# Lectionary



## psaulm119 (May 22, 2005)

I have decided to incorporate the Sunday lectionary into my private devotional Bible reading and prayer time. From what I have seen online, the lectionaries for not only the traditional Protestant denominations, but also the Roman Catholic church, look surprisingly (or not) the same. Has anyone taken up the study of the historicity of teh current lectionaries that are being used? By this, I mean, passages when John Chrysostom or Augustine are commenting in their sermons and say something like, "On this second Sunday after Easter, " when they are commenting on a text that the current lectionary places precisely on that Sunday. I'm interested in the process by which these readings in the current lectionaries have been assigned their place. Have biblical passages been arbitrarily placed, or have these passages pretty much been universally read in lectionaries?

Forgive my awkward wording here, but for a Baptist to talk about tradition in the Church is like a man talking about emotions....


----------



## psaulm119 (May 22, 2005)

For what its worth, here's a vague reference or two (I'll add more as I find them) suggesting that the current lectionaries do indeed have close ties to those used in the Patristic period.

_The interrelation and interdependence of these programmes of readings and the comprehensive doctrinal unity which they form is 
the fruit of a four hundred-year development within the framework 
of Scripture understood as a doctrinal instrument of salvation. 
Such a development, moreover, maintains a remarkable continuity 
with the eucharistic lectionaries of the Western Church from the 
Patristic period onwards. It belongs to the whole tradition of a 
doctrinal understanding of Scripture._ 

Source: http://www.lectionarycentral.com/curry.html


Another significantly longer article can be found here:

http://www.lectionarycentral.com/ring.html

A small section of it provides the following understanding:

That this practice was carried over into the worship of the Christian church is seen from references made to it, such as that given in 1 Timothy 4:13, "hews erchomai proseche tei anagnwsei, tei paraklesei, tei didaskalia.." St. Paul's use of anagnwsis is very descriptive, since it is the word consistently used in the Septuagint to translate arqm [a Hebrew term for the reading of Scripture--Paul]. 

Thus the first part of the passage could also be translated, "Until I come, give attention to the selected reading of the day." As early as the 50's and 60's, Christian congregations began to supplement the readings from the Old Testament with readings from the writings of the Apostles. In passages such as 1 Thessalonians 5:27 and Colossians 4:16, Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and apparently aware of it, tells these churches that his letters are to be read in the service (again using anagnwsis, so perhaps "be readings") then circulated to other neighboring congregations that they may use them as well.

[Edited on 5-23-2005 by psaulm119]

[Edited on 5-23-2005 by psaulm119]


----------



## yeutter (May 22, 2005)

Most of the Lectionarys used by protestants today are based on the Post Vatican II Church of Rome Lectionary.

The historic Protestant Episcopal Lectionary can be found at:

http://www.justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928/Lectionary_1945.pdf


----------



## psaulm119 (May 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by yeutter_
> Most of the Lectionarys used by protestants today are based on the Post Vatican II Church of Rome Lectionary.



I did read that the Vatican consulted a wide variety of Jewish and Protestant scholars when creating that 1969 lectionary. If indeed thsi is true, perhaps it is still meaningless. At any rate, wouldn't this imply that they took pains to make sure that the readings selected were part of the historical lectionaries?



> The historic Protestant Episcopal Lectionary can be found at:
> 
> http://www.justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928/Lectionary_1945.pdf



Thanks. Its already on my hard drive. The site it is on has some informative Anglican links as well.


----------



## psaulm119 (May 23, 2005)

I did find one site that listed teh various pericopes used by early Fathers in their sermons, as well as the times of the year/feasts they were celebrating. I haven't yet calibrated these with any modern lectionary, but this should prove fascinating for those into church history.

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


----------



## psaulm119 (May 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by yeutter_
> Most of the Lectionarys used by protestants today are based on the Post Vatican II Church of Rome Lectionary.
> 
> The historic Protestant Episcopal Lectionary can be found at:
> ...



If what I have understood from my readings is correct, the lectionary you sent me to is (an Anglican version of) what is called the "Historic Lectionary," a one-year cycle, which has been pretty much the only one used (at least in teh West) from teh 1300s, on up to Vatican II. 

Is this Anglican lectionary the one used by your church? Luther evidently disliked it b/c it proclaimed the Law to the detriment of the Gospel. On the other hand, the same article I linked to above also said that these more modern 3-year cycles do have a more liberal aura to them. Have you compared the 2 at all? Any thoughts would be welcome.


----------



## yeutter (May 24, 2005)

No. Christ the King Anglican Church is mostly composed of people who have recently come out of the Episcopal Church over the consecration of a homosexual Bishop. We still use the 1979 PrayerBook with its post Vatican 2 lectionary. 

Slowly I and a few others are moving them back to the historic reformation liturgy.

The 1928 Book of Common Prayer Lectionary is essentially the same as the one that used to be used by conservative Lutherans, [LCMS, WELS.] It is similar to the one used in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2005)

Thomas: Is your Anglican Church affiliated with one of the African provences?


----------



## yeutter (May 24, 2005)

*Anglican*

Christ the King has not been formally instituted as a Church yet. When we do, I am confident we will be related either to one of the Anglican Provinces or the the Anglican Church of Bolivia.

Back to the Lectionary question. It appears that the Lectionary histoically used by Anglicans and Lutherans had pre Reformation roots. The Roman Catholic Lectionary and Calandar prior to Vatican 1 also was similar to the old Anglican Lectionary.


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2005)

Thomas: That is exciting and I pray that all goes well.


----------



## psaulm119 (May 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by yeutter_
> Back to the Lectionary question. It appears that the Lectionary histoically used by Anglicans and Lutherans had pre Reformation roots. The Roman Catholic Lectionary and Calandar prior to Vatican 1 also was similar to the old Anglican Lectionary.



One of the sources linked above says that indeed, this traditional lectionary you are referring to was implemented throughout western Europe in the 1300s (of course its roots go back much farther than this), and was retained even amidst the conflicts of the Reformation, until the changes made in 1969. This would be pretty much teh same lectionary, whether Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran.... Of course not everyone used the lectionary, but the consensus seems to be that if a church did use one, this traditional one was it. 

[Edited on 5-24-2005 by psaulm119]


----------



## Scott (May 25, 2005)

As I understand, the arrangement of the lectionary is often by design, specifically with a view to connecting the typology of the Old Testament with relevant passages of the New. I was reading one book on the resurrection that noted that the historic Eastern Orthodox lectionary connected the third day of Genesis to the resurrection. Christ was raised on the third day and, of course, the third day of Genesis concerned the creation of seed bearing and fruitful plants. Paul connects the resurrection to seeds his Corinthian epistles. This reading was during Easter weekend, to celebrate the resurrection. 

Here is the passage from Paul in 1 Cor. 15:



> But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.



Jesus similarly connected the resurrection to seeds in John 12:23-24:



> Jesus speaks of His coming death. "œJesus replied, "˜The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.´"



I would be interested to see anything else about this kind of design behind the arrangement of the readings.


----------



## psaulm119 (May 28, 2005)

Yeutter:

I have read that the OT readings were not part of the historic lectionary. Can you tell me where they came from--as in, when they were inserted? Was this when the first book of Common Prayer came into existence (1549 I believe)?


----------



## psaulm119 (May 28, 2005)

One more statement/question. I have noticed two patterns re lectionaries. The first one is that it seems to be the more center-left denominations that are embracing the RCL (modern 3-year cycle lectionary). The only conservative denomination (that I could see) in the USA that was listed as having adopted it, the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church, has actually used a modified version of its earlier lectionary, and decided to not adopt the RCL outright because it left out crucial doctrinal passages.

A second pattern that is occuring to me is that the modern lectionary uses the lectio continua much more--that is to say, the readings from Sunday to Sunday are much more likely to be a continuation of the same book of the Bible. By way of contrast, the readings from the historic lectionary jump around from Sunday to Sunday, with no apparent regard to the Gospel or Epistle of the previous week. I must say that I like the process of reading from the same Gospel/Epistle in succceeding weeks much more.


----------



## Scott (Jun 1, 2005)

I expect that the lectionaries that seem to jump around contain selections keyed to the church calendar. The arrangement is theological, not chronological.


----------



## Scott (Jun 1, 2005)

BTW, you might find this site useful.


----------



## psaulm119 (Jun 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> I expect that the lectionaries that seem to jump around contain selections keyed to the church calendar. The arrangement is theological, not chronological.


Scott, this would be expected during the festive season of the year (Advent through Pentecost), but the readings I was looking at were like this for what was called in teh Catholic church while I was growing up, Ordinary Time--perhaps known as the Sundays after Trinity Sunday. At least the readings from the traditional/historic lectionary that I looked at, during these sundays also, could have been arranged with some element of continuity. 

You see, I can take the modern lectionary readings and complete the Epistles and Gospels on my own, but I can't do this with the historic lectionary. For example, last week's reading in the modern lectionary was Mt 7 fin., and this Sunday's reading is Mt 9:9 or thereabouts. I read Mt 8 for a day or two on my own, and then started with Mt 9. This way, I will be not only in line with a lectionary, but also, completing a book of the Bible. But when one jumps around from book to book every succeeding Sunday, this type of reading is impossible. 

Thanks for the link. I'll surf the site and see what I can cull.


----------



## Scott (Jun 3, 2005)

Yeah, I understand the advantage of continuous reading. It keeps the books and readings in context.


----------

