Sure, Church was without a complete and definitive Bible canon up to Trent. But this is a far cry from the completely without Bible scenario here suggested:
Preaching Without A Bible - How the Church Thrived for Centuries Without One
Fr. Joseph Gleason | Nov 27, 2018 | Russian Faith
So, here are some answers of mine:
- While Noah had no Bible, he definitely had access to earlier chapters of Genesis, excepting perhaps chapter 1.
Chapter 1 was mostly before Adam and Eve witnessed anything and could be a vision given to Moses.
Noah would have had access to:
- chapter 2 account of day VI in detail;
- chapter 3 account of fall and promise of redeemer
- chapter 4 account of Cain and Abel and at least most of Cainite genealogy
- chapter 5 account of Seth and of his own genealogy.
While St Paul did not quote OT on Areopagus, he did so on many other occasions. Not least to the Hebrews. The prooftext for saints being a cloud of witnesses above us is Hebrews 11 ending in Hebrews 12:1. Now, Hebrews 11 as well as the speech of St Stephen protomartyr refers very much to OT.
"And you do not have any Bible verses memorized."
Probably totally false, Noah probably had memorised all from 2:5 to 4:17 and 5:1 to 5:5 plus all verses pertaining to already known genealogy plus was memorising and dictating relevant parts of chapter 6.
"Indeed, the early Church literally flourished for decades without having any New Testament at all!"
St Matthew wrote his Gospel very early in Hebrew and translated it to Greek himself.
However, this can be said, St Luke does not seem to have known of this Gospel of St Matthew.
However, this does not mean there was a time with no Gospels, it means there was a time with many rival ones.
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us; According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word:
Many means more than just Matthew and Mark, right?
And it can't have been things like the heretical "Gospel of St Thomas", since it is stated "according as they have delivered them to us who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word".
It must have been real Gospels, not inspired necessarily, but still either inerrant or at least failing only in very minor detail.
- No Bible Bookstores in 400AD and printing press not invented for another millenia.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "No Bible Bookstores in 400AD"
Probably Vulgate was offered on a closed market, the Catholic Church (or Latin speaking parts of it mainly).
Could a literate man even so buy a Bible, if he could afford it?
Probably yes (btw, the codex form was by 400 AD already in use, and so cumbrous scrolls were not the problem).