think I have been told that a copy of the Jewish bible was kept in a synagogue or the Temple. I don't think people had their personal copies at home. It might be that only a Rabbi was authorized to read it . . . since the name of God would be read, and ones had a tradition of not repeating His name. So, in order to protect the name, may be only specially authorized people could have a copy, and it was understood they must not openly repeat the name.

I am guessing, from what I've been told. Anyone please do better :)

But this did not seem to apply to making copies for kings as with Ptolemy II

Going by how certain ones in power could be, I also would bet that ones might try to control the Jewish copies.

In many ways we should be thankful for that quality control. But so also in the sheer quantity of manuscripts that have been passed down we have a means of comparing and contrasting to find the truth (unlike with Islam where rogue copies were simply destroyed and the evidence trail with it)

But I have been told how ones could memorize the scriptures . . . no need to make a copy!

Yes the oral tradition was one means of controlling the translations and also interpreting them , the Hebrew had no vowels although the Greek Septuagint did and so pronounciation may have been easier with the Greek copies.

Like I have said, I think they controlled the copies, but ones could memorize, including by having special studies with qualified teachers, or just keep listening to readings in public until you learn scriptures.

I think that oral mass culture was an important quality control and means of distribution also.

Earlier on, all were hand copied. And the king was directed to write a copy for himself so he could read it daily and not depart from the LORD > Deuteronomy 17:18.

Good find.

Our Apostle Paul had been a well-taught Pharisee; so maybe he had had better access to or memorized familiarity with the Septuagint or Hebrew scriptures; and so this might have been a practical reason . . . included . . . why Jesus chose Paul to be an Apostle, since he would be used to write various letters of our New Testament, with Septuagint and/or Hebrew scriptures included.

2 Corinthians 3:1-3 > we had it written in our hearts, in any case, growing by growing in Jesus who is the Word > the living love meaning.

And ones could write down things they heard in synagogue or the Temple, and got in prayer. But writing sheets possibly were expensive. So, I consider that Jesus people would share. And memorize so they would not need to carry the weight of large amounts of written material.

One time, Paul told Timothy to bring writings. This to me shows that Paul did not always care to carry all the writings he could have kept in his possession > 2 Timothy 4:13.

I remember how I would carry all my college books to classes, just in case I might want to study in them, at any time. And ones would say, please, you can keep them home and use them there.

Yes Paul probably did have his own copies and being the mega brain he was had probably memorised many of them. Good finds for the scripture quotes. He actually wrote his own letters and had them delivered. These letters are saturated with OT references so it seems likely he had either memorised these sources or had them to hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: com7fy8
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,990.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm wondering if the first Christians obtained some copies from rabbi converts, and then some scribes went to work reproducing them.

I guess Paul would be an obvious example of such a convert and Matthew for example was able to write in Greek.
 
Upvote 0

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,459
8,968
Florida
✟321,876.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
We are used to having access to scripture. I have bibles all over the house and can simply look up stuff online also from laptops or mobiles. That freedom of access comes from technology that was not available in the time of Jesus and the early church e.g. printing press, digital media and the internet.

There is reference to Jesus reading scripture in a synagogue so maybe it is a good bet that most rabbis had a copy of the bible but you would have to go to a synagogue to hear it.

1) Who else owned copies of the Septuagint or ancient Hebrew or Aramaic translations of scripture. How could you get a copy of the scriptures.

2) If you were rich enough could you buy one and from whom. Would any copy you had have to be hand copied.

It seems the early church mainly used the Septuagint when quoting from the OT and it seems most of the NT if not all was written in Greek also.

3) But how much access did the churches have to the written word in the earliest days of Christianity

Access to scripture was fairly common among the Jews due to their tradition of requiring all males to create a copy. The scriptures were nearly nonexistent among the earliest Christians excepting those who were converted in a synagogue.

But with the exception of the Septuagint there was no "bible" among the Jews. There were only collections of scrolls here and that may or may not have contained all the books of the later Jewish canon. And those collections of scrolls contained books not included in that canon.

Of note here is Paul's request to Timothy:

2Ti 4:13 - Bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas when you come—and the books, especially the parchments.

The meaning is that they were rare enough that Paul was willing to wait months for Timothy to receive the letter and bring then them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mindlight
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Historians, both Biblical and secular alike, agree that the literacy rate in first century Judea and Galilee was about 10%. That would have included the ruling and priestly classes and their administrators plus the rich and powerful. The rabbi in each synagogue was certainly literate as was his sophar or lay assistant. One of the duties of the sophar was to teach the best and the brightest of the boys and young men. My personal thought is that Jesus was one of those.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,990.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Access to scripture was fairly common among the Jews due to their tradition of requiring all males to create a copy. The scriptures were nearly nonexistent among the earliest Christians excepting those who were converted in a synagogue.

Where is the evidence supporting the view that a male had to create his own copy of the scriptures. There seems to be a requirement for males to be educated in the Torah in scripture

Mishnah said this:

"At five years old [one is fit] for the Scripture, at ten years the Mishnah (oral Torah, interpretations) at thirteen for the fulfilling of the commandments, at fifteen the Talmud (making Rabbinic interpretations), at eighteen the bride-chamber, at twenty pursuing a vocation, at thirty for authority (able to teach others)This clearly describes the exceptional student, for very few would become teachers but indicates the centrality of Scripture in the education in Galilee. It is interesting to compare Jesus' life to this description. Though little is stated about his childhood we know that he "grew in wisdom" as a boy (Luke 2:52) and that he reached the "fulfilling of the commandments" indicated by ones first Passover at age twelve (Luke 2:41). He then learned a trade (Matt. 13:55, Mark 6:3) and spent time with John the Baptist (Luke 3:21; John 3:22-26) and began his ministry at -about thirty- (Luke 3:23). This parallels the Mishnah description quite closely. It certainly demands a closer look at the education process in Galilee.

Rabbi and Talmidim


It may have been true and especially in gentile churches there were no scriptures to refer to although many of these had Jewish members early on. Hence the necessity for letters like those from Paul to guide new congregations. I guess they were more reliant on the physical and personal witness of the apostles in the earliest years and a shared oral tradition.

But with the exception of the Septuagint there was no "bible" among the Jews. There were only collections of scrolls here and that may or may not have contained all the books of the later Jewish canon. And those collections of scrolls contained books not included in that canon.

The LXX gave a standard as to what was to be in the canon 2 centuries before Jesus but as you say it was not finalised until later

Of note here is Paul's request to Timothy:

2Ti 4:13 - Bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas when you come—and the books, especially the parchments.

The meaning is that they were rare enough that Paul was willing to wait months for Timothy to receive the letter and bring then them.

Cool
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,990.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Historians, both Biblical and secular alike, agree that the literacy rate in first century Judea and Galilee was about 10%. That would have included the ruling and priestly classes and their administrators plus the rich and powerful. The rabbi in each synagogue was certainly literate as was his sophar or lay assistant. One of the duties of the sophar was to teach the best and the brightest of the boys and young men. My personal thought is that Jesus was one of those.

Do you have any sources for that 10% claim. Seems low to me.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,990.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is where Sola Scripture loses its battle MASSIVELY as in ancient times there were very few copies of scripture. Most people had to be preached to. Hardly anyone could read.

There are thousands of copies of scripture from this period , from Qumran and elsewhere. Also does an affirmation of the authority of Scripture require a literate population of Jews as a whole to be true. The scribes and the Pharisees could clearly read and were held in strong regard by the people and there was a strong oral tradition derived from their teachings and then later from the apostles preaching. What matters is that the OT is fulfilled in the events of the NT , that the OT prophecies can be verified from before the events in which they were fulfilled and that the NT scriptures are in continuity with the teaching of the apostles and an accurate reflection of what God was saying and doing in the gospels and acts and Pauls missionary journeys.
 
Upvote 0