Brothers+


Considering the history of lectionaries, as well as
Bible translations, it might be helpful to have a look
at the great variety of ancient lectionaries.  
That which we have from the 16th century is not, after
all, the first or only orthodox lectionary.

This website shows some of the variety.

http://www.bombaxo.com/lectionaries.html

I haven't researched the origin of the lectionary for
the BCP, but it wouldn't surprise me to find that
Cathedrals in England may have had a lectionary
peculiar to that place.  

Charles+



--- charles scott <crscottblu@...> wrote:

> 
> Frank:
> 
> I grant that a good portion of KJV is
> understandable,
> but that is not the only reason I have gravitated
> toward modern versions. 
> 
> Accuracy is another.  
> 
> Charles+
> 
> 
> --- Frank Warren <warren-sa@...> wrote:
> 
> > Charles+ and Mark+
> > 
> > Our culture and language is changing, "morphing"
> if
> > you will, so fast these days that if we follow the
> > lead we will be producing new Bibles, prayer books
> > and lectionaries every 6 months!
> > 
> > I believe people will understand the KJV if it is
> > read slowly and with care.  Quick translations of
> > words whose meanings have changed, such as
> "prevent"
> > , will also help.
> > 
> > In truth, any version represents a captured moment
> > in time ...  Something came before it, and
> something
> > else will come afterward.  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Frank
> >   ----- Original Message ----- 
> >   From: charles scott<mailto:crscottblu@...>
> 
> >   To:
> >
>
faithandlife@...<mailto:faithandlife@...>
> > 
> >   Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 9:36 PM
> >   Subject: [FaithandLife] Three Year
> > Lectionary--question
> > 
> > 
> >   Brian+
> > 
> >   Good to hear from you.
> > 
> >   I agree with many of your sentiments.  One of my
> >   causes of joy recently is that young families
> are
> >   responding joyfully to our liturgy.
> > 
> >   However, I don't see a problem with the 3 year
> >   lectionary.  I used the old lectionary from 1969
> > until
> >   3 years ago.  
> > 
> >   I don't see that there is anything at all lost,
> > and
> >   there has been for me gain, not the least of
> which
> > is
> >   that it gave me heightened interest in study.
> I'm
> >   spending more time in Biblical research and that
> > is a
> >   good thing.
> > 
> >   In my opinion those who worked out the three
> year
> >   lectionary have done an excellent job of not
> only
> >   helping us be exposed to more of the Scriptures
> > but
> >   also tying the readings together and fitting
> them
> > into
> >   the Christian year.
> > 
> >   I don't see that one can equate the three year
> >   lectionary, nor a more accurate modern Enlgish
> > Bible
> >   with with problematical new liturgies.  These
> are
> > two
> >   different things. 
> > 
> >   I like the rythyms of the old King James
> Version,
> > and
> >   still quote it when the passage is clear and
> > quickly
> >   comprehensible to the hearer.  However, for
> > economy of
> >   speech and time, and to keep the sermon
> >   comprehensible, I will use whatever version that
> > gives
> >   an accurate and the clearest and most concise
> >   expression of the text. 
> > 
> >   Charles+
> >   Church of the Good Shepherd, Indianapolis
> >    
> >   >   Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:15 PM
> >   >   Subject: RE: [FaithandLife] Three Year
> >   > Lectionary--question
> >   > 
> >   > 
> >   >   Gentlemen,
> >   > 
> >   >   I have just been reviewing the posts on the
> > Three
> >   > Year Lectionary from November of last year.
> >   > 
> >   >   This is an intriguing discussion, I think,
> but
> > I'm
> >   > wondering if there is more to be discussed
> > regarding
> >   the three year lectionary.  To begin, I don't
> use
> > it,
> >   but I have always used the "starred" Old 
> > Testament
> >   lesson and Psalm in our service.  This
> >   provides for four  texts to preach on every
> > Sunday.  I
> >   don't find  that limiting at all. 
> >   >   I concur with those last November that noted
> > that
> >   > most parishioners   don't remember as much as
> we
> >   wish they would--the  repetition is   helpful to
> > them,
> >   I believe.  I also concur with  those who noted
> > that 
> >   we get pushed to dig deeper to make more
> >   > connections, etc.
> >   > 
> >   >   Of course, our people getting exposed to
> more
> >   > scripture is always a  good thing.  What,
> > however,
> >   are we giving up in order to fit that  more
> > Scripture
> >   into the Sunday lectionary?  I'm  not sure I
> have 
> >   specific answers, but I have misgivings.  I
> >   > suppose my misgivings are mostly related to
> the
> >   misgivings I have about new liturgies.  This 
> >   >   modern--and now post-modern--age does not
> seem
> > to
> >   > be one in which we ought to be toying with our
> >   inheritance.  We don't understand language in
> this
> > age
> >   and we don't understand history.
> >   > 
> >   >   Those two problems seem to mitigate against
> >   > quality "modern language" 
> >   >   liturgies and translations; what about new
> >   > lectionaries?  I'm not 
> >   >   opposed to the idea of change, mind you, but
> I
> > am
> >   > concerned that 
> >   >   change happen from within the tradition and
> > that
> >   > we don't open the 
> >   >   door to the little gremlin of modernity. 
> That
> >   > gremlin can get it via 
> >   >   new translations, liturgies and
> architecture,
> >   > vestments, music and 
> >   >   altar hangings.  Can he also get in via new
> >   > lectionaries?
> >   > 
> >   >   In a sense, I ask myself the question: 
> "What
> > am I
> >   > giving up when I 
> >   >   give up centuries and centuries of a
> tradition
> > of
> >   > Readings from Holy 
> >   >   Scripture?"  I'm not sure I know, but that
> > sure
> >   > doesn't mean that I'm 
> >   >   not giving up something important.  I'm
> > usually
> >   > mostly ignorant....
> >   > 
> 
=== message truncated ===