For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty... that no flesh should glory in His presence.... —that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.”
1 Corinthians 1:26-31
We can debate about the early centuries 'til we're blue in the face but why bother when we don't have to go back very far, in American history, to learn that books were scarce in this country until very recently. (I'm thinking post WWII here).
I imagine our "frontier" spirit had something to do with this: being a rather mobile people, moving books would be low on a priority list. I imagine a "Fahrenheit 451" model: people memorized Scripture, storing God's word in their mind and in their heart, rather than regularly referencing the very books.
Teresa, In this country it has always been a priority to have children learn to read so they could read the Bible and get an education to improve themselves. Certainly there were exceptions, but even the pioneers kept this mindset. Look at Abraham Lincoln who managed to find books and teach himself whatever he wanted to learn. Look at Laura Ingall's Wilder. In order to memorize something you have to have access to it, or at least have someone read it to you over and over. Someone has to have the scriptures to be able to read it to others. But in this country the norm was to teach people to read and most families probably had at least one Bible. Even the Pilgrims and Puritans had the Geneva Bible.
I would think these are the exceptions, especially Lincoln (who became president). One cannot take the childhood recollections of an individual who becomes an author as typical. I think of C. S. Lewis's upbringing too: his father's house was filled with books and he became an Oxford don. These are not your everyday people.
Schools were the repository of books, not the home. 50 students can memorize from a single copy.
My parents were everyday, however, and they possessed by a generous count about 100 books. That included two encyclopedia sets. In fact, most of their books were reference, e.g., Taber's Medical Dictionary. There was a set of Reader's Digest condensed books, a world history book, a high school anthology of English literature and, since the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery was big news in those days, a critical translation of those documents. My father had a book by Michener, as well, Chesapeake, I think. Given the choice between caring for his family or buying a book, my father did the former. I can't imagine he was very unique in that.
The problem with history is that the average people don't write it. It isn't their perspective at all.
Teresa, 100 books is not such a paltry number. A person can learn alot from 100 good books. They can learn even more from a few great books, especially the Bible.
Remind me of the reason Catholics like to keep saying people didn't know how to read and didn't have the written scriptures, and didn't have the New Testament at all for centuries.
Jesus prayed 'Sanctify them by Thy truth. Thy Word is truth.' He obviously thought it was vitally important for people to have the word of God, whether written or spoken. We believe the spoken word was essentially the same as the written word. Whether people had their own copies or not, the early churches had the gospel and some of the epistles AND the Old Testament, and also the Apostles and other eyewitnesses to teach them. When the Holy Spirit spoke through them by word or by speech, this was the Word of God.
Remind me of the reason Catholics like to keep saying people didn't know how to read and didn't have the written scriptures, and didn't have the New Testament at all for centuries.
Because Catholics don't like change. And Catholics don't think it's fair for God to tie salvation to literacy. And Catholics think there must be a middle man. (Rom. 10:14; Acts 8:30-31; Lk. 24:25,27)
I wouldn't say that the protestant view ties the gospel to literacy alone. It does place a high value on literacy in order to read the Bible, which is a great blessing. The gospel is tied to hearing or being able to receive communication of the gospel, which can be by hearing a preacher or a friend sharing it or even by sign language if necessary. Even an angel or Christ Himself could share it if someone is not able to hear it any other way for some reason, such as a disability or sickness.
My citations are probably a mixing of apples and oranges: initial conversion vs. growing in faith. IOW, once one becomes convinced the Bible is the word of God, one naturally goes to it directly to meet any spiritual need.
I was thinking more about the Bradbury paradigm: the story is set in the future but may intentionally retrieve an old-fashioned practice (memorization) ... and pass it off as novel!
Whenever the Bible says "word," I think of a spoken utterance made by a living person. Whenever the Bible says "scripture[s]" I think of the Bible itself. For most of my life, "Word of God" was only a synonym for the Person of Jesus.
I think of the Word of God as Jesus Christ who is revealed in the inspired scriptures and the spoken gospel. The written and spoken word, which are essentially the same, are an extension of God Himself and can't be separated, as far as I'm concerned.
8 comments:
We can debate about the early centuries 'til we're blue in the face but why bother when we don't have to go back very far, in American history, to learn that books were scarce in this country until very recently. (I'm thinking post WWII here).
I imagine our "frontier" spirit had something to do with this: being a rather mobile people, moving books would be low on a priority list. I imagine a "Fahrenheit 451" model: people memorized Scripture, storing God's word in their mind and in their heart, rather than regularly referencing the very books.
Teresa,
In this country it has always been a priority to have children learn to read so they could read the Bible and get an education to improve themselves. Certainly there were exceptions, but even the pioneers kept this mindset. Look at Abraham Lincoln who managed to find books and teach himself whatever he wanted to learn. Look at Laura Ingall's Wilder.
In order to memorize something you have to have access to it, or at least have someone read it to you over and over. Someone has to have the scriptures to be able to read it to others. But in this country the norm was to teach people to read and most families probably had at least one Bible. Even the Pilgrims and Puritans had the Geneva Bible.
I would think these are the exceptions, especially Lincoln (who became president). One cannot take the childhood recollections of an individual who becomes an author as typical. I think of C. S. Lewis's upbringing too: his father's house was filled with books and he became an Oxford don. These are not your everyday people.
Schools were the repository of books, not the home. 50 students can memorize from a single copy.
My parents were everyday, however, and they possessed by a generous count about 100 books. That included two encyclopedia sets. In fact, most of their books were reference, e.g., Taber's Medical Dictionary. There was a set of Reader's Digest condensed books, a world history book, a high school anthology of English literature and, since the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery was big news in those days, a critical translation of those documents. My father had a book by Michener, as well, Chesapeake, I think. Given the choice between caring for his family or buying a book, my father did the former. I can't imagine he was very unique in that.
The problem with history is that the average people don't write it. It isn't their perspective at all.
Teresa,
100 books is not such a paltry number. A person can learn alot from 100 good books. They can learn even more from a few great books, especially the Bible.
Remind me of the reason Catholics like to keep saying people didn't know how to read and didn't have the written scriptures, and didn't have the New Testament at all for centuries.
Jesus prayed 'Sanctify them by Thy truth. Thy Word is truth.' He obviously thought it was vitally important for people to have the word of God, whether written or spoken. We believe the spoken word was essentially the same as the written word.
Whether people had their own copies or not, the early churches had the gospel and some of the epistles AND the Old Testament, and also the Apostles and other eyewitnesses to teach them. When the Holy Spirit spoke through them by word or by speech, this was the Word of God.
Remind me of the reason Catholics like to keep saying people didn't know how to read and didn't have the written scriptures, and didn't have the New Testament at all for centuries.
Because Catholics don't like change. And Catholics don't think it's fair for God to tie salvation to literacy. And Catholics think there must be a middle man. (Rom. 10:14; Acts 8:30-31; Lk. 24:25,27)
I wouldn't say that the protestant view ties the gospel to literacy alone. It does place a high value on literacy in order to read the Bible, which is a great blessing. The gospel is tied to hearing or being able to receive communication of the gospel, which can be by hearing a preacher or a friend sharing it or even by sign language if necessary. Even an angel or Christ Himself could share it if someone is not able to hear it any other way for some reason, such as a disability or sickness.
My citations are probably a mixing of apples and oranges: initial conversion vs. growing in faith. IOW, once one becomes convinced the Bible is the word of God, one naturally goes to it directly to meet any spiritual need.
I was thinking more about the Bradbury paradigm: the story is set in the future but may intentionally retrieve an old-fashioned practice (memorization) ... and pass it off as novel!
Whenever the Bible says "word," I think of a spoken utterance made by a living person. Whenever the Bible says "scripture[s]" I think of the Bible itself. For most of my life, "Word of God" was only a synonym for the Person of Jesus.
I think of the Word of God as Jesus Christ who is revealed in the inspired scriptures and the spoken gospel. The written and spoken word, which are essentially the same, are an extension of God Himself and can't be separated, as far as I'm concerned.
Post a Comment