Most knowing observers of the New Age Movement have kept a careful watch on the Earth Charter. That it amounts to Earth worship is apparent, at least to my eye. I'm doing a slow and careful read of Pope Francis' LAUDATO SI encyclical. Something compelling there caught my eye. Was I seeing things nobody else was seeing? Nope! There it was, bold as a cobra, lurking in the pages of Pope Francis' pronouncements on environmental issues.
207. The Earth Charter asked us to leave behind a period of self-destruction and make a new start, but we have not as yet developed a universal awareness needed to achieve this. Here, I would echo that courageous challenge: “As never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new beginning… Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful celebration of life”.It is no surprise that the Earth Charter proponents are thrilled about Pope Francis' input:
For the global Earth Charter network this document is paramount, as Pope Francis makes an explicit reference to the Earth Charter reference in paragraph 207 of Chapter Six on Ecological Education and Spirituality:It is no surprise that the Earth Charter proponents are thrilled about Pope Francis' input. They have issued their Voices of the Earth Charter responding to Laudato Si.
P. 207. The Earth Charter asked us to leave behind a period of self-destruction and make a new start, but we have not as yet developed a universal awareness needed to achieve this. Here, I would echo that courageous challenge: “As never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new beginning… Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful celebration of life”.
Another thing I could not help but notice is the Ken Wilber cultish terminology of "Integral" -- a most favorite New Age buzzword for a most prolific New Age writer: Ken Wilber. Ken Wilber is the author of just about "Integrative" everything - medicine, spirituality, etc.
Well, it is obvious to me that Pope Francis has made most of the New Age community VERY HAPPY. I'm not!
Stay tuned!
CONSTANCE
467 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 467 Newer› Newest»Anonymous 7:00 PM,
That can be taken as a spiritual sabbath and not necessarily a literal day.
To All:
J 7:09 PM's response here to a crystal clear passage is, sadly, all too indicative of the Bible's warning about those who twist the Scriptures to their own destruction:
2 Peter 3:16 CEV
"Paul talks about these same things in all his letters, but part of what he says is hard to understand. Some ignorant and unsteady people even destroy themselves by twisting what he said. They do the same thing with OTHER Scriptures too."
And as for Col 2:16-17...
"There are people who believe that Colossians 2:16-17 warns against thinking that some Old Testament laws apply to Christians. We will see that this conclusion takes what Paul says out of context, LITERALLY REVERSING HIS INTENDED MEANING..."
https://lifehopeandtruth.com/bible/law-and-grace/colossians-2-16/
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/bible-study-course/bible-study-course-lesson-12/what-did-paul-really-say-in-colossians-2-verse-16
http://triumphpro.com/new-moons-christians-observe.htm
http://www.triumphpro.com/col-2.pdf
Please note that the UCG link is to the site of United Church of God, the new name for what was formerly Herbert Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God. Although the church revised its theology to emphasize New Testament grace more than it formerly did, it continues to be somewhat influenced by Armstrongism. There are several good web sites exposing Armstrongism.
The Painful Truth
https://painful-truth-armstrongism.blogspot.com/
Banned by HWA!
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/
RayB 10:30 AM,
"In the first part of her interview with Rick Wiles, Constance made the assertion that "the New Age Movement couldn't advance their agenda while Benedict remained Pope, because he wanted no part of the NAM." I asked Constance for proof to back up her claim, to which she made another assertion regarding John Paul II, while ignoring the question regarding Benedict."
Constance wrote about Ratzinger on her blog here in April, 2005.
https://cumbey.blogspot.com/2005/04/cardinal-ratzinger-is-pope-benedict.html
To: All
Note:
√ First of all, J 9:14 PM did not theologically respond to my rebuttal but instead attacked the messenger.
√ Secondly, as she did with obliviously speaking in error about Rod Meredith, not checking her facts before she spoke she NOW but just a short while later AGAIN speaks in such error:
The "United Church of God [is] the new name for what was formerly Herbert Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God".
No, it's NOT.
"Grace Communion International (GCI), formerly the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) (still registered as Worldwide Church of God in the UK and some other regions)"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Communion_International
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_God
In closing, I am as sad as anyone that there have been abuses in various churches and denominations that have been so bad as to scar the psyches of some of their members/member's family members that they rejected the good with the bad. I sympathize. People even such as King David have sexually sinned severely affecting others.
I was considering mentioning the serious sexual wrongdoings of the Armstrongs to help show the pervasiveness of this terrible problem in the sphere of religion in general. This decides me:
http://triumphpro.info/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/how-are-mighty-fallen.htm
So let us NEVER allow the misdeeds of MEN to sunder us from the Kingdom Of God!
To all,
You can request materials from Constance's research files that are archived at the Bentley Historical Library at the University of Michigan.
List of archived materials is here:
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/b/bhlead/umich-bhl-04101?rgn=main;view=text
Instructions on searching materials and requesting copies is here:
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/b/bhlead/umich-bhl-04101?rgn=main;view=text
Wrong link above for instructions on searching materials and requesting copies. Here is the correct link.
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/b/bhlead/help/#Requests%20
Anonymous 5:10 PM
Since you are the one challenging Catholic beliefs, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
Since you are the one challenging the validity of Catholic beliefs, the burden of proof falls on YOU!
But we know where your "proof" is, don't we? And it ain't the Bible.
2:51 AM can't defend (likely his/her) 4:15 PM making of statements without evidence as simply pointed out by 5:10 PM. So instead of acknowledging that they desperately try to somehow throw THEIR LACK OF EVIDENCE back on to 5:10 PM.
Sad.
And it's the RCC that "ain't the Bible". Aside from anything else: By their own admission it's their "TRADITION" given EQUAL STATUS and then MIXED IN (adulterating) along with what their OFFICIALS decide(d) the Bible means. NO 'Sola Scriptura', NO (supposedly) 'private interpretations' ALLOWED!
And the proving of Biblical doctrines (which has the simultaneous effect of) disproving of unbiblical doctrines (whether RCC or NOT) has been an ongoing matter in this blogspot: Read back threads/posts.
But for a shorthand synopsis for those actually interested (not that 4:51 AM would read it):
https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Doctrines-Early-Church/dp/091718209X
https://www.pavleck.net/bookinfo/faith-and-doctrines-of-the-early-church.pdf/
Note: Some misspellings etc., not found in the original book (due to transcription errors).
(You must enter the shown code to show that you're not a robot, like you sometimes have to do here.)
J said to RayB (in part) @ 10:36 PM ...
Constance wrote about Ratzinger on her blog here in April, 2005.
https://cumbey.blogspot.com/2005/04/cardinal-ratzinger-is-pope-benedict.html
J ...
So your point is exactly what? I guess it must be that #1 ... Constance was thrilled that Cardinal Ratzinger was named Pope, i.e. "I couldn't be happier."
#2 ... Constance didn't get much of a response from her then Pastor when she attempted to educate him about the New Age Movement. #3 ... Constance found some interest from local Catholics in the Detroit area to her findings regarding the NAM.
Speaking of Ratzinger, did you know that for over 10 years, Cardinal Ratzinger headed the department in the Vatican that oversaw ALL of the pedophile priest cases in the entire world? Did you know that it was Cardinal Ratzinger that directed the "pay for silence" settlements, and that Ratzinger directed the transferring of the criminal priests to other dioceses? Did you know that it was Ratzinger that refused to cooperate with law enforcement authorities, whereby he obstructed justice?
Possibly too you didn't know that Ratzinger and then Pope Benedict wrote and spoke at length praising the Father of the New Age Teilhard de Chardin? Or is it, you knew about all the above, but to you it just doesn't matter? Or are you attempting to discuss something of which you don't know much about? Which is it J?
RayB,
Let's recap what I was responding to. For at least two blog posts now, you have persistently brought up in the comments a question for Constance. You have repeatedly asked her to explain a comment she made in an interview. For instance, in this comment thread at 10:30 AM, you said:
"In the first part of her interview with Rick Wiles, Constance made the assertion that 'the New Age Movement couldn't advance their agenda while Benedict remained Pope, because he wanted no part of the NAM.' I asked Constance for proof to back up her claim, to which she made another assertion regarding John Paul II, while ignoring the question regarding Benedict."
I provided a link to a former blog post of Constance's that answered your repeated question. In this blog post she wrote this, which you have managed to miss:
"Although the New Age Movement was apparently running rampant in the Catholic Church in the earlier 1980s, things started to change in about 1988. That was the year Matthew Fox was "silenced" for one year. Cardinal Ratzinger played a most direct role in the entire change of direction of the Catholic Church from one of toleration to one of opposition to New Age doctrinal heresies."
and...
"Cardinal Ratzinger headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Vatican."
and...
"Cardinal Ratzinger wrote beautiful detailed papers on the spiritual evils of the New Age Movement, carefully citing the Alice Bailey references, that others giving probable disinformation (e.g, Fr. Pacwa) were saying to disregard. I was told that teaching about the New Age Movement was now mandatory in the Italian seminaries, at least."
Once you were given the opportunity to read the answer to your question, you changed the subject to pedophilia.
RayB,
Here's another one from the archives for your appreciation. You are such a close follower, even going so far as to note every word in interviews and follow up on them. So I know you will be interested.
Of Catholic Bashing and of Protestant Bashing - What Constance Thinks!
https://cumbey.blogspot.com/2005/04/of-catholic-bashing-and-of-protestant.html
Just in case you don't carefully read it, though, and I know it's difficult. It's so hard to catch and understand everything, and I know you care so much about that. So to make it easier, I'm quoting from it here, too.
"This is a very short post, but something on my mind given the vehemence of some of the anti-Ratzinger posts. I wrote it to reply to a reader, but since it was an anonymous comment, I could not answer. So here is what I think for everybody and I will duck while the flak flies!
I believe personally that there are two enormous heresies floating about out there:
1. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be a member of the ABC Church and thou shalt be saved.
2. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be a member of the NBC Church and thou shalt be saved.
The first heresy is a Protestant one.
The second heresy is a Catholic one.
The truth is BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS LORD AND IF YOU CONFESS HIM WITH YOUR MOUTH, YOU SHALT BE SAVED.
Oh, and what do the acronyms ABC and NBC mean?
ABC=ANYTHING BUT CATHOLIC
NBC=NOTHING BUT CATHOLIC
Let's bear in mind at all times the New Age strategy -- to pit Old Agers against Old Agers! The test of anti-Christ was a denial that Jesus was the Christ and that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh. It was not an alleged overemphasis on Jesus mother or anything else. Some Catholics meet those tests, some don't. Some Protestants meet those tests, some don't. And certainly, we grafted in branches, whether Catholic or Protestant, were not to 'boast against the branches' (the Jews). Don't blame me. St. Paul wrote it in Romans Chapter 2; John wrote it in his epistles. At least for now, that's what Constance thinks. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, although I think I agree with the former Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI -- there are not multiple truths. Seeing through glass darkly as we do, we may not know perfect truth -- probably none of us do, but to paraphrase the Apostle Paul, 'if we all bite and devour one another' won't the New Agers and SqueakBoxes of this world have a field day!
CONSTANCE E. CUMBEY"
Now to circle back to the topic of sexual abuses in the RCC. I ask people to keep something in mind. Papers such as the New York Times and the Boston Globe have exposed this, especially the Boston Globe, which has excelled. But we need to ask ourselves whether they do this because they care about victims of pedophilia or whether it is because they hate Christianity and want to discredit its oldest and biggest denomination.
To clarify and to prevent my words being misrepresented, OF COURSE these iniquities should be brought into the light of day, with sunlight being the best disinfectant. But if the MSM cares so much about disinfecting the dirty deeds done in the shadows by shining a light on them, there are other places where they should shine their light.
If the MSM is such an anti-pedophilia watch dog, we should be able to expect them to expose Jeffrey Epstein and his Lolita Express and Orgy Island with as much persistence and moral fervor as they have expended on the Catholic church exposures.
Ditto for the Franklin Nebraska Scandal.
And I could name other disgusting scandals that should have been much bigger scandals. It would be the filthiest dirty laundry list ever.
Again, OF COURSE victims should be vindicated and perpetrators should be held accountable. It's just that when it comes to shining the sunlight on some areas, the weather is always sunny. Other times, it's always cloudy.
One more thing. We need to seriously consider the real possibility that pedophile blackmail rings have been operated within RCC circles, from outside, as an infiltration and compromise operation.
To read more about the existence of pedophile blackmail rings -- and I assure you they are a real thing -- I refer you to the work on https://isgp-studies.com/
I have to reserve my judgement on the claims in this book, but its author alleges that Satanic ritual abuse has always lurked in the shadows of the Catholic church and is now threatening to overshadow the whole church -- and that it is linked to the sex abuse scandals. It is Lucifer's Lodge by William Kennedy. It can be downloaded in pdf and other formats from this link:
https://archive.org/details/pdfy-jE87IzV9MFhV07FV
J,
Bravo on all your posts.
At least one person bashing the RCC and the Pope on this blog has claimed to be an ex-Catholic.
I was once told that among people who abandon their religion, there are none worse than ex-Catholics for trashing their former beliefs. Maybe the obsession with Catholic and Pope bashing has to do with a guilty conscience.
While much of what William H. Kennedy has to say in his book is true, I would strongly advise doing due diligence in terms of independently checking things out.
Just a heads up on William H. Kennedy himself:
In addition to being a Traditionalist Catholic, William Kennedy was also apparently a disciple of the pagan/neo-gnostic Traditionalist
School co-founded by Rene Guenon, who finally converted from gnostic "Catholicism" to Sufism. At least one of the co-founders of the Traditionalist School was associated with Aleister Crowley. There appears to be an ongoing effort to merge Traditionalist Catholicism with the pagan Traditionalist School.
William Kennedy also wrote the following which you can read here online:
Satanic Crime: A Threat in the New Millennium
http://whale.to/c/sataniccrime.pdf
Then there is this:
"Controversial author and radio host William H. Kennedy was found dead in his home at the age of only 49. He was found dead on August 14th, 2013, and may actually have died August 13th, 2013. No indications of prior illness. William Kennedy wrote books exposing satanism and hosted a radio program delving into esoteric and controversial topics."
https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/254831-author-william-h-kennedy-found-dead-at-49/
There are many who believe that Kennedy's death was suspicious.
Anonymous 2:23 PM,
Very interesting information! Thank you for passing it along. It's impossible to know Kennedy's heart, but sometimes when people become disillusioned in their faith (because of human failings in those who were supposed to be spiritual leaders), the disillusioned may turn to an alternative that is not so great. Then again, deliberate disinformation is always a possibility, too.
J, 2:55PM,
You are most welcome. Glad to pass along whatever information I have.
You are right of course. It is impossible to know Kennedy's heart. In the absence of hard evidence, I would definitely prefer to err on giving him the benefit of the doubt and assume that his heart was in the right place. But I am sure that you agree that giving Kennedy the benefit of the doubt does not extend to whatever errors he may have been embracing.
Kennedy was good friends with Malachi Martin and Rama Coomaraswamy who was a disciple of the Traditionalist School AT THE SAME TIME he professed to be a Traditionalist Catholic. The two systems are mutually exclusive.
A central belief of the Traditionalist School is the existence of a "perennial wisdom," or "perennial philosophy," which says that there are primordial and universal truths which form the source for, and are shared by all the major world religions. The sinister thing about all this is that many members of the Traditionalist School glom onto a "traditional religion" as their outer religious front, so to speak, while privately/secretly embracing their pagan gnostic beliefs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_School
Regarding Traditionalist Catholicism, some are in good standing with Rome while others are not. Some are not even in good standing with each other.
You are right in saying that when people of any religious persuasion become disillusioned with those who were supposed to be their spiritual leaders, they often become easy prey to pseudo-religious "bad actors" looking for recruits.
Anonymous 10:52 PM,
The United Church of God was one of several major splinter groups that broke off from Herbert Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God.
Everything they teach is not wrong. People need to be aware of influences on their theology, though.
If somebody's conscience is bothered by keeping Sunday instead of Saturday, then far be it from me to persuade them otherwise. My conscience is not bothered by it.
Susanna,
You are a wealth of information. There are endless ways for people to go astray.
Anonymous 10:52 PM,
What does this mean to you: "To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law." It is from:
1 Corinthians 9:19-23 New International Version (NIV)
19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
So...
Anonymous 2:23 PM's
"J, Bravo on all your posts."
Turns out to have been said by none other than Susanna.
Very disappointing.
I thought better of her intellectual honesty.
The Exit and Support Network has some information about United Church of God.
http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/artcls/ucg.htm
This testimony of a former member of UCG touched my heart.
http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/recovery/testimony/leftucg.htm
"It was around 2010 that I decided to go to a Protestant church. I was terrified. I kept asking myself if I was doing the right thing or had I been deceived? I was profoundly struck by how the entire church service focused on the centrality of Jesus Christ. It was worship, joy, and thanksgiving I experienced. Not fear and arrogance."
This is good, too.
Articles on Grace and Law
http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/mike_ep/exam/gracelaw.htm
"Exiters of high demand groups have had the Bible used on them in order to control, coerce, manipulate, and exploit them. Sorting through one's personal beliefs takes much time. The following information is posted for those who have expressed an interest in these subjects.
NOTE: If you have just exited a controlling, high demand group, we recommend you look at these sections first: Understanding Mind Control & Exploitive Groups and Healing From Emotional and Spiritual Abuse."
Does 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 mean Paul did not keep God's Law?
by Peter Salemi
"For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
"And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
"To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
"To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
"And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you." This means "God's law is done away" say the "no law" preachers. Many believe this was the only reason why Paul went into the synagogues on the Sabbath day, not because he kept it, but because, "unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews." The apostle Paul just adopted to the culture to win converts to the Christian faith. People's New Testament says, "With Jews he lived as a Jew in order to reach them. He observed their distinctions of meats, kept feasts, and circumcised Timothy. He observed the law to reach those who kept law."
In a recent "theological" article, the following "explanation" of this passage was conveyed to the readership:
"Paul acted like something he was not. Some people might call that hypocritical or deceptive; Paul calls it part of his evangelistic strategy... For someone to act like a Gentile, they would eat foods that Jews could not, and they would not observe the Sabbath... When Paul was with Jews, he kept the old covenant food laws and weekly and annual Sabbaths. When he was with the Gentiles, he did not. He sometimes acted differently from what he believed."
Are these "explanations" correct? Was Paul a hypocrite? Did he fail to keep the Sabbath or the Holy Days, when in the presence of Gentiles, so as not to offend them? Did he teach the Gentiles that they did not have to keep the Sabbath, the annual Holy Days, and the dietary laws?
Did Paul act as a hypocrite -- that he lied and deceived -- that he had double standards, and that he refused to keep God's law and taught others they did not have to keep it?
...
http://www.british-israel.ca/Paul%20and%20the%20Law.htm
Not hypocritical at all. It's the way Jesus works with us in our hearts. It's similar to a therapy for children with autism, called Floortime. The children are met where they are, and engaged with where they are, to gradually draw them out of their comfort zone and into their zone of potential.
Would you say it is hypocritical of a therapist to engage with a toddler in playing with bubbles, when their ultimate goal is for the child to become motivated to communicate?
J,
I must mention that I am VERY sympathetic to those who have had bad experiences in improper "controlling, high demand" situations. And I am highly displeased that such situations have existed all too often in the place where people seek refuge: Christianity.
My concern is that people who have had such experiences not "throw out the baby with the bathwater" by ALSO rejecting Biblically accurate doctrines that the church they were in may have taught. (That is to say by conflating those doctrines with the bad situation itself.)
That being said:
A church can have 99% Biblically accurate doctrines but be a HOLLOW SHELL if it lacks LOVE!
◄ 1 Corinthians 13:13 ►
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
For there are these three things that endure: Faith, Hope and Love, but the greatest of these is LOVE.
Have a good day!
Anonymous 10:52 PM
This is a very long article so those interested in the subject matter contained there in please see it in full to get the proper and complete understanding at the link at the bottom. I really don't want to post the whole thing here if possible. Here though, is a small part of the concluding segment of...
Does 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 mean Paul did not keep God's Law?
...
Paul's motive is to be a servant to all, set an example to further the gospel and partake in the joy of the Salvation of the Lord Jesus with them. It has nothing to do with God's law, or Paul going into the synagogues on the Sabbath not to keep the Sabbath but to win over the Jews for Christ. No Paul went to synagogue because he kept the seventh-day Sabbath because he believed and kept the Law and the Prophets, "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:" (Acts 24:14).
"For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God;". (Romans 7:22, 25).
http://www.british-israel.ca/Paul%20and%20the%20Law.htm
Anonymous 6:39,
I completely agree!
Anonymous 7:11,
I read the whole article at your link, and I agreed with it up until the very end.
"No Paul went to synagogue because he kept the seventh-day Sabbath because he believed and kept the Law and the Prophets..."
The writer was very good, and I was surprised to enjoy his writing and to agree with him. And then he came to that part at the very end, and I'm afraid I have to get off the bus right there.
P.S. But if somebody wants to keep the Sabbath on Saturday and to celebrate the holy days on the ancient Hebrew calendar, I think the verse not to judge people on the basis of their days and festivals would apply. (Colossians 2:16) So I personally wouldn't want to judge people who believe in going to church on Saturday or restricting their diets, etc.
I would only hope that people are not being kept on a tight leash spiritually by abusive leaders and that if they are, they find a better group to fellowship with.
Anonymous 4:44 PM
Re:So...
Anonymous 2:23 PM's
"J, Bravo on all your posts."
Turns out to have been said by none other than Susanna.
Very disappointing.
I thought better of her intellectual honesty.
Look at the "Anonymous" pot calling the "Anonymous" kettle black!
J 6:39 PM
Regarding the Sabbath, the Jewish Sabbath began at sundown on the evening before the Sabbath. Since the second Vatican Council, Jewish practice carries over in the anticipatory Catholic Mass for Sunday, or the Vigil Mass of a feast. In 1969, Paul VI wrote that ''the observance of Sunday and solemnities begins with the evening of the preceding day.”
What this means is that Catholics are allowed to go to Mass either on Saturday evening or on Sunday.
Good news!
Tommy Robinson is HOME!
Tommy Robinson WINS: Ezra Levant reads lawyers' statement
Tommy Robinson WINS: Ezra Levant on the ruling
P.S.
J
Again, by Jewish reckoning days were counted from sundown to sundown.
We call the seventh day of the week "Saturday," but we follow the Roman method of counting our days from midnight to midnight. The biblical seventh day runs from sunset on Friday evening to sunset on Saturday evening.
Thus, by Jewish reckoning, Sunday began at sundown Saturday evening, marking the end of the Sabbath and the beginning of the first day of the week. This explains why Paul’s preaching lasted till midnight because he was preaching on what we would normally call Saturday night, though it was scripturally already Sunday.
Craig,
Thank you for the great news!
Susanna 10:05 PM,
Perhaps I was misunderstood.
I was NOT AT ALL commenting on your anonymity.
It was a comment about your blanket endorsement of 'ALL' of those posts.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Was the Sabbath only for the Jews?
This falsehood has gained such strength that multitudes of Christians refer to it as the “Jewish Sabbath.” But nowhere do we find such an expression in the Bible. It is called “the Sabbath of the Lord,” (Exodus 20:10) but never “the Sabbath of the Jews.” Luke was a Gentile writer of the New Testament and often made reference to things which were peculiarly Jewish. He spoke of the “nation of the Jews,” “the people of the Jews,” “the land of the Jews,” and the “synagogue of the Jews.” Acts 10:22, 12:11, 10:39 and 14:1. But please take note that Luke never referred to the “Sabbath of the Jews” or the “Jewish Sabbath” and we do find that he mentioned the Sabbath repeatedly.
Christ unmistakably taught that “the Sabbath was made for man.” Mark 2:27. It does not say the Sabbath was made for Jews. Some say since it was made for man we can choose not to keep it. The fact is that all the Commandments were made for man. So does this mean we can choose to ignore all of them? Of course not! Man was made on the sixth day and the only reason that we have a seventh day is because God added it for a Sabbath rest for man. It was made for man at creation so what has changed? Nothing! The Pharisees thought the Sabbath was made just for them so Jesus was correcting them and said the Sabbath was made to be a blessing for ALL man and not a day of legalistic rules that they had turned it into. Picking corn on the Sabbath for a meal was a necessity and not unlawful.
The fact is that Adam was the only man in existence at the time God made the Sabbath. There were no Jews in the world for at least 2,000 years after creation. It could never have been made for them. Jesus used the term “man” in the generic sense, referring to mankind. The same word is used in connection with the institution of marriage which was also introduced at creation. Woman was made for man just as the Sabbath was made for man. Certainly no one believes that marriage was made only for the Jews. The fact is that two beautiful, original institutions were set up by God Himself before sin ever came into the world; marriage and the Sabbath. Both were made for man, both received the special blessing of the Creator and both continue to be just as holy now as when they were sanctified in the Garden of Eden!
...
http://www.godssabbathtruth.com/sabbath-jews.html
Way back on the other page of this thread was this, excerpted from an Anon:
The Protestant Old Testament canon is the Hebrew Bible which has its origins around the time of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem and Jerusalem itself. It was put together by Jewish rabbis as an "antidote" to the Christians who were becoming more and more successful in winning converts to Christ. They omitted the Septuagint which was the old Testament canon most often quoted by Our Lord and the Apostles in the New Testament and either omitted or reinterpreted everything in the Old Testament that pointed to Jesus Christ as the Messiah,
I don’t think the history is quite so tidy, nor is this entirely accurate. Setting aside the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books, yes, there are some differences (and commonalities) between the extant Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) and the extant Greek Septuagint (LXX—Greek translation of an early Hebrew text). However, the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), which are dated ca. 3rd century BC to early 1st AD (at least before 70AD), show agreement with the MT in some spots, while showing agreement with the LXX in others. In other words, in some areas where the MT differs from the DSS, the LXX agrees, and in others where the LXX differs from the DSS, the MT is in agreement. In still other cases, all three are in relative agreement.
Also, not all Protestant versions of the OT are taken from the MT. My 1984 NIV sources the MT, the LXX, and the DSS. More importantly, the hypothesis regarding the Council of Jamnia has fallen out of favor.
As I was studying Matthew 11:28-30, I came across something interesting in this vein. The final clause of v. 29, you will find rest in your souls, is almost verbatim from the LXX of Jeremiah 6:16, but the latter has “purification” in place of “rest”. However, the Hebrew in the MT has “rest” in Jeremiah 6:16. In other words, though Jesus is recorded as speaking Greek in the canonical Gospel of Matthew, and this is a near-quote of the LXX of Jeremiah 6:16, the MT better reflects Christ’s words.
Interestingly, it seems Jesus may well have alluded to Wisdom of Ben Sira/Ecclesiasticus 51:23-27, adapting the theme of adhering to Wisdom/Torah to grace in Christ in the New Covenant.
Since not all may be able &/or care to utilize videos:
Tommy Robinson FREED after WINNING court battle!
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6912226/tommy-robinson-freed-appeal-bail-contempt-of-court-latest/
Reveals 'mental torture'...
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tommy-robinson-speaks-first-time-13019035
This review is from: Lucifer's Lodge: Satanic Ritual Abuse in the Catholic Church (Paperback)
Lucifer's Lodge: Straight from the headlines!
May 22, 2004
By Carrie
"...A trio of priests--Fr. Malachi Martin, Fr. Al Kunz, and Fr. Charles Fiore--became aware that something was seriously wrong in the Catholic priesthood and began collecting data. William Kennedy came a bit later to join in the investigation, making it a foursome. Today all but Kennedy are dead. Fr. Kunz's death in 1998 was sudden and bloody; and the crime has not been solved. Fr. Fiore's health as well as Fr. Martin's declined immediately after the murder. Within 16 months Fr. Martin was dead, and Fr. Fiore was not well enough to continue the investigation. He died in March 2003. Kennedy states that a mutilated calf also found the morning that Fr. Kunz's body was discovered is the calling card or signature of Satanists.
"Kennedy discusses the OTO and Aleister Crowley, along with Jack Parsons, AMORC, Rose Croix. He also mentions a cult called THE PROCESS CHURCH, Scientology, CHARLES MANSON, and Fr. Paul Shanley and so much more..."
http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=254396
Discover the latest on QAnon, the Deep State, Tommy Robinson, and more at REAL.video
http://govtslaves.com/2018-07-30-qanon-deep-state-tommy-robinson-real-video.html
P.S. I just went there and was stunned to see that currently DAVID DUKE now holds the FIRST TWO SPOTS on the column of example videos shown when you go there (as well as spot #7).
Sigh.
Craig,
Jesus quoted from the Septuagint most of the time, but not all of the time.
Jesus quoted form the Hebrew Scriptures about 10% of the time. Since Hebrew was the language of the Temple and the synagogues, Jesus would have spoken in Hebrew when preaching in the Temple or synagogues.
Also......St. Jerome used both Hebrew texts and the Septuagint in his Latin translation of the Bible which has come down to us as the Vulgate did an independent translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but the original Protestant Bible was the Luther Bible - a German language Bible translation from Hebrew and ancient Greek by Martin Luther. The New Testament was first published in 1522 and the complete Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments and Apocrypha, in 1534.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible
The Luther Bible preceded the King James Version - an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England, begun in 1604 and completed in 1611.
The Douay Rheims Bible is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English made by members of the English College, Douai, in the service of the Catholic Church. The New Testament portion was published in Reims, France, in 1582, in one volume with extensive commentary and notes. The Old Testament portion was published in two volumes twenty-seven years later in 1609 and 1610 by the University of Douai.
Newest NYT Editorial Board Member: 'White Men Are Bullshit' & 'White people only fit to live underground like groveling goblins'
http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/02/new-york-times-sarah-jeong-racist/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/2/ny-times-newest-editorial-board-member-doesnt-seem/
It's OK to be white
https://youtu.be/FSZv_8MfrM0
It’s not OK to be white.
For those unfamiliar with my statement at 3:44 PM above, this began as a 4Chan internet board prank. Given the anti-white sentiment rampant on college campuses (more on this below), it was suggested that individuals print out and post signs stating IT’S OK TO BE WHITE, as a way to see if it would get a rise out of “social justice warriors”. I was not aware until I looked on Wikipedia that this statement purportedly originated as a “white supremacist” statement. But, on the surface, the statement is benign. I don’t see how the statement in and of itself carries any racist overtones.
Campuses are teaching/indoctrinating folks into believing that whites are the cause of most all society’s ills, and that Western society is inherently favorable to whites at the expense of every other race. Moreover, capitalism is deemed inherently evil, by unfairly conflating big business excesses with fair market ideals and small business—and this is portrayed as being the white man’s fault.
Slavery is another ill of society put squarely on the shoulders of whites. Speaking strictly about the USA, those propounding this view seems to forget that it was largely whites who fought and died to end slavery. Moreover, they seem to overlook that it was African blacks selling other blacks to whites (and others) in the African slave trade. Moreover, to this day, some African tribes are enslaving other tribes. Also, the etymology of the term slave is SLAVic, coined during the Ottoman Empire when European whites were enslaved by the Turks—well before the birth of the US. (This is part of the reason why Hungary and Poland, e.g., are unwilling to bring in Islamic “immigrants”.)
It’s clear to me that global governance enthusiasts are trying to incite a race war. Relatedly, Obama very recently was in South Africa. Did he have something to do with SA’s push to change their constitution to allow the expropriation of Afrikaner’s lands/farms without compensation? It’s important to note that those currently in charge historically have never owned any land in the area the Boers inhabit in SA; thus, it’s not theirs to take. The white (formerly Dutch) farmers traded for the land from the original inhabitants, the Khoisan.
I weary of all this race-baiting.
That short Clint Eastwood clip above would never pass muster today. Eastwood is far from being prejudiced, as some might want to presume, given that clip. On the contrary, like me, he is a jazz fan, and he was Director of “Bird”, the story of alto saxophonist Charlie “Bird” Parker, as well as Executive Producer of the soundtrack to the movie. Also, Eastwood agreed to produce and help fund a documentary of jazz pianist/icon Thelonious Monk (“Straight, No Chaser”). [I vividly recall the profound sadness I felt as I was one of a relative handful of moviegoers when it premiered. Monk was/is a national treasure!] Also, unless I’m mistaken, one of the actors who played in 4 of the “Dirty Harry” films, African American Albert Popwell (he only missed the last one due to a scheduling conflict), was a friend of Eastwood’s.
Tangentially, my experience living in San Antonio, TX is about what this vlogger claims about Hispanic illegal aliens. Most have a Catholic upbringing, and even if they no longer follow Catholicism, they still hold to Christian values. I’ve a feeling many of the landscapers and construction workers I encounter are illegals, but they are most always respectful and friendly. And hard-working. The logic of this vlogger, a self-employed painter in California, is refreshing:
A House Painter in L.A. talks about Illegal Immigration and its impact.
FINDHORN Co-Creatives - David Spangler, Barbara Marx Hubbard
It's been quite some time since I posted in Constance' comments but after looking at Findhorn's website recently, I wanted to share a couple of the bizarre events that they've planned for later this year and are promoting quite enthusiastically. Findhorn seem to be returning to their fairy days in an attempt to push a new 'New' agenda forward.
- In October, David Spangler will be heading up a week long conference at Findhorn entitled. "Co-Creative Spirituality Shaping Our Future with the Unseen Worlds." Scheduled activities for the week include collaborating with the fairies (Sidhe), angelic realms, techno elementals and other beings!
https://www.findhorn.org/programmes/co-creative-spirituality/
Prior to David's week, Findhorn will be working with Barbara Marx Hubbard on 'The New Story' online video-conferencing teaching programme which will spread itself thinly over eight months. "... as part of our evolutionary new story, Homo sapiens is giving birth to a new species — Homo universalis (universal human) — a higher conception of humanity that co-evolves with nature, co-exists with high-tech genius, co-creates with spirit and leads with love."
http://newstoryhub.com/
Maybe Findhorn are trying to get folks hooked in to Global Ecovillage Network type projects, I do wonder, especially as Ken Wilber was speaking about 'Transformational Communities of Tomorrow' at Findhorn about a year ago. https://www.findhorn.org/programmes/transformational-communities-of-tomorrow/
https://ecovillage.org/. GEN is registered as an international charity in Scotland.
Interestingly, Lucis Trust mention GEN (amongst others) in their Newsletter 2016 #2 - Agents of the Future. https://www.lucistrust.org/world_goodwill/newsletter_2016_2_agents_of_the_future
The buzz word seems to be Co-Creatives / Co-Creation and I'm also noticing a subtle use of the lotus blossom in some logos and video graphics.
~ K ~
Susanna,
Respectfully, I challenge your assertion that Jesus sourced the Hebrew only “about 10% of the time”. Of course, that would entail taking 100% of Jesus’ quotes of the OT and checking these over against both the MT and the LXX—a daunting task for sure! And, what about the times in which the NT text reads like the LXX verbatim and the LXX is, in turn, a faithful translation of the MT?
I was on another blog in which the owner/facilitator claimed the NT used the MT more than the LXX (when quoting or alluding to the OT). Using Beale and Carson’s work Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, I went through part of Matthew, showing how some texts supported his view, while others did not, with still others illustrating agreement between the MT and LXX.
Someone painstakingly took the NT quotes from the OT and placed the LXX (Brenton’s) and the MT next to them for comparison here. I readily confess that I won’t be taking the time to compare them all! But, then again, these are English translations, and one would have to look at the original languages instead. Also, one must check Swete’s LXX and Rahlfs’ LXX over against Brenton’s.
Jimmy Akin, a Catholic apologist, has a blog post explaining how the modern RCC’s Bible is put together, as well as modern Protestant Bibles. Apparently all use a similar process of comparing LXX, MT, and DSS to determine what is most likely original—as I mentioned earlier regarding my 1984 NIV. Positively, we have more texts than ever with which to compare and get closer to the “original”, but, negatively, the task requires some subjectivity. A similar thing applies to NT textual criticism.
I think you are correct regarding Luther’s German Bible. But, Wycliffe’s was much earlier. This was part of what was considered a ‘pre-Reformation’ movement, with the Lollard’s taking issue with the RCC in various ways. My point in bringing this up is that, with the knowledge that history is usually written by the victors, it is possible that there were still earlier challenges to the RCC, even before the Lollards.
I should add that the Wycliffe Bible appended the "apocrypha", as can be seen by this list of the books in order.
Susanna,
I meant to respond directly to this statement: Since Hebrew was the language of the Temple and the synagogues, Jesus would have spoken in Hebrew when preaching in the Temple or synagogues.
This is most likely true. But how one applies this hypothesis/fact to the evidence of the Scriptures may well depend on one’s view of the manner in which the Scriptures came to be. How much did the Holy Spirit influence the writer? Given that the Bible we have is in Koine Greek (with some Hebrew or Aramaic transliterations), did the Spirit recall Jesus’ Hebrew words verbatim then translate into Greek for the Gospel writer? Or did the Spirit provide the recollection to the writer who, in turn, recalled the Scripture quotation from his own memory, choosing either to translate the Hebrew into Greek or, alternatively, take directly from his own memory of the LXX? In other words, this boils down to how one understands inspiration.
Instructive here is Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness in Mt. 4:4-10 in comparison with Lk. 4:4-12. Not only are the Gospels slightly different in the way they quote the OT, the ordering is different. As a short-cut, compare the two passages using the link I provided earlier @ 11:37 PM: Table of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, in English translation.
Also, I must make a correction. The Wycliffe took issue with the English church, which, by extension given the specific complaints, is an issue with the RCC.
Craig 7:32 PM,
Just to be clear, I put that brief 'Dirty Harry' clip only as a touch of good-natured humor. I figured that since he was white (or so rumor has it anyway) that it would be thusly so seen. You made excellent points.
••••••••••
Constance,
Happy Friday:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/02/marianne-williamson-new-age-author-looking-into-presidential-run
(This was also meant in jest btw.)
Her employer, "upon learning about her racist tweets" FIRED her!
Oh wait...
THAT WAS ROSEANNE
NYT: Sarah Jeong's Anti-White Racism Is JUSTIFIED Because: Trolls Called Her Mean Names On The Internet
http://informationliberation.com/?id=58825
Journos Defend NYT Hire's Anti-White Tweets: 'Sarah Jeong Is GOOD, HER HATERS Are Bad'
http://informationliberation.com/?id=58826
NYT Stands by Hiring of Harvard-Educated Anti-White Racist [Warning: Language]
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-bigot-for-the-left/
FLASHBACK: Here's What They Published About Roseanne...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/arts/television/roseanne-show-abc-twitter.html
Anonymous 11:08,
So what is the standard, then, that should be applied to both black and white, liberal and conservative, etc.?
I would propose the golden rule.
Overall I agree with your exposure of liberal media hypocrisy.
But the phrasing "called her mean names on the internet". What if her speech were phrased that way? After all, she called white men mean names on the internet, and it triggered their feeeeeelings.
I know the MSM has a double standard, but I don't. Do you?
I'm asking because I don't know. It's not a rhetorical question. I think this is a legitimate topic to discuss in a Christian blog comments section...
J,
I see that you are not actually going to links. That part that you quoted in indignation is actually part of the TITLE OF THE ARTICLE people would be going to.
Anonymous 2:06,
Yes, indeed, you caught me not going to the link. Now that I have, I don't feel like my point was changed? My question remains
Apologies if I overly personalized it. You were only copying and pasting a title that you didn't write. But the title is not a unique rhetorical tactic. It's a "meme" I see all the time in the cultural war and rhetorical war that rages.
My main concern is that I see a double standard in the rhetorical war on both sides, the MSM and the conservative altnernative media platforms
How do we avoid playing along with the MSM double standard, without reacting with our own double standard?
I personally think the answer is simple. It's the golden rule. (Real morality coming from the heart, not PC culture imposed top down.)
The problem is that a moral vacuum makes it *more* likely that PC culture will fill the vacuum up.
True morality is the answer, and we humans need help from above to have much of it.
Michael Collins Piper has a chapter about Malachi Martin in his book, "The Judas Goats: The Shocking Story of the Infiltration and Subversion of the American Nationalist Movement".
Chapter Nineteen is titled, "The Vatican's Own Enemy Within: Malachi Martin's Secret Role as a Subversive".
The free pdf version of this book is available at this link:
https://ia600406.us.archive.org/23/items/TheJudasGoatsTheEnemyWithin/JudasGoats.pdf
The author claims that Malachi Martin was exposed as a "Zionist double agent".
He says that Lawrence W. Patterson exposed that Martin was key to "saving the Vatican II documents which have since been used to begin the attempted melding of Zionism and Catholicism."
Patterson allegedly provided evidence of his claims about Martin in the 1991 issue of his magazine, "Criminal Politics".
Others who made similar claims about Martin include Hutton Gibson, a conservative lay Catholic, who said on a broadcast of Radio Free America that, "I think Martin was kind of a Judas Goat. He was at the Second Vatican Council and one of the things he did was call in bishops who were a little obstrepious and threaten them to get in line. Malachi Martin is not my idea of a Catholic."
J,
Thank you for your admission.
As far as the thrust of the rest of your post: I agree.
One, of course, doesn't necessarily always agree 100% with articles (etc) that we find that (nevertheless) have important information that we pass along but I have been unhappy with some of the tone of some of them along the SAME LINES as you are addressed.
Infowars is the main place I've seen such.
addressing
Anonymous 3:00 PM,
We don't always have the best options, do we?
Craig,
Re:This is most likely true. But how one applies this hypothesis/fact to the evidence of the Scriptures may well depend on one’s view of the manner in which the Scriptures came to be.
That is very true.
How much did the Holy Spirit influence the writer? Given that the Bible we have is in Koine Greek (with some Hebrew or Aramaic transliterations), did the Spirit recall Jesus’ Hebrew words verbatim then translate into Greek for the Gospel writer?
Or did the Spirit provide the recollection to the writer who, in turn, recalled the Scripture quotation from his own memory, choosing either to translate the Hebrew into Greek or, alternatively, take directly from his own memory of the LXX? In other words, this boils down to how one understands inspiration.
It is my understanding that the Jews were required to memorize the Scriptures as an essential part of preserving their oral Tradition.
Isn’t it interesting that in the Hebrew Scriptures God instructed Israel to memorize His Word and recite it to one another (Deuteronomy 6:7, Joshua 1:8)? At a time when everyday access to the written Word of God almost unheard of, the very words of God were memorized by the Jewish people. This was accomplished through continuous repetition in a family setting. Large portions of the Old Testament were passed from generation to generation, century after century, through this oral memorization tradition......read more...
https://www.discipledaily.org/memorize-scripture/
_________________________________________________________
https://worldhistory.us/ancient-history/ancient-jewish-education-of-children-and-use-of-scripture.php
_________________________________________________________
https://worldhistory.us/ancient-history/methods-of-scripture-memorization-by-the-early-jews-mnemonics.php
_________________________________________________________
By the way, I would just like to respectfully point out that the "10%" is not MY assertion, but something I have read in more than one article. The following is one of them.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/tips/what-bible-did-jesus-use-11638841.html
_______________________________________________________
The easy way out of this dilemna might be to just say that Jesus and His disciples were bilingual and let it go at that, but I don't necessarily think that history bears this out.
Of course Jesus, being God, would not have had any problem remembering His own Word - regardless of the particular language - and transmitting it orally to His disciples. It is not my intention to be flippant here in saying this, but if Jesus could raise people from the dead, He could certainly reveal Himself to whomever He wished, however he wished and in whatever language He wished. I think that it is also important to note that the Apostles faithfully recorded what was revealed to them by Christ.
It seems to me that any quoting of the Old Testament would have been done by Christ Himself.
In any case, I came across the following which I thought you might find interesting. It quotes from the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus who maintains in his ANTIQUITIES that Jews didn't speak Greek in first century Israel.
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8453/jesus-quotation-of-septuagint-greek-or-aramaic
___________________________________________________________________
cont.
cont.
The works of Flavius Josephus can be read for free at the following link:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/
___________________________________________________________________
It is especially interesting in light of the tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew was written in Aramaic - despite the fact that the only known extant copies of Matthew's Gospel have come down to us in Greek. I haven't had time to read it yet, but I did purchase a book entitled THE HEBREW GOSPEL OF MATTHEW by George Howard.
At 11:29 you wrote:
As I was studying Matthew 11:28-30, I came across something interesting in this vein. The final clause of v. 29, you will find rest in your souls, is almost verbatim from the LXX of Jeremiah 6:16, but the latter has “purification” in place of “rest”. However, the Hebrew in the MT has “rest” in Jeremiah 6:16. In other words, though Jesus is recorded as speaking Greek in the canonical Gospel of Matthew, and this is a near-quote of the LXX of Jeremiah 6:16, the MT better reflects Christ’s words.
I would say that this more or less supports what was stated in the aforementioned article.
Re: Given that the Bible we have is in Koine Greek (with some Hebrew or Aramaic transliterations), did the Spirit recall Jesus’ Hebrew words verbatim then translate into Greek for the Gospel writer?
Just for the sake of discussion....Why not? The Hebrew ( so-called "Jamnian" ) Bible was translated into Greek by Aquila of Sinope and used in place of the Septuagint after the rabbis finished with their new translations and made their decisions about which books to include in their canon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquila_of_Sinope
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Aquilas-Version
____________________________________________________
Another thought has occurred to me. Given that the Septuagint is a translation from the Hebrew, there must have been an original Hebrew version somewhere.
in closing I would just like to point out that some very interesting things have been discovered at Qumran that ought to gladden the hearts of both Catholic and non-Catholic Christians.
One of the most important Dead Sea documents is the Isaiah Scroll. This twenty-four foot long scroll is well preserved and contains the complete book of Isaiah. The scroll is dated 100 B.C. and contains one of the clearest and most detailed prophecies of the Messiah in chapter fifty-three, called the “Suffering Servant.” Although some Jewish scholars teach that this refers to Israel, a careful reading shows that this prophecy can only refer to Christ.
Here are just a few reasons. The suffering servant is called sinless (53:9), he dies and rises from the dead (53:8-10), and he suffers and dies for the sins of the people (53:4-6). These characteristics are not true of the nation of Israel. The Isaiah Scroll gives us a manuscript that predates the birth of Christ by a century and contains many of the most important messianic prophecies about Jesus. Skeptics could no longer contend that portions of the book were written after Christ or that first century insertions were added to the text.
Thus, the Dead Sea Scrolls provide further proof that the Old Testament canon was completed by the third century B.C., and that the prophecies foretold of Christ in the Old Testament predated the birth of Christ.
https://probe.org/the-dead-sea-scrolls/
____________________________________________________________
Have a great weekend!
J - 2:45 PM
I am sure that you are probably not aware of this, but regarding Michael Collins Piper:
Michael Collins Piper (born Michael Bernard Piper; July 16, 1960 – May 2015) was an American political writer, conspiracy theorist and talk radio host.
Piper was a regular contributor to both The Spotlight and its successor, the American Free Press, newspapers backed by Willis Carto and noted for their antisemitic and White separatist/White nationalist themes. Piper's books and articles have also been featured by a wide-ranging and eclectic variety of websites, including PressTV, Vanguard News Network and the website of David Duke.[citation needed]
Piper was described on his website as a political "progressive in the La Follette-Wheeler tradition."
He wrote books such as The High Priests of War, in which he criticized the neoconservatives in the Bush administration, and Final Judgment, where he claimed that Israel's Mossad was responsible for the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. He had been attacked by many Jewish groups such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), some of which labeled Piper as a promoter of antisemitic conspiracy theories and a Holocaust denier....read more...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Collins_Piper
_________________________________________
That said, I would like to state that Malachi Martin was a controversial mysterious person who always claimed to be "a Catholic priest in good standing." However, according to other sources, he was laicized at his own request by Pope Paul VI.
His supporters still try to claim that he was only dispensed from his vows as a Jesuit rather than as a priest.
Rama Coomaraswamy was among those of Martin's friends who believed that he (Martin) was still a priest albeit no longer a Jesuit. In fact Martin even claimed to be a "secret" bishop of Pius XII.
Martin was present at Rama Coomaraswamy's illicit ordination to the priesthood, even though Rama was a married man, like his ordaining bishop Bishop-Lopez Gaston who was also an illicitly consecrated bishop. When Coomaraswamy expressed doubt whether the ordaining bishop had actually physically laid his hands on him, Malachi, as a "secret Pius XII bishop," did so, thus conditionally ordaining Coomaraswamy.
There is even a photograph that purports to be of Martin participating in Rama Coomaraswamy's illicit ordination to the Catholic priesthood.
ON THE VALIDITY OF MY ORDINATION
http://www.the-pope.com/validity.html
____________________________________________
cont.
cont.
As I have pointed out previously, the late Doctor Rama Coomaraswamy was the son of the late Traditionalist School co-founder Ananda Coomaraswamy. Rama Coomaraswamy was famously exposed by the late Carrie Tomko for embracing the gnostic/esoteric/"traditionalist"/perennial philosophy while at the same time professing to be a Roman Catholic.
Catholic Traditionalism and Perennialism
Coomaraswamy was involved with not only the Traditionalist Catholic movement, but also with Perennialism (also called "Traditionalism") whose main exponents were René Guénon, Ananda Coomaraswamy (Rama's father) and Frithjof Schuon. He was a member of the Foundation for Traditional Studies and was a regular contributor to the foundation's journal Sophia.
William Stoddart and Mateus Soares de Azevedo discuss Coomaraswamy's double involvement in an article for the Canadian journal Sacred Web (No. 18, 2007). The topic was also covered by a blogger, Carrie Tomko, specializing in investigation of the occult infiltration of Catholicism, and picked up by, among others, J. Christopher Pryor, a Lefebvrist who operates the Perennialism LeFloch Report. Interestingly, Rama Coomaraswamy had never broken away from Perennialism and propagating it, along with Frithjof Schuon and Coomaraswamy's own perennialist disciple, William H. Kennedy, even when he was associated with Lefebvre's seminary.…...
http://wikibin.org/articles/rama-p.-coomaraswamy.html
_____________________________
Whatever Malachi Martin's sexual peccadilloes may - or may not have been - a far more serious issue has to do with allegations to the effect that he was secretly a sedevacantist and given his close friendship with Rama Coomaraswamy may have even embraced the perennial philosophy himself. Martin also claimed to have the "second sight."
Apart from the perennial philosophy, many of the things Martin wrote make sense only from a sedevacantist perspective.
Moreover, if the photos indicate that he participated in the illicit ordination of Rama Coomaraswamy by illicitly consecrated Bishop-Lopez Gaston are authentic, Martin would have been automatically excommunicated for schism.
Rama Coomaraswamy went to a lot of trouble to defend the validity of his ordination. But that is not the point. His ordination was valid....but it was illicit!!!
At the following site, there are links to two photos depicting Malachi Martin participating in the illicit ordination of Rama Coomaraswamy by Bishop-Lopez Gaston.
ON THE VALIDITY OF MY ORDINATION
http://www.the-pope.com/validity.html
________________________
If these photos are genuine and if Malachi Martin did participate in the illicit ordination of Rama Coomaraswamy, then Malachi Martin, along with Rama Coomaraswamy, would have been ipso facto excommunicated for schism.
As also stated earlier, Rama's father Ananda Coomaraswamy had ties to the notorious Satanist Aleister Crowley. Details are at the following links.
THE DANGERS OF THE FAR RIGHT
http://carrietomko.blogspot.com/2008/12/dangers-of-far-right-some-of-you-may.html
Coomaraswamy and Crowley
https://traditionalistblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/coomaraswamy-and-crowley.html
Speaking of David Duke, I am happy to report that, in the subsequent times that I've checked (including now) his videos have been totally absent from the Real.Video example lineup. In fact a Tommy Robinson interview leads off!
Susanna,
Thank you for informing me about Michael Collins Piper.
Thanks also for the additional information about Malachi Martin. Something smelled funny about him, for going on Coast to Coast AM so many times.
The information you gave me about Malachi Martin points more to occultish type influences than to Zionist influence.
Constance has written before about occultists trying to pit the "peoples of the Book" against each other. Maybe Michael Collins Piper is doing more of the same, either wittingly or unwittingly.
I've only read one book by Martin, The Keys of This Blood. It was very good, but I did notice that he wrote from the perspective of an omniscient narrator. He told a good tale, but his story seemed to consist of a lot of narrative summary, and was sometimes more factually detailed than at other times. He wrote to be trusted as an insider, not so much to be perceived as somebody who gets all their facts right like a journalist or a scholar.
His account of Pope John Paul II in Poland with the crowds chanting, "We want God!" was very moving, though.
Evolution's Leap Of Faith
https://youtu.be/6VSCIAGb9y0
https://www.ucg.org/tags/evolution-0
The First Genesis — The Saga of Creation vs Evolution
http://triumphpro.info/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/FG-Book.pdf
How Old Is The Universe?
http://triumphpro.com/earth-and-universe-how-old.htm
J, 7:15 PM
Re:The information you gave me about Malachi Martin points more to occultish type influences than to Zionist influence.
Reliable data does seem to indicate that this may be the case. In "The Keys of This Blood," he seems to be defending the Cabala. But he was pretty slippery so it is hard to nail it down.
The little group that he associated with in Monroe, Connecticut was headed up by an excommunicated priest named Robert McKenna who was later illicitly consecrated a bishop. He specialized in exorcisms as did the rest of the group.
Case in point...In 1985, there was an alleged case of possession in Warren, Massachusetts about 45 minutes away from where I live. The man's name was Maurice "Frenchy" Theriault. Everyone around here thought there must be something to it because the authentic Bishop of the Worcester, Massachusetts Diocese, Timothy Harrington authorized an exorcism.
The story is told in a book entitled SATAN'S HARVEST
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/935011.Satan_s_Harvest
_________________________________________________________
The priest who was first assigned by the legitimate Bishop Timothy Harrington to perform the exorcism was the famous healing priest Father Ralph D'Orio.
http://unsolvedmysteries.wikia.com/wiki/Reverend_Ralph_DiOrio
___________________________________________________________
Sometimes an exorcism takes time and the devil(s) are not always expelled immediately. This was apparently the case with Frenchy. But what happened in this case was that Bishop McKenna intervened without authorization from Frenchy's own bishop with his "more authentic" rite of exorcism after consulting with the "demonologists" Ed and Lorraine Warren who were also friends of Malachi Martin.
This story made the front page of the major newspaper here in Western Massachusetts and I still have the original news clips. After Bishop McKenna performed his exorcism it was proclaimed a "success." The next time we heard of Frenchy however, it was in a news story about how he had tried to murder his wife Nancy - after which took his own life.
These are the people who were associated with Malachi Martin in Monroe Connecticut.
Robert McKenna
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McKenna
____________________________________________
Ed and Lorraine Warren
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_and_Lorraine_Warren
____________________________________________
Rama Coomaraswamy
http://www.thefullwiki.org/Rama_P._Coomaraswamy
_____________________________________________
For good measure, there was apparently a Tibetan monk/exorcist named Rev. Jun who was a part of their little group.
Currently, John Zaffis who is the nephew of Ed and Lorraine Warren has become prominent in the paranormal investigation community. He was also friends with Malachi Martin.
John Zaffis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Zaffis
Photos at this link.
https://www.johnzaffis.com/about
_______________________________________________
Susanna,
I’ve seen a number of posts with this 10%/90% claim, yet I’m not convinced (if it’s on the internet it must be true?). I’ve seen assertions, but no proof. My admittedly incomplete work in this area doesn’t seem to bear this out. And keep reading.
From the Bible Study Tools link you provided, we find: This translation [LXX] became very popular among Jews in the first two centuries before Christ because many Jews in those days did not understand Hebrew. Their ancestors had left Israel centuries before, and generation after generation gradually lost the ability to read the Scriptures in Hebrew.
If this is true, then why did Jesus use Hebrew in the Temple and synagogues, as you asserted? The author is a Protestant, with a doctorate in Biblical Ministry (served under John MacArthur for a time)—I wonder how much expertise he has in the Biblical languages. Perhaps he’s just parroting something he read, as opposed to searching this out? For the record, I’m inclined to agree with your assertion regarding Jesus’ use of Hebrew, but this post by Zondervan Academic blog: What Language Did Jesus Speak? takes the position that Jesus spoke primarily in Hebrew (importantly, the inflated claim here regarding Aramaic is disputed in the comments section by Randall Buth, who IS fluent in both Biblical Hebrew and Greek, and is acquainted with the history of the languages). The article also asserts that, generally, 1st century Jews knew Hebrew (and some Aramaic), though some knew Greek (obviously). I’d have a hard time believing students of the Tanach would have switched to memorizing the LXX over against the Hebrew Scriptures. Moreover, the evidence of the DSS could be seen as countering that position. And Jesus reads from the scroll of Isaiah, i.e. Hebrew text, just after the temptation in the wilderness. Or does he read the LXX? I’ll return to this below.
The Bible Study Tools author also writes: Many of the Jews in Jesus' day used the Septuagint as their Bible. Quite naturally, the early Christians also used the Septuagint in their meetings and for personal reading; and many of the New Testament apostles quoted it when they wrote the Gospels and Epistles in Greek. What is most fascinating is that the order of the books in the Septuagint is the same order in our Bibles today, and not like the Hebrew scrolls.
The Christian Bible is in the same order as the LXX, as opposed to the Tanach, because Christians put the Bible together that way! His statement is circular. But, even still, the evidence of the Greek manuscripts shows variation in the ordering of books—both OT and NT. For example codex Vaticanus (dated 325-350AD)—housed in the Vatican library—which includes most (not all) of the Deuterocanonical books, is ordered differently, as evidenced from the 3rd paragraph in this New Advent piece. I’m not impressed with his post.
You wrote: Of course Jesus, being God, would not have had any problem remembering His own Word - regardless of the particular language - and transmitting it orally to His disciples. It is not my intention to be flippant here in saying this, but if Jesus could raise people from the dead, He could certainly reveal Himself to whomever He wished, however he wished and in whatever language He wished. I think that it is also important to note that the Apostles faithfully recorded what was revealed to them by Christ.
It seems to me that any quoting of the Old Testament would have been done by Christ Himself.
[cont…]
[continuing]
Yes, I’ll agree Jesus could have communicated with anyone He chose using whatever language or means. I quoted your entire paragraph above, as I didn’t want to take the following out of context, which I’d like to comment on: I think that it is also important to note that the Apostles faithfully recorded what was revealed to them by Christ. This is where individual understandings of Scriptural inspiration come in. What do you make of the differences between Matthew’s and Luke’s version of the exchange between the devil and Jesus in the wilderness? Specifically, how do you reconcile the different orderings of the conversation, as well as the slight variations in verbiage, between the two Gospels? If we agree that Jesus had no trouble quoting the OT correctly—and I do—how is it that Matthew and Luke differ here?
Now, I’ll return to Jesus reading the Isaiah scroll after the temptation in the wilderness (Luke 4:17-20, more specifically 18-19). The Beale/Carson work I mentioned earlier (11:37 PM) states that the quote here (Is. 61:1-2 with 58:6):
…is likely to have been drawn from the LXX, which accurately reflects the sense of the MT except…‘to proclaim . . . release for the prisoners’ [is replaced by] ‘to proclaim . . . sight for the blind’…In any case, the exact sense of the Hebrew text is uncertain, and the LXX may have provided a legitimate rendering of the clause….
In other words, it’s possible the LXX = MT in what Jesus says here. Yet, what Jesus says is not an exact quotation, though it follows the LXX (and maybe simply because the Gospel of Luke is written in Greek). It differs in that: (a) he omits ‘to heal the brokenhearted’; (b) ‘to let the oppressed go free’, from 58:6, is interpolated into His Is. 61 citation; (c) 61:2’s ‘to declare’ is changed to ‘to proclaim’; (d) the citation does not include the final clause of 61:2.
The above is found in the NAB(RE) of Luke 4:18-19. However, in comparing the NAB(RE) with the Douay-Rheims version, we find a number of differences. Specifically, in the D-R: (1) the clause in (a) above is included; (2) it adds “to set at liberty them that are bruised”; (3) “and the day of reward” is added at the end. (1) and (2) obviously were added to conform to the LXX, as a number of later NT manuscripts and the Vulgate had done, though early manuscripts, such as Vaticanus do not contain either. In (3), the D-R adds one more clause from the LXX of 61:2 that I don’t find listed as a textual variant in any Greek NT manuscript, though I see it was in the Vulgate. I belabor this to illustrate the complexities involved. Given the evidence, I’m inclined to agree with the NAB(RE) over against the D-R here, the former essentially agreeing with the MT (the LXX being faithful to the MT).
You wrote: Another thought has occurred to me. Given that the Septuagint is a translation from the Hebrew, there must have been an original Hebrew version somewhere. Yes, but is the LXX an absolutely faithful translation of this Hebrew? We cannot know this. In fact, Vaticanus (mentioned above) is the most complete early LXX we have, and this codex is from 325-350AD. In other words, we need more textual criticism (this is why there are two main versions: Swete’s and Rahlfs’). But, all this is precisely why the newer Bibles, Protestant and Catholic, source the LXX, MT, and DSS.
Lastly, I’ve been remiss in not conceding that Eusebius does mention a Hebrew Matthew (in book III, 25.6). Since I’m leery of English translations, I found the original Greek here, wrestled with it, and found that Cruse’s translation is pretty faithful. Now, what to make of this, I’m not sure.
Craig,
Re:If this is true, then why did Jesus use Hebrew in the Temple and synagogues, as you asserted?
Because even if Greek and Aramaic were the languages commonly spoken among the ordinary people, Hebrew was the sacred language of the Temple. The words of the Torah were sacrosanct and the sacred scrolls in Hebrew would have been preserved in the Temple. By way of analogy, Hebrew more or less became to Judaism what Latin has become to Roman Catholicism. Latin is still the official language of the Church even though most people don't understand Latin. I understand some because I studied classical Latin and am familiar with ecclesiastical Latin. I don't think I have to tell you about the big brouhaha that occurred after Vatican II over the abolition of the Tridentine Latin Mass ( against the mandate of the Council too I might add ).
Actually, it was Flavius Josephus ( I mentioned this earlier ) who maintained in his ANTIQUITIES that Jews didn't speak Greek in first century Israel. I find that quite interesting.
Recall also that at age 12 Jesus was found sitting in the Temple discussing the finer points of the Torah with the prominent rabbis of his day. This discussion was undoubtedly in Hebrew, not Aramaic - and certainly not Greek or Latin.
Later we find that Jesus was able to speak with the Roman centurion Matt 8:5-15 and later with Pontius Pilate. It is not very likely that either one of these gentiles understood Aramaic or Hebrew so Jesus likely spoke to them in Koine Greek or possibly even Latin - although I would be more inclined to think it would have been Koine Greek.
Regarding the differences between Matthew and Luke regarding the Temptation in the Desert, I tend to agree with the educated guess that Luke was thinking more of a Gentile audience whereas Matthew was minding a Jewish audience.
cont.
_______________________________________________________________________________
cont.
This is often the only handle we have to try and see why one goes in a certain direction and the other not.
Using this handle of the intended audience I can see one plausible explanation. For a Jewish audience they might instinctively understand that the temptation to 'throw himself down' or to become like a powerful Lord of the earth, are both increasing degrees of the same temptation to obtain a Messianic dream the easy way. That is to prove or force his kingdom without suffering or being rejected by his people. To a Gentile, this order of increasing temptation might go right over their heads. Without digressing and explanation the whole context, possibly Luke was satisfied in getting a less 'deep' understanding of the temptation that might be more applicable to a Gentile audience and their temptations. The First the temptation is just to satisfy hunger, without any direct religious significance in the desire. The Second is then to a Gentile application, to satisfy a desire for raw power (neglecting the Messianic motive to have that power and fulfill the Jewish expectation of the Messiah's rule according the the flesh). Finally to satisfy a desire for renown recognition and fame, which seems the ultimate dream of stardom like the gods of Greece and Rome we find the grand temptation (again avoiding the complexity of the Messianic nuances of the chronological order). Maybe Luke switched the order of these temptations so as to better connect and apply more aptly the gist of the narrative to a heathen audience entirely ignorant of the Messianic nuances that the chronological order introduces. If he used a chronological order he may have had to embark on some digression and side notes of explanation cluttering his evangelical intentions.
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/18269/why-do-mathew-and-luke-present-a-different-order-of-satans-temptation-of-jesus
_____________________________________________________________________
Re:Yes, but is the LXX an absolutely faithful translation of this Hebrew? We cannot know this. In fact, Vaticanus (mentioned above) is the most complete early LXX we have, and this codex is from 325-350AD.
But don't you think that if the LXX were NOT a faithful translation of the original Hebrew Our Lord who not only reveals truth, but IS Truth would have cautioned His disciples against making use of it?
And yet we see through the writings of the Church Fathers that this is not the case. As a matter of fact, the very name "Septuagint" refers to the tradition that Ptolemy himself was zealous in his efforts to acquire just such a faithful translation. Even before the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Augustine and Eusebius came into existence there was the legendary Letter of Aristeas which is referred to in Josephus' ANTIQUITIES and which describes the way in which the Septuagint translation came about. Even if the letter was merely Jewish propaganda, the point was to guarantee that they had in the Septuagint an accurate version of the genuine Jewish law.
https://www.ellopos.com/blog/4508/letter-of-aristeas-full-text-in-greek-and-english/
A New Look at the Origin of the Bible - The SEPTUAGINT
When was the Septuagint translated? And for whom? What is the TRUTH? Did Christ and the apostles quote from the Septuagint? Was it commonly used in Jewish synagogues throughout the Greek speaking world? Why then did they cease to use it? There is much more to this story than we have ever known!
(Note: There's a space at the end of the article but keep scrolling as then commences a related article: "The Battle Over The Bible".)
http://www.triumphpro.com/lxx.htm
Anonymous 5:39 AM
Thanks for that link. I am familiar with the writings of the Church Fathers mentioned in the article.
One thing I would like to clarify here is that in defending the Septuagint, I am not criticizing anyone who uses another translation. Nor is it my intention to trash anyone else's beliefs.
In defending the Septuagint, the bottom line for me is that the Septuagint is the translation that best points to and supports belief in the divinity of Christ.
In his book DOES GOD EXIST? the dissident theologian Hans Kung maintained that Jesus is hardly ever referred to as "God" in the New Testament and "never at all" by St. Paul.
Hans Kung can be refuted with one simple Greek word. Kyrios.
In the Septuagint, the Greek equivalent of JHVH, Adonai and Shaddai is Kyrios (Lord)
In the New Testament the Greek word Kyrios is not only used to refer to Christ, but is used especially frequently by St. Luke and St. Paul.
As we know, St. Paul was a zealous Pharisee who persecuted Christians before his dramatic conversion. St. Paul studied at the feet of the great Jewish Rabbi Gamaliel and would most certainly have known the implications of using the Word "Kyrios" (Lord) when referring to Christ. Because in practice, to call Jesus "Kyrios" was to call Jesus "God" since the Hebrew equivalents - especially JHVH - were never used to refer to anyone BUT God.
From this we may conclude that either Hans Kung did not include the Septuagint in his Biblical exegesis - or if he did, he simply ignored the use of the Greek word Kyrios to refer to JHVH, Adonai and Shaddai.
From this we may also conclude that Hans Kung's so-called "historical-critical method" is neither historical nor critical insofar as "critical" is understood to mean "a carefully balanced judgement."
In closing, I would like to point out that whatever dispute there is over the Bible, this dispute is primarily over the Old Testament canon. The New Testament for Catholics and orthodox Protestants is identical even though it may be interpreted differently by the various communions.
So I say let's not be too hasty to ditch ANY of the Old Testament translations lest we also ditch a hidden truth or two that we might not otherwise ever be able to discover.
Susanna,
You're very welcome and well said, I LOVED your concluding paragraph!
Anonymous 5:39 AM
Susanna,
Let me try to nuance my points a bit better.
Later in the paragraph from which you took my first quote @ 2:30 AM I said I agreed with you regarding the teaching of Hebrew in the Temple and synagogues. My intention in the first two paragraphs @ 12:25 AM was to respond to and refute the Bible Study Tools link you provided, which I quoted from in my very first paragraph.
However, in the article “What Language Did Jesus Speak?” I cited @ 12:25 AM, the author makes the assertion that Jesus spoke primarily in Hebrew. And while Josephus commented on the Jews knowing and speaking Greek—and despite your quote that Greek was essentially supplanting Hebrew in the first century Jewish milieu (except Scripture)—evidence shows that Hebrew continued both in the sacred writings and in everyday speech, even per Josephus. (The link even provides evidence that Hebrew was spoken by ‘commoners’ during the Bar-Kokhba revolt in the 2nd cent.):
Additional evidence pointing to Hebrew as a living, spoken language comes, again, from Josephus. In AD 69, with the Romans approaching Jerusalem, Titus asked Josephus to deliver a message to John of Giscala, who had previously captured the city. Josephus delivered this message in Hebrew.
We’ve already seen that Josephus was a priest, so it’s no surprise he knew Hebrew. But his choice to use Hebrew in this public way is telling. Josephus writes (in the third person):
“Upon this, Josephus stood in such a place where he might be heard, not by John only, but by many more, and then declared to them what Caesar had given him in charge, and this in the Hebrew language.”
My overall point here is that I don’t think we can say that the LXX was the predominate version used over against the Hebrew Scriptures in the first century. (Please keep in mind that when I state “the LXX” or “the MT” I’m not necessarily referring to an exact text, as we don’t have exact texts for these.) And I don’t think we can definitively state the converse, though the Talmud and the Targums (commentary on the Scriptures) were written in Hebrew, and even the community rules at Qumran were written in Hebrew. I think it much safer to state that Jesus spoke Hebrew while speaking in the Temple and synagogues, and that He may have spoken either Greek or Hebrew outside the Temple and synagogues, perhaps depending on His audience. However, the NT is written in Koine Greek, and so in cases in which Jesus was speaking in Hebrew (or Aramaic), the NT author necessarily wrote the words in Greek (or transliterated to Greek). While quoting Jesus quoting Scripture, the NT authors would necessarily have to ‘translate’ His Hebrew into Greek. Thus, when a given quotation of Jesus seemingly aligns with the LXX, this does not necessarily mean Jesus originally spoke the LXX in that particular context. He may have spoken Hebrew/MT and the NT author’s translation looks a lot like the LXX. And, as I attempted to illustrate with the link to the side-by-side NAB(RE) and D-R of Luke 4:18-19, some NT manuscripts (the ones the D-R sourced) apparently assimilated to the LXX, despite earlier manuscripts that show a differentiation. In other words, NT scribes appear to have ‘corrected’ their exemplars to conform to the LXX at times. The manuscript evidence points to this. The NAB(RE) uses earlier manuscripts, removing these apparent assimilations. And, as I illustrated, Jerome apparently added yet another clause from the LXX in the Vulgate (which the NAB removed).
[cont]
[continuing]
Now some may (and I’m sure do) argue that Jerome found Greek manuscripts to support these “presumed” ‘assimilations’. But this is an argument from silence. While possible, we have to wonder why other manuscripts (note that codex Vaticanus precedes the Vulgate) do not contain this verbiage.
Tangentially, it seems the Catholic must make a choice between adhering to the D-R—on the side of one manuscript tradition and Jerome—or the NAB(RE) which omits verbiage found in the D-R. How does one decide? Don’t the differences in these texts call into question Catholic T/tradition in some sense? These questions aren’t meant rhetorically; I’m looking for an answer.
You responded to my query: Regarding the differences between Matthew and Luke regarding the Temptation in the Desert, I tend to agree with the educated guess that Luke was thinking more of a Gentile audience whereas Matthew was minding a Jewish audience.
You and I agree here. And this, in combination with my immediately preceding comments point to an understanding regarding inspiration. I’m sure we both agree that the NT authors were inspired by the Spirit but used some of their own thoughts and their own style in their writings. The question then is: to what extent are the quotations of Jesus in the NT verbatim, especially when He was quoting Scripture? Since you’ve not specifically addressed the issue of the difference in verbiage regarding these OT quotations, I’m curious how you think this came about. From what I’ve seen via the manuscript evidence, there are cases in which Greek manuscript scribes attempt to harmonize one Gospel with another when their quotations of Jesus’ words, especially of Scripture, are at variance, assimilating them to the LXX.
Now, I will comment briefly on your belief that the LXX “is the translation that best points to and supports belief in the divinity of Christ”. Yes, we know that parts of the MT seem to remove indications of Christ’s divinity, but I must ask, given that we don’t have an “original”, how do we know for sure that the LXX we have is entirely accurate? Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s authoritative, but given the variations in Swete’s and Rahlfs’ versions, it’s obvious more work needs to be done. It is for this reason that I feel that an eclectic approach of comparing the various LXX manuscripts with the MT and the DSS is the way forward.
I meant to include the following link in my comments last night: What are the oldest copies we have of LXX. The answers responding to this question are quite thorough, including this document detailing dates of known manuscripts by Larry Hurtado. As one can see, most of the evidence, comes from 2nd-4th cent. AD, though there are a few BCE.
Susanna,
Thank you for the additional information about Malachi Martin and his circle. I am certain now he can't be trusted, but that's not to say everything he ever claimed can be dismissed. He broke stories about the problem of sex abuse in the church on Coast to Coast AM years before the Boston Globe investigated and reported on it.
I don't think Coast to Coast AM is, in general, trustworthy. It is funded by foundations such as the Tides Foundation, and it was one of Laurance Rockefeller's pet projects.
I think when it comes to Martin and other untrustworthy people, one can take away a few facts and findings from them, cross-referenced to other sources. Maybe one just needs to be careful about the overall narrative they are promoting. Maybe the best strategy is to take the facts from a variety of sources and then craft one's own narrative. It seems most sources are not reliable. Yet, I do find that these alternative researchers and writers and personalities are often saying things that are true, even Alex Jones.
The narrative that Martin was promoting in The Keys of This Blood really made a lot of references to the Fatima prophecies. Wasn't there a Fatima prophecy that the Catholic Church would become united with Russia in the future? Could Martin's narrative have been laying a foundation for this "next act"? Just a thought. Because Martin was fixated so much on both Fatima and Communism in the book. Just wondering what his overall game was.
Susanna,
What do you think about the perception of some Catholic observer that Pope Francis is implying that he is the bishop in white prophesied in the third Fatima secret?
One blogger for example:
https://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2017/05/is-francis-trying-to-imply-he-is-bishop.html
There are also some people apparently calling on him to consecrate Russia quickly before war breaks out.
One example: https://fatima.org/we-must-act-now/
I'm not a Catholic or a seasoned observer of Catholic opinions about the Fatima prophecies. What do you make of it?
British Judge Recognizes Sharia Marriage In Divorce Case - Unprecedented
Craig,
Thank you for clarifying your points. I think we can both agree that things are not always perfectly tidy when it comes to biblical scholarship.
First, according to my sources, the best evidence we have that weighs in favor of the accuracy of the Septuagint translation is that according to Dead Sea Scroll (DSS) scholars, when there is disagreement between the LXX and the Masoretic text(MT), the LXX most often agrees with the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) and DSS with LXX over the MT.
The Superiority of the Septuagint:
This is an important issue because the Septuagint (Greek Translation of the OT made sometime in 300's BC in Alexandria) differs on some points form the Hebrew text (the Masoretic Text or MT).
The earliest copies we have of the MT only Date from about 900 or 1000 AD, but the LXX goes back much further. We have whole manuscripts from 3d and 4th centuries AD, and it is quoted in much earlier works.
The main Jewish apologist argument against Messianic interpretation of Is. 53 is that all the references to the suffering servant, so they say, are in the plural, making him a symbol of Israel. But in the LXX they are singular.
There are also other references in the Septuagint that support the Christian reading, on Is. 53 and Ps. 22 "hands and feet pierced" and other passages.
For this reason the Jewish anti-missionaries claim that the LXX only existed in the first five books before the time of Christ and that Christians translated the rest, either late first century, or some go so far as to claim that Origen (4th century) made the translations of prophetic books. The only thing that supports this view is the fact that all the really good whole Ms. come from 3d and 4th centuuries AD. But there are other proofs of the LXX's veracity.
OT Dead Sea Scrolls.
Most Scholars saw the LXX as inferior to the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text (MT). With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this all changed. Ancient Hebrew scrolls were found that follow the LXX, not the Masoretic Text. The DSS showed that the LXX had an underlying Hebrew Text that was different from the MT.
Now Scholars think the LXX has important readings that are superior to the MT. The LXX is now very important in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Let's look at some of the key differences between the LXX and the MT where the LXX seems to be superior.
It is now apparent that these differing ancient text forms of the ot deserve far greater care and attention than they received in the past. The lxx, for example, is now seen not just as a poor, tendentious translation of the Hebrew, but rather as a witness to a different pre-Christian Hebrew text form. Moreover, there appear to have been three local text types in pre-Christian times: a form of the Pentateuch known in Babylon, close to the mt; a form known in Palestine, close to the Samaritan Pentateuch; and a form of ot books known in Egypt, related to the lxx. Eventually (probably between a.d. 70 and 132 in Palestine), a process of standardization apparently set in, preferring one form of text, a set spelling, and even a definitive shape of writing.
...According to Frank Moore Cross (another DSS scholar) there are at least 3 'families' of texts at Qumran : the MT 'family', the 'Egyptian' family, and a 'Palestinian' family . The 'Egyptian' version which, among other things, has a different version of Jeremiah, became the basis for the LXX. The 'Palestinian ' became the basis for the Samaritan version. The MT variety was the ancestor of what we use today--although even within these 'families' there was sometimes variation. We do not know which version was being used by, say, the Sadducees of the Temple sect, or even which the Essenes themselves used. The Jewish community at Alexandria evidently used the Egyptian 'family' or the LXX." - Randolph Parrish
continued..
continued..'
"The 'biblical' library of Qumran represents a fluid stage of the biblical text. Those documents show no influence of the rabbinic recension of the canon, the direct ancestor of the traditional Hebrew Bible. The scrolls help to place both the Pharisaic text and the canon in the era of Hillel, roughly the time of Jesus. In their selection of canonical books, the rabbis excluded those attributed to prophets or Patriarchs before Moses (e.g., the Enoch literature, works written in the name of Abraham and other Patriarchs). They traced the succession of prophets from Moses to figures of the Persian period. Late works were excluded, with the exception of Daniel, which, the rabbis presumably, attributed to the Persian period.
- Frank Moore Cross, Jr., "Dead Sea Scrolls: Overview"
Before DSS scholar John Allegro's career went south, he was part of the DSS team and popularizer of the discoveries at Qumran.
John Allegro in The Dead Sea Scrolls documents that when the LXX and Mt contradict, the LXX most often agrees with the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). (Allegro 59-83). He presents a long chart comparing readings from 1Sam. demonstrating that the text of books other than the first five existed long before the MT existed (about 1000 years before). Allegro also documents that most of the time when there is disagreement between LXX and MT the LXX most often agrees with the DSS and DSS with LXX over the MT. A latter article also demonstrates that this same agreement holds for Jeremiah. The DSS contain the longer reading for Jeremiah demonstrating significant support for the LXX.
He also documents (63) that Origen's work was that of a compilation of a text placing several existing Greek translations of the OT side by side, he used a pre-existing LXX, this is merely what any good translator does in preparing a new translation. A new one was needed because the Jews abandoned the LXX and commissioned their own (Aquila's) because the Church had come to use the LXX as it's Bible, and they wanted to get away form the Christian's Messianic reading. Origen did not produce the translation of the LXX prophetic books, it already existed. Moreover, it can be shown to have existed in the first century. Clement of Rome (1 Clement) quotes Isaiah 53 in AD 95, and most of the quotations of the OT in the Gospels come from the LXX.
"That the LXX existed before the time of Christ is borne out not only by the fact of agreement with the DSS but in other works as well. A. Vander Heeren states "It is certain that the law, the prophets and at lest part of the other books...existed in Greek before 135 BC, as appears from the prologue of Ecclesiasticus which does not date latter than that year" (Catholic Encyclopedia--).
"Qumran agrees 13 times with the LXX against the MT and four times with the MT against the LXX...it seems now that to scholars engaged in this work in the future Qumran has offered a new basis for confidence in the LXX...." (Allegro 74 and 81).
http://www.doxa.ws/Messiah/Lxx_mt.html
Craig,
Re:Tangentially, it seems the Catholic must make a choice between adhering to the D-R—on the side of one manuscript tradition and Jerome—or the NAB(RE) which omits verbiage found in the D-R. How does one decide? Don’t the differences in these texts call into question Catholic T/tradition in some sense? These questions aren’t meant rhetorically; I’m looking for an answer.
Just a reminder... if one is a Catholic, the rule of Faith is not the Bible alone. The teaching magisterium of the church makes the final decision in such matters.
Differences such as the one found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke do not alter dogma. Nor do they call into question Sacred Tradition since the Church is already aware of these differences and can account for them.
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Temptations.htm
__________________________________________________
For that matter, the Temptation story does not appear at all in John's Gospel.
At the end of the day, the difference between Matthew and Luke regarding the Temptation narrative merely involves a difference in the order of the three temptations which shows the slightly different emphases of Matthew and Luke, respectively.
Another example of differences in Gospel texts is the following:
"Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?"
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-genealogy.html
_________________________________________________________
Regarding sacred Tradition, in both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Therefore, the Church Fathers do not present new dogmas. But because of the closeness in time of the Fathers to the Apostles - especially the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic Fathers - they are believed to have received deeper insights into the revealed Word of God and are thus able to flesh out the dogmas already revealed with a view to increasing their hearers' understanding of them.
Craig 2:59 PM
Re: Now, I will comment briefly on your belief that the LXX “is the translation that best points to and supports belief in the divinity of Christ”. Yes, we know that parts of the MT seem to remove indications of Christ’s divinity, but I must ask, given that we don’t have an “original”, how do we know for sure that the LXX we have is entirely accurate? Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s authoritative, but given the variations in Swete’s and Rahlfs’ versions, it’s obvious more work needs to be done. It is for this reason that I feel that an eclectic approach of comparing the various LXX manuscripts with the MT and the DSS is the way forward.
This argument of not having an "original" cuts both ways. According to Jewish law, a Torah was invalid for public reading if even a single letter was incorrect or misplaced, for Jewish law considers each letter as indispensable.
Since the rabbinical "editors" wouldn't have had have an "original" of the Septuagint either, then how would they have known whether or not they were authorized to tinker with the Old testament canon by removing words like "Kyrios" that were indications of Christ's divinity?
Up until the time of Christ, the "unedited" version of the Septuagint used the Greek "Kyrios" as the equivalent for JHVH, Adonai and Shaddai.
As you know, the Septuagint dates back to about 250-300 B.C. The Masoretic texts on the other hand date from between 700 - 1000 A.D. and morphed out of the texts from the Rabbinic period which began around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and which inherited the "edited" Hebrew Bible and the Greek translation of it made by Aquila of Sinope who was a disciple of Rabbi Akiva.
Removing the Greek "Kyrios" was an especially huge sacrilege and I can understand why the early Christians didn't want anything to do with the "sanitized" Hebrew Bible or its brand spanking new Greek version.
The measure of importance of the meaning of "Kyrios" for Catholics lies in the fact that one of the most ancient prayers of the Catholic liturgy - recited or chanted to this very day - sometimes in Greek - is the Kyrie Eleison.
Kyrie Eleison Lord have mercy
Christe Eleison Christ have mercy
Kyrie Eleison Lord have mercy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrie
J,
Russia was consecrated in 1984. Sister Lucia, the last living Fatima visionary, told Pope John Paul II that the consecration was accepted but that it was very late. Russian had spread her errors all over the world.
At Fatima, the blessed Virgin also said that Russia would be converted ( to Christianity ) and a certain era of peace would be granted to humanity. Catholics don't believe that this has occurred yet. "Conversion" to another political strategy is not the same as conversion to Christ.
The Third Secret was made public in the year 2000 by Pope John Paul II.
Many prophecies such as this are conditional on whether or not people repent....like the people at Nineveh who were spared a great catastrophe when they repented after Jonah's grim warnings.
The following is right from the Vatican website.
THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html
If any Pope qualifies for the role of "bishop in white" it was Pope John Paul II on account of the assassination attempt of May 13, 1981.
Getting back to Malachi Martin, I have read just about all of his books myself. A lot of what he had to say was true. A lot of other things he had to say were not. Nevertheless, I have learned never to dismiss any source of information out of hand no matter how strange. Because sometimes you would be amazed at the nuggets of valid but rare information that can be found in such bizarre places.
Susanna,
Thanks for responding. As regards the LXX in comparison with the MT via the DSS, there are others who claim the MT enjoys more agreement with the DSS. Undoubtedly, there is still a ways to go. But note that the DSS includes only three of the fourteen Deuteroncanonicals: Tobit, Sirach, and Baruch. The DSS also include Psalm 151. And though Isaiah 53 has a plural subject in the MT (obviously changed for theological reasons), Protestant Bibles, even the early ones (KJV, e.g.) have the Suffering Servant in the singular.
I wish to more succinctly express my view regarding the LXX: I wholeheartedly believe there was an effort to translate the then-existing Hebrew text into Greek (the LXX) beginning in the 3rd century BC (beginning with the Torah, aka Pentateuch), but I’m not sure how closely the current form of the LXX resembles the original, though I don’t think it’s that far off. That said, the OT we have adequately conveys what YHWH wants us to know. That is, the variations are not of much consequence (save for the MT’s obvious theologically motivated changes—which are not picked up in Protestant Bibles anyway).
In your comment at 8:15 PM, in part, you addressed a different issue (the differences between Matthew and Luke in the Temptation in the wilderness) than that to which I specifically referred, namely why the D-R differs from the NAB(RE) and how that affects T/tradition. Given the claim that it was the Catholic Church that canonized Scripture, why is it that Scripture changed from the D-R to the NAB(RE) in Luke 4:18-19 (and other places, such as John 3:13)? Was the Magisterium initially wrong in this regard? Wasn’t the Vulgate considered inspired (see Council of Trent: “If anyone does not accept these books in their entirety, with all their parts, as they have customarily been read in the Catholic church, and as they are found in the old Vulgate edition, let him be anathema”), and, if so, why does the NAB(RE) remove a clause in Luke 4:19 (“and the day of reward”)?
I may have some of the finer points wrong—due to my lack of full understanding of Authority in the RCC—but my main point remains: Scripture was definitively established, yet Scripture was changed later. Moreover, if I’m correct, this is one of the reasons some Catholics have rejected Vatican II.
I hope you understand that I’m not singling you and/or the Catholic Church out. I didn’t grow up with any sort of Christian tradition, and as I search out the various denominations, etc., I’ve yet to find one that lines up with how I read Scripture. Most have associated doctrines that one must believe in fully in order to be a “member” in good standing—doctrines that don’t seem to stand up to Biblical scrutiny. Well, I believe I’m a member of the universal church, which includes Paul, Peter, etc., because I believe that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah, that He is the Son of God, that He was the Agent of creation, and that He is the only way to the Father. Quoting from someone I heard on the radio about 12 years ago, “the rest is rock ‘n’ roll”.
Correction:
"Given the claim that it was the Catholic Church that canonized Scripture from the RCC's perspective..."
Tommy Robinson: The UK Prison Service is Trying to Cover Up My Mistreatment
Susanna,
Thanks for explaining a seasoned Catholic perspective on the consecration of Russia and the third secret of Fatima.
I did recall you said in a previous comment to somebody that you read just about all of Malachi Martin's books.
There seems to be a lot of disinformation swirling about Pope Francis, although it's true that he does seem quite often to be making both Leftists and New Agers very happy.
I've been starting to read about Dugin. Here is a non-white nationalist article about him. It's in Counterpunch (which I realize is a Leftist publication).
Dugin’s Occult Fascism and the Hijacking of Left Anti-Imperialism and Muslim Anti-Salafism
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/10/dugins-occult-fascism-and-the-hijacking-of-left-anti-imperialism-and-muslim-anti-salafism/
The author alleges that Dugin is occultist and has a worldview of "Chaos magic", more so than occultist "Traditionalism" or "Neo-traditionalism". Chaos magic is derivative from Aleister Crowley's Thelemic ideas. He points out that the symbol on the Eurasian flag is a Chaos magic symbol called "the wheel of chaos", "the chaos cross" and other names that all have "chaos" in them.
He points out that Dugin chose his main symbol from British occultist sources rather than Russia or Eastern Orthodox Christianity. This contradicts claims to Russian nationlism and traditionalism. But the author says things that seem contradictory or confusing on their face are still consistent with Chaos magic.
"Be that as it may, such behaviour in itself would be quite consistent with Chaos magic’s basic dictum regarding the malleability of all beliefs and their pliability as tools in the hands of the Chaos magician. Here it is the Nietzschean ‘will to power’ in-itself that becomes the prime motivation of the black magus turned political activist."
P.S. If the above is really a description of chaos magic, it's not so very different from some of the postmodernist theories I learned in college, and I'm not joking, although it sounds ridiculous (and is ridiculous)...
I don't know, but there is a certain banality to it all after a while.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/08/02/beef-jerky-might-cause-mood-swings-mental-illness.aspx
Uh-oh...
Beijing plans world's longest rail tunnel to link TAIWAN to mainland
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2158271/strait-ahead-how-beijing-planning-worlds-longest-rail-tunnel-link
Craig,
Re: Wasn’t the Vulgate considered inspired (see Council of Trent: “If anyone does not accept these books in their entirety, with all their parts, as they have customarily been read in the Catholic church, and as they are found in the old Vulgate edition, let him be anathema”), and, if so, why does the NAB(RE) remove a clause in Luke 4:19 (“and the day of reward”)?
The Vulgate was - and is - considered inspired. In answer to your question, I will begin with three translations. One in Latin from the Vulgate, one in English from Douay-Rheims and the NABRE English translation.
VULGATE Luke 4:18-19
18 Spiritus Domini super me: propter quod unxit me, evangelizare pauperibus misit me, sanare contritos corde,
19 prædicare captivis remissionem, et cæcis visum, dimittere confractos in remissionem, prædicare annum Domini acceptum et diem retributionis.
*****************************
Luke 4:18-19 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me. Wherefore he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor, he hath sent me to heal the contrite of heart,
19 To preach deliverance to the captives, and sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of reward.
***************************************
Luke 4:18-19 NABRE
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,[a]
because he has anointed me
to bring glad tidings to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
19 and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.”
******************************************************
As you can see, the Douay Rheims is the Bible that most closely follows the Vulgate Latin. I have no idea why that phrase was removed unless the translator accidentally glossed over the rest of the Latin et diem retributionis.
My own Bible is Douay Rheims. I don't use NABRE. No one has said that I have to.
Over the years, there has been an attempt made here in the United States by the more liberal members of the American Catholic hierarchy to "modernize" the Sacred Scriptures as well as the Liturgy and to impose things like "inclusive language," on American Catholics. But they haven't been allowed to get away with it - which is why the NAB has been under revision since the instruction from the Holy See (Pope Benedict XVI) entitled "Liturgiam Authenticam" which requires translations to be as exact as possible, since, as Pope Benedict once put it "a translation is also an interpretation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgiam_authenticam
__________________________________________________________
One of the more important changes found in the New American Bible Revised Edition is the substitution of various words and phrases for language which carries a modern connotation which is quite different from the original suggested meanings. Examples include changing "cereal" to "grain" and "booty" to "plunder."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Bible_Revised_Edition
https://web.archive.org/web/20110723073848/http://blog.adw.org/wp-content/uploads/NABRE-FAQ1.pdf
cont.
cont.
While the New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE) has been approved for private use and study by Catholics, it has NOT received approval for Catholic liturgical use.
In 2012, the USCCB "announced a plan to revise the New Testament of the New American Bible Revised Edition so a single version can be used for individual prayer, catechesis and liturgy." After they developed a plan and budget for the revision project, work began in 2013 with the creation of an editorial board made up of five people from the Catholic Biblical Association (CBA). The revision is now underway and, after the necessary approvals from the Bishops and the Vatican, is expected to be done around the year 2025.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Bible_Revised_Edition
_________________________________________________________________
As you can see the NABRE is still a "work in progress."
As for the Liturgy, the Church here in the United States was required by Pope Benedict XVI to go back and produce English translations DIRECTLY FROM THE LATIN. These Latin prayers were the prayers of the Tridentine Mass. When the changes were implemented I knew they were authentic because I KNOW THE LATIN...….BY HEART.
Here is an example of one weasel-worded prayer:
The original Latin:
Domine non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meam
Sed tantum dic verbo et sanabitur anima meum
******************************
The weasel-worded "spirit of Vatican II" version:
"Lord I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and my soul shall be healed."
****************************
The correct translation:
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof
But only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
****************************************************
Called the "Prayer of Humble Access," this prayer is based on the biblical passage (Matt. 8:8) in which a humble Roman centurion asks Christ to heal his servant
Craig,
Re:I wish to more succinctly express my view regarding the LXX: I wholeheartedly believe there was an effort to translate the then-existing Hebrew text into Greek (the LXX) beginning in the 3rd century BC (beginning with the Torah, aka Pentateuch), but I’m not sure how closely the current form of the LXX resembles the original, though I don’t think it’s that far off. That said, the OT we have adequately conveys what YHWH wants us to know. That is, the variations are not of much consequence (save for the MT’s obvious theologically motivated changes—which are not picked up in Protestant Bibles anyway).
We can not KNOW beyond the shadow of a doubt how closely the current form of the LXX resembles the original. But the Apostles seem to have been confident that the LXX satisfactorily represented the original since the LXX is often quoted in the New Testament and its authenticity is also attested to by Apostolic and sub-Apostolic Fathers. Moreover, if the Septuagint were not an authentic translation of the Hebrew and loaded with errors don't you think Our Lord would have warned His disciples not to use it?
And what about the rabbis who altered the Scriptures in such a way as to get rid of any messianic implications? They didn't have the original Hebrew texts from which the Septuagint was produced either. So how would they have had any way of knowing whether their editing of the Scriptures was justified?
We are not talking Catholic vs. Protestant here. We are talking Christians vs. anti-Christian Jews and pagans.
Some of the Church Fathers were well aware of what the Jews had done and condemned it.
3. Since, therefore, the Scriptures have been interpreted with such fidelity, and by the grace of God, and since from these God has prepared and formed again our faith towards His Son, and has preserved to us the unadulterated Scriptures in Egypt, where the house of Jacob flourished, fleeing from the famine in Canaan; where also our Lord was preserved when He fled from the persecution set on foot by Herod; and [since] this interpretation of these Scriptures was made prior to our Lord's descent [to earth], and came into being before the Christians appeared — for our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus; but Ptolemy was much earlier, under whom the Scriptures were interpreted — [since these things are so, I say,] truly these men are proved to be impudent and presumptuous, who would now show a desire to make different translations, when we refute them out of these Scriptures, and shut them up to a belief in the advent of the Son of God. But our faith is steadfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from these Scriptures, which were interpreted in the way I have related; and the preaching of the Church is without interpolation. For the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these [heretics], agree with this aforesaid translation; and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetical [announcements], just as the interpretation of the elders contains them.
Irenaeus AGAINST HERESIES 3.21.3
**********************************
The "Kyrios" factor which weighs heavily in favor of Christ's divinity and is a very powerful biblical argument. Kyrios is a key element of the Christology of the Apostle Paul.
When all is said and done, the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts together vindicate the prophecies of Jesus Christ, because they render any conspiracy to write "prophecies after the fact" temporally impossible.
Personally, I think both the Septuagint and the Masoretic should be preserved and
studied. If I am not mistaken, Jerome gathered together all the translations of the Scriptures available in order to produce the best Latin translation possible. including that of Aquila of Sinope.
Hmmm, allegedly both Dugin and Trump have chaos magic in common. There is a book about Trump and chaos magic making the rounds. It is called Dark Star Rising: Magick and Power in the Age of Trump. I haven't read it, so I don't have an opinion about it yet. Has anybody here read it?
Reviews are interesting.
https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Star-Rising-Magick-Power-ebook/dp/B075C8BQS5#customerReviews
One reviewer says:
"Dark Star Rising weaves a fascinating and sometimes terrifying tapestry that, when viewed as a whole, reveals a shocking picture. This book has it all: New Thought, positive thinking, Norman Vincent Peale, Ayn Rand, Nazis, fascists, Hitler, Mussolini, Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopoulos, Steve Bannon, Alexander Dugin, Vladimir Putin, Julius Evola, Chaos Magick, meme magic, Pepe the Frog, KEK, 4chan, Postmodernism, Traditionalism, tulpas, egregores, sigils, and the growing desire to 'immanentize the eschaton' in order to bring forth an 'enlightened fascism' that many on the religious right see as the millennial Kingdom of God. By the time I got to the end of the chapter called 'Alt-Right Now,' my head was spinning and I had to take a few deep breaths to settle down."
Susanna,
Thanks for your response. Given what you wrote, I think it important that I repeat part of what I wrote earlier, specifically the portion in which I detail the differences—and there are quite a few—between the D-R and NAB(RE) in Luke 4:18-19:
---
Now, I’ll return to Jesus reading the Isaiah scroll after the temptation in the wilderness (Luke 4:17-20, more specifically 18-19). The Beale/Carson work I mentioned earlier (11:37 PM) states that the quote here (Is. 61:1-2 with 58:6)
…is likely to have been drawn from the LXX, which accurately reflects the sense of the MT except…‘to proclaim . . . release for the prisoners’ [is replaced by] ‘to proclaim . . . sight for the blind’…In any case, the exact sense of the Hebrew text is uncertain, and the LXX may have provided a legitimate rendering of the clause….
In other words, it’s possible the LXX = MT in what Jesus says here. Yet, what Jesus says is not an exact quotation, though it follows the LXX (and maybe simply because the Gospel of Luke is written in Greek). It differs in that: (a) he omits ‘to heal the brokenhearted’; (b) ‘to let the oppressed go free’, from 58:6, is interpolated into His Is. 61 citation; (c) 61:2’s ‘to declare’ is changed to ‘to proclaim’; (d) the citation does not include the final clause of 61:2.
The above is found in the NAB(RE) of Luke 4:18-19. However, the Wikipedia entry regarding its publisher, The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine:
The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine also owns the copyright on the New American Bible Revised Edition, the translation most commonly used in US Catholic churches.
And, in the case of the final clause of Luke 4:19, it clearly does not follow the Latin. From what I’ve gleaned, it appears that this version’s underlying text throughout is the Greek “Critical Text” that underlies most modern Protestant Bibles. The NAB(RE) also omits the final clause in John 3:13, like the newer Protestant versions.
I've no idea what happened, but part of my comment did not make it through. I'll return the preceding paragraph, then 'add' this back in:
In other words, it’s possible the LXX = MT in what Jesus says here. Yet, what Jesus says is not an exact quotation, though it follows the LXX (and maybe simply because the Gospel of Luke is written in Greek). It differs in that: (a) he omits ‘to heal the brokenhearted’; (b) ‘to let the oppressed go free’, from 58:6, is interpolated into His Is. 61 citation; (c) 61:2’s ‘to declare’ is changed to ‘to proclaim’; (d) the citation does not include the final clause of 61:2.
The above is found in the NAB(RE) of Luke 4:18-19. However, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luk%204.18-20&version=NABRE;DRA”>in comparing the NAB(RE) with the Douay-Rheims version</a>, we find a number of differences. Specifically, in the D-R: (1) the clause in (a) above is included; (2) it adds “to set at liberty them that are bruised”; (3) “and the day of reward” is added at the end. (1) and (2) obviously were added to conform to the LXX, as a number of later NT manuscripts and the Vulgate had done, <b>though early manuscripts, such as Vaticanus (stored in the Vatican library) do not contain either</b>. In (3), the D-R adds one more clause from the LXX of 61:2 that I don’t find listed as a textual variant in any Greek NT manuscript, though I see it was in the Vulgate. I belabor this to illustrate the complexities involved. Given the evidence, I’m inclined to agree with the NAB(RE) over against the D-R here, the former essentially agreeing with the MT (the LXX being faithful to the MT).
---
Ugh. It's not accepting my Wikipediat or my biblegateway hyperlinks, even though it's correct, and I've done this numerous times. [Earlier it stated it would not take https urls, but it took the Wiki one above.] Here are the links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confraternity_of_Christian_Doctrine
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luk%204.18-20&version=NABRE;DRA
On the plus side, those who do not know how to do hyperlinks can see the way to do 'em.
(You can also make them tinyurls:)
https://bit.ly/2O9baji
https://bit.ly/2LXGZ1Z
Yes, but the thing about tiny urls is that you have no idea what is at the link--until you click on it, and then it may be too late. I almost NEVER click on shortened links. The advantage of hyperlinks is that one can hover over them to see the full link, in order to try and make a determination if it's safe or not. Then you simply right click and open in new tab.
Shocking statistics reveal genital mutilation is quietly sweeping AMERICA; half a MILLION girls have been permanently maimed!
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reported that more than half a million girls in the U.S. have undergone female genital mutilation or FGM. The practice involves the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia.
...
https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-08-05-genital-mutilation-is-quietly-sweeping-america.html
Craig,
Are you familiar with this?
Some very interesting things I did not know.
https://www.oneforisrael.org/bible-based-teaching-from-israel/how-two-16th-century-messianic-jews-impacted-rabbinic-bible-study/
The author of Dark Star Rising is definitely a New Ager, and the book is being promoted in places like Salon.com. It almost makes me LOL in a way. It's kind of like the Russia hysteria, as if the Left never had any history of flirting with Communism or with infiltration by Communists.
Some reviewers of the book say that Trump is only guilty of the prosperity gospel, along with The Power of Positive Thinking (he used to go to Norman Vincent Peale sermons with his father in their Presbyterian church in New York). The rest is innuendo and guilt by association.
I still need to read the book for myself, though.
One weird nugget was off key with everything else, and I haven't been able to forget it. The author said in his Salon interview that he thinks Donald Trump is "the singularity".
"The singularity that people have been waiting for is taking place. As I explain in the book, I argue that Trump is the singularity, in the sense that he's been the reality-changer. He got elected, and suddenly our criteria for all these things that used to hold everything in place became very loose and shaky."
Order out of chaos? Crisis = opportunity? Same old, same old?
One additional thought. Leftists don't mind the occult as long as it's not "fascist" or "authoritarian". Again it almost makes me LOL. Seriously, though, I think some of these people are very naive. It's like believing there is such a thing as "white magic". They seem to be claiming that "I want white magic", but he is a practitioner of the "dark arts".
American Airlines passenger kicked off flight after buying seat for her $30,000 instrument
A passenger on board an American Airlines flight says she was removed before takeoff because of the size of her cello – even though she had purchased a seat for the instrument, and claims American Airlines assured her husband she would be able to bring it on board.
“I purchased two round trip tickets for her and her cello on Apr.2 on the phone directly from AA and told them specifically that one ticket is for the cello as cabin baggage. I was told it is absolutely allowed and she won't have any problem,” musician Jingjing Hu’s husband Jay Tang wrote on Facebook.
According to Hu, flight staff told her the cello was too big for the seat – though she insists it MET seat size restrictions!
_______________________
And so, dear reader, the moral of the story is:
THERE'S ALWAYS ROOM FOR CELLO
Craig,
Re: The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine also owns the copyright on the New American Bible Revised Edition, the translation most commonly used in US Catholic churches.
Sometimes national bishops have gone and done things without Vatican approval and presented it as a "fait accompli."
Here is an article you might find interesting.
Reflections on the Soon to Be Released New American Bible (Revised Edition)
Msgr. Charles Pope • March 3, 2011
We have talked before here about some concerns in regard to the New American Bible. Both the translations, and especially the footnotes, are matters of concern. Now comes the news that a revised version is being issued March 9. Here are excerpts of the press release:…..read more.....
http://blog.adw.org/2011/03/reflection-on-the-soon-to-be-released-new-american-bible-revised-edition/
____________________________________________________________
Also this....
Is the Revised New Jerusalem Bible a Viable Option for a New Lectionary?
April 6, 2018
http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2018/04/06/is-the-revised-new-jerusalem-bible-a-viable-option-for-a-new-lectionary/
_____________________________________________________________
According to the book, MASS CONFUSION by James Akin, there are currently no lectionaries based on the New Jerusalem Bible OR the New Revised Standard Version. The Canadian bishops' conference has been given TEMPORARY permission to use an NRSV Lectionary IN CANADA ONLY. The Holy See prohibits attempts to gender revise texts in order to fit a modern social-political agenda.
THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE
http://www.bible-researcher.com/nab.html
_____________________________________________________
cont.
cont.
While I am here, I want to clarify something for you.
The "anathema" regarding the Vulgate is a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the fourth session of the Council of Trent by John Calvin.
The primary intention of the Council of Trent was not merely to smash Protestantism. It was to standardize the LATIN TEXT OF THE CHURCH in order to correct the problem of the multiplication of Latin translations and editions in Medieval Europe caused by the sloppy transmission of the Latin manuscripts of Sacred Scripture as well as isolated attempts by scholars and bishops to revise the Latin texts they received, whether of the Old Latin, Jerome's Vulgate or some other eclectic amalgamation.
The reason the Council approved the Latin was because Latin was the common language of the educated classes both ecclesiastical and lay for centuries. It was the common (vulgatus)language of the Western Church. Due to the Church’s use of the Vulgate over the centuries in liturgy, theology, and devotion, she was eager to preserve that translation tradition. She did not want to dump the Latin altogether while she was open to using the original languages to maintain continuity with the past.
For that matter, most Protestant theologians did not do away with Latin either but continued to write their theological treatises in that language for centuries, presumably for the same reasons of a common language allowing for communication both across national or ethnic lines and for keeping touch with the Latin Fathers of the Church.
I can say from experience that when the Roman Catholic Mass used to be celebrated in Latin, one could attend Mass anywhere in the world and understand the prayers of the liturgy.
Enshrining the Vulgate as the “authentic” edition does not mean that the Vulgate cannot be revised in light of the best Latin manuscripts or that one may never correct the Latin text using the Hebrew or Greek manuscript traditions.
In their openness to legitimate textual criticism, the Tridentine Fathers ordered that the Vulgate be corrected after the Council in such a way that one version coming as closely as possible to Jerome’s original translation would find universal use.
The employment of Greek and Hebrew to correct the Latin was not forbidden in any way. The revision of the Vulgate was completed under Popes Sixtus V and Clement the VIII and published in 1598. The Church has again endorsed a revision of the Vulgate as the authentic version for the Latin rite in liturgical and theological use. The letter in which the late Pope John Paul II promulgated this Nova Vulgata (“New Vulgate”) edition in 1979 can be found here.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1979/april/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19790427_pont-com-neo-volgata.html
_____________________________________________________
Another point I want to make is that Papal infallibility for a Catholic doesn't equate to having to park one's brains at the door before entering a Catholic church and being required to agree with every word the Pope says like a mind-numbed robot.
This was one of the better critical reviews of the Dark Star Rising book.
http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/05/25/the-donald-chaos-magician/
"Bannon lasted a year before being bounced as White House chief strategist. He has been making lots of speeches since then, but has faded from the front pages. Apparently this alt-Right leader’s powers of manipulation and mesmerism have failed him. His fall from the peaks of power, which Lachman acknowledges in an afterword, calls into question the entire thesis of Dark Star Rising. It is likely that economic downturns, resistance to punitive liberalism, and the terrible candidacy of Hillary Clinton had more to do with the Trump victory than dark magic or voodoo. Perhaps resistance to the cult of political correctness and a bruising personal style have far more power to affect the world than a Ouija board."
But I bet that a lot of people will jump on the bandwagon of associating Trump and his supporter with black magic. And then what next? It will be interesting in the next presidential campaign to see if the supporters of the Democratic candidate try to come up with a "white magic" meme to counter what they are calling "black magic".
Anon 9:29 AM,
No, I wasn’t familiar with the info at the link you provided. My focus has been primarily with the NT, so I know more about it than the OT—and I don’t know that much about the NT. Interesting info, thanks.
----
J.,
When discussing the material from the author of Dark Star Rising, “magic” should more properly be spelt with a “k” at the end: magick. Without having read the book, and just going by what little I know (about the occult and Trump), I’m inclined to agree (mostly) with the reviewer’s comments you reference @ 4:15 PM. I don’t know if I’d call Bannon “alt-right”, but then I don’t know if there’s an agreed-upon definition for the term. It’s certainly used a pejorative from leftists.
Incidentally, the author, Gary Lachman, when performing as a bass guitarist went by the stage name Gary Valentine, and was a founding member of the band Blondie. He was apparently around during the mid stages of the ‘70s New York CBGB scene.
Susanna,
If you go to the Wiki site for The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, you’ll see that it “is an association established in Rome in 1562 for the purpose of giving religious education.” So, given its purpose, claiming the NAB(RE) is an example of a fait accompli without the Vatican having had no input or say does not add up, in my view. If the association is sanctioned by Rome, then it is subordinate to Rome, and must comply with the Vatican, right?
The more I check into it, the more I’m convinced my hypothesis is correct: the NAB(RE) follows the current GREEK “Critical Text” (CT)—the modern Greek NT, as determined by the latest in textual criticism by comparing all known manuscripts—the same text underlying the newer Protestant versions. In other words, it is NOT updating the Vulgate, as that is not its aim. As I was nearly finished with my comment (drafted in MS Word, as I usually do), I came across the following in the last link you provided @ 2:04 PM: “The Greek text followed in this translation [NAB(RE)] is that of the third edition of The Greek New Testament, edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo Martini, Bruce Metzger, and Allen Wikgren, and published by the United Bible Societies in 1975.” Well, there ya have it!
Follow this link, and note the side-by-side comparison on 1 John 5:7-8. The NAB(RE) doesn’t include the so-called Johannine Comma found in the D-R (and Vulgate):
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+john+5%3A6-8&version=NABRE;DRA
Using the same link above, substitute Colossians 3:6, noticing the differences. Mimicking the modern CT, the NAB(RE) places “upon the disobedient” in brackets, which I find a bit odd. There are other places in which the CT uses brackets, as these are employed when there is a large degree of uncertainty as to whether the bracketed portion should be included or not; however, most translations simply decide to include it or not include it, and then provide the alternative in a footnote. In other words, they don’t place it into the text, including the brackets—they either use it sans brackets, or they don’t include it in the body of the text. In any case, for the record, I think the clause should be included as part of the text, based on the grammar, not just the differences in manuscripts. Moreover, I prefer the verbiage of the D-R over the NAB(RE) in this particular verse, though I’d render it “on the children of disobedience”. Regarding the last word, either one is fine, but “disobedience” is the ‘literal’ translation.
Since gender neutrality was an issue brought up in Charles Pope link you provided, I note that the D-R of Col. 3:6 translates the Greek huios, which literally means “sons”, as the gender-neutral “children” instead. Don’t get me wrong, I actually agree with this rendering, but I think you see my point. But, then again, “sons of disobedience” is more Hebraic than children. Coincidentally, just yesterday I was looking at the Greek of the final clause of Matthew 4:19, traditionally rendered “fishers of men”, deciding to render the Greek anthropoi to the gender-neutral “persons” (though other versions prefer “people”), as certainly we don’t mean to exclude women and children. Yes, I’m aware that in the first century this word included women and children, but it sometimes only included men in certain contexts. And if the purpose of a translation is to adequately convey intent, then I think a gender-neutral term is appropriate in Matt. 4:19.
Of course, it would certainly be wrong to change the gender of the Father or the Son, for example.
I could comment on Msgr. Pope’s concerns point by point, but I’ll put that aside. On some I’d agree, on others I’d disagree.
To get an idea of the differences between the D-R, which is based on the Vulgate, and the NAB(RE), which is based on the Greek Critical Text (CT), just substitute the following passages into the link provided @ 11:56 PM just above:
John 1:18
John 3:13
Acts 8:37
Jude 1:5
The last one is particularly interesting (to me, anyway) because the newest CT (NA28/UBS5) has reverted back to placing “Jesus” in the text. The NAB(RE) would need a further revision to align with the current CT (and then match the D-R).
Craig,
Re: If you go to the Wiki site for The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, you’ll see that it “is an association established in Rome in 1562 for the purpose of giving religious education.” So, given its purpose, claiming the NAB(RE) is an example of a fait accompli without the Vatican having had no input or say does not add up, in my view. If the association is sanctioned by Rome, then it is subordinate to Rome, and must comply with the Vatican, right?
Yes. That is how it is SUPPOSED to work. And what I was referring to concerning NAB(RE) had to do primarily with the issue of inclusive language but method of "translation" (i.e. dynamic equivalence) should also not be ignored. Among the culprits especially in terms of the liturgical translation controversies was the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL). This includes the controversy over the rendering of Psalm 8:5.
The pages of America have lately been filled with articles on the question of liturgical translations. Bishop Donald W. Trautman, former chairman of the N.C.C.B Committee on Liturgy, and Cardinal Jorge A. Medina, head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, have addressed the controversy that has developed between Rome and the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) on the problem of liturgical translations (America, 3/4 and 5/16).
Earlier this year Bishop Maurice Taylor of Scotland, the current chair of ICEL’s governing board, had received a letter (dated Jan. 14) from Archbishop Francesco Pio Tamburrino, who is secretary of the Roman congregation. The letter directed ICEL to ensure that publication and distribution of its controversial translation of the psalms be ceased on the grounds that the text is doctrinally flawed.
On April 25 the presidents of English-speaking episcopal conferences and ICEL board members met in Washington, D.C., to discuss, among other things, how to revise ICEL’s constitution to meet the current concerns of the congregation.
The purpose of this article is not to enter the current fray as such, but to shed light on an underlying problem regarding liturgical translations namely, fundamental principles of translation. I will address two issues:
1) linguistic problems in the translation of biblical texts, and specifically, the psalms; and
2) fundamental principles of biblical and liturgical translations. In addition to ICEL’s translation, I will refer to the following translations: Revised Standard Version (RSV), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), Revised English Bible (REB), New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) and the New American Bible (NAB).
Although the doctrinal problems with ICEL’s text on the psalms have not been specified, one can surmise from earlier controversies about the translation of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church and the revised American Lectionary that the issues probably embrace two areas: inclusive language and messianic interpretation of the psalms.
One would find it difficult to believe that inclusive language alone is the focus of doctrinal concerns, given that the Vatican has already approved certain changes in liturgical texts for reasons of inclusivity. Three examples are: the change, made in 1981, of the words of institution during the Mass (excluding men from the formula It will be shed for you and for all men); the approved Sacramentary and Lectionary for Marian celebrations (1992), which use inclusive texts; and the newly revised Lectionary (1998), which uses moderately inclusive language when referring to human beings.
cont.
cont.
More than likely, there is serious concern about the messianic psalms. The focus of attention is usually on Psalms 2, 8 and 110, which have messianic dimensions. Psalm 2:7 (You are my son; today I have begotten you NRSV) is alluded to in the New Testament at the baptism of Jesus (Mk. 1:11). The ICEL rendering, You are my son, today I give you birth, does not appear to be problematic. In any case, the Hebrew text refers to the enthronement of the king, which later Christian tradition applied to Jesus as the Christ.
Psalm 8:5 is another matter, as a comparison of translations shows:
RSV ...what is man that thou art mindful of him,
and the son of man that thou dost care for him?
Yet thou hast made him little less than God, and dost crown him with glory and honor.
NRSV ...what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?
Yet you have made them little lower than God, and crowned them with glory and honor.
ICEL... what is humankind that you remember them, the human race that you care for them?
You treat them like gods, dressing them in glory and splendor.
Among scholars the original meaning of the text is not in doubt. The psalm contrasts human insignificance with God’s grandeur. Yet in the New Testament, this section of the psalm is specifically applied to Jesus as a Christological statement (Heb. 2:5-8). The RSV’s more literal and traditional translation preserves this Christological sense as interpreted by the Letter to the Hebrews; ICEL’s and the NRSV’s do not. This indeed raises a doctrinal issue, but the issue goes beyond translation into the realm of hermeneutics, touching on the complex relationship between the New and Old Testaments...….
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2000/10/07/7-basic-principles-biblical-and-liturgical-translation
__________________________________________________________
Also.....
The International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) is a commission set up by a number of episcopal conferences of English-speaking countries for the purpose of providing English translations of the liturgical books of the Roman Rite, the originals of which are in Latin.
Decisions to adopt these translations are made by the episcopal conference of the country concerned, and these decisions are reviewed by the Holy See before being put into effect.…..
…..By 1998, ICEL completed a new version in English of the Roman Missal. This translation included richer translations of the Latin texts, but it also included original compositions prepared by ICEL, particularly alternative collects based on the Sunday Lectionary, an alternative contemporary form of the Easter Proclamation (Exsultet), variant texts in the Order of Mass, and some options in the rubrics, particularly around the celebration of weekday Masses. This new translation was approved by all the bishops' conferences that were members of ICEL and was submitted to the Congregation of Divine Worship for confirmation, as required by canon law. The Congregation, whose work on a new edition of the Roman Missal in Latin was already well advanced – part of it was published in 2000 and the entire volume in 2002 – refused its consent for adoption of the proposed new English version based on the earlier Latin edition.
cont.
cont.
On 28 March 2001, the Congregation for Divine Worship issued the Instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, which included the requirement that, in translations of the liturgical texts from the official Latin originals, "the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet." In the following year, the third typical edition of the revised Roman Missal in Latin was released. These two texts made clear the need for a new official English translation of the Roman Missal, particularly because even the 1973 ICEL version was at some points an adaptation rather than a translation. An example was the rendering of the response "Et cum spiritu tuo" ("And with your spirit") as "And also with you".
To correspond with the demands of the Congregation for Divine Worship, there was a change in the leadership of the ICELin 2002. After this ICEL prepared a new English translation of the Roman Missal, which followed the principle of "formal equivalence" mandated by Liturgiam Authenticam. The completed translation received the approval of the Holy See in April 2010 and was put into effect in most countries at the end of November 2011. Before and after its implementation, this translation generated controversy both because of its language and syntax, and because of the process by which it was prepared.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_on_English_in_the_Liturgy
___________________________________________________________
The Vulgate, even with the scribal errors, said nothing which contradicted the faith. It was an adequate translation of Scripture even if its reading of this or that verse needed updating.
Needless to say the liberals were in an uproar. Among the chief critics is Bishop Donald Trautman former chairman of the U.S. bishops’ liturgy committee. Much of the controversy has been perpetrated by Trautman. His politically correct translations did not scruple to include tinkering even with the language of the Nicene Creed. IMHO, he comes close to qualifying for that "anathema" proclaimed at the Council of Trent.
The following is from the liberal National Catholic Reporter. It will give you a little overview of the ICEL caper.
THE WORD FROM ROME
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word0816.htm
cont.
cont.
According to the NCR article
The crackdown has enraged some who see ICEL as a prime example of “collegiality,” or cooperation among bishops, that Rome should leave alone. Hence ICEL has been sucked into the larger debate within Catholicism over how power ought to be allocated and exercised — roughly speaking, the question of centralization versus subsidiarity.
The controversy has at times been intensely personal. Taylor spoke to the bitterness in a strongly worded farewell statement, issued as the new leadership team was announced.
“The members of ICEL’s Episcopal Board have in effect been judged to be irresponsible in the liturgical texts that they have approved over the years. The bishops of the English-speaking conferences, voting by large majorities to approve the vernacular liturgical texts prepared by ICEL, have been similarly judged. And the labors of all those faithful and dedicated priests, religious, and laypeople who over the years devoted many hours of their lives to the work of ICEL have been called into question.
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word0816.htm
_____________________________________________________
ICEL’s Translation of the Roman Canon
In ICEL’s own histories of the English translation of the Roman Canon, the rejection by the Holy See of the first vernacular version is glossed over, if not actually ignored.
No allusion is made to the criticism of ICEL’s translation, although Professor G.B. Harrison, an ICEL advisory Board member, had noted in his memoirs that the first ICEL version of the Canon had been “greeted with startled screams”.
An account of the history of ICEL by its current executive secretary, John Page, mentions that the provisional ICEL Canon issued in 1967 was “generally applauded” though he acknowledges there were some critics. The only indication of the rejection by Rome of ICEL’s original version is a bland statement that in 1968 “a slightly revised form of Eucharistic Prayer I was sent to the conferences of bishops.”read entire article....
https://adoremus.org/1996/07/15/icels-translation-of-the-roman-canon/
______________________________________________________
To put it bluntly, since Vatican II there are some national bishops conferences that would like to exercise ecclesiastical authority independently of the Pope. In terms of Roman Catholic ecclesiology, there IS no authentic ecclesiastical authority apart from the successor of Peter.
Craig,
I apologize for the length of my post, but I didn't know how familiar you were with the ICEL fiasco whiuch is still to a certain extent ongoing.
In terms of the relation between Bible translations and Liturgical translations, it isn't difficult to see how one spills over into the other.
Nevertheless, as far as Roman Catholicism is concerned the Vulgate is still mandated as the gold standard for biblical translations from the Latin and again, the Vulgate, even with whatever scribal errors it may contain, said nothing which contradicted the faith. It was an adequate translation of Scripture even if its reading of this or that verse needed updating.
J 4:15 pm
I am putting your post here because I don't want for it to get lost in the shuffle.
Susanna
Anonymous J said...
This was one of the better critical reviews of the Dark Star Rising book.
http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/05/25/the-donald-chaos-magician/
"Bannon lasted a year before being bounced as White House chief strategist. He has been making lots of speeches since then, but has faded from the front pages. Apparently this alt-Right leader’s powers of manipulation and mesmerism have failed him. His fall from the peaks of power, which Lachman acknowledges in an afterword, calls into question the entire thesis of Dark Star Rising. It is likely that economic downturns, resistance to punitive liberalism, and the terrible candidacy of Hillary Clinton had more to do with the Trump victory than dark magic or voodoo. Perhaps resistance to the cult of political correctness and a bruising personal style have far more power to affect the world than a Ouija board."
But I bet that a lot of people will jump on the bandwagon of associating Trump and his supporter with black magic. And then what next? It will be interesting in the next presidential campaign to see if the supporters of the Democratic candidate try to come up with a "white magic" meme to counter what they are calling "black magic".
Susanna and Craig,
I have learned so much from your exchanges about the origins and intricacies involving Bible texts and translations. I don't have the scholarly knowledge to contribute, but I have been following and enjoying your thread back and forth.
J,
Thank you for your kind words.
Craig is indeed very knowledgable about the Bible ( and also of Greek ) and I always learn a lot during our discussions about the Bible.
J,
I’m glad you were able to receive some value from our exchange here.
---
Susanna,
Ever the gracious one! Though we disagree on points of T/tradition, I very much respect your views and your opinions, and I always learn something from our interactions.
Susanna,
Why doesn’t Rome defrock the rogue clergy? In any case, from where I sit, the NAB(RE) must have been sanctioned by Rome, as I don’t see any opposition coming from the Vatican regarding it, not to mention the evidence I’d already supplied. And from my perspective, the NAB(RE) is not bad, though I’ll depart from it in a few of its readings. All translations must use a bit of “dynamic equivalence”; it’s impossible to translate wholly in a literal fashion. For example, what does the translator do with colloquialisms?
You wrote: Nevertheless, as far as Roman Catholicism is concerned the Vulgate is still mandated as the gold standard for biblical translations from the Latin and again, the Vulgate, even with whatever scribal errors it may contain, said nothing which contradicted the faith. It was an adequate translation of Scripture even if its reading of this or that verse needed updating.
Yet, the NAB(RE) does not contain the Johannine Comma (at 1 John 5:7-8)—only one of two explicit mentions of the Trinity (the other Matthew 28:19). This is one of the main issues of King James Only-ists. Now, I agree that the ‘comma’ is not part of Scripture, as the manuscript evidence clearly indicates it shouldn’t—and this should raise some questions about Jerome’s version. In fact, codex Vaticanus (to reiterate, this manuscript predates the Vulgate) does not contain it.
The Vulgate is a translation. To make a translation from a translation (Greek to Latin to English, e.g.) is never wise, as, inevitably, something gets lost in the translation. I do understand that this is the only method suitable for RCC liturgical use (Latin to English), but it should not be done for the Scriptures. That’s just poor methodology.
The RSV and NRSV were Protestant endeavors, though from the latter came the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE). I’d never head of the ICEL or the controversy surrounding it.
Coincidentally, I was looking at Psalm 8 this morning, as it came up in an email devotional I receive. I looked at “son of man” in the LXX afresh, because the translation used for 8:5 (8:4 in Protestant Bibles) read “the son of man”, but that is NOT in the Greek or the Hebrew in this verse. Nor is it with the article (“the”) in Hebrews 2:6. Since I’d written about this in an article I wrote on my blog a few years ago, I’ll quote my comments regarding this:
Hebrews 2:6 is a direct quote of Psalm 8:4 [8:5 in RCC Bibles] . . . Koester remarks, “The context of Ps 8 suggests that ‘man’ (anthrōpos) is a collective noun referring to humankind, but since the noun is singular, it can be applied to the man Jesus . . .”53 Though the expression is not particularized as the Son of Man, O’Brien observes that “the words of the psalm would have struck [early Christians] with a force that went beyond their original setting.”54
A reader acquainted with the Greek (and the Psalm) would understand the double meaning in the Hebrews text, and recognize it as a reference to Christ as “the Son of Man”. The term “son of man” is “son of Adam” in the Hebrew, and means, essentially, “human”. But, Jesus particularized the term as a 3rd person reference for Himself in the NT: the Son of Man. So, even though Psalm 8:4(5) was a general reference for mankind, the writer of Hebrews applied it Christologically—under inspiration of the Spirit. Thus, we now see the Psalm as having a dual meaning. To read the Psalm as strictly Christological is to distort the original context. And, for the record, I think a proper translation of “son of man” in Psalm 8 should NOT include the English indefinite article “a” or the definite article “the”. That’s my two cents, anyway.
[cont.]
[continuing]
But there is a larger issue is in this Psalm. At the beginning, the Hebrew reads “YHWH, our Adonai” (plural). And, in 8:5 (8:6), word in the Hebrew is Elohim (plural). However, this word is translated in the LXX (all 3 versions I have) as angeloi, “angels”, even though there is a different Hebrew word usually used for “angel”: malakah. See the Wikipedia entry here for Elohim:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#Angels_and_judges
Under Ambiguous Readings, the link reads:
Sometimes when elohim occurs as the referent or object (i.e. not subject) of a sentence, and without any accompanying verb or adjective to indicate plurality, it may be grammatically unclear whether gods plural or God singular is intended. An example is Psalm 8:5 [8:4] where "Yet you have made him a little lower than the elohim" is ambiguous as to whether "lower than the gods" or "lower than God" is intended. The Septuagint read this as "gods" and then "corrected" the translation to "angels",[citation needed] which reading is taken up by the New Testament in Hebrews 2:9 [2:7] "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."
Since all my reference material (including my software) does not provide any text critical info on the Septuagint, I don’t know if the assertion that the text was changed has any evidence to back it up. However, I’m inclined to believe it to be true, given the subject identified at the very beginning of this Psalm, namely, YHWH/Adonai (plural), and that Elohim is the first term used for God, and it is used extensively throughout Genesis 1-2. But, continue reading the next few short sections at the Wikipedia link for other meanings/usages, most particularly the “Divine Council” section—not that I think the term was ever meant in a true polytheistic sense with respect to God / YHWH.
In any case, if we retain the idea of Elohim in Psalm 8, assuming it is original in the MT and LXX, then the writer of Hebrews chose to render it “angels”, thus changing the MT slightly to make his Christological point. It is not unusual for some OT quotations in the NT to be slightly altered. And there is no textual variant in Hebrews 2:7, so we’re sure “angels” is original to the text there.
I sure wish the LXX would have just transliterated Elohim throughout...
Craig,
Re: Why doesn’t Rome defrock the rogue clergy? In any case, from where I sit, the NAB(RE) must have been sanctioned by Rome, as I don’t see any opposition coming from the Vatican regarding it, not to mention the evidence I’d already supplied. And from my perspective, the NAB(RE) is not bad, though I’ll depart from it in a few of its readings. All translations must use a bit of “dynamic equivalence”; it’s impossible to translate wholly in a literal fashion. For example, what does the translator do with colloquialisms?
I am with you on this. Blieve me. I am not defending them.. But I think the reason is similar to the reason why the Vatican did not immediately declare Traditionalist Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre excommunicated. Until he went into schism by consecrating bishops without the authorization of the Pope, he had not yet committed an excommunicable offense.
Same with the ICEL crowd. So far their "dynamic equivalence" method of translation has not yet wandered off the reservation in terms of going contrary to faith and morals. In many places, there seems to be already a de facto schism that has originated with the liberal/neo-modernist clergy. They do not want to leave the church and start their own religion. And they know just haw far they can go before the Vatican is forced to drop the hammer on them. For the sake of ordinary believers, the popes since the Second Vatican Council tried to avoid schisms unless they have no other choice.
The Vulgate is a translation. To make a translation from a translation (Greek to Latin to English, e.g.) is never wise, as, inevitably, something gets lost in the translation. I do understand that this is the only method suitable for RCC liturgical use (Latin to English), but it should not be done for the Scriptures. That’s just poor methodology.
You are right. And the mandate that the Vulgate is to be the "gold standard" does not mean that texts in other languages and new DSS discoveries cannot be used to correct the Vulgate get the best translation.
cont.
cont.
In my opinion, except for the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books, I don't know if there is really any radical difference between the translations of the Catholic and Protestant canons. I also don't think "inerrance/infallibility" precludes scribal errors due to sloppiness or sloth on the part of the scribe. Errors that do not impinge on matters of faith and morals. IMHO, such scribal errors taken all together are simply a manifestation that "God can draw straight with crooked lines." (C.S. Lewis)
Re: I sure wish the LXX would have just transliterated Elohim throughout...
LOL Maybe.....but do you recall the big brouhaha on this blog over the transliteration of "Lucifer" into the English bibles? I think Douay Rheims has a footnote.....but still.....
Have a great day!
Lets not forget the definition of ICEL:
The International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) is a commission set up by a number of episcopal conferences of English-speaking countries for the purpose of providing English translations of the liturgical books of the Roman Rite, the originals of which are in Latin. ( Or at least they are SUPPOSED to be ).
Decisions to adopt these translations are made by the episcopal conference of the country concerned, and these decisions are reviewed by the Holy See before being put into effect.
Bishops from English-speaking countries who were in Rome for the Second Vatican Council set up the Commission in 1963 in view of their intention to implement the Council's authorization to use more extensively the vernacular language, instead of Latin, in the liturgy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_on_English_in_the_Liturgy
________________________________________________
Whatever the intention of the liberal bishop members of ICEL was, it was NOT the intention of the Second Vatican Council to abolish Latin in the liturgy.
The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy ( SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM ) solemnly promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 4, 1963 states:
54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.
cont.
cont.
Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.
and.....
101. 1. In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office. But in individual cases the ordinary has the power of granting the use of a vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the use of Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly. The vernacular version, however, must be one that is drawn up according to the provision of Art. 36.
2. The competent superior has the power to grant the use of the vernacular in the celebration of the divine office, even in choir, to nuns and to members of institutes dedicated to acquiring perfection, both men who are not clerics and women. The version, however, must be one that is approved.
3. Any cleric bound to the divine office fulfills his obligation if he prays the office in the vernacular together with a group of the faithful or with those mentioned in 52 above provided that the text of the translation is approved.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
Now keep in mind, up to this point, Mass had already been celebrated in Latin for centuries. As for certain twaddle about people "not knowing Latin," most people had Roman missals which they brought with them to Mass These Missals had the Latin and English prayers side by side. A person almost would have had to be a moron not to know what the Latin words meant after repeating them over and over week after week ( or even daily) for years and years. I speak as an eyewitness because I had a Roman missal. The only prayer in Greek during Mass was the Kyrie Eleison which I have already mentioned. And there again, the Greek and the English were side by side.
The Church was well aware that most people were not Latinists, and therefore allowed for a wider use of the vernacular for the Scripture readings at the beginning of the liturgy even before Vatican II.
As for the NAB(RE) I am not so much of a hidebound literalist that I would reject some form of "dynamic equivalence," but when it reaches a point ( via inclusive language ) that we are being served up "another god(ess)" then we Catholics - as well as other Christians if a similar situation applies - need to start hollering.
The "dynamic equivalence" that actually ensued had its origins in a document called Comme le Prevoit.
Guidelines for biblical and liturgical translation, Comme le prévoit (French: “as foreseen”), are produced by the Vatican- appointed Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, adopting the principle of “dynamic equivalence” or “free translation”, focusing on ease of reception in the target language, rather than “formal equivalence,” or more accurate translation of the original language.
In many instances, they were "free" all right.
I meant to put this here.....Have a great day!
Susanna,
You wrote: I also don't think "inerrance/infallibility" precludes scribal errors due to sloppiness or sloth on the part of the scribe. Errors that do not impinge on matters of faith and morals. IMHO, such scribal errors taken all together are simply a manifestation that "God can draw straight with crooked lines." (C.S. Lewis)
Your position regarding Scripture seems reasonable to me. But I cannot get on board with the RCC’s Vulgate “gold standard” ideology—except for liturgical use. It’s a translation. And this ideology is based strictly on a tradition. I construe this perspective as somewhat akin to the King James Only-ists who claim the KJV is the only inspired text—to the point that some adherents had even translated the 1611 to Spanish, in a version that an NT scholar called “Rey Jaime” (“King James” in Spanish), going so far as translating archaic English idioms in a literal fashion. What a mess. But I digress.
The way I see it, the fact that Koine Greek was the lingua franca, the common language of the day, made it ideal for Scripture. We should take that language, the Greek, and convert it to the language appropriate for the intended audience today. For English speakers, this means modern English; for Spanish speakers, the dialect appropriate to the particular audience. Latin is no longer a common language—which is why we have the D-R.
In the case of the RCC, I think it a good idea to take the current Greek Critical Text (CT), then translate that to Latin, in order to update the Vulgate for liturgical use (though liturgy translated to English should begin with the Greek, not the Latin). One could then just compare the updated Vulgate with the D-R, noting the differences in the new text, updating the D-R where appropriate, including deleting obviously added passages (Joannine Comma, 1 John 5:6-7, e.g.)—and updating some of the now-outdated English found in that translation. But that isn’t being done. The D-R remains the same—translated from the out-of-date Latin Vulgate—while the newer versions, the NAB(RE) and NRSVCE, are adapted, in essence, from newer Protestant Bibles, which are, in turn, based on the CT. In other words, there is no attempt at updating the Vulgate—at least not that I’m aware.
I should also note, all languages evolve over time—word meanings change, words become obsolete, new words enter the lexicon, etc.—and this includes Latin.
I see this as a quandary for the RCC. The Magisterium seems not to want to go too far in updating the Vulgate, for that may cast doubt on the legitimacy/inspiration of Jerome’s translation—the latter an historic stance of the RCC. But, on the other hand, they cannot ignore the plethora of Greek manuscripts unearthed in the last few centuries, the digitization of these manuscripts that makes the process of textual criticism easier, and the strides taken in understanding some of the more obscure (to us) original Greek passages (such as the meaning of harpagmos in Philippians 2:6—the D-R and King James are not correct here).
"And this ideology is based strictly on a tradition. I construe this perspective as somewhat akin to the King James Only-ists who claim the KJV is the only inspired text"
I really appreciate this statement, Craig.
God has the lock-down on that, not any man, nor men of denominations. We all do well to stay humble in handling the word of God, and let the Holy Spirit instruct and do as He desires.
Keeping the Bible away from the common people was egregious and made lots of room for private interpretation of a very select few at times in Church history, and that is where some traditions were born that included at least some, and perhaps much more, error within. I think God knows how to delineate with His own Scriptures and get the truth to as many as would receive it, the way He said it, shedding light upon it as we trust Him for that as James 1:5 prescribes. Since when has God ever needed any man/men to tell him how to run His own affairs in this world since He is enthroned above the earth and (we) the Church is on the earth? {The lesson I see: Dear God, Speak, Lord, for your servant heareth (some KJV for you LOL) may our words, even our writings, be few...}
The RCC has been dictatorial all along in it's approach and why the dark ages were so dark, as only one for instance. That very attitude, approach, and adherence, is why my Huguenot ancestors were outright killed or chased out of France in the 16-17th centuries. Not Calvinist myself, and can see where Calvinism became another version of some of the same type of issue, too.
Now we see through a glass darkly is what the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 13.
I certainly do know that I don't have this all understood, and why I need faith.
In God, not men, I don't care who they are, from any corner of Christendom.
Craig,
Re:Your position regarding Scripture seems reasonable to me. But I cannot get on board with the RCC’s Vulgate “gold standard” ideology — except for liturgical use.
By "gold standard, I don't mean that the Vulgate is necessarily the best translation. But you are right in recognizing that for Catholics, the use of the Vulgate is according to the Catholic rule of Faith which includes Sacred Tradition. That the Latin Vulgate has been handed down to us from St. Jerome is, for Catholics, Sacred Tradition.
The Hebrew Text that we now have was preserved outside the Church. The Septuagint and Peshitta texts were preserved within the Church, and so the Church believes that the text of the Old Testament was been authoritatively preserved in these textual traditions.
But among the reasons why the Roman Catholic Church insists on adhering to Sacred Tradition vis a vis St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate is because when all is said and done, while the Latin rite is a big part of the Roman Catholic Church, it is not the WHOLE church.
There are more than twenty other Churches — the Melkite Church, the Chaldean Church, the Maronite Church, etc.— that are also part of the Catholic Church.
These Churches — being in the East — historically did not use Latin.
Instead, they celebrated the liturgy and read the Scriptures in other languages, such as Greek and Aramaic.
Thus, rather than using the Latin Vulgate, Greek-speaking Catholics historically have used the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament and the original Greek New Testament.
Aramaic-speaking Catholics historically have used an edition in Syriac (a form of Aramaic) known as the Peshitta.
In these Catholic Churches, the Vulgate was never the primary version of Scripture.
Therefore, we need to be careful that we don’t represent what Trent said as applying to the whole Catholic Church. It doesn’t.
As Pius XII pointed out, it applies only to the Latin Church.
Regarding the Catholic rule of Faith, there is much to be said for having the faith passed down both by a written mode and by the mode of Tradition, in such a way that the faith does not depend on the vicissitudes of textual discovery!
But since you are not Roman Catholic, I understand and respect that you do not agree with the Catholic position on Sacred Tradition.
But getting back to the Vulgate, even though it is the official Latin translation for the Latin rite, this does not mean that other translations cannot be used to update and improve upon the Latin translation.....in which case, after looking further into the matter, I might agree with you that it would be a good idea to take the current Greek Critical Text, translate that into Latin, see what it looks like and take things form there.
Re: In other words, there is no attempt at updating the Vulgate—at least not that I’m aware.
Actually, I mentioned this earlier, but it could have easily been missed given all the things that we have been discussing. I am talking about the NOVA VULGATA.
The New Vulgate (Nova Vulgata bibliorum sacroroum editio) is a new edition of the Latin Vulgate which was ordered after Vatican II by Pope Paul VI in 1966, for use in the revision of the Roman Catholic Liturgy. It was supposed to have corrected the Vulgate that was in use at the time, based upon more recent critical work with manuscripts. As with the Greek and Hebrew texts, so too the Latin, critical scholarship and discoveries of manuscripts assisted in reconstructing the original texts.
NOVA VULGATA
http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_index_lt.html
https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Biblia-Sacra-Vulgata-VULGATE/
More on Nova Vulgata.
Looks to me like your idea has already been implemented.
In 1907 Pope Pius X proposed that the Latin text of Saint Jerome be recovered using the principles of Textual criticism as a basis for a new official translation of the Bible into Latin. This revision ultimately led to the Nova Vulgata issued by Pope John Paul II in 1978. This final revision was intended to be a correction to the Vulgate based on the critical Greek and Hebrew edition, while retaining as much as possible of the Vulgate's language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_into_Latin
__________________________________________________________
Nova Vulgata
The Nova Vulgata (Bibliorum Sacrorum nova vulgata editio, ISBN 88-209-2163-4), also called the Neo-Vulgata or Neo-Vulgate, is currently the typical Latin edition published by the See of Rome for use in the Roman rite. The Second Vatican Council in Sacrosanctum Concilium mandated a revision of the Latin Psalter in accord with modern textual and linguistic studies, while preserving or refining its Christian Latin style. In 1965 Pope Paul VI appointed a commission to revise the rest of the Vulgate following the same principles. The Commission published its work in eight annotated sections, inviting criticism from Catholic scholars as the sections were published. The Latin Psalter was published in 1969; the New Testament was completed by 1971 and the entire Nova Vulgata was published in 1979. A second edition was published in 1986.
The foundational text of most of the Nova Vulgata's Old Testament is the critical edition done by the monks of the Benedictine Abbey of St. Jerome under Pius X. The foundational text of the books of Tobit and Judith are from manuscripts of the Vetus Latina rather than the Vulgate. The New Testament was based on the 1969 edition of the Stuttgart Vulgate. All of these base texts were revised to accord with the modern critical editions in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. There are also a number of changes where the modern scholars felt that Jerome had failed to grasp the meaning of the original languages, or had rendered it obscurely.
The Nova Vulgata does not contain some books found in the earlier editions but omitted by the canon of Trent, namely the Prayer of Manasses, the 3rd & 4th Book of Esdras, and the Epistle to the Laodiceans.
In 1979, after decades of preparation, the Nova Vulgata was published and declared the Catholic Church's current official Latin version in the Apostolic constitution Scripturarum Thesaurus promulgated by the Pope John Paul II. The Nova Vulgata is the translation used in the latest editions of the Roman Lectionary, Liturgy of the Hours, and Roman Ritual.
The Nova Vulgata has not been widely embraced by conservative Catholics, many of whom see it as being in some verses of the Old Testament a new translation rather than a revision of Jerome's work. Also, some of its readings sound unfamiliar to those who are accustomed to the Clementine.
In 2001, the Vatican released the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, establishing the Nova Vulgata as a point of reference for all translations of the liturgy of the Roman rite into the vernacular from the original languages, "in order to maintain the tradition of interpretation that is proper to the Latin Liturgy".
http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Vulgate
PESHITTA
The Peshitta (Classical Syriac: ܦܫܝܛܬܐ pšîṭtâ) is the standard version of the Bible for churches in the Syriac tradition.
The consensus within biblical scholarship, though not universal, is that the Old Testament of the Peshitta was translated into Syriac from Hebrew, probably in the 2nd century AD, and that the New Testament of the Peshitta was translated from the Greek.……
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta
___________________________
Susanna,
Thanks for your further comments. I was unaware of a new Vulgate (obviously). For the record, while I don’t know for sure if you were attempting to directly correlate the Biblia Sacra Vulgata (and I erroneously thought this was the original Vulgate) with the NOVA VULGATA, I wish to illustrate that the former was apparently sort of a work in progress towards the latter by directing to John 1:18:
Biblia Sacra Vulgata
NOVA VULGATA
In any case, it appears the RCC changed/contradicted its own Tradition (Magisterium?) in changing Jerome’s translation:
Arguments of the Latin Vulgate Only View:
Another claim of Roman Catholics was that the Latin Vulgate was equal to or even superior to God’s Word in the original languages. The preface of the Rheims N. T. pointed out: “It [the Latin Vulgate] is truer than the vulgar Greek text itself. It is not only better than all other Latin translations, but than the Greek text itself, in those places where they disagree” (p. xvii). That Rheims preface asserted that “we see that by all means the old vulgar Latin translation is approved good, and better than the Greek text itself, and that there is no cause why it should give place to any other text, copies, or readings” (p. xx). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation noted that “the Vatican librarian, Agostino Stevco, furnished extensive arguments in 1529 for the superiority of the Vulgate to both Hebrew and Greek texts” (Vol. I, p. 164). William Whitaker (1547-1595) maintained that “the papists contend that their Latin text is authentic of itself, and ought not to be tried by the text of the originals” (>Disputation on Holy Scripture, p. 138). Thus, Roman Catholics set aside the superior or greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages to assert and maintain the authority of their preferred translation–the Latin Vulgate.
The first two bolded sections are self-explanatory, the third may not be alarming depending on context, i.e., which Hebrew and Greek texts were in view here. See more at the link above.
If I’m correct, the updates to the Vulgate coincided with the events leading up to and then including Vatican II; and, there were some of the more conservative Catholics who were wary of such changes, resulting in some who refused to adhere to Vatican II en toto, because of the break from and contradiction to T/tradition.
I need to correct something. In my 11:22 AM comment I hyperlinked to an article regarding the Greek harpagmos in Philippians 2:6, but I didn't intend on using that particular one, as I don't care for the author's conclusion. A better one--though the argument is truncated--can be found in section IV.C (page 5) here: http://ntresources.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/kenosis.pdf
Susanna,
I checked the Latin of Philippians 2:6, and I see that the Nova Vulgata matches the Biblia Sacra Vulgata, both retaining the notion of “robbery” for harpagmos. While this translation for this word is correct in most contexts, Roy Hoover’s article in Harvard Theological Review (1968) illustrates that, after surveying philological evidence, the slightly broader context here reflects a stereotyped idiom with a different nuance. And, one must ask: in what kind of context can God be deemed a robber? After studying this issue for quite a while (it took me much study and many different readings of Hoover’s work, plus other associated material), my preferred translation is something like: “regarded equality with God as something not to use for his own advantage” (negating the idiom, rather than the verb [“did not regard equality with God as something to use for his own advantage”], as this more closely follows the syntax, since the negation ouch directly precedes the idiom harpagmon hēgēsato).
My point for bringing this up is that, though the Vulgate had been updated by using the Greek CT (in the NT)—and there are no variants here—the translators missed this Greek idiom above, thereby mistranslating the Vulgate (and the English derived from it). The N/KJV reflects this same faulty reading. Now, to be fair, there is no universal consensus on the methodology for translating this text; however, most reject “not robbery” as being too simplistic.
For me, this (among other things) calls into question the RCC’s stance as the final arbiter of truth in Scripture interpretation. And, of course, the “Philippians Hymn” is a central, if not THE central, Christological passage.
For what it’s worth, you can view Hoover’s conclusions here, beginning in section VI:
https://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/Harpagmos12.jpg
https://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/Harpagmos13.jpg
I must say I'm pleasantly surprised that the Nova Vulgata omits both the final clause in John 3:13 and the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:6-7.
Re: In any case, it appears the RCC changed/contradicted its own Tradition (Magisterium?) in changing Jerome’s translation:
This appears to represent a misunderstanding of RCC Sacred Tradition analogous to the misunderstanding of the fourth session of the Council of Trent which I have already discussed earlier.
The Sacred Tradiiton of the Catholic Church is a living Tradition which builds upon the truth which has been preserved and handed down. The revision of the Vulgate is not just about this or that translation unless it goes contrary to matters of faith and morals. Church Fathers - especially the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic Fathers, etc. - need to be taken into account in order to ascertain that the translation also represents the correct interpretation. Where "dynamic equivalence" means contradicting the teachings of the Church Fathers, Doctors, Councils, etc, then said "dynamic equivalence" is in error.
The RCC didn't contradict its own Tradition by calling for an update/revision of the Latin Vulgate.....any more than the Council of Trent mandated the use of the Latin Vulgate by the WHOLE Church and not just for the Latin rite while allowing for revisions of the Vulgate to bring it closer to St. Jerome's. That erroneous point of view is the view of certain radical Traditionalists many of whom are still using the Clementine revision. Many are also not even in full communion with Rome.
Jerome's Latin Vulgate has not been abrogated. Quite the contrary. It is the criterion by which other translations are to be measured. The Council of Trent didn't mandate that the translation of the Vulgate could never be improved. Only that it had to be as close as possible to Jerome's Vulgate which has not been discarded but preserved and incorporated into the revised Vulgate.
As considerable doubt has been expressed as to the exact scope of the present commission, it may be useful here to state clearly that its end is not to produce a Latin Bible, to be proposed as an official text for the approbation of the Church, but to take merely a preliminary step towards that official version. The object is clearly set forth in the charge given by the pope to the commission. It is to determine as accurately as possible the text of St. Jerome's Latin translation, made in the fourth century. This text is admitted on all hands to be an absolute necessity as a basis of any more extended and critical revision.
The Latin text of the Sacred Scriptures had existed from the earliest times of Christianity. The translator or translators were unknown to St. Augustine and St. Jerome; but the former says that the old Latin version had certainly come "from the first days of the Faith", and the latter that it "had helped to strengthen the faith of the infant Church." Made and copied without any official supervision these western texts soon became corrupt or doubtful and by the time of St. Jerome varied so much that that doctor could declare that there were almost "as many readings as codices." It was this that as Richard Bentley, writing to Archbishop Wade, declares, "obliged Damasus, then Bishop of Rome, to employ St. Jerome to regulate the last revised translation of each part of the New Testament to the original Greek and to set out a new edition so castigated and corrected." This St. Jerome did, as he declares in his preface "ad Graecam Veritatem, ad exemplaria Graeca sed Vetera."
cont.
cont.
At the present day scholars are practically agreed as to the competence of St. Jerome for the work given him by Pope St. Damasus. He, moreover, had access to Greek and other manuscripts, even at that time considered ancient, which are not now known to exist; he could compare dozens of important texts, and he had Origen's "Hexapla" and other means of determining the value of his material, which we do not possess. It is obvious that the pure text of St. Jerome must form the basis of any critical version of the Latin Bible, and, what is more, that it must be taken into account in any critical edition of the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament and the various Greek texts of the New Testament, no manuscript copies of which are older than St. Jerome's Latin translation made on then ancient copies. Richard Bentley, the great scholar, as long ago as 1716, saw the importance of St. Jerome's translation. "'Twas plain to me," he writes, "that when that copy came first from that great Father's hand, it must agree exactly with the most authentic Greek exemplars; and if now it could be retrieved, it would be the best text and voucher for the true reading out of several pretended ones." Substantially, no doubt, the present authentic Clementine text represents that which St. Jerome produced in the fourth century, but no less certainly it, the printed text, stands in need of close examination and much correction to make it agree with the translation of St. Jerome. No copy of the actual text is known to exist; and the corruptions introduced by scribes, etc., in the centuries posterior to St. Jerome, and even the well intentioned work of the various correctors, have rendered the labours of trying to recover the exact text from existing manuscripts both difficult and delicate. This, however, is the work which must be done as the first step in the revision of the Vulgate. It is consequently the aim of the present commission to determine with all possible exactitude the Latin text of St. Jerome and not to produce any new version of the Latin Scriptures. Of course it is altogether another matter to determine how far St. Jerome was correct in his translation: to settle this will no doubt be the work of some future commission...read more...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15515b.htm
____________________________________________________________
For me, this (among other things) calls into question the RCC’s stance as the final arbiter of truth in Scripture interpretation. And, of course, the “Philippians Hymn” is a central, if not THE central, Christological passage.
Of course, nobody says that you, as a Protestant, have to acknowledge the RCC stance. That is why you are a Protestant.
But as far as Roman Catholics are concerned, the RCC is where the Bible originated and developed. Since the Hebrew Bible developed outside the Church and originated with anti-Christian Jewish rabbis who DELIBERATELY altered the texts in order to prevent Christians from using the Greek translation of their edited Hebrew text to convert Jews to Christianity, I don't see how Protestants can regard it as being 100% reliable in terms of accurately corresponding with belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah - especially since belief in the Messiah was precisely what the anti-Christian Jews were trying to undermine vis a vis their editing of the Scriptures....which editing is mentioned by the Apostolic Fathers, one of whom I have quoted.
After Spending much time studying the writings of the Church Fathers and Doctors I think I will continue to trust the RCC to be the final arbiter of truth in Scripture interpretation more than I would trust others who claim that THEY are the final arbiters of said truth.
Craig,
I checked the Latin of Philippians 2:6, and I see that the Nova Vulgata matches the Biblia Sacra Vulgata, both retaining the notion of “robbery” for harpagmos. While this translation for this word is correct in most contexts, Roy Hoover’s article in Harvard Theological Review (1968) illustrates that, after surveying philological evidence, the slightly broader context here reflects a stereotyped idiom with a different nuance. And, one must ask: in what kind of context can God be deemed a robber?
God IS not being deemed a "robber" here. The reference is with regard to Christ's HUMAN nature which is not subject to concupiscence..... the consequence of Original Sin. Since Jesus' HUMAN nature has God as His Father, His HUMAN nature is not subject to concupiscence as are the HUMAN descendents of Adam. His created HUMAN nature is therefore not tempted by that "Promethian" tendency to illicitly sieze/steal divinity from His Father by elevating his own human nature independently of the Father's will and bypassing the Cross in contradiction of His Father's will. This was similar to what the devil tempted Christ to do.
My use of the word "Promethian" is strictly by way of analogy. In Greek mythology, Promethius was a Titan who "stole fire from the gods" and gave it to humanity. In a word, it signifies overreaching.
I am now bringing my participation in this tete a tete to a close. I don't want what began as a congenial discussion to degenerate into the usual cliché Catholic-Protestant arguments. When you are born and brought up in a particular Christian communion, it is probably not easy - if not almost impossible - to be completely tuned in to all the niceties of beliefs other than your own - especially beliefs with which you may disagree.
With that, I will give you the last word.
Have a great day.
Susanna 12:33,
Wow, very informative encapsulation of the whole thing. I've known Catholics to say before that without the RCC, there would not be a Bible as we know it. But I never knew all the details you've provided to explain and substantiate that claim.
Susanna,
To shift gears if I may, I had been thinking for some time of possibly joining the Catholic church. All the news about Pope Francis (not only here but many places across conservative and alt-conservative media) has made me leery about joining.
But somebody told me it doesn't really matter if the Pope is apostate, because of the Magisterium.
I realize that Catholics are very diverse, so what one may get out of a given Catholic church is variable across locations and parishes. I'm so confused as an outsider. I find the RCC extremely diverse and complex and difficult to understand.
Also I have a son with ASD who learns best with visual aids and not only through his auditory sensory channel. So that is one more draw to the RCC. But I worry that some aspects of the ritualism could cause him to have OCD with regards to religious matters. He's already prone to OCD. Do you know of any resources regarding the Catholic faith and autism, if there are any parents who have experience who would share it? I need to explore that aspect further.
Could you explain your take on the Pope vs. the Magisterium, if you don't mind?
I know I'm throwing out complicated questions after you've just wrapped up a very long thread with Craig, so don't feel obligated to give me exhaustive answers. I'm just looking for some more clues.
J, 2:21 PM
Of course I would be delighted if you decided to enter the catholic Church. But that has to be absolutely your choice and one not made under pressure.
There is only one reason for a person to be or to become a Roman Catholic......because that person freely and honestly happens to believe that what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is true.
You don't have to be a great theologian in order to be a Roman Catholic. But I have read your posts and I think you are a very intelligent person
The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church and is comprised of the Pope and the Bishops who are in full loyal communion with the Pope.
Together, the Pope and bishops are the successors of Peter and the Apostles.
https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura4.htm
________________________________________________________
Briefly, the teaching on papal infallibility is a very narrow one in its application. It is on rare occasions that the Pope has exercised the "Petrine charism" unilaterally. Ordinarily, he exercises it in union with the Bishops of the Catholic Church.
The infallibility of the Church is the belief that the Holy Spirit preserves the Christian Church from errors that would contradict its essential doctrines. As such, it does not depend upon the personal sanctity of any individual Pope. Popes are sinners just like everybody else. Therefore, infallibility ( i.e. inability to err in matters of faith and morals ) is not to be confused with impeccability. ( i.e. inability to sin )
https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm
________________________________________________________
Yes, the Catholic Church has had some "black popes," but these individual "bad actors" never taught error "ex cathedra." ( i.e. "officially" )
Regarding Pope Francis, an attempt is being made to portray Pope Francis as a radical liberal and a Marxist/socialist by the usual enemies of the Catholic Church who tried to do the same thing to Pope Paul VI. News flash....Blessed Pope Paul VI is going to be canonized a saint this upcoming October 14, 2018.
One gets a little peek into Pope Francis' sense of humor while reading that when Pope Francis announced that he will be canonizing Blessed Pope Paul VI later this year, he joked that he and Benedict XVI are “on the waiting list.”
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-francis-paul-vi-to-be-canonized-this-year
_______________________________________________________
cont.
cont.
If you want to read an excellent book on Pope Francis, read the one entitled BERGOGLIO'S LIST by Nello Scavo.
'Bergoglio’s List’: Author Says Pope Rescued Hundreds From Military Dictatorship
A new book recounts the Holy Father’s efforts to spare those targeted in the 1970s by Argentina’s military dictatorship.
October 9, 2013
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/bergoglios-list-author-says-pope-rescued-hundreds-from-military-dictatorshi
______________________________________________________________________________
Bergoglio’s List: An Unexpected Discovery
The story of the Pope’s actions during Argentina’s Dirty War is as riveting as it is inspiring.
January 30, 2015
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2015/01/30/bergoglios-list-an-unexpected-discovery/
_______________________________________________________________________________
During the "Dirty War," Father Bergoglio ( the future Pope Francis ) was dubbed
"the Scarlet Pimpernel of Argentina." Similar to the heroic efforts of Monsignor Hugh O’Flaherty in Nazi-occupied Rome during World War II.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_O%27Flaherty
*********************************
Regarding your son who has ASD, here are some links with information that I hope you find helpful.
As for taking your son to Mass, allowing your son to watch Mass on television ( i.e. EWTN) or a video might help him to get used to it before actually attending in person. But I do not presume to be an expert in these matters.
Autism, the Mass and religious education
Oct 15, 2009
by Tom Gallagher
Parish
https://www.ncronline.org/news/parish/autism-mass-and-religious-education
_________________________________________________________________________
Catholics with Autism Efforts of the National Catholic Partnership on Disability
http://www.ncpd.org/ministries-programs/specific/autism
_________________________________________________________________________
I don't know where you are from, but the diocese in your area should be able to provide you with information. If there is a Catholic parish nearby, you could give them a call and ask them where you could go for information.
I sincerely hope that I have been able to be of some help.
Have a great weekend!
Susanna
Susanna,
Thank you. I will consider all the information you provided.
Susanna,
It appears you misunderstood some of what I wrote. First of all, I don’t identify specifically as a “Protestant” (and I don’t think a Christian is necessarily either a Catholic or Protestant or EO)—something I’d mentioned earlier. I didn’t grow up with any identifiable Christian denomination; there was just this rather vague belief in some sort of Christianity that I never embraced as a child. I was even agnostic for quite a while, and I only came to faith less than 20 years ago at nearly 40 years of age. Also, I’m not trying to just be argumentative, as I do get confused regarding the Tradition of the RCC, but to learn more about it. I may, and do, challenge things that I don’t agree with—things that seem to be at odds with sound methodology—but it’s not my intention to attack you personally via your personal faith. With all this in mind I’m both sorry and disappointed that you wish not to engage further. But, I’ll respect your position in this regard (but would be happy if you changed your mind), and I leave this comment, in part, for the larger audience as well.
In any case, I found a bona fide first English translation of the Latin Vulgate on the ‘net, which I think you’ll find of interest (especially my comments after the transcription)—assuming you weren’t previously aware. As I’m sure you know, this translation only came about in response to the English editions of the Protestants (and the pre-Reformation Lollard’s in their Wycliffe Bible).
I’ve transcribed part of the forward, updating some of the text to current English (transliterating “vv” to “w”, removing extra “e”s at the end of words, e.g.), though I kept the syntax order. Note that the preface states that the Vulgate’s OT is translated from the Hebrew, NOT the Greek. I transcribed quite a bit so as to retain the broader context. I may have made a few transcription errors. Observe the polemics against the Protestant versions, as the writers promote the Vulgate as the “pure” text—as per Catholic Tradition, of course.
1610 A.D. Douay Old Testament, 1582 A.D. Rheims New Testament
Click the book twice until you see “A3” at bottom of the right-side page—the fifth page if including the cover page as 1, then left-side page as 2, right as 3, etc. The text below begins with the paragraph about 2/3rds down. As this comment is already long, I’ll stop here and post the actual text in the next two comments
[cont]
[cont]
Part of the preface to the 1610/1582 Douai-Rheims (all caps per original):
“But here another question may be proposed: Why we translate the Latin text, rather than the Hebrew, or Greek, which Protestants prefer, as the fountain songs, wherein holy Scriptures were first written? To this we answer that if indeed those first Editions were now extant, or if such as be extant were more pure than the Latin, we would also prefer such fountains before the rivers, in whatsoever they should be found to disagree. But the ancient best learned Fathers and Doctors of the Church, do much complain, and testify to us that both the Hebrew and Greek Editions are fouly corrupted by Jews and Heretics, since the Latin was truly translated out of them, while they were more pure; and that the same Latin [Vulgate] has been far better conserved from corruptions. So that the Old Latin Vulgate Edition has been prefer- [[next page]] red and used for most authentical above a thousand and three hundred years. For by this very term S. Jerome called that Version the vulgate, or common, which he conferred with the Hebrew of the Old Testament, and with the Greek of the New; which he also purged from faults committed by writers amending then translating it. Though in regard of this amending, S. Gregorie called it the new version of S. Jerome: who nevertheless in another place called the self-same, the old Latin Edition, judging it most worth to be followed . . . Insomuch that all other Latin Editions, which S. Jerome faith were in his time almost innumerable, are is it were fallen out of all Divine hands, and grown out of credit and use. If moreover we consider S. Jerome learning, piety, diligence, and sincerity, together with the commodities he had of best copies in all languages then extant, and other learned men with whom he conferred; and if we so compare the same with the best means that has been since, surely no man of indifferent judgment will match any other Edition with S. Jerome’s: but easily acknowledge with the whole Church God’s particular providence in this great Doctor, as well for expounding, as most especially for the true text and Edition of the Holy Scriptures. Neither do we fly unto this old Latin text for more advantage. For, besides that it is free from partiality, as being most ancient of all Latin copies, and longer before the particular Controversies of these days began, the Hebrew also and the Greek when they are truly translated, ye and Erasmus his Latin [ED: Erasmus used the Latin in some places in Revelation to fill gaps in which his Greek texts were incomplete], in sundry places prove more plainly the Catholic Roman doctrine, then this which we rely upon . . . [[next page]] . . . and freely testify, that the old Interpreter [ED: Jerome] translated religiously. What then do our countrymen, that refuse this Latin, but deprive themselves of the best, and yet all this while, have set forth none, that is allowed by all Protestants for good or sufficient?”
[cont]
[continuing]
“How well this is done the learned shall judge, when by mature conference they shall have made trial thereof. And if anything be mistaken, we will (as still we promise) gladly correct it. . . . Only one thing we have done touching the text, whereof we are especially to give notice: That whereas heretofore in the best Latin Editions there remained many places differing in words, some also in sense, as in long process of time the writers erred in their copies, now lately by the care and diligence of the Church, those diverse readings were maturely and judiciously examined and conferred with sundry the best written and printed books, and so resolved upon, that all which before were left in the margin, are either restored into the text, or else omitted; so that now none such remains in the margin. For which cause we have again conferred this English translation, and conformed it to the most perfect Latin Edition. Where yet by the way we must give the vulgar reader to understand, that very few of none of the former varieties touched Controversies of this time. So that this recognition is no way suspicious of partiality, but is merely done for the more secure conservation of the true text, and more ease and satisfaction of such, as otherwise should have remained more doubtful.
“Now for the strictness obscured in translating some words, or rather the not translating of some, which is more danger to be disliked, we doubt not but the discrete learned reader, deeper weighing and considering the importance of sacred words, and how easily the translator may miss the sense of the Holy Ghost, will hold that which is here done for reasonable and necessary. We have also the example of the Latin and Greek where some words are not translated, but left in Hebrew, as they were first spoken and written; which seeing they could not, or were not convenient to be translated into Latin or [[next page]] Greek, how much lest could they, or was it reason to turn them into English? . . . It more important, that nothing be wittingly and falsely translated for advantage of doctrine in matter of faith. Wherein as we dare boldly avouch the sincerity of this Translation, and that nothing is here either untruly or obscurely done of purpose, in favor of Catholic Roman Religion, so we cannot but complain, and challenge English Protestants, for corrupting the text, contrary to the Hebrew and Greek, which profess to translation, for the more shew and maintaining of their peculiar opinions against Catholics: As is proved in the Discourse of the manifold corruptions . . . “
----
The D-R version above appears to follow its more modern counterpart, but it contains a few extra books. On page 1029 (of pdf) is a division with a title The Second Tome of the Holie Bible Faithfully Translated into English Out of the Authentical Latin: Diligently conferred with the Hebrew, Greek, and other Editions in divers languages. Following that is a preface to the Psalms, the Book of Psalms, Proverbs, and it appears that this section includes all the same books and ordering of the current D-R. However, following Malachi are 1 & 2 Maccabees, as usual, but following those are the additional The Prayer of Manasses (p 1971 of pdf), The Third book of Esdras (1973), and The Fourth Book of Esdras (1995).
[cont]
[continuing]
It’s important to note that the first English version was the Wycliffe Bible, which was translated from the Vulgate. The Wycliffe was also the first with chapter/verse distinctions. These chapter/verse distinctions were placed in the Protestant Bibles—which were translated from then-available Hebrew texts for the OT, and then-available Greek for the NT. The 1582/1610 Douai-Rheims above retains the chapter/verse distinctions (with some variation, I think).
In the preface above, I found the non-mention of the Septuagint rather curious. One could be generous and just impose the notion that by “Hebrew” the writer(s) above meant that Jerome consulted the Hebrew and compared with the LXX Greek for the OT. But, as I see it, this goes beyond the words of the writer(s) above. In fact, the claim of ‘Hebrew for the OT, Greek for the NT’ was explicitly mentioned once, and can be construed as implicit in the other more ambiguous instances, based on the earlier explicit statement.
In the context of the time period above, I think it not entirely unfair to criticize the early Protestant Bibles, as they were necessarily limited to the relatively scant amount of manuscripts available at the time. Yet, I don’t think even these early versions contradicted the Vulgate in terms of “faith and morals”—but I suppose it may depend on how one defines this.
And I am somewhat sympathetic to the RCC position that the Vulgate was better, in that it was translated from a much earlier time with, presumably, a larger number of source documents—those available to Jerome, at least. But here’s where I depart: The claim that the Vulgate is the “pure text”, with the concomitant stance that it may not reflect Jerome’s original, smacks of having one’s cake and eating it too. Given that the RCC has been the sole possessor of this text and claims to be the sole authority in Scripture interpretation, one adhering to this position should reasonably think it would be unchanged after all these years. Moreover, either Jerome’s version reflects the best Greek and Hebrew texts or it does not. There cannot be a middle ground here. But, since we do not know, and do not have, Jerome’s source texts, we cannot even test the claim. For all we know, Jerome mistranslated some of the Greek and/or Hebrew—he was human, after all—and this mistranslation has been carried on.
[cont]
[continuing]
Now, if the RCC’s position were such that ‘we think the Vulgate reflects the best of all the Greek and Hebrew texts, but we’re open to challenge on this if new manuscripts are unearthed, though we expect none would impinge doctrine and morals’, then that would be reasonable to me. Instead we have, as quoted above “if indeed those first Editions [of Hebrew and Greek] were now extant, or if such as be extant were more pure than the Latin, we would also prefer such”. How can the Latin be—as per the above preface—the “most pure”, “free from partiality”, “the true text and Edition of the Holy Scriptures” and yet there may possibly be another text “more pure than the Latin”? To attempt an analysis, one would have to back translate the Latin to the Hebrew and/or Greek, all the while comparing it with other early Hebrew and/or Greek manuscripts—then what? A Vulgate sympathist could simply dismiss the differing texts as wrong simply because they are not in agreement with the Vulgate—circular reasoning.
Now, I don’t think the historic Vulgate contains any errors of the sort that would be at odds with historic orthodox Christianity. But, as the manuscript discoveries of the past few centuries, especially the 20th, have illustrated, the historic Vulgate does contain omissions, additions, and errors not found in the best texts. And those diligently working in the field of NT textual criticism are largely of the Protestant persuasion. And, somewhat ironically, the Nova Vulgata is a hybrid of primarily Protestant work in textual criticism and the historic Vulgate. And this hybrid’s text has readings that some of the newer Protestant Bibles have had for years prior to this new version (the removal of the final clause in John 3:13, the removal of the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7-8, the change of “only begotten Son” to “only Son, God” in John 1:18, etc.).
The bottom line, the way I view things, is that neither Catholicism nor Protestantism nor the EO (and, etc.) have the full truth. None. And, further, I’m convinced that all the power structures of each ‘denomination’ or flavor are compromised to varying degrees. But I am part of the universal (small “c” catholic) Church, which includes all true believers of Christ, true Christ-followers. And I refuse to be one of Milgram’s sheep.
Susanna, I also wish to address your response to my comments regarding Philippians 2:6:
God IS not being deemed a "robber" here. The reference is with regard to Christ's HUMAN nature which is not subject to concupiscence..... the consequence of Original Sin. Since Jesus' HUMAN nature has God as His Father, His HUMAN nature is not subject to concupiscence as are the HUMAN descendents of Adam. His created HUMAN nature is therefore not tempted by that "Promethian" tendency to illicitly sieze/steal divinity from His Father by elevating his own human nature independently of the Father's will and bypassing the Cross in contradiction of His Father's will. This was similar to what the devil tempted Christ to do.
When I posed the question “in what kind of context can God be deemed a robber?” I fully understood that the text refers to Christ. Yet, in part, wishing to stay afoul of Nestorianism, I referred to “God” because the verse is prefaced with “Who being in the form of God…”. (Using John’s terminology, “the Word” retained His ‘form of God’, yet “became flesh”, thus adding human nature to His divine nature.) Having clarified that, I don’t disagree with the thrust of your comment above. However, the text in the D-R states, “…thought it not robbery to be equal with God”. In the immediate and larger context, how can Christ (God) potentially rob Himself of His own Deity! The point is that this doesn’t adequately convey anything really meaningful in the Latin, let alone English. (And the Nova Vulgata retains this same verbiage, which can only be translated to English as the D-R above.)
And this is why the philological inquiry I referenced proved fruitful, shedding light on the intended meaning, in uncovering the original metaphorical and idiomatic sense in which this verse was written, which has nothing to do with “robbery”. The NAB(RE) concedes this, following the Greek Critical Text (and Protestant versions), and though it follows one possible translation of the idiom, it misses the full thrust of Hoover’s discoveries:
Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.*
*Note on text: “Either a reference to Christ’s preexistence and those aspects of divinity that he was willing to give up in order to serve in human form, or to what the man Jesus refused to grasp at to attain divinity. Many see an allusion to the Genesis story: unlike Adam, Jesus, though…in the form of God (Gn 1:26–27), did not reach out for equality with God, in contrast with the first Adam in Gn 3:5–6.”
One can make what one wants out of that note. In any case, I stand by my preferred translation “regarded equality with God as something not to use for his own advantage”.
I need to amend the above. The NAB(RE) does not follow the Greek Critical Text here, as the Latin translates the Greek quite literally here. Instead, the NAB(RE) follows the methodology of translating the Greek idiomatically--an impossibility if one is sourcing the Latin.
I still don't have it quite rightly articulated, so let me try again. The Greek text here is certain; there are no known variants. The Latin is a straight translation of the Greek. The problem is that that is not the proper way to translate the Greek idiom in the latter part of this verse. In other words, the Latin, new and old, is deficient here, as it doesn't translate the Greek idiom into Latin in the manner the Greek intends to convey its message.
J,
Do not believe Susanna. She is a liar, and a deceiver. The popes do not begin with Peter. Apostolic sussesion is false! Craig has proven that in a back and forth with Susanna several years ago. Due to his lack of spine in defending the faith, he is nearly useless anymore. He feels comfy being lukewarm!!!! You came out of a small cult, why join a colossal one??? You and Susanna are both captives of a religious spirit. Its why you over intelectualize everything! What you need is the Holy Spirit!
Anon 7:00 PM,
Do TULIP Calvinists have the truth of the matter, or do Arminians? One group looks at the Scriptures one way, the other at them another. Only one group can be correct. But does this mean the other is full of liars?
As regards the Holy Spirit, you may want to (re)acquaint yourself with Galatians 5:16-26.
To the condescending anonymous who warned me away from Catholicism.
I'm sharing some of my thoughts because these thoughts predate discussion here.
This is one reason why I am drawn to traditional Catholic social teachings:
Catholic Economics: Strangled Once Again
http://www.culturewars.com/2014/Strangled.htm
And this:
Women at War With Themselves
http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/WomenWarriors.html
I don't like the way too many Protestant culture warriors have a tendency to be so mean spirited about economics, women and just about everything else. I find Catholics know how to be traditional *graciously*. Catholics were the ones who developed the free trade medieval cities in the very first place. But they didn't go to the extremes of "capitalism" vs. "communism" and they had a different way before anybody ever used those words!
I believe it is a devil's game to divide us into opposing camps that attack the good in the other camp and leave less good in the world after each round! The good things have been split up and packaged with not-so-good things. It is so obvious to me, and I find Catholics beat me to my thoughts long ago!
These were thoughts I had on my own, but there is an older wholeness which is far more developed than my own thoughts. That is what I seek.
If you want to persuade me of anything, anonymous, you had better respect me first.
To clarify, when I said, "These were thoughts I had on my own," I should have qualified it by explaining that I had these thoughts *after* making a conscious and thoughtful choice to re-embrace Christianity and begin the process of sorting through my quite Leftist-influenced and New Age-influenced thoughts to put my mental house in order. I read the Bible and prayed for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and stood back as an observer, separate from churches and political parties. After a while, the Catholic church stood out as being unique in the world and not (as much) caught up in the devilish dialectic playing out. Many times after struggling to comprehend some essential Christian truth or other on my own, I found that Catholic thinkers had beat me to it long ago. I do think the Holy Spirit has been with the Catholic church through the ages, but not exclusively with it, because I believe the church is spiritual and not a human institution.
I would like to add that I have reservations about the place of Mary in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Yet I also have reservations about the neglect of Mary in the Protestant churches. It's as if the Protestants want to err on the side of being stingy to Mary out of fear of the charisma her character may have. I think this stinginess of spirit affects women and mothers historically. I also think the elevated status of Mary helped to elevate the status of mothers and women in the Catholic church.
This is the reason why feminism did not catch fire in Catholic countries until they fell away from their faith. Protestant countries were different. Protestant countries decided that an Earthly calling was very important. Protestant countries had already started to see the material world and the material things you do in the material world as being more important than human beings serving each other.
The Marxist analysis of Capitalism, with its analysis of the role of a wife and mother in the system, wouldn't make much sense in a Catholic country with a Catholic social order. It was able to seem to make a lot more sense in Protestant countries after the generations went by and the slippery slope to materialism had more time to work.
This materialism became foundational for Leftist feminism. While the loss of respect to motherhood formed a part of the frustration and motivation of women to take part in the movement.
The Protestant churches now keep splitting into conservative and liberal factions. It happened to the Southern Baptist Convention in the 90s, over women preachers. It will likely happen to the Methodists over LGBTQ issues.
The Protestants have a proliferation of apostasy, from Joel's Army to prosperity gospel and on and on. I realize individual protestants can still hold fast to Scripture and reject apostasy. But can every single individual believer really avoid being manipulated when they have so many choices available to them, especially when they are young?
I think once a split occurs in a church between liberal members and conservative members, it is harmful to the church going forward. The conservative churches become meaner and more hidebound, angrier and less gracious. The liberal church teachings become indistinguishable from the progressive issues du jour.
This isn't only about socioeconomic and political issues on Earth, because it even affects the concept of Jesus. Conservative protestant Christians sometimes lash out at a liberal concept of Jesus as a "hippy" or "SJW" or as being too "effeminate" and don't even think they are worshiping the same Jesus. They see their own Jesus as being more akin to a valiant warrior and as being more masculine.
The Catholic church seems to have been able to have had a consistent idea of Jesus through the ages and to be able to put it above whatever Earthly struggles were going on at a given time or in a given place.
One more point I would like to make is that I think Protestants also set the stage for "the Goddess" to appeal to women. If you look at the history, the Catholic church did the opposite thing. Populations that had worshiped goddesses found Mary appealing, but notice that Mary points to Jesus, and she makes no sense at all without pointing to Jesus. So she still led people to Christian belief, even if it could be nit picked. It was still an improvement.
Whereas Protestants carefully and nearly thoroughly suppressed Mary, only to face a resurgence of popularity of "goddesses" who point far, far away from Jesus.
One last observation and then I am done. When I was a young, liberal-minded student, I once stumbled upon the writings of another Mary, Mary Daly. It would be hard to express more hatred of God than Mary Daly did. But I noticed that she also considerably despised her own Biblical namesake. We know the Bible teaches who originally despised the Biblical Mary the most and was most out to get her. Mary Daly in being against God was with God's enemy.
J,
Re:I would like to add that I have reservations about the place of Mary in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches.
I don't know how much you already know about Catholic Mariology, but here is some information about what Catholics and certain other Christian communions believe about Mary.
First of all, Mary is solely and exclusively a creature. To worship Mary would therefore be idolatry and a serious sin for Catholics as well as for anyone else. Nevertheless, Catholics are accused of "worshipping" Mary all the time by certain anti-Catholics who apparently don't realize that Catholics share many of the same beliefs about Mary not only with the Eastern Orthodox communion but also with some Protestant communions.
The things that Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic Christians believe about Mary are not primarily important because of what they tell us about Mary, but because of what they reveal to us about Jesus.
First and foremost, just by being what God made her and by being what God wanted her to be by way of her "fiat" ( "Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done to me according to thy word." Luke 1:38 ) Mary protects us against the most dangerous errors that directly attack the Person of her Son Our Lord Jesus Christ. Because Mary's humanity is a living testimony to Christ's humanity while her virginity is a living testimony to Christ's divinity.
In purely creaturely terms, Mary is God's answer to Lucifer. Lucifer's "Non serviam" ( "I will not serve" ) is challenged by Mary's humble "Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done to me according to thy word."
In the Bible passage known as the "Magnificat," Mary's soul "magnifies the Lord" Luke 1:46--55 and not herself.
46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord.
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49 Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.
51 He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.
52 He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble.
53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
54 He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy:
55 As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.
Luke 1:46-55
_______________________________
At the wedding feast at Cana, it was through Mary's intercession that Christ performed his first public miracle when he changed water into wine. Mary, sure of her Son's help, instructed the people "Do whatever HE ( Jesus) tells you." John 2:5 Not "Do whatever I tell you." But "Do whatever Jesus tells you."
It is to be observed that these words "Do whatever He ( Jesus ) tells you" were the last words of Mary recorded in the Gospels.
Among the last images we have of Mary is when she is described as standing beneath our crucified Lord at the foot of the Cross with St. John and Jesus says "Son, behold thy mother. Mother behold thy son." John 19:26-27
In a literal sense, it indicates that Jesus commended Mary to St. John's care. But Catholics and Orthodox interpret this to mean that in the person of the "beloved disciple," Jesus gave Mary to the whole Church as Mother.
This Wednesday, Catholics celebrate the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. When Jesus rose from the dead, He rose as truly God and truly man.
By the power of God, Mary is assumed body and soul into heaven purely as a creature. Her Assumption is regarded by Catholic, Orthodox and some Anglican Christians as a foretaste of our own bodily resurrection at the end of time.
HAve a great day!
Susanna,
I've never in my life heard any preaching or discussion about John 19:26-27. The Catholic and Orthodox interpretation is very beautiful, but I don't know what to think about it yet. It will give me something to consider.
On another note, I haven't been able to find a place in the Bible where it is written that Lucifer said, "I will not serve." Is this extra biblical or is it only in the Catholic bible?
I know Isaiah talks about Lucifer falling because he sought to become like the Most High, but I don't know of a place where those specific words, "I will not serve," are attributed to him.
Susanna,
Wikipedia has a short entry on "Non serviam". Do you agree with it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_serviam
"In the Latin Vulgate, Jeremiah laments that the people of Israel speak 'non serviam' to express their rejection of God (Jeremiah 2:20). The words became a general expression of the basic manner of rejecting God, such that it would apply to the fall of Lucifer. The words have thus been attributed to Lucifer."
Susanna,
I have one more question. I have seen the claim before that the early church fathers were influenced by the Book of Enoch. Is this true? When I looked into the Book of Enoch, it seemed to me quite obviously occultish, and sure enough research showed that occultists love that book.
J,
Have you investigated non-denominational churches in your area?
One thing about the RCC is that you must accept the entire system carte blanche. It is for this reason I could never get on board, as (1) there are a number of positions of the RCC which I find contrary to Scripture, and (2) at least one position that is contrary to its own system.
As to (1), since recent discussion was about Mary—and I’ll agree that Protestants tend to diminish her, perhaps as an over-corrective to the RCC—are you aware of (a) the doctrine of Immaculate Conception and (b) the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual sinlessness? As to the former, in 1854 Pope Pius IX declared that Mary was born without original sin, since, Jesus—who, of course, was/is sinless—was born incarnationally of Mary. In other words, she did not inherit the original sin of every other descendant of Adam & Eve so that, according to this understanding, she would not stain Jesus with original sin. But one must wonder how this could be, as, using this same logic, shouldn’t Mary’s mother, in turn, be without original sin so as not to stain Mary; and, similarly, if, as implied in this doctrine, it wasn’t necessary for Mary’s mother to be sinless for Mary’s Immaculate Conception, then why would it be necessary for Mary to be sinless for the Incarnation of the without-original-sin Jesus? And (b), Mary’s perpetual sinlessness, as Pope Pius XII declared, flows from (a). There is no Scripture to authenticate (a), and (b) is contrary to Scripture (Romans 3:9; 2 Cor 5:17-21; Hebrews 4:14-15; 1 John 1:8).
As to (2), as I’ve stated at some length above, the premise that the Latin Vulgate is the “pure text” but can be amended if new manuscripts deem it incorrect in some areas is a case of having one’s cake and eating it too. It’s either “pure” or it isn’t. Moreover, the RCC has had sole access to Jerome’s text, and the RCC claim is that it is the sole arbiter of truth with regard to Scripture interpretation; yet even in the preface to the original Douay-Rheims I transcribed above, the writer(s) admit that there is uncertainty as to meanings of various words in the text (though they felt confident that this was now, at that time, sorted out—mostly). And as I illustrated with Philippians 2:6—I understand the argument is complicated and deep—the Latin is translated in a literal fashion, which renders it impossible to capture the sense of the original metaphorical idiom, based on syntax, in the Greek. Interestingly, the Novo Vulgata retains this same verbiage—again making it impossible to arrive at the meaning conveyed by the idiom. Yet, comparatively, the NAB(RE), which is based on the then-newest Greek Critical text, the same text both the old and new Vulgates are based upon as there are no known variants, is able to render the idiom (though to one understanding which I find a bit lacking, though other Protestant Bibles have this reading).
Going back to the Latin, I think it reasonable that there may have been some unintentional changes over the years—despite the fact that the Vulgate had been safeguarded at the Vatican (once Jerome completed it), and the Magisterium is to be the sole interpreter—but the Novo Vulgata makes many changes to the historic Vulgate. I’ll post a lengthy, but incomplete list of some of these in the next comment.
Differences between the historic Vulgate (here as from Biblia Sacra Vulgata) and the Novo Vulgata can be found in comparing these passages (and more):
Matthew 5:44; 17:21; 18:11; 27:35
Mark 3:15; 7:16; 8:56
Luke 9:56; 24:42
John 1:18; 3:13; 5:4
Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7
Romans 16:24
1 Corinthians 6:9
Galatians 5:19
1 Peter 4:14
1 John 5:6-8
Revelation 1:11
Now, again, if the RCC commissioned Jerome to make a “pure text”—which is said to be from the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts—and then safeguarded this text, and used this text for interpretation, how can there be so many additions, deletions, and errors?
The Novo Vulgata was only updated due the untiring work of NT textual critics, the majority of which are Protestants. In comparing various Greek manuscripts (I’m only speaking about the NT here, as I’ve not studied this with respect to the OT), these text critics have been able to determine the most likely original Greek text. And this is what the Novo Vulgata sourced in translating to the Latin, thereby illustrating that the Jerome’s Vulgate, in part, was certainly not from the best texts.
Interestingly, and ironically, many of the above corrections agree with the Greek text in codex Vaticanus, which has been housed in the Vatican library since 1445.
----
Related to the above comment, I’ll quote part of Susanna’s comment here, and make an observation on it:
Among the last images we have of Mary is when she is described as standing beneath our crucified Lord at the foot of the Cross with St. John and Jesus says "Son, behold thy mother. Mother behold thy son." John 19:26-27
In a literal sense, it indicates that Jesus commended Mary to St. John's care. But Catholics and Orthodox interpret this to mean that in the person of the "beloved disciple," Jesus gave Mary to the whole Church as Mother.
I wasn’t aware of this interpretation, as stated in the last sentence above. But one has wonder why Jesus didn’t place Mary in Peter’s care, for, according to the RCC, Peter is the first Pope. Trying to consider this from the RCC position, I’d think this would make more sense.
J,
More regarding Mary standing at the foot of the cross with John "the beloved disciple" can be found at the site of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops:
* [19:26–27] This scene has been interpreted literally, of Jesus’ concern for his mother; and symbolically, e.g., in the light of the Cana story in Jn 2 (the presence of the mother of Jesus, the address woman, and the mention of the hour) and of the upper room in Jn 13 (the presence of the beloved disciple; the hour). Now that the hour has come (Jn 19:28), Mary (a symbol of the church?) is given a role as the mother of Christians (personified by the beloved disciple); or, as a representative of those seeking salvation, she is supported by the disciple who interprets Jesus’ revelation; or Jewish and Gentile Christianity (or Israel and the Christian community) are reconciled.
http://usccb.org/bible/john/19
___________________________________________________
Regarding "Non serviam"
Yes I do agree with the interpretation of Jeremiah 2:20.
Here is the passage translated from the Latin Vulgate.
20 Long ago you broke your yoke,
you tore off your bonds.
You said, “I will not serve.”
On every high hill, under every green tree,
you sprawled and served as a prostitute.*
21 But I had planted you as a choice vine,
all pedigreed stock;
How could you turn out so obnoxious to me,
a spurious vine?
22 Even if you scour it with lye,
and use much soap,
The stain of your guilt is still before me,
oracle of the Lord GOD.
http://usccb.org/bible/jeremiah/2/
____________________________________________
I think that the only place where the Book of Enoch is alluded to is in the Epistle of Jude.
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. Jude 1:14-15
Even if the Book of Enoch is apocryphal, there is nothing in the passage from Jude that alludes to Enoch that goes contrary to faith or morals.
While it might have some historical or theological interest, it is not regarded as canonical by most Jews or Christian communions.
A couple of the Church Fathers regarded the Book of Enoch as canonical, but this view was not held unanimously.
_______________________________________________________
Craig,
Thanks for your input. I will take it under consideration. I have a lot more research, thought and prayer to put into it all before I make any decision. I'm not right on the cusp of making a decision or anything. Maybe I will just remain a weirdo non-denominational Protestant who is Catholic loving. Or possibly I will join the Orthodox church. I just don't know yet. Whatever decision I make, even if I choose not to join the RCC, I want it to be based upon the best arguments and not straw men arguments. I enjoy getting the best arguments from Susanna. I also appreciate your thoughtful posts.
J,
Since I’ve referenced 1 Enoch (Book of Enoch) in an article I wrote and am somewhat acquainted with its text, I can add something to what Susanna said, if you don’t mind. It’s part of what is known as the pseudepigrapha. I have a copy of this work, as it’s included in James Charlesworth’s The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, a 2-volume set. In the preface to 1 Enoch (to be distinguished from 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch), aka Ethiopic Enoch, the writer notes that it was likely written in stages, and that the section that is most ‘Christian’, the Similitudes (the part with “son of man” references), is most likely written late in the 1st century (the Wikipedia page cites an outdated source as regards dating). I Enoch was fairly well-known during and around this period, along with some other Jewish apocalyptic texts and testaments (Testament of Moses, Apocalypse of Abraham, Sibylline Oracles, etc.).
importantly, Jude quotes Ethiopic Enoch a bit differently. Here’s the applicable section from the article I wrote (with some amending):
Jude references the well-known (at that time) pseudepigraphical work known as 1 Enoch in Jude 14-15. In verse 14 the text is changed from θεὸς [God] in its source (1 Enoch 1:9) to kύριοϛ [Lord], “…the Lord is coming…” This is significant, as Jude uses kύριοϛ [Lord] exclusively for Jesus Christ in his epistle, as opposed to using the term for God, meaning that Jude has most likely purposely changed 1 Enoch’s eschatological Judge from a Jewish monotheistic conception of God to Jesus Christ here. To see how Jude reserves kύριοϛ for Jesus Christ, observe how he uses this term in conjunction with the full designation of “Jesus Christ” in verses 4, 17, 21, and 25, yet in these very same verses Jude refers to God, but not as kύριοϛ. Thus, while in verse 14 kύριοϛ stands alone, almost assuredly Jesus is the intended referent.
I wanted to stress the different Enochian books, as there is a cult called Second 8th Week (with its own “Chief Apostle” as leader) who sources the angel “Metatron” from 3 Enoch—a work dated to the 5th or 6th century AD. And, of course, he sources Christian texts. (Years ago on a “Christian” forum, I think it was Charisma, “Chief Apostle Eric vonAnderseck” was commenting on there, and I took that opportunity to ask him who had more authority he or “Presiding Apostle” of the so-called New Apostolic Reformation C. Peter Wagner. I don’t think he appreciated my query…)
While on the subject of cults (and the “New Apostolic Reformation”), I’m very familiar with “Joel’s Army”, having written articles about that (Paul Cain, Bob Jones, Mike Bickle, Jack Deere, etc.). But the thing is, there is New Age infiltration into both camps, and there are conservative and liberal elements within Protestantism and Catholicism.
Craig,
Just to clarify...…by "pure text" and "gold standard" is meant that the Vulgate does not go contrary to faith or morals. It does not mean that the Vulgate does not contain clerical/scribal errors or that the translations are necessarily the best. I believe that I have already said this more than once.
Re: Going back to the Latin, I think it reasonable that there may have been some unintentional changes over the years—despite the fact that the Vulgate had been safeguarded at the Vatican (once Jerome completed it), and the Magisterium is to be the sole interpreter—but the Novo Vulgata makes many changes to the historic Vulgate. I’ll post a lengthy, but incomplete list of some of these in the next comment.
In an earlier post regarding the Council of Trent at 2:05 I wrote:
"The employment of Greek and Hebrew to correct the Latin was not forbidden in any way."
Later at 7:22 PM I said:
"More on Nova Vulgata.
Looks to me like your idea has already been implemented."
In 1907 Pope Pius X proposed that the Latin text of Saint Jerome be recovered using the principles of Textual criticism as a basis for a new official translation of the Bible into Latin. This revision ultimately led to the Nova Vulgata issued by Pope John Paul II in 1978. This final revision was intended to be a correction to the Vulgate based on the critical Greek and Hebrew edition, while retaining as much as possible of the Vulgate's language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_into_Latin
_____________________________________________________________
At 7:33 you said:
I must say I'm pleasantly surprised that the Nova Vulgata omits both the final clause in John 3:13 and the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:6-7.
cont.
_______________________________________________________
cont.
Now for the grand finale:
The New Vulgate was translated "directly from the original Hebrew text," not from the Greek Septuagint as the original Vulgate had been.
https://adoremus.org/2007/12/31/quotThe-New-American-Biblequot-A-Voice-From-the-Past/
The Nova Vulgata (Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio), also called the Neo-Vulgate, is the official Latin edition of the Bible published by the Holy See for use in the contemporary Roman rite. It is not a critical edition of the historical Vulgate, but a revision of the text intended to accord with modern critical Hebrew and Greek texts and produce a style closer to Classical Latin. Consequently, it introduces many readings that are not supported in any ancient Vulgate manuscript; but which provide a more accurate translation from the original languages texts into Latin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate#Nova_Vulgata
_______________________________________________________________
The Latin Vulgate is to be used only by the Latin rite and only when translating from Latin or when Latin is being officially used by the Latin rite Church.
Regarding imperfections in translation, to imply that mere clerical or scribal translation errors/discrepancies equates to a compromise of Catholic Sacred Tradition is, first of all, to demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of Sacred Tradition and secondly is to elevate these scribal errors/discrepancies to a status that is way off the reservation.
Sacred Tradition would only be compromised if said scribal errors/discrepanncies went contrary to matters of faith and morals. As far as the RCC is concerned, they don't.
In closing, I would point out that this "scribal errors" argument cuts both ways insofar as the same species of scribal error/discrepancies that would be capable of invalidating Sacred Tradition would also be capable of invalidating the non-Catholic Christian belief in the inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures.
Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Protestant Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".
A formal statement in favor of biblical inerrancy was published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1978. The signatories to the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" admit that "inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture". However, even though there may be no extant original manuscripts of the Bible, those which exist can be considered inerrant, because, as the statement reads: "the autographic text of Scripture, ... in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy".
Some equate inerrancy with infallibility; others do not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
Have a great evening.
J,
At 5:07, Craig wrote:
One thing about the RCC is that you must accept the entire system carte blanche. It is for this reason I could never get on board...…
Craig is correct in this regard....as well as honest.
If you have ever heard of the term "cafeteria Catholics," it refers to those members of the Roman Catholic Church who "pick and choose" whatever Catholic beliefs they happen to like and turn their noses up at the rest.
Perhaps it is better for you now to stay where you are, take your time, study, pray and don't be in a hurry to commit to any Christian denomination until you are confident that you are ready to make such a commitment.
P.S.
Craig,
Related to the above comment, I’ll quote part of Susanna’s comment here, and make an observation on it:
Among the last images we have of Mary is when she is described as standing beneath our crucified Lord at the foot of the Cross with St. John and Jesus says "Son, behold thy mother. Mother behold thy son." John 19:26-27
In a literal sense, it indicates that Jesus commended Mary to St. John's care. But Catholics and Orthodox interpret this to mean that in the person of the "beloved disciple," Jesus gave Mary to the whole Church as Mother.
********************************
I wasn’t aware of this interpretation, as stated in the last sentence above. But one has wonder why Jesus didn’t place Mary in Peter’s care, for, according to the RCC, Peter is the first Pope. Trying to consider this from the RCC position, I’d think this would make more sense.
John was not only the "beloved disciple," (probably on account of his youth, his innocence and his zeal), but also because of all the disciples, he was the only one mentioned, standing at the foot of the cross with Mary. The other disciples had fled in fear. You can see where John's heart was...
For John to stand at the foot of the cross was probably not the safest place to stand. Many of Jesus’ followers were still in hiding "or standing afar off" after Christ's arrest at Gethsemane. Recall how Peter even denied Our Lord three times out of fear. It would have taken courage and love for John to come back to stand at the foot of the cross upon which Jesus was crucified.
In any case, it wasn't long after Our Lord's Ascension that persecution of the early Church began in earnest and by 42 AD Peter had been imprisoned and St. James had been martyred by beheading. So in terms of sheer practicality placing Mary in Peter's care would probably not have been in Mary's best interests in terms of her own safety.
According to tradition, St. John took Mary to Ephesus and is said to have established the first Christian community in Ephesus.
Susanna,
Regarding your immediately preceding comment @ 7:07 PM, you wrote:
The New Vulgate was translated "directly from the original Hebrew text," not from the Greek Septuagint as the original Vulgate had been.
This claim that the historic Vulgate was from the LXX is not founded! The preface to the original D-R contradicts that, as it explicitly claims the Hebrew text as the source document for the OT (he conferred with the Hebrew of the Old Testament, and with the Greek of the New). Yes, it seems most likely the New Vulgate would source the MT, the DSS, and the LXX—just like the newer Protestant versions.
Earlier you stated that the Vulgate was from the LXX, extolling the virtues of the LXX, in part, because (a) the Hebrew of the time was already tainted (the so-called "Jamnian", as you called it @ 5:36 PM comment about 1/3 down), with your specific words quoted in a comment @ 9:32 PM (about ½ way down)…
…The Masoretic texts on the other hand date from between 700 - 1000 A.D. and morphed out of the texts from the Rabbinic period which began around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and which inherited the "edited" Hebrew Bible and the Greek translation of it made by Aquila of Sinope [ED: ca 130AD] who was a disciple of Rabbi Akiva.
Removing the Greek "Kyrios" was an especially huge sacrilege and I can understand why the early Christians didn't want anything to do with the "sanitized" Hebrew Bible or its brand spanking new Greek version.
…Then (a) was used to illustrate that the (initial) Protestant Bibles were made from inferior texts. Now, I’m not disputing the possibility that Luther sourced the Masoretic text; however, if the claim—which I’ve read a few different places besides the D-R preface—is that Jerome sourced the Hebrew, then wouldn’t he necessarily only have access to the later, tainted recension (ca. 130AD)?
At 2:05 PM, you wrote:
The employment of Greek and Hebrew to correct the Latin was not forbidden in any way. The revision of the Vulgate was completed under Popes Sixtus V and Clement the VIII and published in 1598.
Yes, and this was used for the original Douai-Rheims edition which I quoted from above, and the preface states that they were not 100% sure it was correct. To reiterate my stance: Given that Jerome was commissioned with the express purpose of making a “pure text” in Latin from the best available manuscripts (according to Jerome), and that Rome was the sole caretaker of this text, while I can understand a copy error here and there, there are some substantial differences in the original D-R’s Vulgate and Novo Vulgata. The overarching point here is that the Magisterium wanted the best text possible and wanted to preserve that text, and the Roman church holds itself as the supreme authority, that it is the “true Church” over against all others, so standards for its text must be of the highest. Yet, I’ll provide just two examples to illustrate the differences:
[cont]
[cont]
-In 1 John 5:6-8 we have quite a few changes. First, the noun at the end of 6 is changed to Spiritus from the historic Vulgate’s Christus. This is particularly egregious, because there is not one single manuscript that uses “Christ” here, as they all have “Spirit” to agree with its previous usage: “The Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth”.
Next, 7 is truncated/changed to Quia tres sunt, qui testificantur
from Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in caelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt..
And, finally, 8 is truncated/changed to Spiritus et aqua et sanguis; et hi tres in unum sunt.
from Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in caelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.
The historical Vulgate reading of 5:7-8, the Johannine Comma is not found in any Greek manuscript until the 16th century. Textual critic Daniel B. Wallace writes about this. Interestingly he notes: “Significantly, the German translation done by Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma”. In a separate article, responding to a KJV-only activist, Wallace addresses the fact that the Comma appears in a text by Cyprian; however, it seems obvious Cyprian’s words were an interpretation of this passage as it stands today, not a citation of an actual Greek manuscript bearing this verbiage. Jerome probably thought this was Scripture as well, accounting for its inclusion in the historic Vulgate.
-In John 1:18 the new version has “God” in place of “Son” in John 1:18—this is a HUGE deal, as these words are very dissimilar in both Greek (ΘΕΟΣ vs. ΥΙΟΣ) and Latin (Deus vs. Filius), and this reading of “God” (ΘΕΟΣ as distinct from KYRIOS) in reference to Jesus is such a rarity in Scripture and provides a great comparison with/parallel to “unbegotten Son” in John 3:16.
[cont]
[cont]
You wrote: Regarding imperfections in translation, to imply that mere clerical or scribal translation errors/discrepancies equates to a compromise of Catholic Sacred Tradition is, first of all, to demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of Sacred Tradition and secondly is to elevate these scribal errors/discrepancies to a status that is way off the reservation.
Keep in mind that the RCC claims to work from only the (translated by Jerome) Latin. Thus, Latin is the base text. So, in this sense “translation” is not an issue. Can there be an occasional copy error (Latin to Latin)? I won’t discount that. But, the whole point of the RCC Latin was to come up with a text and secure that text at the Vatican. As a comparison, the Greek Byzantine text—which gets its name from the Byzantine Era—is a very uniform text (mistakes and all), with only the occasional scribal variation, even though there are many copies of this text-type than any other Greek text. I think it fair to impose the same amount of precision with the Vatican’s Vulgate. And the Byzantine is not the same as the Vulgate (though it is in some areas), and the newest Greek Critical Text is largely not the Byzantine either (it is in some areas).
Regarding infallibility vs. inerrancy, I’ve never claimed infallibility with the respect to the Scriptures nor imposed that on Rome, as I don’t think even the Critical Text is completely free from error. But, I do believe our Scriptures are inerrant, overall. My issue, again, is Rome’s claim of overall superiority as compared to others as regards Scripture.
I think you may be missing the point I’m trying to make, so I’ll rephrase. Rome claims it is the supreme authority. It doesn’t claim to be infallible, except with respect to “faith and morals”. However, historically it had made consistent claims against Protestant Bibles as being inferior to the Vulgate. It looks to me like their claim was wrong. And, applying your standard of allowing for “clerical or scribal translation errors/discrepancies” and being true in regards to “faith and morals”, even the earliest Protestant Scriptures clear that bar.
I’m not sure if I’ve articulated this well (and I’m tired), but I hope the intent comes through. I don’t think Jerome’s edition was faulty to the point of portraying “another Jesus” or “another spirit”, of course, but it was, apparently, not up to the level it was assumed to be.
Wow! I need to correct my statement regarding inerrancy/infallibility. The Scriptures as we have them in the Church at large generally are infallible but not totally free from error. My quote just above had it exactly backwards! I've never claimed our Scriptures to be inerrant, but they are infallible.
I should know better than to comment when I'm that tired...
Susanna,
Beautiful story about Mary and John the beloved disciple. This is why I like tradition that was formed close to the history. I think for history alone it should be regarded as valuable by Protestants, even if they don't accept the authority of Tradition with a capital T.
The Catholic church had teachings against usury before there was a left-right dialectic historically. At the same time Catholic peoples created the first medieval mercantile cities with the first middle class. Later came the Capitalism vs. Communism dialectic, which seemed to have reached its synthesis in China's "Communism 2.0" which the elites regard as their preferred model. Why then should we project the historically later terms back onto revived Catholic economic teaching on the part of Pope Francis? Or is that naive, and is Pope Francis really in Soros' pocket, as Breitbart strongly implied in at least one article?
Let's say for the sake of argument that Francis is really trying to be a Marxist Catholic Pope a la Liberation Theology. Would that discredit true historical Catholic economic teaching or the real history of the development of the middle class mercantile cities in Catholic countries? Why should it make us react against the very idea itself? It would be more a case of looking at actions without rejecting the nice words. It's more a case of "show me" vs. "tell me". There wouldn't necessarily be anything wrong with the "tell me" part.
Could similar reasoning be applied to the environment? Is there any legitimate concept of ecological sustainability that Christians could own without being manipulated by the New Age? Couldn't it fall under a traditional Catholic teaching about the common good, which predated Marxism and Communism?
Catholics historically have had a way of adapting and absorbing things without altering essential moral teachings or essential Christian doctrines. Is Laudato Si a continuation or a departure from this Catholic traditional way of adapting to the changes of the ages and the diversity of various cultures and movements?
I have been an organic gardener in the past, and I buy a lot of organic food. Is this bad just because organic farming has been so promoted by Rudolph Steiner and his followers of Anthropophosy?
Couldn't there be a way to keep the wheat and lose the chaff when it comes to environmental issues, too?
Not that I think it's a bad idea to keep an eye on any sign of New Age infiltration that manifests in give away language or in New Agers having a positive reaction to something.
I'm speaking more philosophically here, though.
I certainly think John’s presence at the Cross was divinely orchestrated, and that his divinely prolonged life (as compared to the other Apostles) was the practical reason Mary was entrusted to John. The specific exchange between Jesus and Mary, and Jesus and John, can be explained also, however, by the Jewish practice of allowing one to declare one’s last will and testament at deathbed.
Some may find this of interest: John uses some interesting verbiage, an idiom, as part of the narration of John 13:23. I’ll translate as literally as possible (though I’ll have to rearrange syntax for better English), except the idiom, which I’ll explain below: One of His disciples, the one Jesus loved, was reclining (at the table) en tō̧ kolpō̧ of Jesus.
The last word means, depending on context: (a) bosom or chest; (b) fold as in the fold of a garment; (c) a part of the sea that indents a shoreline, bay. In the above, it would literally be “in the bosom”. That, of course, is some sort of metaphor.
This idiom is used of “Abraham’s bosom” in Luke 16:22 (eis ton kolpon, “into the bosom” of Abraham) and 16:23 (en tois kolpois autou, “in the bosoms of him” [Abraham]).
More importantly, it is used in John 1:18, with “Son” (monogenēs theos), the one who is eis ton kolpon tou patros, “into the bosom of the Father”.
And, finally, it is used in Luke 6:38: “Give, and it will be given…it will be eis ton kolpon hymōn, “into the bosom of you”.
As we can see, this is clearly an idiom, as translating each of these strictly as “bosom” seems too literal. It means something like “close to”, “next to”, “in intimate relationship”, etc. The NAB(RE) renders John 13:23 One of his disciples, the one whom Jesus loved, was reclining at Jesus’ side.
The word is used by itself in Acts 27:39—that is, not prefaced with a preposition as part of the idiom—to mean inlet, bay.
Craig 1:59 PM,
Where are you going with this?
I'm not sure where the discussion is going, but I just thought I'd look more into the language used. I found this, which was interesting to me.
http://robgagnon.net/BelovedDisciple.htm
"The verbs agapaō and phileō and their cognates nowhere in John’s Gospel have a sexual connotation. The verb used to denote a sexual relationship between two males in the Greco-Roman milieu is eraō and its cognates, where the active 'lover' is an erastēs and the more passive/receptive 'beloved' is an erōmenos. If the Fourth Evangelist had wanted his readers to know that Jesus was in a sexual relationship with this disciple he would have chosen the appropriate words for sexual love between males.
With regard to agapaō and cognates in John’s Gospel we read of Jesus’ sacrificial love for all his disciples (13:1, 34; 15:9, 12-13; defined as those who keep his commandments or word: 14:21, 23; 15:10); Jesus’ love for Martha, Mary, and Lazarus (11:5); Jesus’ love for his heavenly Father (14:31); God’s love for the world (3:16) or for Jesus’ followers (14:21, 23; 17:23 26); God’s love as Father for his Son (3:35; 15:9; 17:23-24, 26; because he lays down his life: 10:17; because he has kept his Father’s commandments: 15:10); the love that Jesus commands people to have for him which for unbelievers is manifested in believing in him (8:42; cf. love for God in 5:42) and for believers is manifested in keeping his commandments or word (14:15, 21, 23-24; or rejoicing that Jesus is returning to the Father: 14:28), expressed especially in their sacrificial love for 'one another' (13:34-35; 15:12-13, 17) and, as regards leaders, in 'feeding Jesus’ sheep' (21:15-16); and people’s tragic love of darkness or praise from other people (3:19; 12:43).
The fact that the verb phileō, which refers to friendship love, and the related noun philos, “friend,” are used interchangeably with agapaō and cognates in John’s Gospel confirms the non-erotic character of this love: Jesus’ love for Lazarus (11:3, 36; called 'our friend' [ho philos hēmon] in Jesus’ conversation with his disciples in 11:11); Jesus’ love for the beloved disciple (20:2); God’s love for Jesus’ followers (16:27); God’s love as Father for his Son (5:20); the love of Jesus’ followers for Jesus (expressed in their 'believing that [Jesus] came from the Father': 16:27; expressed in “feeding [Jesus’] sheep”: 21:15-17; called 'friends' [philoi] if they do what Jesus commands them: 15:13-15); the world’s love for its own (15:19), and the tragic love some people have for their own life in the world (12:25)."
Guys, I was just merely expounding the text. Not for one second did I think anything unsavory! As I see it, the Gospel of John presents John as having a very close relationship--FRIENDSHIP--with Jesus (John 13:23), which the Gospel writer SIMILARLY describes of Son and Father (John 1:18). He's describing John as being like FAMILY.
And, this is underscored in Jesus entrusting John for His mother's care. Since I wrote about John 19:28-30 in a blog post, I'll copy and paste it here.
Evidence suggests that Jewish custom allowed “a dying man . . . to settle the legal status of the women for whom he was responsible.”3 This appears to be what Jesus is doing in 19:26-27—legally appointing John to His former position as the person responsible for His mother, a widow.4 Common practice required that Jesus would ensure that His mother Mary be “adequately cared for by a male head of household in the patriarchal culture of first-century Israel.”5 Apparently, in doing so, Jesus proclaimed what would be akin to His last will and testament.6 Importantly, rather than a sibling, Jesus entrusts a disciple to the care of His mother, in accordance with the Jewish custom of “the believing community [being] stronger than natural familial bonds,”7 for not even His own brothers believed in Him (John 7.5). “When Jesus entrusted His mother to the Beloved Disciple, He established a new household centered on a common relationship with Jesus”8
Mary does seem like a good symbol for the church, though. The church is symbolized as a woman. Mary was both Jesus' mother and his first disciple.
“The bride of Christ” is used as a metaphor, a symbol for, the Church—the universal Church made up of all members collectively, male or female—so, to insert Mary, a historical person, in this place would be improper. That’s not to diminish her role in Christianity, however.
J,
There are OT verses against usury. In fact, Jews were to lend money without interest to fellow Jews, and at reasonable interest rates to non-Jews (Deut 23:19-20). Obviously, Christians should follow this pattern, as the OT is part of the Christian heritage.
Lending in the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Christian Tradition:
I am not competent to comment on the development of Christian attitudes to lending at interest over the centuries, but I understand that through the first millennium of the Common Era the Christian Church simply affirmed the Old Testament principle that lending on interest was disapproved, on the continuing presupposition that lending was an aspect of care for the needy. But in practice lending on interest was tolerated as long as rates were not judged excessive. Where Christians adhered to the principle of not lending on interest, Jewish moneylenders were able to fill the vacuum on the basis of the Deuteronomic permission on charging interest to foreigners.
I think history clearly shows Communism does not help common people, and at the same time illustrates Capitalism to be the superior system. The latter just needs some checks and balances from the State—like the USA has done via anti-trust laws. Ideally, the Church should step in to help anyone who is struggling no matter what system is in place.
Pope Francis is either extremely naïve or complicit. I could almost understand his desire to adopt the “Climate Change” doctrine if it weren’t for the fact that he surely must be aware that there are legitimate climatologists who, while acknowledging that some warming can quite possibly, if not probably be attributed to humanity, take issue with the inflated claims as to how much humans are responsible for it. One making an honest inquiry on such important matters must look at both sides of the debate. That doesn’t mean one has to be an expert, but it does mean one should not just accept one side or the other. One must look deeper—follow the money.
On the subject of the Pope, unless I missed this, I don’t think he in any way attempted to influence the historically largely Catholic Ireland prior to their vote to legalize abortion. Assuming I’m correct, why didn’t he, as, isn’t this one of the most important, if not the premier social justice issue?
Craig,
Re: This claim that the historic Vulgate was from the LXX is not founded! The preface to the original D-R contradicts that, as it explicitly claims the Hebrew text as the source document for the OT (he conferred with the Hebrew of the Old Testament, and with the Greek of the New). Yes, it seems most likely the New Vulgate would source the MT, the DSS, and the LXX—just like the newer Protestant versions.
At 12:39 I wrote:
Also......St. Jerome used both Hebrew texts and the Septuagint in his Latin translation of the Bible which has come down to us as the Vulgate did an independent translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew.
_____________________________
The Vulgate is usually credited as being the first translation of the Old Testament into Latin directly from the Hebrew Tanakh rather than from the Greek Septuagint.
Jerome's extensive use of exegetical material written in Greek, as well as his use of the Aquiline and Theodotiontic columns of the Hexapla, along with the somewhat paraphrastic style in which he translated, makes it difficult to determine exactly how direct the conversion of Hebrew to Latin was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate
_______________________________________________
I also provided a link to an article about St. Jerome from the Rylands Library.
ST. JEROME'S APPRECIATION OF HEBREW *
JAMES BARR, M.A., D.D.
PROFESSOR OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER
https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m3038&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF
______________________________________________________
Here are a couple of other informative articles.
ST. JEROME AS A BIBLICAL TRANSLATOR
W. H. SEMPLE, M.A., Ph.D.
https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m2896&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF
_________________________________________________________
SAINT JEROME AND VERITAS HEBRAICA
ON THE BASIS OF THE CORRESPONDENCE
WITH SAINT AUGUSTINE*
An important result of Jerome’s conversion into veritas hebraica was his
adoption of the Hebrew canon – the list of the books regarded by the Jews as
belonging to the Bible which do not coincide with the canon of the Septuagint
accepted by Church. The intensive biblical studies he was carrying out for many
decades made him believe that irrespective of how radical and revolutionary
his position was, the only correct translation was the one which expressed the
meaning of the Hebrew original. Jerome did not know that the Septuagint was
older than the Hebrew text used in his times because this text was determined
by rabbis only at the end of the 1st century in Jamne or even later. Before that, it was undisputable that the text of LXX was equally authoritative, or even more, as the Hebrew one. And it was so not only in the Christians’ view but also in the Alexandria Jews’ view, who made a legend about its creation: in the times of king Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246), 72 (or 70) translators who had been invited by the king from Jerusalem were to have translated the text identically.
cont.
cont.
At this point it is worth stressing that the selection of the Hebrew original as the basis for translation does not mean that Jerome rejected the whole
value of the Septuagint. He highlighted that he continually drew on it in order
to find the spiritual sense and he used it in liturgy. For this purpose, as
he claimed in the letter to Lucinius, he corrected the text in its entirety and
the Psalter was translated by him separately, besides the translation from the
Hebrew language.
What was essential to him was that refuting the arguments of the Jewish
critics of Christianity could be effective only when the discussion would be
based on such text of the Old Testament which would be regarded as authentic
by both parties. Noticing the differences between the Hebrew and Greek
texts, Christians were prone to say that the Jews had committed frauds. On the
other hand, Jerome wanted to prevent the Jews from levelling charges against
Church which, as they thought, falsified the Bible. We can find the example
of this in the discussions about the Book of Daniel and the story of Susanna
included only in the Greek version. The correspondence on this topic between
Julius Africanus and Origen also bears witness to this.
Of course, in the acceptance of such a position, there were many objections
and controversies. A dilemma arose: should Church agree to the translation
from Hebrew, as Jerome wanted, or should Church defend the canonicity of
the Septuagint, as did, among others, Saint Augustine. The importance of the
Greek text which was better than the Hebrew one was also touched upon by
Rufinus of Aquileia in his interpretation of the Church history by Eusebius:
Jerome also paid attention to the differences between the Hebrew text and
LXX probably while consulting the Origen’s Hexapla. Residing in Bethlehem,
he had an easier access to the Caesarean library where this work was kept.
When he commented upon the books of the Bible, the dependence on Origen
referred him to the first column in the Hexapla; it also helped him to translate
and complement the Onomasticon by Eusebius of Cesarea, which resulted in
such philological works as Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum.
cont.
cont.
Of course, in the acceptance of such a position, there were many objections
and controversies. A dilemma arose: should Church agree to the translation
from Hebrew, as Jerome wanted, or should Church defend the canonicity of
the Septuagint, as did, among others, Saint Augustine...…...
http://www.voxpatrum.pl/pdfy/Vox55/Ozog.pdf
_____________________________________________________
The Vulgate's components include:
Independent translation from the Hebrew by Jerome: the books of the Hebrew Bible, including a translation of the Psalms from the Hebrew which is found in early medieval Vulgate manuscripts but is commonly supplanted by Jerome's Gallican version in later bibles. This was completed in 405.
Free translation from a secondary Aramaic version by Jerome: Tobias and Judith.
Translation from the Greek of Theodotion by Jerome: The three additions to the Book of Daniel; Song of the Three Children, Story of Susanna, and The Idol Bel and the Dragon. The Song of the Three Children was retained within the narrative of Daniel, Susanna was moved by Jerome from before the beginning of Daniel to the end of the book along with Bel and the Dragon. These additions he marked with an obelus to distinguish them from the canonical text.
Translation from the Common Septuagint by Jerome: the Rest of Esther. Jerome gathered all these additions together at the end of the Book of Esther, marking them with an obelus.
Translation from the Hexaplar Septuagint by Jerome: his Gallican version of the Book of Psalms. Jerome's Hexaplaric revisions of other books of Old Testament continued to circulate in Italy for several centuries, but only Job and fragments of other books survive; together with Jerome's prologues to the Hexaplar versions of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs.
Revision of the Old Latin by Jerome: the Gospels, corrected with reference to the best Greek manuscripts Jerome considered available.
Revision of the Old Latin: the Roman Psalter including Psalm 151, undertaken prior to Jerome but continuing in liturgical use, and included in many medieval Vulgate Old Testaments and liturgical psalters.
Revision of the Old Latin by a person or persons unknown, contemporary with Jerome: Acts, Pauline epistles, Catholic epistles and the Apocalypse.
Old Latin, wholly unrevised: Epistle to the Laodiceans, Prayer of Manasses, 4 Esdras, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. The Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah were excluded by Jerome as non-canonical, but sporadically re-admitted into the Vulgate tradition from the Additions to the Book of Jeremiah of the Old Latin from the 9th century onwards.
Independent translation, distinct from the Old Latin; probably of the 3rd century: 3 Esdras,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate
Craig 12:12 AM
Re:Keep in mind that the RCC claims to work from only the (translated by Jerome) Latin.
Is the Vulgate the Catholic Church’s Official Bible?
by Jimmy Akin
…..The Accuracy of the Vulgate
No translation of a lengthy text is able to capture all the nuances found in the original language, and thus no translation is perfect in that sense.
What degree of accuracy does the Church claim for the Vulgate?
Pius XII stated:
[The] special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.
Here the pontiff indicates that the Vulgate was “free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith or morals”—meaning that it contains no theological errors, for these would have been discovered in the long centuries of its use in the Church. It was therefore safe to quote without fear of theological error.
However, this does not mean it is not subject to revision and improvement as a translation of the original languages. Thus Pius XII noted that Trent did not view the Vulgate as authoritative in the Latin Church “particularly for critical reasons.” Indeed, he noted that:
It is historically certain that the Presidents of the Council received a commission, which they duly carried out, to beg, that is, the Sovereign Pontiff in the name of the Council that he should have corrected, as far as possible, first a Latin, and then a Greek, and Hebrew edition, which eventually would be published for the benefit of the Holy Church of God (no. 20).
Thus even at Trent it was asked that a corrected edition of the Vulgate be produced which would improve it as a translation, even though it already contained no theological errors.
In the same way, the Church makes no claims to unalterable perfection for the New Vulgate. The CDW explained:
While constantly defending the inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures as such, the Church has never claimed unalterable perfection for her own officially approved Latin edition of the Scriptures, and has sought to improve that version several times.
It is not to be excluded, and indeed, it is to be expected, that such work continue in the future...…
http://jimmyakin.com/2017/09/is-the-vulgate-the-catholic-churchs-official-bible.html
Craig,
Re: Wow! I need to correct my statement regarding inerrancy/infallibility. The Scriptures as we have them in the Church at large generally are infallible but not totally free from error. My quote just above had it exactly backwards! I've never claimed our Scriptures to be inerrant, but they are infallible.
This is exactly what I have been trying to communicate. Whatever "errors" there are in the Scriptures - no matter whether Catholic or non-Catholic - consist of scribal errors not doctrinal errors. The doctrinal disputes arise mainly though different interpretations of pretty much the same texts - deuterocanonical/apocryphal books of the Old Testament notwithstanding.
Craig 8:00 PM,
I don't disagree with anything you wrote here, but it still didn't answer my philosophical question.
I think I know why you answered the way you did, since I implied giving Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt, and you are building a case that he shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt based on a pattern of his behavior. He does seem to have a pattern of complicity.
My philosophical question remains. I think a few issues can safely be subtracted from it (global climate change scare, population bomb scare). But "the tragedy of the commons" would still be a problem that could hurt the common good. There would still be other examples that are real and not made up.
Don't get me wrong; I don't think that environmental movements are for the most part grassroots. I think they are funded by foundations for the most part. Once in a while there are cases that are truly grassroots, like the Love Canal moms.
So what about the Love Canal moms? And many others.
And what about the creatures and ecosystems that God created, although we know nature is fallen?
J, 11:00 AM
Re: Beautiful story about Mary and John the beloved disciple. This is why I like tradition that was formed close to the history. I think for history alone it should be regarded as valuable by Protestants, even if they don't accept the authority of Tradition with a capital T.
Exactly!
Re: As to (1), since recent discussion was about Mary—and I’ll agree that Protestants tend to diminish her, perhaps as an over-corrective to the RCC—are you aware of (a) the doctrine of Immaculate Conception and (b) the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual sinlessness? As to the former, in 1854 Pope Pius IX declared that Mary was born without original sin, since, Jesus—who, of course, was/is sinless—was born incarnationally of Mary. In other words, she did not inherit the original sin of every other descendant of Adam & Eve so that, according to this understanding, she would not stain Jesus with original sin. But one must wonder how this could be, as, using this same logic, shouldn’t Mary’s mother, in turn, be without original sin so as not to stain Mary; and, similarly, if, as implied in this doctrine, it wasn’t necessary for Mary’s mother to be sinless for Mary’s Immaculate Conception, then why would it be necessary for Mary to be sinless for the Incarnation of the without-original-sin Jesus? And (b), Mary’s perpetual sinlessness, as Pope Pius XII declared, flows from (a). There is no Scripture to authenticate (a), and (b) is contrary to Scripture (Romans 3:9; 2 Cor 5:17-21; Hebrews 4:14-15; 1 John 1:8).
7 Church Fathers on that Profound Insight of Mary as the New Eve
https://churchpop.com/2014/09/11/7-church-fathers-mary-new-eve/
Jesus is referred to in the New Testament as the "New Adam." 1Corinthians 15:45
Since Eve was immaculately conceived and was pure when she accepted the devil's invitation to sin, it was only fitting that Mary should have been immaculately conceived and sinless when she accepted the Archangel Gabriel's invitation to become the mother of the Word made flesh.
The reason why it would not have been necessary for Mary's mother, St. Anne to also be free from Original Sin is because Mary had the unique privilege of being PRE-REDEEMED by the future merits of the Passion Death and Resurrection of her Son, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Many assume that the Immaculate Conception means that Mary did not need Redemption. She did. But since Jesus, as God, is not subject to space and time, he could therefore apply the future merits of the work of Redemption to Mary at the moment of Mary's conception.
The biblical allusion to the Immaculate Conception is in the angelic salutation, "Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." Luke 1:28
The Fall of our first parents resulted in the loss of sanctifying grace. No human being could be said to possess sanctifying grace until the birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is why she was greeted by the Archangel Gabriel with the words "Hail Full of Grace" ( Douay Rheims )
Susanna,
You wrote: This is exactly what I have been trying to communicate. Whatever "errors" there are in the Scriptures - no matter whether Catholic or non-Catholic - consist of scribal errors not doctrinal errors. The doctrinal disputes arise mainly though different interpretations of pretty much the same texts - deuterocanonical/apocryphal books of the Old Testament notwithstanding.
Yes, I understood that point. However, one of the issues I’m addressing with respect to this has to do with the polemics against Protestant Bible translations as found in the preface to the original Douai-Rheims, which was assembled in service to the Catholic Church. The claim in this preface is that the Protestant Bibles of the time were “corrupted translations”. Thus, applying the RCC standard, this implies that these Bibles were fallible “in matters of faith and morals”. Were they? If not, then, even if they did contain more errors than the Vulgate and/or D-R, this should be of no consequence.
The writers of the preface are at pains to proclaim the superiority of the Latin text underlying the original D-R, over against the “fouly corrupted” Hebrew and Greek underlying the Protestant Bibles. While I certainly won’t deny that the latter may have been sourced from the Masoretic text for the OT, the question still remains: what part of the actual translation is contrary to “faith and morals”?
Unless provided actual proof that these early Protestant Bibles are shown to be fallible, I will conclude one of two things: (1) the preface was just a load of hyperventilating hyperbole; (2) the writers of the preface really were proclaiming the Vulgate superior strictly because it was the Vulgate, thus implying anything other than the Vulgate—or at least texts not recognized or sanctioned by the Vatican—to be “corrupted”.
The source you referenced stated: Thus even at Trent it was asked that a corrected edition of the Vulgate be produced which would improve it as a translation, even though it already contained no theological errors.
Then why did the Council anathematize all other Latin translations? Did the RCC read every one of those and determine they were all contrary to “faith and morals”?
The reason why it would not have been necessary for Mary's mother, St. Anne to also be free from Original Sin is because Mary had the unique privilege of being PRE-REDEEMED by the future merits of the Passion Death and Resurrection of her Son, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Many assume that the Immaculate Conception means that Mary did not need Redemption. She did. But since Jesus, as God, is not subject to space and time, he could therefore apply the future merits of the work of Redemption to Mary at the moment of Mary's conception.
Given that we know Jesus was without original sin at His incarnational conception, then, applying the same logic as above, it would be unnecessary for Mary to be Immaculately Conceived.
Also, if this doctrine were to be true, then we’d expect an ‘except for Mary’ clause in 1 John 1:8.
J does not need to "commit" to any denomination! She only needs to be committed to Christ.
After being involved with the WWCC and its scandals, it would not be in her, or her OCD son's best interest to join the biggest repititious cult on earth!
If J believes Christ is the Son of the Heavenly Father, and that His death on the cross is enough to cover our sins, then she is a member of the true church! If she feels a need for religious ritual, then she might be still in bondage to a religious spirit?
Why don't you guys just email back and forth, or whatever? Your hogging the blog with long boring drivel, that few, if any, really care about!
WWCG not WWCC, sorry
"Why don't you guys just email back and forth, or whatever? Your hogging the blog with long boring drivel, that few, if any, really care about!"
Yeah, same for Craig and Susanna.
Sorry, not trying to be rude, but when discussions get that long and drawn out between a couple (or really small circle) of people then they should take their conversation to their own private emails since they are talking to each other and not to blogworld with current topics from Constance or other news, but sideline opinions or whatever.
It's a lot to wade through even collapsed and other things get lost in their shuffle.
Post a Comment