 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 893 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 03:00 pm |
|
I received these questions from a famly member and really did not have any idea how to answer them. Can someone help me answer?
Brian, I was reading the Gospel of John and the supporting footnotes in the Catholic Bible. Regarding the adulterous woman who was about to be stoned except for Jesus saying "Let He without sin cast the first stone," the footnote indicated the story had not been included in the Greek texts. It appeared to be added in writing similar to the writing in Luke by the Western church in Latin translations and later canonized.
Three questions: 1) I wonder why St Jerome would have included stories not from the original Greek or Hebrew, aside from the Septuagint?
2) Am I correct to say that the books that comprise the "hidden" Apocrypha are all from the Septuagint? 3) What does "hidden" or "hidden meaning" really imply in your opinion?
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2429 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 04:12 pm |
|
A footnote in the New American Bible reads, in part:
The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts: here, or after Jn 7:36, or at the end of this gospel, or after Lk 21:38, or at the end of that gospel. There are many non-Johannine features in the language, and there are also many doubtful readings within the passage. The style and motifs are similar to those of Luke, and it fits better with the general situation at the end of Lk 21.
I assume this is the footnote to which your inquiring relative refers.
From other sources, I have discovered that this note is “sort of” correct. The phrase “all early Greek manuscripts” is misleading. It is true that the earliest Greek manuscripts do not have this episode; but many later ones do. So it is not as if no Greek manuscripts contain this episode.
Is it an interpolation? Most probably it is, and many scholars point to St. Luke as the probable author. Regardless, it is of apostolic origin and is accepted by the Catholic Church as an inspired part of the bible. This is not unique. The last chapter of the Gospel According to Mark has a similar history, as does the last chapter of the Gospel According to John.
Here is what the Navarre Bible Commentary says concerning the text of the episode of the woman taken in adultery:
This passage is absent from many ancient codexes, but it was in the Vulgate when the Magisterium, at the Council of Trent, defined the canon of Sacred Scripture. Therefore, the Church regards it as canonical and inspired, and has used it and continues to use it in the liturgy.…
St. Augustine said that the reason doubts were raised about the passage was that it showed Jesus to be so merciful that some rigorists thought it would lead to a relaxation of moral rules — and therefore many copyists suppressed it from their manuscripts (cf. De coniugiis adulterinis, 2, 6).
Regarding the deuterocanonical books (which your inquirer calls “apocrypha”): Yes, they are all to be found in the Septuagint. This pre-Christian Greek version of the scriptures became the de facto Christian sourcebook for the liturgy outside Palestine beginning in apostolic times, and books from the Christian tradition were added to it as each bishop saw fit until the canon of scripture was established at the end of the 4th century. The vast majority of scriptural quotations in the New Testament are in fact from the Septuagint.
Since the Catholic Church does not call the deuterocanonical books “apocrypha” (this is a Jewish and Protestant term), the inquirer’s third question is not apropos. It should be directed to those who actually use the term.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 893 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 06:07 pm |
|
I thought there were at least some deuterocanonicals that we do have some versions of in Hebrew as well? My question then is, are all the books that are Deuteroncanonicals only the ones that are in Greek and not Hebrew, or are there some that we would find Hebrew sources of outside the Septuagint.
Also, are you saying that you really do not know the answer of the third question from a non-Catholic perspective? or you just do not wish to give one so as to give creedence to a term we do not accept? Why not speculate on the matter?
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2429 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10th, 2007 09:40 pm |
|
I thought there were at least some deuterocanonicals that we do have some versions of in Hebrew as well?
The (non-inspired) prologue to the book of Sirach was written by the author’s grandson, who had translated the book from Hebrew into Greek. If I recall correctly, the Hebrew text is partially preserved. However, the deuterocanonical books as a whole have come down to us through the Septuagint, and it is known that several of them were originally composed in Greek.
Also, are you saying that you really do not know the answer of the third question from a non-Catholic perspective? or you just do not wish to give one so as to give credence to a term we do not accept?
The latter, for the onus is on those who use the term to prove that their view is correct before we admit their terminology.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 893 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12th, 2007 06:14 am |
|
David W. Emery wrote: This passage is absent from many ancient codexes, but it was in the Vulgate when the Magisterium, at the Council of Trent, defined the canon of Sacred Scripture. Therefore, the Church regards it as canonical and inspired, and has used it and continues to use it in the liturgy.…
I thought we adamantly have established that the canon of Scripture was long established before the council of Trent. How is this statement above to be understood that Trent defined the canon of Scripture? Was there no Scripture officially until this time? I thought and have seen that there were indeed prior defined canons. Wouldn't a statement like this give some creedence to the objection that we added the Deuterocanonical books at Trent? Did Trent change anything? Was the passage in question in the Vulgate before Scripture was first canonized in the fourth century? Was Trent simply dogmatically defining the canon because it had come into question? But even if it were would it not hold that the earlier councils were infallible and had already defined the canon and Trent was just clarifying?
Brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2429 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12th, 2007 09:46 am |
|
Was Trent simply dogmatically defining the canon because it had come into question? But even if it were would it not hold that the earlier councils were infallible and had already defined the canon and Trent was just clarifying?
This is the correct answer. There is no contradiction, no hidden agenda.
Most of the time, Brian, you eventually get your mind around things and understand them without others intervening. In this case, you had all the facts, and after a few minutes of thought, everything fell into place. No need to get flustered, then, is there?
To lay it all out succinctly for the benefit of other readers: The earlier councils, ratified by the pope, legitimately established the canon of scripture as a doctrine of the Catholic Church. But because they were not ecumenical councils, they could not declare this doctrine as a dogma (the highest and most formal level of infallibility). Later on, the Protestant Reformation occasioned the Council of Trent, which was indeed an ecumenical council, and its pronouncement did indeed elevate the doctrine concerning the canon of scripture to the level of dogma. The same books were enumerated in each of these councils, including Trent, so there was no change in doctrine. The only difference was the level of authority.
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12th, 2007 11:20 am |
|
I received these questions from a famly member and really did not have any idea how to answer them. Can someone help me answer?
I'll give it a go.
Brian, I was reading the Gospel of John and the supporting footnotes in the Catholic Bible. Regarding the adulterous woman who was about to be stoned except for Jesus saying "Let He without sin cast the first stone," the footnote indicated the story had not been included in the Greek texts. It appeared to be added in writing similar to the writing in Luke by the Western church in Latin translations and later canonized.
True. Whats the problem?
Three questions: 1) I wonder why St Jerome would have included stories not from the original Greek or Hebrew, aside from the Septuagint?
You are confused.
A. the footnote says nothing about the Hebrew. It says it was not included in the original GREEK texts. Although the oldest New Testament manuscripts we have are written in Greek, we also have evidence that some were written in Hebrew and Aramaic. But we no longer have the originals in those languages. The closest rival to the Greek is the Aramaic Peshitta text. As far as I know, this story is in that Newt Testament.
B. you are asking a question about a story in a New Testament Gospel and mixing in the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. It has nothing to do with the New Testament.
2) Am I correct to say that the books that comprise the "hidden" Apocrypha are all from the Septuagint?
A. Not for Catholics. The Catholic Apocrypha are the books popularly called, "the gospels that didn't make into the Bible". They are heretical and spurious accounts of our Lords life by authors unknown which frequently contain error. An example is the "Gospel of Judas".
B. The Protestant apocrypha is the Catholic second canon, the Deuterocanonicals. These are the seven Old Testament books which Martin Luther removed from the Bible. These are all found in the Septuagint. The story of the adulterous woman is not found there because it is a Gospel story. You will find no direct mention of Jesus in the Old Testament.
3) What does "hidden" or "hidden meaning" really imply in your opinion?
Concerning the Catholic Apocrypha, the term "hidden" means that the Church kept them from Her children to prevent them from falling into error.
Concerning the Protestant Apocrypha, I suppose that Martin Luther "hid" them from his followers to prevent them from seeing that the Catholic second canon contained doctrinal material which he squarely contradicted.
I hope that helps.
Juan
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 893 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12th, 2007 01:36 pm |
|
Thank you for your help. I wonder what the difference is between the early council and ecumenical councils? The Orthodox never had the Council of Trent so why do they accept the early councils as authoritative? Do they not use the term dogma like we do? I would think that even if there were no council of Trent we could have said that the canon of Scripture already was proclaimed as a matter of faith. Anyway, just so you know, the inquirer is my father who is a new Catholic. In case that helps you put the conversation in context or tells you how I should respond. He has sent me a follow up to your first answer that I sent him. I do not mean to ask others to do my work for me, but this is a subject that I really know very little about how to handle. So could you try to reply to his reply or the concerns of it. Here it is.
Brian, According to Wikipedia (which edits contributors and their contributions from all sides of any topic), St Jerome first used the word Apocrypha (see attachment)--so I'd still hope for an answer to my third question. The word Deuterocanonical may have been coined by the Council of Trent following Luther's 95 Tenets and, henceforth, the word used by the Catholic Church. Also, I don't understand why someone would say the Septuagint provides most of the scriptural quotations used in the New Testament? We were discussing the Old Testament. Is your source referring to scriptural quotations which fulfilled Old Testament prophesy, or is he saying the Protestants are trying to have it both ways--respect for the Septuagint in the New Testament, but not the Old Testament. I suspect the latter. I'm more interested in the evolution of the Bible. Your comment "Regardless, it is of apostolic origin and accepted by the Church as an inspired part of the Bible" sweeps the evolution of the Bible under the rug. The writers of Luke and John (or St Luke and St John if you think they were the actual writers) may have been apostolic, but what was considered inspired were prayerful determinations hundreds of years later. In other words, the adulterous woman may not have been included in St Jerome's original translation. If, in the end, the Bible is a craft of hundreds of years by the "Early Church" so be it. It is interesting to me, however, that the Early Church consisted of many generations. I suppose it is testimony to the Central Authority or Papacy of the institution, and I shouldn't try to hang my case exclusively on any given Saint or piece of work when I have discussions with Protestants.
Luther evidently didn't see all the Early Church decisions as infallible if he challenged parts of the Bible. Was he ex-communicated?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Vulgate
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12th, 2007 04:32 pm |
|
Thank you for your help.
I don't know if you're talking to me but "you're welcome."
I wonder what the difference is between the early council and ecumenical councils?
An ecumenical council is distinguished by other councils in that the entire church is represented. There are some "early" ecumenical councils. But the Bible was not discussed in those.
The Orthodox never had the Council of Trent so why do they accept the early councils as authoritative?
Because their particular branch of the Church was represented.
Do they not use the term dogma like we do?
I believe they do, but I'm not certain. The reason I do is because they hold some dogmas in common with us, such as the Holy Trinity and the Eucharist.
I would think that even if there were no council of Trent we could have said that the canon of Scripture already was proclaimed as a matter of faith.
That is what I always say when I have an apologetic discussion with someone concerning the Scriptures.
Anyway, just so you know, the inquirer is my father who is a new Catholic. In case that helps you put the conversation in context or tells you how I should respond. He has sent me a follow up to your first answer that I sent him. I do not mean to ask others to do my work for me, but this is a subject that I really know very little about how to handle. So could you try to reply to his reply or the concerns of it. Here it is.
Brian, According to Wikipedia (which edits contributors and their contributions from all sides of any topic), St Jerome first used the word Apocrypha (see attachment)-
I didn't realize that Luther had borrowed that custom from St. Jerome. St. Jerome, is the only one of the Catholic Church Fathers who uses that word to apply to the Deuterocanon. It is an error by St. Jerome. St. Jerome is also not the one who coined the term. The term has always been used by Catholics to apply to external books that do not belong in the Bible. These "apocrypha" existed before St. Jerome was born. Origen used the word "apocrypha" 100 years before St. Jerome.
De scripturis his, quae appellantur apocryphae, pro eo quod multa in iis corrupta et contra fidem veram inveniuntur a majoribus tradita non placuit iis dari locum nec admitti ad auctoritatem.
I believe we have discussed in this forum, that St. Jerome did not consider those books canonical but accepted them out of obedience to the Church. As proof, his Vulgate contains all of them.
-so I'd still hope for an answer to my third question. The word Deuterocanonical may have been coined by the Council of Trent following Luther's 95 Tenets and, henceforth, the word used by the Catholic Church.
The word was coined was coined after the Council of Trent, but the Deuterocanon was always accepted by the Catholic Church.
Pope Gelaisus called it the Order of the Histories in his "decretum".
3. LIKEWISE THE ORDER OF THE HISTORIES: Job one book
Tobit one book
Esdras two books
Ester one book
Judith one book
Maccabees two books
Also, I don't understand why someone would say the Septuagint provides most of the scriptural quotations used in the New Testament?
The New Testament quotes frequently from the Old Testament and (for simplicity sake) there are two Old Testaments. The Greek (Septuagint) and the Hebrew. All the New Testament quotations come from the Greek. Even though the Greek is a translation of the Hebrew. Make any sense yet?
We were discussing the Old Testament. Is your source referring to scriptural quotations which fulfilled Old Testament prophesy,
Some, but not all. Many nonprophetic quotations were used also and they came from the Septuagint.
or is he saying the Protestants are trying to have it both ways--respect for the Septuagint in the New Testament, but not the Old Testament.
I have never met a Protestant who admits that the Septuagint was ever quoted in the New Testament. But I really don't know to what you refer.
I suspect the latter. I'm more interested in the evolution of the Bible.
Then its time to begin studying. I believe we have an authority on this board:
gmichuta
You might want to pm him and pick his brains. If I'm not mistaken, he has an excellent website directed at this topic. I couldn't find it however.
Your comment "Regardless, it is of apostolic origin and accepted by the Church as an inspired part of the Bible" sweeps the evolution of the Bible under the rug.
How exactly?
The writers of Luke and John (or St Luke and St John if you think they were the actual writers)
I do.
may have been apostolic, but what was considered inspired were prayerful determinations hundreds of years later.
What exactly does that mean? Do you have some sort of proof?
In other words, the adulterous woman may not have been included in St Jerome's original translation.
Are you speculating? Based on what?
If, in the end, the Bible is a craft of hundreds of years by the "Early Church" so be it.
Are you saying that the Early Church made up the Bible?
It is interesting to me, however, that the Early Church consisted of many generations. I suppose it is testimony to the Central Authority or Papacy of the institution, and I shouldn't try to hang my case exclusively on any given Saint or piece of work when I have discussions with Protestants.
Sounds like sound thinking.
Luther evidently didn't see all the Early Church decisions as infallible if he challenged parts of the Bible. Was he ex-communicated?
Yes, he was ex-communicated.
Your dad is asking for quite specific information. You might want to begin studying the history of the Bible together. That way, instead of him using you as some sort of authority, which puts a lot of pressure on you, you can both research this stuff together and compare answers.
Interesting conversation.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Current time is 07:23 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
