Faith writes:
Protestants mean by "the Bible" the teachings that are now contained in that form that were available to the early church just as they are to us though not in the same form. Since they had the teachers themselves there they would also have had the opportunity to hear them expounding the meanings of the scriptures as any preacher today would, the OT scriptures in that case.
I'm aware of that myth. It runs into two big problems with reality.
Bible means
book. Scripture means
writing. Both words refer to things that are
written down. As the words are used in Judeo-Christian tradition, they refer to certain writings regarded as speaking with divine authority. The collection of all such authoritative writings is a
canon.
When you talk about 'Bibles' and 'scriptures' in a 'different form' than writing, you are talking nonsense. Bibles and scriptures that are not in written 'form' are not Bibles and scriptures. You are talking about something else.
And you know this. You say early Christians would 'have had the opportunity to hear [their teachers] expounding the meanings of the scriptures as any preacher today would.' Indeed. And when your teacher today delivers a sermon expounding from a text, you don't call that sermon 'scripture'. You call it a sermon. The text is scripture.
The other problem the myth runs into is the reality of pluralism. Early Christians experienced no shortage of teachers telling them what to do. Plenty of it got written, too. Early Christians had energetic debates, as well they might, about which teachers to listen to and which writings to heed.
For anyone in that situation, until consensus exists about what makes the cut and what doesn't.... you don't know. That's the problem with saying a recognised body of writings existed before the formation of a canon. A recognised body of writings
is a canon. Before one exists, you don't have one.
--
You are really telling us that in the place of your not-yet-created Christian scriptures, 'divine authority' spoke through teachers, through speeches they made or through conversations they had, and through other 'forms'. Those other 'forms' are not a Bible, because a Bible is a book form. You can say avenues other than books can serve that same purpose if you want. I know a lot of Catholics who will happily welcome you and your fellow Protestants aboard with that one. But if there are no scriptures, then there aren't.
My point stands. One cannot appeal to authoritative 'scriptures' prior to the formation of a canon.
Next: we will look at the practical issues of how to circulate a canon, once one is formed, in a pre-Gutenberg age.
___
Archer O
All species are transitional.