OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 09:42:00 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why Not Douay English Speaking Orthodox?  (Read 3352 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,936


Ice cream for sale! 14 and under only, please!


« on: December 16, 2013, 09:15:41 PM »

So I was just wondering why English speaking Orthodox seem to use the KJV and not the Douay. I know the OCA uses the New King James Version and I do have a family KJV. As a traditional Catholic I pretty much thought "Protestant Bibles" worthy of burning and even burned some in my zeal. My patron is Thomas More, so I thought he would approve if you have read about his zeal against Protestantism in England before Henry's schism. I remember burning one of those you can find in a hotel room. I actually think the KJV is good as a fan of English literature, given its deep influence on English literature and language. I have been reading the Jerusalem translation, a Catholic translation closer to the original which began with a desire of Pius XII to have a new translation into the vernacular based on the more original texts and languages. I actually like the Jerusalem a lot though I did give a look at the KJV for the sake of English literature when reading Job for my class and I must admit the language is much more beautiful, even if the Jerusalem is closer to the original.

Anyway, why do Western Orthodox use the "Protestant" translations for English rather than the "Roman Catholic" translations. I've always read the Douay and Jerusalem myself since becoming Catholic but is there a particular reason the New King James is used rather than some "Catholic" translation.

And on a personal level what is your favourite translation for personal use? Just curious.

I prefer the Jerusalem for being more accurate to the original, but I do like the King James Version for it's literary beauty and influence and I suppose still like the Douay.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2013, 10:37:39 PM »

Anyway, why do Western Orthodox use the "Protestant" translations for English rather than the "Roman Catholic" translations. I've always read the Douay and Jerusalem myself since becoming Catholic but is there a particular reason the New King James is used rather than some "Catholic" translation.

If, by "Western Orthodox", you simply mean Orthodox Christians in the West, I suspect it might have to do with the fact that "Protestant" translations like the (N)KJV are translations from Greek and not from Latin (e.g., Douay-Rheims, Knox).  Perhaps Western Rite Orthodox use these latter translations more regularly, but that's just a guess. 

Quote
And on a personal level what is your favourite translation for personal use? Just curious.

My default is the RSV.  For study purposes, I will compare it with the NASB, NKJV, Knox, Jerusalem, JPS (OT only), and Greek and Syriac if I need/want to be really thorough.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2013, 10:43:50 PM »

Most "official" Bible translations used in American archdioceses are bastardized--using one English translation or other as a base and then editing them to conform to the Greek. There has yet to be a truly official, blessed Orthodox English translation.

Some Orthodox use the Douay-Rheims, but this translation has its own problems. Some editions have Roman Catholic interpolations. There are also discrepancies between the Vulgate (of whatever version) and the Septuagint OT and Greek NT (of whatever version).
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
FormerCalvinist
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2013, 10:51:10 PM »

... As a traditional Catholic I pretty much thought "Protestant Bibles" worthy of burning and even burned some in my zeal. My patron is Thomas More, so I thought he would approve if you have read about his zeal against Protestantism in England before Henry's schism. I remember burning one of those you can find in a hotel room ...

The Catechism of Pope Pius X recommends burning Protestant Bibles as well.

Quote
32 Q. What should a Christian do who has been given a Bible by a Protestant or by an agent of the Protestants?

A. A Christian to whom a Bible has been offered by a Protestant or an agent of the Protestants should reject it with disgust, because it is forbidden by the Church. If it was accepted by inadvertence, it must be burnt as soon as possible or handed in to the Parish Priest.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/catechsm/piusxcat.htm#Virtues
Logged
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,361



« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2013, 01:44:54 PM »


Anyway, why do Western Orthodox use the "Protestant" translations for English rather than the "Roman Catholic" translations. I've always read the Douay and Jerusalem myself since becoming Catholic but is there a particular reason the New King James is used rather than some "Catholic" translation.
Why should we prefer a "Catholic" translation?

Translation is an inexact art, no matter who is doing it.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,337


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2013, 01:56:37 PM »

In English-speaking "western" christian tradition, Protestants simply printed more Bibles.  Which, more than likely, are KJV or derivatives thereof.  To this day, I have never held a Douay translation of the Bible in my hands.  I can trip over a KJV even in a hotel.
Logged

Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2013, 02:29:09 PM »

In English-speaking "western" christian tradition, Protestants simply printed more Bibles.  Which, more than likely, are KJV or derivatives thereof.  To this day, I have never held a Douay translation of the Bible in my hands.  I can trip over a KJV even in a hotel.

I'm not a big fan of the Douay-Rheims.  I would say I prefer the KJV over it, but that's not saying much.  I appreciate the beauty of the language, but I can't really use it profitably for Bible study (even for devotional reading, the only benefit it affords me is that it forces me to read more slowly, but that can be done without the KJV if you practice discipline). 

The so-called Confraternity version, however, which was a revision of Challoner's revision of the DR, is another story.  That's a Roman Catholic translation I enjoy reading.  It's too bad it didn't get completed and that the NAB (ugh!) took its place.   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,337


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2013, 02:39:27 PM »

In English-speaking "western" christian tradition, Protestants simply printed more Bibles.  Which, more than likely, are KJV or derivatives thereof.  To this day, I have never held a Douay translation of the Bible in my hands.  I can trip over a KJV even in a hotel.

I'm not a big fan of the Douay-Rheims.  I would say I prefer the KJV over it, but that's not saying much.  I appreciate the beauty of the language, but I can't really use it profitably for Bible study (even for devotional reading, the only benefit it affords me is that it forces me to read more slowly, but that can be done without the KJV if you practice discipline). 

The so-called Confraternity version, however, which was a revision of Challoner's revision of the DR, is another story.  That's a Roman Catholic translation I enjoy reading.  It's too bad it didn't get completed and that the NAB (ugh!) took its place.   

I've been using my RSV for study, but I like reading my KJV Bible.  I was an English Lit major, so I enjoy early modern English and believe it is lovely; and it does make me concentrate on what's written, since, every now and then, I have to pull out a dictionary.

I also use the Psalter for Prayer, which is an adaptation of Coverdale's translation of the Bible.  I love reading it out loud.
Logged

Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2013, 02:47:50 PM »

I also use the Psalter for Prayer, which is an adaptation of Coverdale's translation of the Bible.  I love reading it out loud.

I really hope Jordanville will put out a smaller version of this book, even if a lot of the "extra" material has to be omitted in favour of printing only the psalms and canticles.  I would use it more often, but I can't afford an analogion.  Tongue
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,337


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2013, 02:51:00 PM »

I also use the Psalter for Prayer, which is an adaptation of Coverdale's translation of the Bible.  I love reading it out loud.

I really hope Jordanville will put out a smaller version of this book, even if a lot of the "extra" material has to be omitted in favour of printing only the psalms and canticles.  I would use it more often, but I can't afford an analogion.  Tongue

Hahaha, I know what you mean.  The text is just the right size, but the book itself is cumbersome.  I can't take it to work or anywhere without getting a few odd looks.
Logged

Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,025


"My god is greater."


« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2013, 03:28:21 PM »

I also use the Psalter for Prayer, which is an adaptation of Coverdale's translation of the Bible.  I love reading it out loud.

I really hope Jordanville will put out a smaller version of this book, even if a lot of the "extra" material has to be omitted in favour of printing only the psalms and canticles.  I would use it more often, but I can't afford an analogion.  Tongue

David James says they are considering either A) simply publishing a smaller version of the psalter or B) stuffing the psalter and the Jordanville prayerbook into one handy volume.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,039


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2013, 03:29:47 PM »

I may be interested in the second one. It would be nice not to have to carry around two books but just one instead.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2013, 03:34:56 PM »

David James says they are considering either A) simply publishing a smaller version of the psalter or B) stuffing the psalter and the Jordanville prayerbook into one handy volume.

Both are great ideas, but I'd be pretty excited about B). 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,855



« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2013, 03:35:08 PM »

I remember burning one of those you can find in a hotel room.

I hope you have confessed this sacriledge.

... As a traditional Catholic I pretty much thought "Protestant Bibles" worthy of burning and even burned some in my zeal. My patron is Thomas More, so I thought he would approve if you have read about his zeal against Protestantism in England before Henry's schism. I remember burning one of those you can find in a hotel room ...

The Catechism of Pope Pius X recommends burning Protestant Bibles as well.

Quote
32 Q. What should a Christian do who has been given a Bible by a Protestant or by an agent of the Protestants?

A. A Christian to whom a Bible has been offered by a Protestant or an agent of the Protestants should reject it with disgust, because it is forbidden by the Church. If it was accepted by inadvertence, it must be burnt as soon as possible or handed in to the Parish Priest.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/catechsm/piusxcat.htm#Virtues

« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 03:37:25 PM by Alpo » Logged

xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2013, 03:36:53 PM »

Anyway, why do Western Orthodox use the "Protestant" translations for English rather than the "Roman Catholic" translations. I've always read the Douay and Jerusalem myself since becoming Catholic but is there a particular reason the New King James is used rather than some "Catholic" translation.

If, by "Western Orthodox", you simply mean Orthodox Christians in the West, I suspect it might have to do with the fact that "Protestant" translations like the (N)KJV are translations from Greek and not from Latin (e.g., Douay-Rheims, Knox).  Perhaps Western Rite Orthodox use these latter translations more regularly, but that's just a guess. 

Quote
And on a personal level what is your favourite translation for personal use? Just curious.

My default is the RSV.  For study purposes, I will compare it with the NASB, NKJV, Knox, Jerusalem, JPS (OT only), and Greek and Syriac if I need/want to be really thorough.

Yup, I think Mor is right on this one. The Latin New Testament's Western-type readings are looked at in suspicion, whereas the Byzantine-type used in the KJV is the default for the Eastern Orthodox. I wouldn't get rid of Protestant Bibles unless they were like the anti-Catholic type ones that I had. I like the ESV, it's a good translation.

I generally read the Scriptures online, so I don't really have a preference; unless it's those dynamic equivalence ones.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 03:38:18 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 17, 2013, 03:41:38 PM »

I generally read the Scriptures online...

Ugh!  Tongue
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,025


"My god is greater."


« Reply #16 on: December 17, 2013, 03:57:35 PM »

David James says they are considering either A) simply publishing a smaller version of the psalter or B) stuffing the psalter and the Jordanville prayerbook into one handy volume.

Both are great ideas, but I'd be pretty excited about B). 

Pardon me if you already explained this before, but are you currently attending an EO or Indian Orthodox parish? What's your take on the EO/OO divide anyway?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,936


Ice cream for sale! 14 and under only, please!


« Reply #17 on: December 17, 2013, 04:03:30 PM »

Yeah, and I did it all with a clean conscious, though now I am not sure burning a Protestant translation was right. But hey St. Pius X said to do it and my patron would have done it as he burned Protestants with joy, too. Of course even the Protestant minister Jonathan Swift said that Thomas More was the greatest man to ever be known in England, if not for his zeal for Rome for his natural virtues and bravery. Whatever one thinks of Thomas More's zeal for burning Protestants, I think it is hard to deny his bravery in upholding his principles even in fear of death. In any case I have the King James version and the Vulgate on my phone. Of course I do not think Catholics have to get rid of Protestant Bible's any more, though I suppose radical Catholic traditionalists would say they do. I argued with some trad friends who still think you have to get permission from your parish priest to read a book on the Index, which of course was done away with by the pope himself. Of course this is one of the problems for Catholic trad--they listen to the pope when it pleases their view of "tradition", but when it  does not they choose not to. I was Catholic then and simply said it might be good not to read those book, but if school or some desire to read them to understand the idiots who wrote these books was you desire you needed not permission. It's not a sin, but can lead to sin and be careful was my view. They thought it was a mortal sin though.

« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 04:05:10 PM by wainscottbl » Logged
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,936


Ice cream for sale! 14 and under only, please!


« Reply #18 on: December 17, 2013, 04:11:44 PM »

By the way I think the biggest danger in Protestant translations from a Catholic point of view is that the footnotes and commentary may have a very Protestant sense of theology which may even be danger to Orthodox Christian theology, especially the more ridiculous modern translations by Protestants. But the same on more modern Catholic translations can be said. The King James Version and other more sensible Protestant translations are usually not bad in themselves. Like I have read the King James in college classes and I do not think, as some trad Catholic may, that I needed to get permission. In fact I will be reading some of the Koran next semester and wait till we get to Marx! Of course, interestingly, Marx is not on the Index. I told a trad friend who thinks reading books on the Index is a sin without permission and he said, "Still dangerous to read."
    "Yeah, maybe. Marx gave a lot of grief to the world, but he made some good points and all the bad ones he made need to be understood. It does not help that right wingers call anyone a Marxist who thinks we need to seriously reform the healthcare system. After all what is Marxism? Well to know that it helps to read what Marx said, not just what Rush Limbaugh says he said."
Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,337


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 17, 2013, 04:14:51 PM »

I also use the Psalter for Prayer, which is an adaptation of Coverdale's translation of the Bible.  I love reading it out loud.

I really hope Jordanville will put out a smaller version of this book, even if a lot of the "extra" material has to be omitted in favour of printing only the psalms and canticles.  I would use it more often, but I can't afford an analogion.  Tongue

David James says they are considering either A) simply publishing a smaller version of the psalter or B) stuffing the psalter and the Jordanville prayerbook into one handy volume.

I don't think one volume would be that much handy.
Logged

Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 17, 2013, 04:19:14 PM »

Pardon me if you already explained this before, but are you currently attending an EO or Indian Orthodox parish? What's your take on the EO/OO divide anyway?

Seriously?  Tongue
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #21 on: December 17, 2013, 04:25:08 PM »

King James commissioned the KJV in opposition to the Calvinists, so most of the problems of Protestantism won't show up in it.  Conversely, the Douay Version was made to teach Ultramontanism, so its errors are there, including St. Jerome's error of using the Hebrew, the real problem with all these translations.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,025


"My god is greater."


« Reply #22 on: December 17, 2013, 04:29:52 PM »

Pardon me if you already explained this before, but are you currently attending an EO or Indian Orthodox parish? What's your take on the EO/OO divide anyway?

Seriously?  Tongue

I'm just curious. You don't have to respond if it's annoying.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #23 on: December 17, 2013, 04:32:30 PM »

Burning books is barbaric.

Anyway, AFAIK there's no "official" Orthodox translation.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 04:33:14 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,942


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #24 on: December 17, 2013, 05:00:06 PM »

In English-speaking "western" christian tradition, Protestants simply printed more Bibles.  Which, more than likely, are KJV or derivatives thereof.  To this day, I have never held a Douay translation of the Bible in my hands.  I can trip over a KJV even in a hotel.

I'm not a big fan of the Douay-Rheims.  I would say I prefer the KJV over it, but that's not saying much.  I appreciate the beauty of the language, but I can't really use it profitably for Bible study (even for devotional reading, the only benefit it affords me is that it forces me to read more slowly, but that can be done without the KJV if you practice discipline). 

The so-called Confraternity version, however, which was a revision of Challoner's revision of the DR, is another story.  That's a Roman Catholic translation I enjoy reading.  It's too bad it didn't get completed and that the NAB (ugh!) took its place.   
The Confraternity did actually finish the OT, it just never published all the books in one volume as Samuel to Maccabees wasn't finished until 1969 and the NAB was coming out the next year.  It is my favorite as well.  One thing I found interesting is the Revised NAB went back to many of the Confraternity's translation choices.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #25 on: December 17, 2013, 05:02:19 PM »

Burning books is barbaric.

Except when it happens in the New Testament?  police
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Gamliel
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,212



« Reply #26 on: December 17, 2013, 05:25:36 PM »

The originalDouay has a lot of literal translations of the Latin in it, and it hard to read.  Challoner revised it around 1752, but borrowed heavily from the KJV.  Would it benefit us to read Challoner's edition? /shrug. Huh
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 05:26:23 PM by Gamliel » Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #27 on: December 17, 2013, 05:26:45 PM »

King James commissioned the KJV in opposition to the Calvinists, so most of the problems of Protestantism won't show up in it.  Conversely, the Douay Version was made to teach Ultramontanism, so its errors are there, including St. Jerome's error of using the Hebrew, the real problem with all these translations.

Error of using Hebrew? The original language of the old testament?  I prefer the septuagint but at the same time it must be admitted that the Greek can sometimes be controversial as sometimes it differed with its Hebrew counterparts.

FYI the Hebrew text St.Jerome used is not the same as the masoretic script used today  
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #28 on: December 17, 2013, 05:32:12 PM »

King James commissioned the KJV in opposition to the Calvinists, so most of the problems of Protestantism won't show up in it.  Conversely, the Douay Version was made to teach Ultramontanism, so its errors are there, including St. Jerome's error of using the Hebrew, the real problem with all these translations.

Error of using Hebrew? The original language of the old testament?  I prefer the septuagint but at the same time it must be admitted that the Greek can sometimes be controversial as sometimes it differed with its Hebrew counterparts.

Where it differs preference should be given to the Septuagint.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
FormerCalvinist
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #29 on: December 17, 2013, 05:33:07 PM »

The KJV translators on the original Douay-Rheims translation:

Quote
Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put WASHING for BAPTISM, and CONGREGATION instead of CHURCH: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.

http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/pref10.htm
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #30 on: December 17, 2013, 05:41:00 PM »

Burning books is barbaric.

Anyway, AFAIK there's no "official" Orthodox translation.
In English, no, but the Oxford Revised Standard got approval from all the Orthodox authorities in GB.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,025


"My god is greater."


« Reply #31 on: December 17, 2013, 05:41:57 PM »

I can't speak to the RSV's accuracy, but stylistically I hate it.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #32 on: December 17, 2013, 05:42:15 PM »

King James commissioned the KJV in opposition to the Calvinists, so most of the problems of Protestantism won't show up in it.  Conversely, the Douay Version was made to teach Ultramontanism, so its errors are there, including St. Jerome's error of using the Hebrew, the real problem with all these translations.

Error of using Hebrew? The original language of the old testament?  I prefer the septuagint but at the same time it must be admitted that the Greek can sometimes be controversial as sometimes it differed with its Hebrew counterparts.

FYI the Hebrew text St.Jerome used is not the same as the masoretic script used today  
It's not, compounding the error.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 17, 2013, 05:54:58 PM »

I'm just curious. You don't have to respond if it's annoying.

No, it's not annoying, I'm just surprised you had a doubt.  I attend an OO parish (not Indian, currently too far away), visiting an EO church from time to time.  As for my take on the division, that's probably better done in another thread, but basically, I think it is an instance where what is bound on earth is loosed in heaven.   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 17, 2013, 05:58:55 PM »

The Confraternity did actually finish the OT, it just never published all the books in one volume as Samuel to Maccabees wasn't finished until 1969 and the NAB was coming out the next year.  It is my favorite as well.  One thing I found interesting is the Revised NAB went back to many of the Confraternity's translation choices.

I didn't know that, thanks!  Can the entire Confraternity Bible be purchased anywhere?  Or at least "the missing books"? 

I have very little to say about the NAB that is good, but I will say this much: its translation of Luke 9.31 is easily my favourite out of all English translations, whatever its inelegance. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 17, 2013, 05:59:52 PM »

I can't speak to the RSV's accuracy, but stylistically I hate it.

May I ask why? 

And what translation do you prefer?  And why?  Smiley
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Laird
Not yet able to attend an Orthodox church
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer (Catechumen soon hopefully)
Jurisdiction: Baptist
Posts: 287


Lord, have mercy on me


« Reply #36 on: December 17, 2013, 06:18:54 PM »

The KJV/NKJV translation is a very good Anglican translation, a time when the Church of England was very much Catholic, so there is not as much a concern for Protestant bias such as in the NIV or some other modern Protestant/Evangelical translation.

I've also always liked the ESV. A literal translation that is in modern, readable English. Have any of you guys seen the EOB? It looks like a pretty good Orthodox translation.

Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,025


"My god is greater."


« Reply #37 on: December 17, 2013, 06:35:18 PM »

I'm just curious. You don't have to respond if it's annoying.

No, it's not annoying, I'm just surprised you had a doubt. 

I ask because you seem to be moving comfortably between the two communions (e.g. attending SVOTS, showing interest in a ROCOR psalter)

Quote
I attend an OO parish (not Indian, currently too far away), visiting an EO church from time to time.  As for my take on the division, that's probably better done in another thread, but basically, I think it is an instance where what is bound on earth is loosed in heaven.   

Fair enough. Thanks for answering.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,936


Ice cream for sale! 14 and under only, please!


« Reply #38 on: December 17, 2013, 08:03:15 PM »

Yeah I came from a Mormon mentality that the King James is the ONLY version, and yet it's wrong. Joe Smith translated some stuff "properly" but it's in it's own little book, as if it's not important enough for Smith to offer his faithful an "accurate" translation given to him by the holy seeing hat. Then pretty soon went into trad Catholicism where it's pretty much the Douay, though I have noticed the English translation of the readings that the priest would give were different in my translation in the missal. I am not sure what the translation is for the Latin Mass readings. So it's good to get all this insight on translation and the problems with it. I think that is one reason Pius XII wanted a more direct translation rather than from the Vulgate.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #39 on: December 17, 2013, 08:13:55 PM »

I also use the Psalter for Prayer, which is an adaptation of Coverdale's translation of the Bible.  I love reading it out loud.

I really hope Jordanville will put out a smaller version of this book, even if a lot of the "extra" material has to be omitted in favour of printing only the psalms and canticles.  I would use it more often, but I can't afford an analogion.  Tongue

I have it, but don't like it, mostly because I find Coverdale weird and attempts to Orthodoxize it weirder. But it's available on Kindle, if you have the device or the app.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #40 on: December 17, 2013, 08:15:30 PM »

I generally read the Scriptures online...

Ugh!  Tongue

Sort of like emails from God.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #41 on: December 17, 2013, 08:16:17 PM »

Pardon me if you already explained this before, but are you currently attending an EO or Indian Orthodox parish? What's your take on the EO/OO divide anyway?

Seriously?  Tongue

Is this a Mor Ephrem meet Iconodule moment?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #42 on: December 17, 2013, 09:07:34 PM »

I ask because you seem to be moving comfortably between the two communions (e.g. attending SVOTS, showing interest in a ROCOR psalter)

When I was in college, my adopted parish was OCA (the Copts in the area were a mission, and they only had Saturday services, so I'd go there too when they were meeting).  Once in a blue moon, I'd venture off to the local ROCOR parish.  That experience plus SVS made me comfortable with the Byzantine rite...I definitely prefer Syriac, but I can go back and forth easily between the two.  That's been a saving grace in recent travels, as I was at least an hour away from the nearest OO church, but within walking distance of a few EO churches, one of which I adopted.  The OO churches were Coptic and Armenian, so I had to become familiar with those traditions, which has served me well in my present situation. 

Regarding the Psalter, I like books and I like King David.  Smiley
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #43 on: December 17, 2013, 09:09:26 PM »

I have it, but don't like it, mostly because I find Coverdale weird and attempts to Orthodoxize it weirder. But it's available on Kindle, if you have the device or the app.

No Kindle, no iPad, nothing.  Just books.  Tongue

Sort of like emails from God.

If he does that, certainly he must be doing it from Nigeria. 

Is this a Mor Ephrem meet Iconodule moment?

I thought we'd already met, which is why I was thrown off by the question.  Smiley
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,232


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #44 on: December 17, 2013, 09:28:08 PM »

I read the thread title as:

Why Not Donut English Speaking Orthodox?

Too many donuts at coffee hour!

Some parishes that I have attended read the OSB (NKJV).
But the OCA parishes would use the Revised Standard Version.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 09:30:15 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #45 on: December 17, 2013, 10:27:08 PM »

I read the thread title as:

Why Not Donut English Speaking Orthodox?

Too many donuts at coffee hour!


It's really been too long since I've had a good donut.  We must be in the same boat, Maria! 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,071



« Reply #46 on: December 17, 2013, 10:58:14 PM »

I use the ESV almost exclusively for the New Testament.  For the Old, I use both NETS, RSV, and King James.  Also, the LDS Church has a wonderful audio version of the KJV Bible that I have downloaded on my smartphone. They have an app for it.  Rest assured, it is the KJV version, not Joseph Smith's translation.  I personally enjoy it a great deal and listen to it when I am too drained to read the Scriptures. 
Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.”  -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #47 on: December 17, 2013, 11:01:26 PM »

King James commissioned the KJV in opposition to the Calvinists, so most of the problems of Protestantism won't show up in it.  Conversely, the Douay Version was made to teach Ultramontanism, so its errors are there, including St. Jerome's error of using the Hebrew, the real problem with all these translations.

Error of using Hebrew? The original language of the old testament?  I prefer the septuagint but at the same time it must be admitted that the Greek can sometimes be controversial as sometimes it differed with its Hebrew counterparts.

FYI the Hebrew text St.Jerome used is not the same as the masoretic script used today  
It's not, compounding the error.

There is no error as Jerome used the closest thing to the original manuscripts unless you think the OT was written in greek Roll Eyes.,Have you hear of the dead sea scrolls and the Isaiah manuscript (Oldest Isaiah scroll in the world) and what word it uses to describe the Greek who is to give birth to the messiah?

Quote
The Usage of <almah> and <parthenos>

Does Isaiah 7:14 speak of a virgin birth?  Vatican II does teach this, in showing that this point is really contained in Isaiah 7:14, as intended by the Chief Author, the Holy Spirit.37  But we would still like to see the exegetical evidence for this matter.Of course, we must examine both the Hebrew <almah> and the
Septuagint translation, (LXX) <parthenos.>

The Hebrew <almah> does not necessarily mean a virgin.  It means a
young girl of marriageable age _ who is presumed to be a virgin.  
The OT uses the word <almah> only seven times:  Gen 24:43; Ex 2:8;
Prov 30:19; Ps 68:26; Songs 1:3 and 6:8, plus, of course Isaiah
7:14.  Out of these only Genesis 24:43 and Isaiah 7:14 seemed
clear enough to the Septuagint translators that they rendered it
by <parthenos,> which, of course, definitely means virgin. http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FR92203.TXT

 The Greek uses "virgin" but the Hebrew and this famous scroll say "young girl". Both are right. The Hebrew is the literal prophecy, while the Greek translated what was meant.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 11:09:57 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #48 on: December 17, 2013, 11:05:29 PM »

I use the ESV almost exclusively for the New Testament.  For the Old, I use both NETS, RSV, and King James.  Also, the LDS Church has a wonderful audio version of the KJV Bible that I have downloaded on my smartphone. They have an app for it.  Rest assured, it is the KJV version, not Joseph Smith's translation.  I personally enjoy it a great deal and listen to it when I am too drained to read the Scriptures. 

From what I've heard the LDS Church has modified the KJV to fit Joseph Smith's 'revisions.'
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,071



« Reply #49 on: December 17, 2013, 11:07:18 PM »

I use the ESV almost exclusively for the New Testament.  For the Old, I use both NETS, RSV, and King James.  Also, the LDS Church has a wonderful audio version of the KJV Bible that I have downloaded on my smartphone. They have an app for it.  Rest assured, it is the KJV version, not Joseph Smith's translation.  I personally enjoy it a great deal and listen to it when I am too drained to read the Scriptures.  

From what I've heard the LDS Church has modified the KJV to fit Joseph Smith's 'revisions.'

There is a Joseph Smith translation, yes.  But oddly enough, the LDS church does not utilize it either in print or audio.  And I just verified my smartphone app edition.  It is not the Joseph Smith translation. 
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 11:08:17 PM by Ionnis » Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.”  -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,942


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #50 on: December 18, 2013, 12:38:32 AM »

The Confraternity did actually finish the OT, it just never published all the books in one volume as Samuel to Maccabees wasn't finished until 1969 and the NAB was coming out the next year.  It is my favorite as well.  One thing I found interesting is the Revised NAB went back to many of the Confraternity's translation choices.

I didn't know that, thanks!  Can the entire Confraternity Bible be purchased anywhere?  Or at least "the missing books"? 

I have very little to say about the NAB that is good, but I will say this much: its translation of Luke 9.31 is easily my favourite out of all English translations, whatever its inelegance. 
The best out there is a Confraternity version with everything up to Samuel revised with the remainder OT the Challoner.  St Anthony Guild Press published the OT in 4 volumes as they were completed.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #51 on: December 18, 2013, 08:37:25 PM »

King James commissioned the KJV in opposition to the Calvinists, so most of the problems of Protestantism won't show up in it.  Conversely, the Douay Version was made to teach Ultramontanism, so its errors are there, including St. Jerome's error of using the Hebrew, the real problem with all these translations.

Error of using Hebrew? The original language of the old testament?  I prefer the septuagint but at the same time it must be admitted that the Greek can sometimes be controversial as sometimes it differed with its Hebrew counterparts.

FYI the Hebrew text St.Jerome used is not the same as the masoretic script used today  
It's not, compounding the error.

There is no error as Jerome used the closest thing to the original manuscripts unless you think the OT was written in greek Roll Eyes.,Have you hear of the dead sea scrolls and the Isaiah manuscript (Oldest Isaiah scroll in the world) and what word it uses to describe the Greek who is to give birth to the messiah?

Quote
The Usage of <almah> and <parthenos>

Does Isaiah 7:14 speak of a virgin birth?  Vatican II does teach this, in showing that this point is really contained in Isaiah 7:14, as intended by the Chief Author, the Holy Spirit.37  But we would still like to see the exegetical evidence for this matter.Of course, we must examine both the Hebrew <almah> and the
Septuagint translation, (LXX) <parthenos.>

The Hebrew <almah> does not necessarily mean a virgin.  It means a
young girl of marriageable age _ who is presumed to be a virgin.  
The OT uses the word <almah> only seven times:  Gen 24:43; Ex 2:8;
Prov 30:19; Ps 68:26; Songs 1:3 and 6:8, plus, of course Isaiah
7:14.  Out of these only Genesis 24:43 and Isaiah 7:14 seemed
clear enough to the Septuagint translators that they rendered it
by <parthenos,> which, of course, definitely means virgin. http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FR92203.TXT

 The Greek uses "virgin" but the Hebrew and this famous scroll say "young girl". Both are right. The Hebrew is the literal prophecy, while the Greek translated what was meant.

It's not really been proven by scholars that St. Jerome was competent as a Hebrew translator in the first place. What Hebrew texts he may have used certainly were not older than the Septuagint. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls (in Hebrew) and the Samaritan texts agree with the Septuagint, and not the Masoretic (which postdated whatever Hebrew manuscripts St. Jerome may have used).
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,942


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #52 on: December 18, 2013, 11:14:40 PM »

Even the Dead Sea Scrolls (in Hebrew) and the Samaritan texts agree with the Septuagint, and not the Masoretic (which postdated whatever Hebrew manuscripts St. Jerome may have used).

The Dead Sea Scrolls don't always agree with the Septuagint, sometimes they agree with the Masoretic.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,936


Ice cream for sale! 14 and under only, please!


« Reply #53 on: December 18, 2013, 11:40:44 PM »

Sadly this disagreement by Christians on the most accurate translations is one of the most difficult problems for Christians facing skeptics. Like on atheist fellow I know left Christianity and became atheist for various reasons but among his objections is that Christians cannot seem to agree on what exactly is the proper form of Christianity and thus translation of Scripture. He made this point for all religions and thus is either atheist or agnostic. Not that we have to satisfy the folly of heathens but it it one problem we face. I think all religions, because they have a human aspect, are bound to internal disagreement--whether Islam's disagreement on what Mohammed taught, the disagreement among Jews on problem Judaism, or among Christians. And it's one of the things that led to the Great Schism and other schisms like the Reformation.

I think honest Christians will agree that some translations are better than others--whether for accuracy or simple taste. I have to say, whether it makes me a snob or not, that some of these modern translations among Evangelicals as well as Catholics are ridiculous. I think the Jerusalem translation is like a more accurate than the Douay Rheims even if the Douay's language has a loftiness in its tastes. Still some translations are not just tasteless but inaccurate to the point of causing great problems in ones understanding of theology. One reason the Roman Church may have been trying to "keep the Bible" from the people, which is a false claim with only a hint of truth, is because of this very problem of translating the Scripture from the original to the vernacular. The Church did not really keep the Bible form the people, but one did have to know Latin and the majority of people did not. The Church had a reason to fear some translation by some Every-day-Joe. But even the Latin Vulgate is a translation so whether we believe the greatness of St. Jerome's translation or not, we must admit it has certain problems. That is why I prefer the Jerusalem Bible for accuracy. After all it is tasteful in its language and was translated on the desire of Pius XII to have a more direct and accurate translation.

I think the West, particularly Western trads, have this idea that Latin is THE language, forgetting that there is and was a Greek East, and though it made sense to translate to the then vernacular of Latin, Greek is the original language of the New Testament. So however great Latin may be, Greek is what one must look to and that is hard because of the meaning of words varies. Like the translation of Hades into English is properly "hell", but it would be more proper to translate it as Death or the "abode of the dead". It does not help that the historical English translation went from Greek/Hebrew to Latin and then to English. And even translating from the original can be hard because Greek has varying words for the kinds of love and St. Paul is not speaking of eros when he speaks of having charity. Yes, it can translate simply to love, but the connotations, like translation Hades to hell create problems. It's a mess.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #54 on: December 19, 2013, 12:40:23 AM »

King James commissioned the KJV in opposition to the Calvinists, so most of the problems of Protestantism won't show up in it.  Conversely, the Douay Version was made to teach Ultramontanism, so its errors are there, including St. Jerome's error of using the Hebrew, the real problem with all these translations.

Error of using Hebrew? The original language of the old testament?  I prefer the septuagint but at the same time it must be admitted that the Greek can sometimes be controversial as sometimes it differed with its Hebrew counterparts.

FYI the Hebrew text St.Jerome used is not the same as the masoretic script used today  
It's not, compounding the error.

There is no error as Jerome used the closest thing to the original manuscripts unless you think the OT was written in greek Roll Eyes.
I'll follow Christ's Apostles (and St. Augustine, btw).  You can follow St. Jerome, the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #55 on: December 19, 2013, 06:12:46 AM »

King James commissioned the KJV in opposition to the Calvinists, so most of the problems of Protestantism won't show up in it.  Conversely, the Douay Version was made to teach Ultramontanism, so its errors are there, including St. Jerome's error of using the Hebrew, the real problem with all these translations.

Error of using Hebrew? The original language of the old testament?  I prefer the septuagint but at the same time it must be admitted that the Greek can sometimes be controversial as sometimes it differed with its Hebrew counterparts.

FYI the Hebrew text St.Jerome used is not the same as the masoretic script used today  
It's not, compounding the error.

There is no error as Jerome used the closest thing to the original manuscripts unless you think the OT was written in greek Roll Eyes.
I'll follow Christ's Apostles (and St. Augustine, btw).  You can follow St. Jerome, the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

Lol why is it always an us vs them attitude with you? Septuagint is simply a different translation type. Just so you know the Hebrew text was used by the Christians in Israel so no, its not just the text of the suddacees, Pharisees and scribes but our own Christian brethren.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2013, 06:22:04 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #56 on: December 19, 2013, 06:19:24 AM »

It's not really been proven by scholars that St. Jerome was competent as a Hebrew translator in the first place. What Hebrew texts he may have used certainly were not older than the Septuagint. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls (in Hebrew) and the Samaritan texts agree with the Septuagint, and not the Masoretic (which postdated whatever Hebrew manuscripts St. Jerome may have used).

the texts he used could probably have been older. We don't know. It was older than the Masoretic  text. The dead sea scrolls have areas that disagree with the Septuagint too  like Isaiah 14:7. The Septuagint only came into existence around 200 BC but may have only been fully completed 150 years after 200 BC. It is not that old. Its a translation and that further weakens its authority. But I don't think its errant. Its just a less literal translation of the original Hebrew although which is what St.Jerome translated from.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #57 on: December 19, 2013, 06:25:36 AM »

I also have a hard time believing Greek was the original language of the new testament. The Gospel of Matthew is accounted for by eusabius as written in Hebrew. The letter of Paul to the Romans could only have been one of two languages (Hebrew/Aramaic or Latin).
« Last Edit: December 19, 2013, 06:26:24 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #58 on: December 19, 2013, 06:28:15 AM »

The letter of Paul to the Romans could only have been one of two languages (Hebrew/Aramaic or Latin).

All educated Romans spoke Greek. St. Paul most likely didn't speak Latin.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2013, 06:29:11 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #59 on: December 19, 2013, 09:04:07 AM »

I cannot see why the Douay is a good choice for any Orthodox use, or for that matter, anyone who doesn't specifically need an Official Catholic Translation, and even then, in my opinion there are better choices. As Ialmisry has said, and as I have pointed out a number of times, the RSV Common Bible enjoys some degree of official Orthodox approval, and moreover it and the NRSV equivalent are the only translations which include all the Orthodox OT texts.

I also have to say that it seems to me that notion that there is one special source text which can be read in one special translation is a low Protestant idea foreign to the episcopally-organized churches.
Logged
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,361



« Reply #60 on: December 19, 2013, 09:35:09 AM »

I also have to say that it seems to me that notion that there is one special source text which can be read in one special translation is a low Protestant idea foreign to the episcopally-organized churches.
I used to know divinity students who thought they could divine all sorts of information about you based on your choice of Bible translation. That kind of posturing is the lamest form of Christian hipsterism.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #61 on: December 19, 2013, 11:17:06 AM »

King James commissioned the KJV in opposition to the Calvinists, so most of the problems of Protestantism won't show up in it.  Conversely, the Douay Version was made to teach Ultramontanism, so its errors are there, including St. Jerome's error of using the Hebrew, the real problem with all these translations.

Error of using Hebrew? The original language of the old testament?  I prefer the septuagint but at the same time it must be admitted that the Greek can sometimes be controversial as sometimes it differed with its Hebrew counterparts.

FYI the Hebrew text St.Jerome used is not the same as the masoretic script used today 
It's not, compounding the error.

There is no error as Jerome used the closest thing to the original manuscripts unless you think the OT was written in greek Roll Eyes.
I'll follow Christ's Apostles (and St. Augustine, btw).  You can follow St. Jerome, the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

Lol why is it always an us vs them attitude with you? Septuagint is simply a different translation type. Just so you know the Hebrew text was used by the Christians in Israel so no, its not just the text of the suddacees, Pharisees and scribes but our own Christian brethren.

By which Christians? The early Jewish Christians used Aramaic Targums, the Hellenistic Jews used the Septuagint. Most people didn't know Hebrew. The only Christians I can think of who used the Hebrew were Origen, and St. Jerome. Furthermore, you are incorrect when you say "its not just the text of the suddacees, Pharisees and scribes but our own Christian brethren." Maybe in the first century that's true, but the Masoretic text was formulated by Pharisaic Judaism, Christians didn't compile the Masoretic text that we use today.

I also have a hard time believing Greek was the original language of the new testament. The Gospel of Matthew is accounted for by eusabius as written in Hebrew. The letter of Paul to the Romans could only have been one of two languages (Hebrew/Aramaic or Latin).

On what basis? All scholars say that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. Paul's letter to the Romans would be in Greek. How would Paul know Latin? And how would Romans know Aramaic?
« Last Edit: December 19, 2013, 11:17:53 AM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #62 on: December 19, 2013, 11:19:49 AM »

I also have a hard time believing Greek was the original language of the new testament. The Gospel of Matthew is accounted for by eusabius as written in Hebrew. The letter of Paul to the Romans could only have been one of two languages (Hebrew/Aramaic or Latin).

 laugh
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #63 on: December 19, 2013, 11:33:01 AM »

I also have a hard time believing Greek was the original language of the new testament. The Gospel of Matthew is accounted for by eusabius as written in Hebrew. The letter of Paul to the Romans could only have been one of two languages (Hebrew/Aramaic or Latin).
LOL. Besides the issue of St. Matthew, I'd love to hear your defense of your other ideas, especially the idea of the Epistle to the Romans being in Hebrew/Aramaic or Latin.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #64 on: December 19, 2013, 11:35:02 AM »

King James commissioned the KJV in opposition to the Calvinists, so most of the problems of Protestantism won't show up in it.  Conversely, the Douay Version was made to teach Ultramontanism, so its errors are there, including St. Jerome's error of using the Hebrew, the real problem with all these translations.

Error of using Hebrew? The original language of the old testament?  I prefer the septuagint but at the same time it must be admitted that the Greek can sometimes be controversial as sometimes it differed with its Hebrew counterparts.

FYI the Hebrew text St.Jerome used is not the same as the masoretic script used today  
It's not, compounding the error.

There is no error as Jerome used the closest thing to the original manuscripts unless you think the OT was written in greek Roll Eyes.
I'll follow Christ's Apostles (and St. Augustine, btw).  You can follow St. Jerome, the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

Lol why is it always an us vs them attitude with you? Septuagint is simply a different translation type. Just so you know the Hebrew text was used by the Christians in Israel so no, its not just the text of the suddacees, Pharisees and scribes but our own Christian brethren.
St. Augustine didn't see it that way.  Nor did-or does-the Church.

As for the Christians in Palestine, no, they did not use the Hebrew text and certainly did not use the Masoretic text.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #65 on: December 19, 2013, 11:40:19 AM »

It's not really been proven by scholars that St. Jerome was competent as a Hebrew translator in the first place. What Hebrew texts he may have used certainly were not older than the Septuagint. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls (in Hebrew) and the Samaritan texts agree with the Septuagint, and not the Masoretic (which postdated whatever Hebrew manuscripts St. Jerome may have used).

the texts he used could probably have been older. We don't know. It was older than the Masoretic  text. The dead sea scrolls have areas that disagree with the Septuagint too  like Isaiah 14:7. The Septuagint only came into existence around 200 BC but may have only been fully completed 150 years after 200 BC. It is not that old. Its a translation and that further weakens its authority.
only to those whom Scholasticism has led astray.

The Church, and the Hebrews before Christ, held the LXX as an inspired translation, strengthening its authority. Strengthened also by the discovery of Hebrew BC texts that agree with it, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #66 on: December 20, 2013, 03:45:37 PM »

The letter of Paul to the Romans could only have been one of two languages (Hebrew/Aramaic or Latin).

All educated Romans spoke Greek. St. Paul most likely didn't speak Latin.

Most highly educated Roman citizens would speak Latin, Greek, and the language of their own "tribe." (in this case Aramaic) whereas the average peasant would speak Latin (logically).

Secondly from Epistle XII of the Roman philosopher and statesman Seneca to St. Paul, one of fourteen letters between the two, that St. Paul, during his captivity in Rome, wrote in Latin, and good Latin at that. St. Paul's Latin ad a cadence intrinsic to the language, "the organ tone of  Latinity."

 Another misconception is that the Church, even in Rome and Italy, used a Greek vernacular exclusively for the first two or three l centuries, then changed to a vernacular Latin. Until recently, this had been the common scholarly opinion.

 More recent evidence, however, in the form of a Latin inscription of ca. A.D. 79, discovered in 1862 at Pompeii, indicates already the liturgical use of Latin. We known from the Acts of the Apostles (28:13) that St. Paul visited the nearby city of Puteoli for seven days, where there already existed a community of Latin-speaking Christians. Of the 1800 inscriptions cataloged in that city, all appear in Latin, none in  Greek.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 03:48:40 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #67 on: December 20, 2013, 04:00:33 PM »

By which Christians? The early Jewish Christians used Aramaic Targums, the Hellenistic Jews used the Septuagint. Most people didn't know Hebrew. The only Christians I can think of who used the Hebrew were Origen, and St. Jerome. Furthermore, you are incorrect when you say "its not just the text of the suddacees, Pharisees and scribes but our own Christian brethren." Maybe in the first century that's true, but the Masoretic text was formulated by Pharisaic Judaism, Christians didn't compile the Masoretic text that we use today

Hebrew was the liturgical language in Israel during the first and second centuries. That's just plain fact.

Secondly you are mistaken if you think I think the masoretic text is from the first century. Its from around 700AD. The Hebrew text we are talking about here is probably the one of the dead seas scrolls or a derivative of that.

Quote
On what basis? All scholars say that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. Paul's letter to the Romans would be in Greek. How would Paul know Latin? And how would Romans know Aramaic?

Not all, most. And for the most part they are right as a lot of the communities written to in the NT are Greek communities. But its absurd to think the letter to the Hebrews was written in Greek too. Same with the gospel of Matthew (written to an Israelite Jewish audience) or the letter to the Romans.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 04:01:20 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #68 on: December 20, 2013, 04:05:02 PM »

It's not really been proven by scholars that St. Jerome was competent as a Hebrew translator in the first place. What Hebrew texts he may have used certainly were not older than the Septuagint. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls (in Hebrew) and the Samaritan texts agree with the Septuagint, and not the Masoretic (which postdated whatever Hebrew manuscripts St. Jerome may have used).

the texts he used could probably have been older. We don't know. It was older than the Masoretic  text. The dead sea scrolls have areas that disagree with the Septuagint too  like Isaiah 14:7. The Septuagint only came into existence around 200 BC but may have only been fully completed 150 years after 200 BC. It is not that old. Its a translation and that further weakens its authority.
only to those whom Scholasticism has led astray.

The Church, and the Hebrews before Christ, held the LXX as an inspired translation, strengthening its authority. Strengthened also by the discovery of Hebrew BC texts that agree with it, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Inspired does not mean inerrant... Secondly the church and Christ held the Hebrew version as inspired too, as its already known he read and taught from the hebrew texts in the synagogues and the Temple. so too the  Church held the peshitta Aramaic version and whatever other variants were used. The fact of the matter is the dead sea scrolls have points that agree with both the masoretic and the septuagint. It has to be admitted that the OT was not written in Greek which gives a lot of strength to the Hebrew manuscripts.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 04:09:34 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #69 on: December 20, 2013, 04:06:36 PM »

Even the Dead Sea Scrolls (in Hebrew) and the Samaritan texts agree with the Septuagint, and not the Masoretic (which postdated whatever Hebrew manuscripts St. Jerome may have used).

The Dead Sea Scrolls don't always agree with the Septuagint, sometimes they agree with the Masoretic.

Sometimes, but not I think most times. The exhibit I saw in Milwaukee showed much more agreement with the Septuagint and non-Masoretic texts.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #70 on: December 20, 2013, 04:07:16 PM »

Even the Dead Sea Scrolls (in Hebrew) and the Samaritan texts agree with the Septuagint, and not the Masoretic (which postdated whatever Hebrew manuscripts St. Jerome may have used).

The Dead Sea Scrolls don't always agree with the Septuagint, sometimes they agree with the Masoretic.

Sometimes, but not I think most times. The exhibit I saw in Milwaukee showed much more agreement with the Septuagint and non-Masoretic texts.
Nope its pretty even actually

Although it should be noted that these agreements and disagreements are minor except a few cases like Isaiah 7:14 which is a major disagreement
« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 04:08:35 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #71 on: December 20, 2013, 04:09:08 PM »

The letter of Paul to the Romans could only have been one of two languages (Hebrew/Aramaic or Latin).

All educated Romans spoke Greek. St. Paul most likely didn't speak Latin.

Most highly educated Roman citizens would speak Latin, Greek, and the language of their own "tribe." (in this case Aramaic) whereas the average peasant would speak Latin (logically).
Alas, no.  Latin speaking peasants were a distinct minority not only in the empire, but in the Capital as well: all those Greek slaves brought their language with them, something that many writers of the time complain about, and the Latins had been shipped out to colonize other parts of the empire.

In the Hebrew/Jewish catacombs, Greek is the language of the inscriptions.

Secondly from Epistle XII of the Roman philosopher and statesman Seneca to St. Paul, one of fourteen letters between the two, that St. Paul, during his captivity in Rome, wrote in Latin, and good Latin at that. St. Paul's Latin ad a cadence intrinsic to the language, "the organ tone of  Latinity."
Forgeries of the Fourth Century, when Latin did become, finally, the Ecclesiastical language of Rome (introduced by Abp. St. Victor I around 190, and finished by Pontiff Damasus at the end of the Fourth Century).

Another misconception fact is that the Church, even in Rome and Italy, used a Greek vernacular exclusively for the first two or three l centuries, then changed to a vernacular Latin. Until recently, this had been the common scholarly opinion.

More recent evidence, however, in the form of a Latin inscription of ca. A.D. 79, discovered in 1862 at Pompeii, indicates already the liturgical use of Latin. We known from the Acts of the Apostles (28:13) that St. Paul visited the nearby city of Puteoli for seven days, where there already existed a community of Latin-speaking Christians. Of the 1800 inscriptions cataloged in that city, all appear in Latin, none in  Greek.
that doesn't make the Greek in the Roman catacombs, Christian and Jewish, go away.

And there are Greek inscriptions in Pompeii (which has 8,000+ inscriptions):
An Introduction to Wall Inscriptions from Pompeii and Herculaneum
 By Rex Wallace
http://books.google.com/books?id=LR1v9zY7c0AC&pg=PR9&lpg=PR9&dq=Greek+inscriptions+Pompeii&source=bl&ots=NsIltsjMdf&sig=PFW7VsxLsjCM6LbOhbuifbN2bkc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FKa0Upv-G8iQyQHl94DYAQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Greek%20inscriptions%20Pompeii&f=false

Your "Christian" inscription (since gone) isn't a liturgical text.  Nor is it certain it is a Christian inscription (the house is across the street from the town brothel) at all:
Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus
 By Peter Lampe
http://books.google.com/books?id=vOoxGmc1DGAC&pg=PA8&dq=Christian+inscriptions+Pompeii&hl=en&sa=X&ei=p6a0UpHbDe2MyAHbuIDQBQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Christian%20inscriptions%20Pompeii&f=false

Your evidence that the Christian of Puteoli spoke Latin?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #72 on: December 20, 2013, 04:10:28 PM »

It's not really been proven by scholars that St. Jerome was competent as a Hebrew translator in the first place. What Hebrew texts he may have used certainly were not older than the Septuagint. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls (in Hebrew) and the Samaritan texts agree with the Septuagint, and not the Masoretic (which postdated whatever Hebrew manuscripts St. Jerome may have used).

the texts he used could probably have been older. We don't know. It was older than the Masoretic  text. The dead sea scrolls have areas that disagree with the Septuagint too  like Isaiah 14:7. The Septuagint only came into existence around 200 BC but may have only been fully completed 150 years after 200 BC. It is not that old. Its a translation and that further weakens its authority.
only to those whom Scholasticism has led astray.

The Church, and the Hebrews before Christ, held the LXX as an inspired translation, strengthening its authority. Strengthened also by the discovery of Hebrew BC texts that agree with it, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Inspired does not mean inerrant... Secondly the church and Christ held the Hebrew version as inspired too, as its already known he read and taught from the hebrew texts in the synagogues and the Temple. so too the  Church held the peshitta Aramaic version and whatever other variants were used. The fact of the matter is the dead sea scrolls have points that agree with both the masoretic and the septuagint. It has to be admitted that the OT was not written in Greek which gives a lot of strength to the Hebrew manuscripts.
again, only to those whom Scholasticism has led astray.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #73 on: December 20, 2013, 04:11:52 PM »

By which Christians? The early Jewish Christians used Aramaic Targums, the Hellenistic Jews used the Septuagint. Most people didn't know Hebrew. The only Christians I can think of who used the Hebrew were Origen, and St. Jerome. Furthermore, you are incorrect when you say "its not just the text of the suddacees, Pharisees and scribes but our own Christian brethren." Maybe in the first century that's true, but the Masoretic text was formulated by Pharisaic Judaism, Christians didn't compile the Masoretic text that we use today

Hebrew was the liturgical language in Israel during the first and second centuries. That's just plain fact.

Secondly you are mistaken if you think I think the masoretic text is from the first century. Its from around 700AD. The Hebrew text we are talking about here is probably the one of the dead seas scrolls or a derivative of that.

Quote
On what basis? All scholars say that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. Paul's letter to the Romans would be in Greek. How would Paul know Latin? And how would Romans know Aramaic?

Not all, most. And for the most part they are right as a lot of the communities written to in the NT are Greek communities. But its absurd to think the letter to the Hebrews was written in Greek too.
Oh? Why's that?
Same with the gospel of Matthew (written to an Israelite Jewish audience) or the letter to the Romans.
Oh? Why's that?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #74 on: December 20, 2013, 04:13:14 PM »

Secondly from Epistle XII of the Roman philosopher and statesman Seneca to St. Paul, one of fourteen letters between the two, that St. Paul, during his captivity in Rome, wrote in Latin, and good Latin at that. St. Paul's Latin ad a cadence intrinsic to the language, "the organ tone of  Latinity."


What?  Such a thing exists?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #75 on: December 20, 2013, 04:21:07 PM »

Secondly from Epistle XII of the Roman philosopher and statesman Seneca to St. Paul, one of fourteen letters between the two, that St. Paul, during his captivity in Rome, wrote in Latin, and good Latin at that. St. Paul's Latin ad a cadence intrinsic to the language, "the organ tone of  Latinity."


What?  Such a thing exists?

These letters, allegedly between Seneca and St. Paul, were revered by early authorities, but most scholars now doubt their authenticity
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #76 on: December 20, 2013, 04:22:37 PM »

These letters, allegedly between Seneca and St. Paul, were revered by early authorities, but most scholars now doubt their authenticity

IOW, you can't vouch for their authenticity, but you will use them as if they are authoritative to prove a dubious point. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #77 on: December 20, 2013, 04:28:46 PM »

By which Christians? The early Jewish Christians used Aramaic Targums, the Hellenistic Jews used the Septuagint. Most people didn't know Hebrew. The only Christians I can think of who used the Hebrew were Origen, and St. Jerome. Furthermore, you are incorrect when you say "its not just the text of the suddacees, Pharisees and scribes but our own Christian brethren." Maybe in the first century that's true, but the Masoretic text was formulated by Pharisaic Judaism, Christians didn't compile the Masoretic text that we use today

Hebrew was the liturgical language in Israel during the first and second centuries. That's just plain fact.

Secondly you are mistaken if you think I think the masoretic text is from the first century. Its from around 700AD. The Hebrew text we are talking about here is probably the one of the dead seas scrolls or a derivative of that.

Quote
On what basis? All scholars say that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. Paul's letter to the Romans would be in Greek. How would Paul know Latin? And how would Romans know Aramaic?

Not all, most. And for the most part they are right as a lot of the communities written to in the NT are Greek communities. But its absurd to think the letter to the Hebrews was written in Greek too.
Oh? Why's that?
Same with the gospel of Matthew (written to an Israelite Jewish audience) or the letter to the Romans.
Oh? Why's that?

the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (b. 63), who wrote:
"Matthew wrote down the sayings of Jesus (logia) in Hebrew dialect (en Hebraïdi dialektōi—may refer to Hebrew or Aramaic), and everyone translated (hērmēneusen—or "interpreted") them to the best of their ability

Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that


Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #78 on: December 20, 2013, 04:29:42 PM »

These letters, allegedly between Seneca and St. Paul, were revered by early authorities, but most scholars now doubt their authenticity

IOW, you can't vouch for their authenticity, but you will use them as if they are authoritative to prove a dubious point.  

I give it the benefit of the doubt just as I give the authorship of the gospels

Secondly Paul was a roman! Do you honestly think that when he ws proving his roman citizenship when conversing with the roman authorities who wanted to arrest him, that they spoke Greek? REALLY???

Thirdly if you believe in the gift of tongues the apostles received, then you have to believe Paul could speak latin
« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 04:38:08 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #79 on: December 20, 2013, 04:39:09 PM »

It's not really been proven by scholars that St. Jerome was competent as a Hebrew translator in the first place. What Hebrew texts he may have used certainly were not older than the Septuagint. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls (in Hebrew) and the Samaritan texts agree with the Septuagint, and not the Masoretic (which postdated whatever Hebrew manuscripts St. Jerome may have used).

the texts he used could probably have been older. We don't know. It was older than the Masoretic  text. The dead sea scrolls have areas that disagree with the Septuagint too  like Isaiah 14:7. The Septuagint only came into existence around 200 BC but may have only been fully completed 150 years after 200 BC. It is not that old. Its a translation and that further weakens its authority.
only to those whom Scholasticism has led astray.

The Church, and the Hebrews before Christ, held the LXX as an inspired translation, strengthening its authority. Strengthened also by the discovery of Hebrew BC texts that agree with it, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Inspired does not mean inerrant... Secondly the church and Christ held the Hebrew version as inspired too, as its already known he read and taught from the hebrew texts in the synagogues and the Temple. so too the  Church held the peshitta Aramaic version and whatever other variants were used. The fact of the matter is the dead sea scrolls have points that agree with both the masoretic and the septuagint. It has to be admitted that the OT was not written in Greek which gives a lot of strength to the Hebrew manuscripts.
again, only to those whom Scholasticism has led astray.

LOL  Roll Eyes
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #80 on: December 20, 2013, 04:50:31 PM »

I give it the benefit of the doubt just as I give the authorship of the gospels

Nice to know that you rank Seneca with the Evangelists.  Anything for Latin!

Quote
Secondly Paul was a roman! Do you honestly think that when he ws proving his roman citizenship when conversing with the roman authorities who wanted to arrest him, that they spoke Greek? REALLY???

I didn't realise Tarsus of Cilicia was in Latium.  Oh wait, it isn't:



Quote
Thirdly if you believe in the gift of tongues the apostles received, then you have to believe Paul could speak latin

By that logic, he must've composed the Epistles to the Thessalonians in Chinese. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #81 on: December 20, 2013, 04:52:45 PM »

By which Christians? The early Jewish Christians used Aramaic Targums, the Hellenistic Jews used the Septuagint. Most people didn't know Hebrew. The only Christians I can think of who used the Hebrew were Origen, and St. Jerome. Furthermore, you are incorrect when you say "its not just the text of the suddacees, Pharisees and scribes but our own Christian brethren." Maybe in the first century that's true, but the Masoretic text was formulated by Pharisaic Judaism, Christians didn't compile the Masoretic text that we use today

Hebrew was the liturgical language in Israel during the first and second centuries. That's just plain fact.

Secondly you are mistaken if you think I think the masoretic text is from the first century. Its from around 700AD. The Hebrew text we are talking about here is probably the one of the dead seas scrolls or a derivative of that.

Quote
On what basis? All scholars say that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. Paul's letter to the Romans would be in Greek. How would Paul know Latin? And how would Romans know Aramaic?

Not all, most. And for the most part they are right as a lot of the communities written to in the NT are Greek communities. But its absurd to think the letter to the Hebrews was written in Greek too.
Oh? Why's that?
Same with the gospel of Matthew (written to an Israelite Jewish audience) or the letter to the Romans.
Oh? Why's that?

the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (b. 63), who wrote:
"Matthew wrote down the sayings of Jesus (logia) in Hebrew dialect (en Hebraïdi dialektōi—may refer to Hebrew or Aramaic), and everyone translated (hērmēneusen—or "interpreted") them to the best of their ability

Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that


Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)

Yeah, Judaizers have been quoting that for ages. There is still no proof or evidence, neither a single scholar, who takes that claim seriously.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #82 on: December 20, 2013, 04:58:46 PM »

Yeah, Judaizers have been quoting that for ages. There is still no proof or evidence, neither a single scholar, who takes that claim seriously.

It is the tradition of the Church in India, since it is said that St Thomas brought a Hebrew copy of St Matthew's Gospel to India when he arrived on our shores to preach (something scholars also doubt, even though we are clearly there and have been for two millennia).  Obviously, it has not survived, but I'm not about to discount Papias, St Irenaeus, and the Church of India so easily.  And we need not: the only NT book for which Hebrew authorship has ever been claimed is St Matthew's Gospel, and that's all Wandile's quotes refer to.  If he takes those two quotes about one book in twenty-seven and runs with it to include the other twenty-six, that's a different, and foolish, story. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #83 on: December 20, 2013, 05:13:26 PM »

Yeah, Judaizers have been quoting that for ages. There is still no proof or evidence, neither a single scholar, who takes that claim seriously.

It is the tradition of the Church in India, since it is said that St Thomas brought a Hebrew copy of St Matthew's Gospel to India when he arrived on our shores to preach (something scholars also doubt, even though we are clearly there and have been for two millennia).  Obviously, it has not survived, but I'm not about to discount Papias, St Irenaeus, and the Church of India so easily.  And we need not: the only NT book for which Hebrew authorship has ever been claimed is St Matthew's Gospel, and that's all Wandile's quotes refer to.  If he takes those two quotes about one book in twenty-seven and runs with it to include the other twenty-six, that's a different, and foolish, story. 
IIRC Eusebius also records the story of a Hebrew-or Aramaic-Gospel of Matthew in India.

I seem to recall a similar story of a Gospel found on Cyprus in the hand(writing) of St. Matthew, in the hands of the relics of the Apostle St. Barnabas.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #84 on: December 20, 2013, 05:17:49 PM »

By which Christians? The early Jewish Christians used Aramaic Targums, the Hellenistic Jews used the Septuagint. Most people didn't know Hebrew. The only Christians I can think of who used the Hebrew were Origen, and St. Jerome. Furthermore, you are incorrect when you say "its not just the text of the suddacees, Pharisees and scribes but our own Christian brethren." Maybe in the first century that's true, but the Masoretic text was formulated by Pharisaic Judaism, Christians didn't compile the Masoretic text that we use today

Hebrew was the liturgical language in Israel during the first and second centuries. That's just plain fact.

Secondly you are mistaken if you think I think the masoretic text is from the first century. Its from around 700AD. The Hebrew text we are talking about here is probably the one of the dead seas scrolls or a derivative of that.

Quote
On what basis? All scholars say that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. Paul's letter to the Romans would be in Greek. How would Paul know Latin? And how would Romans know Aramaic?

Not all, most. And for the most part they are right as a lot of the communities written to in the NT are Greek communities. But its absurd to think the letter to the Hebrews was written in Greek too.
Oh? Why's that?
Same with the gospel of Matthew (written to an Israelite Jewish audience) or the letter to the Romans.
Oh? Why's that?

the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (b. 63), who wrote:
"Matthew wrote down the sayings of Jesus (logia) in Hebrew dialect (en Hebraïdi dialektōi—may refer to Hebrew or Aramaic), and everyone translated (hērmēneusen—or "interpreted") them to the best of their ability

Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that


Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)
The question was not if St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (I don't doubt that, on the authorities you cite here), but on why it being written to an "Israelite Jewish audience" could offer any proof, as well as why it is "absurd" to acknowledge the FACT that the Epistle to Hebrews was written in Greek.  And then that remaining question on Romans.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #85 on: December 20, 2013, 05:27:09 PM »

These letters, allegedly between Seneca and St. Paul, were revered by early authorities, but most scholars now doubt their authenticity

IOW, you can't vouch for their authenticity, but you will use them as if they are authoritative to prove a dubious point.  

I give it the benefit of the doubt just as I give the authorship of the gospels

Secondly Paul was a roman! Do you honestly think that when he ws proving his roman citizenship when conversing with the roman authorities who wanted to arrest him, that they spoke Greek? REALLY???
given the Romans' aping of the Greeks (to the point of affecting Latin speech in Rome, that Cicero himself had to admit he had to bow to), yes REALLY.

Thirdly if you believe in the gift of tongues the apostles received, then you have to believe Paul could speak latin
Where did St. Paul get the gift of tongues-remember, he wasn't there at Pentecost.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #86 on: December 20, 2013, 05:30:16 PM »

The question was not if St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (I don't doubt that, on the authorities you cite here), but on why it being written to an "Israelite Jewish audience" could offer any proof, as well as why it is "absurd" to acknowledge the FACT that the Epistle to Hebrews was written in Greek.  And then that remaining question on Romans.

Slightly off-topic, but relevant: they were able to identify the tomb of St Peter, under the high altar of the Vatican Basilica, by a Greek inscription:



Why not Latin? 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #87 on: December 20, 2013, 05:35:18 PM »

The question was not if St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (I don't doubt that, on the authorities you cite here), but on why it being written to an "Israelite Jewish audience" could offer any proof, as well as why it is "absurd" to acknowledge the FACT that the Epistle to Hebrews was written in Greek.  And then that remaining question on Romans.

Slightly off-topic, but relevant: they were able to identify the tomb of St Peter, under the high altar of the Vatican Basilica, by a Greek inscription:



Why not Latin? 
Because they didn't speak it. But you knew that already.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #88 on: December 20, 2013, 05:37:20 PM »

Because they didn't speak it. But you knew that already.

I can't argue with brilliance. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #89 on: December 20, 2013, 05:41:23 PM »


I give it the benefit of the doubt just as I give the authorship of the gospels

Secondly Paul was a roman! Do you honestly think that when he ws proving his roman citizenship when conversing with the roman authorities who wanted to arrest him, that they spoke Greek? REALLY???

Thirdly if you believe in the gift of tongues the apostles received, then you have to believe Paul could speak latin

All the Roman officials in the East spoke Greek. Often Greeks were appointed to the highest government posts without being able to speak a word of Latin (such as Herodes Atticus and Polemo of Laodicea).

Oh, and of course Cicero said:

Graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus, Latina suis finibus exiguis sane continentur.
Greek is spoken among nearly all peoples. Latin is confined to its own natural limits, which are narrow enough.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 05:41:41 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #90 on: December 20, 2013, 10:34:35 PM »

Even the Dead Sea Scrolls (in Hebrew) and the Samaritan texts agree with the Septuagint, and not the Masoretic (which postdated whatever Hebrew manuscripts St. Jerome may have used).

This has been said several times in the course of this discussion, so it's time to give it the qualification that it needs. It is true that there are differences between the MT and the DSS where the LXX appears to translate the latter rather than the texts which contributed to the former. But far more common are places where the MT and DSS agree, and the LXX disagrees with both. And as a rule these appear to be simple mistakes in the LXX translation.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #91 on: December 20, 2013, 10:56:34 PM »

These letters, allegedly between Seneca and St. Paul, were revered by early authorities, but most scholars now doubt their authenticity

IOW, you can't vouch for their authenticity, but you will use them as if they are authoritative to prove a dubious point.  

I give it the benefit of the doubt just as I give the authorship of the gospels

Secondly Paul was a roman! Do you honestly think that when he ws proving his roman citizenship when conversing with the roman authorities who wanted to arrest him, that they spoke Greek? REALLY???

Thirdly if you believe in the gift of tongues the apostles received, then you have to believe Paul could speak latin

More history you need to read.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #92 on: December 20, 2013, 11:27:06 PM »

So I was just wondering why English speaking Orthodox seem to use the KJV and not the Douay. I know the OCA uses the New King James Version and I do have a family KJV. As a traditional Catholic I pretty much thought "Protestant Bibles" worthy of burning and even burned some in my zeal. My patron is Thomas More, so I thought he would approve if you have read about his zeal against Protestantism in England before Henry's schism. I remember burning one of those you can find in a hotel room. I actually think the KJV is good as a fan of English literature, given its deep influence on English literature and language. I have been reading the Jerusalem translation, a Catholic translation closer to the original which began with a desire of Pius XII to have a new translation into the vernacular based on the more original texts and languages. I actually like the Jerusalem a lot though I did give a look at the KJV for the sake of English literature when reading Job for my class and I must admit the language is much more beautiful, even if the Jerusalem is closer to the original.

Anyway, why do Western Orthodox use the "Protestant" translations for English rather than the "Roman Catholic" translations. I've always read the Douay and Jerusalem myself since becoming Catholic but is there a particular reason the New King James is used rather than some "Catholic" translation.

And on a personal level what is your favourite translation for personal use? Just curious.

I prefer the Jerusalem for being more accurate to the original, but I do like the King James Version for it's literary beauty and influence and I suppose still like the Douay.

There is a very good reason why English speaking Eastern Orthodox do not use the Douay version of the Bible. The Douay was not a translation from the original Greek text, but was from the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible. Obviously the Greek text is the one with authority in the Orthodox Church, so it makes sense that we would use a translation from the Greek text rather than one from Latin. Besides, the Latin translation contained several translation errors that led to some of the most important doctrinal differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. The Augustinian doctrine of original sin comes from an incorrect translation of Romans 5:12. The correct translation is "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned --" But the Latin translation used for the Douay is, "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned."  The mistake of translating the Greek "eph ho" to mean "in whom" when a more correct translation would be "because" or "in that," led Augustine to develop the concept that all inherit guilt from Adam. St. John 15:26 "But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;" The Greek word translated "proceeds" in this verse is "ekporeuetai" and in the Creed is "ἐκπορευόμενον"  which means to proceed from one source of origin. That would rule out the filioque clause in both the Biblical text and the Creed. However, the Latin text of the Creed and John 15:26 uses the word, "procedit" which can mean to proceed through a mediator, thereby opening the way for the filioque.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #93 on: December 20, 2013, 11:53:09 PM »

King James commissioned the KJV in opposition to the Calvinists, so most of the problems of Protestantism won't show up in it.  Conversely, the Douay Version was made to teach Ultramontanism, so its errors are there, including St. Jerome's error of using the Hebrew, the real problem with all these translations.

Error of using Hebrew? The original language of the old testament?  I prefer the septuagint but at the same time it must be admitted that the Greek can sometimes be controversial as sometimes it differed with its Hebrew counterparts.

FYI the Hebrew text St.Jerome used is not the same as the masoretic script used today  
It's not, compounding the error.

There is no error as Jerome used the closest thing to the original manuscripts unless you think the OT was written in greek Roll Eyes.
I'll follow Christ's Apostles (and St. Augustine, btw).  You can follow St. Jerome, the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

Lol why is it always an us vs them attitude with you? Septuagint is simply a different translation type. Just so you know the Hebrew text was used by the Christians in Israel so no, its not just the text of the suddacees, Pharisees and scribes but our own Christian brethren.

The LXX is the Old Testament for Orthodox Christians because that is the translation always used by the Church and quoted in the New Testament. Besides, we do not know that the Masoretic text is the original Hebrew. The LXX is at least 400 years older than the Masoretic text. It may very well be a translation from more authentic texts than the Masoretic text. In any case the Church determines the canon of the Bible and the Eastern Orthodox Church has determined that the canon of the Old Testament is the LXX version. At the time that the Jews prepared the Masoretic text they were intensely anti-Christian as Peter Schafer's book Jesus in the Talmud shows. It is not inconceivable that they instinctively favored a Hebrew version of Isaiah 7:14 that used the words "young woman" instead of virgin due to their prejudice against Christianity. Besides in many languages "young woman" means virtually the same as virgin. For example in German one speaks of the Jungfrau Maria which literally means young woman Maria.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #94 on: December 21, 2013, 12:05:43 AM »

King James commissioned the KJV in opposition to the Calvinists, so most of the problems of Protestantism won't show up in it.  Conversely, the Douay Version was made to teach Ultramontanism, so its errors are there, including St. Jerome's error of using the Hebrew, the real problem with all these translations.

Error of using Hebrew? The original language of the old testament?  I prefer the septuagint but at the same time it must be admitted that the Greek can sometimes be controversial as sometimes it differed with its Hebrew counterparts.

FYI the Hebrew text St.Jerome used is not the same as the masoretic script used today 
It's not, compounding the error.

There is no error as Jerome used the closest thing to the original manuscripts unless you think the OT was written in greek Roll Eyes.
I'll follow Christ's Apostles (and St. Augustine, btw).  You can follow St. Jerome, the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

Lol why is it always an us vs them attitude with you? Septuagint is simply a different translation type. Just so you know the Hebrew text was used by the Christians in Israel so no, its not just the text of the suddacees, Pharisees and scribes but our own Christian brethren.

By which Christians? The early Jewish Christians used Aramaic Targums, the Hellenistic Jews used the Septuagint. Most people didn't know Hebrew. The only Christians I can think of who used the Hebrew were Origen, and St. Jerome. Furthermore, you are incorrect when you say "its not just the text of the suddacees, Pharisees and scribes but our own Christian brethren." Maybe in the first century that's true, but the Masoretic text was formulated by Pharisaic Judaism, Christians didn't compile the Masoretic text that we use today.

I also have a hard time believing Greek was the original language of the new testament. The Gospel of Matthew is accounted for by eusabius as written in Hebrew. The letter of Paul to the Romans could only have been one of two languages (Hebrew/Aramaic or Latin).

On what basis? All scholars say that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. Paul's letter to the Romans would be in Greek. How would Paul know Latin? And how would Romans know Aramaic?

The Church in Rome worshiped in Greek for several centuries before it switched to Latin. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans in Greek. The fragment of Papias in ca. 140 does refer to the Gospel of St. Matthew as having been written in Hebrew (probably Aramaic), but there is no account of any other New Testament book having been written in any other language but Greek.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #95 on: December 21, 2013, 12:06:09 AM »

St Matthew used a non-Septuagint version of the OT. This in reference to the verse "Out of Egypt have I called my Son". St Sophronius' life of St Matthew says that he saw the Hebrew version of the OT among the Nazarene (Hebrew/Aramaic-speaking) Christians, but that's lost to us now. I don't think that version was the Masoretic, either, but it shows that it's more that just the Septuagint and Masoretic texts floating around back then, and not just the LXX has authority in our Church (well the LXX now has the most authority).
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #96 on: December 21, 2013, 12:10:42 AM »

So I was just wondering why English speaking Orthodox seem to use the KJV and not the Douay. I know the OCA uses the New King James Version and I do have a family KJV. As a traditional Catholic I pretty much thought "Protestant Bibles" worthy of burning and even burned some in my zeal. My patron is Thomas More, so I thought he would approve if you have read about his zeal against Protestantism in England before Henry's schism. I remember burning one of those you can find in a hotel room. I actually think the KJV is good as a fan of English literature, given its deep influence on English literature and language. I have been reading the Jerusalem translation, a Catholic translation closer to the original which began with a desire of Pius XII to have a new translation into the vernacular based on the more original texts and languages. I actually like the Jerusalem a lot though I did give a look at the KJV for the sake of English literature when reading Job for my class and I must admit the language is much more beautiful, even if the Jerusalem is closer to the original.

Anyway, why do Western Orthodox use the "Protestant" translations for English rather than the "Roman Catholic" translations. I've always read the Douay and Jerusalem myself since becoming Catholic but is there a particular reason the New King James is used rather than some "Catholic" translation.

And on a personal level what is your favourite translation for personal use? Just curious.

I prefer the Jerusalem for being more accurate to the original, but I do like the King James Version for it's literary beauty and influence and I suppose still like the Douay.

The King James and New King James versions were translated from the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Greek speaking Orthodox Churches. Other English translations use other Greek texts. The Orthodox Study Bible Old Testament is a translation from the Septuagint because that is the version of the Old Testament considered canonical by the Eastern Orthodox Church. The New Testament of the Orthodox Study Bible uses the New King James not only because it is a translation from the Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox Church, but because Nelson, the publisher of the Orthodox Study Bible owns the copyright to the New King James translation.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 12:19:52 AM by frjohnmorris » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #97 on: December 21, 2013, 12:13:08 AM »

If you want old-time language for your English readings, you can use KJV for the NT and Sir Branceton's LXX translation for the OT. Problem solved.
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #98 on: December 21, 2013, 01:02:43 AM »

St Matthew used a non-Septuagint version of the OT. This in reference to the verse "Out of Egypt have I called my Son". St Sophronius' life of St Matthew says that he saw the Hebrew version of the OT among the Nazarene (Hebrew/Aramaic-speaking) Christians, but that's lost to us now. I don't think that version was the Masoretic, either, but it shows that it's more that just the Septuagint and Masoretic texts floating around back then, and not just the LXX has authority in our Church (well the LXX now has the most authority).

The New Testament quote of Malachi is the same way. He may have used a multiplicity of texts, it's very possible Matthew didn't write his Gospel all at once, and probably traveled around a lot, so he had to use different textual sources. That, or Matthew used a source that was lost. Even the LXX doesn't perfectly line-up with Matthew's quotation of Isaiah 7:14.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #99 on: December 21, 2013, 01:04:42 AM »

So I was just wondering why English speaking Orthodox seem to use the KJV and not the Douay. I know the OCA uses the New King James Version and I do have a family KJV. As a traditional Catholic I pretty much thought "Protestant Bibles" worthy of burning and even burned some in my zeal. My patron is Thomas More, so I thought he would approve if you have read about his zeal against Protestantism in England before Henry's schism. I remember burning one of those you can find in a hotel room. I actually think the KJV is good as a fan of English literature, given its deep influence on English literature and language. I have been reading the Jerusalem translation, a Catholic translation closer to the original which began with a desire of Pius XII to have a new translation into the vernacular based on the more original texts and languages. I actually like the Jerusalem a lot though I did give a look at the KJV for the sake of English literature when reading Job for my class and I must admit the language is much more beautiful, even if the Jerusalem is closer to the original.

Anyway, why do Western Orthodox use the "Protestant" translations for English rather than the "Roman Catholic" translations. I've always read the Douay and Jerusalem myself since becoming Catholic but is there a particular reason the New King James is used rather than some "Catholic" translation.

And on a personal level what is your favourite translation for personal use? Just curious.

I prefer the Jerusalem for being more accurate to the original, but I do like the King James Version for it's literary beauty and influence and I suppose still like the Douay.

The King James and New King James versions were translated from the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Greek speaking Orthodox Churches. Other English translations use other Greek texts. The Orthodox Study Bible Old Testament is a translation from the Septuagint because that is the version of the Old Testament considered canonical by the Eastern Orthodox Church. The New Testament of the Orthodox Study Bible uses the New King James not only because it is a translation from the Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox Church, but because Nelson, the publisher of the Orthodox Study Bible owns the copyright to the New King James translation.

Fr. John W. Morris

The New Testament Greek text of the King James/New King James is the Reformation era Greek text compiled by Erasmus; Novum Testamentum Omne.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 01:12:31 AM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #100 on: December 21, 2013, 01:34:20 AM »

So I was just wondering why English speaking Orthodox seem to use the KJV and not the Douay. I know the OCA uses the New King James Version and I do have a family KJV. As a traditional Catholic I pretty much thought "Protestant Bibles" worthy of burning and even burned some in my zeal. My patron is Thomas More, so I thought he would approve if you have read about his zeal against Protestantism in England before Henry's schism. I remember burning one of those you can find in a hotel room. I actually think the KJV is good as a fan of English literature, given its deep influence on English literature and language. I have been reading the Jerusalem translation, a Catholic translation closer to the original which began with a desire of Pius XII to have a new translation into the vernacular based on the more original texts and languages. I actually like the Jerusalem a lot though I did give a look at the KJV for the sake of English literature when reading Job for my class and I must admit the language is much more beautiful, even if the Jerusalem is closer to the original.

Anyway, why do Western Orthodox use the "Protestant" translations for English rather than the "Roman Catholic" translations. I've always read the Douay and Jerusalem myself since becoming Catholic but is there a particular reason the New King James is used rather than some "Catholic" translation.

And on a personal level what is your favourite translation for personal use? Just curious.

I prefer the Jerusalem for being more accurate to the original, but I do like the King James Version for it's literary beauty and influence and I suppose still like the Douay.

The King James and New King James versions were translated from the Greek text of the New Testament used by the Greek speaking Orthodox Churches. Other English translations use other Greek texts. The Orthodox Study Bible Old Testament is a translation from the Septuagint because that is the version of the Old Testament considered canonical by the Eastern Orthodox Church. The New Testament of the Orthodox Study Bible uses the New King James not only because it is a translation from the Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox Church, but because Nelson, the publisher of the Orthodox Study Bible owns the copyright to the New King James translation.

Fr. John W. Morris

The New Testament Greek text of the King James/New King James is the Reformation era Greek text compiled by Erasmus; Novum Testamentum Omne.

You are right. The Greek text used for the King James/New King James was the Textus Receptus prepared by Erasmus. However, he relied heavily on Byzantine texts so it would be the closest to the Greek text used by the Greek speaking Orthodox Churches.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #101 on: December 21, 2013, 05:57:47 AM »

You are right. The Greek text used for the King James/New King James was the Textus Receptus prepared by Erasmus. However, he relied heavily on Byzantine texts so it would be the closest to the Greek text used by the Greek speaking Orthodox Churches.

That wasn't really the reason why he used the Byzantine texts. The manuscripts of that text-type were the only ones which he could find with the deadline that he had.

If you want old-time language for your English readings, you can use KJV for the NT and Sir Branceton's LXX translation for the OT. Problem solved.

Sir Branceton's translation can hardly be called a translation of the LXX.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 05:58:36 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #102 on: December 21, 2013, 10:52:54 AM »

If you want old-time language for your English readings, you can use KJV for the NT and Sir Branceton's LXX translation for the OT. Problem solved.

Sir Branceton's translation can hardly be called a translation of the LXX.

Is "Sir Branceton" what all the cool kids are calling "Sir Lancelot Brenton" these days?  Tongue
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #103 on: December 21, 2013, 12:40:36 PM »

If you want old-time language for your English readings, you can use KJV for the NT and Sir Branceton's LXX translation for the OT. Problem solved.

Sir Branceton's translation can hardly be called a translation of the LXX.

Is "Sir Branceton" what all the cool kids are calling "Sir Lancelot Brenton" these days?  Tongue

LOL yeah that was an interesting blend I made there, wasn't it?
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #104 on: December 21, 2013, 01:21:05 PM »

If you want old-time language for your English readings, you can use KJV for the NT and Sir Branceton's LXX translation for the OT. Problem solved.

Sir Branceton's translation can hardly be called a translation of the LXX.

Is "Sir Branceton" what all the cool kids are calling "Sir Lancelot Brenton" these days?  Tongue

I was too lazy to look up his name, but I supposed it was the 1850's translation that was based on just one manuscript. That's just bad scholarship.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 01:21:29 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #105 on: December 21, 2013, 01:23:02 PM »

If you want old-time language for your English readings, you can use KJV for the NT and Sir Branceton's LXX translation for the OT. Problem solved.

Sir Branceton's translation can hardly be called a translation of the LXX.

Is "Sir Branceton" what all the cool kids are calling "Sir Lancelot Brenton" these days?  Tongue

LOL yeah that was an interesting blend I made there, wasn't it?
maybe I haven't had enough coffee. I don't get it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #106 on: December 21, 2013, 03:52:21 PM »

If you want old-time language for your English readings, you can use KJV for the NT and Sir Branceton's LXX translation for the OT. Problem solved.

Sir Branceton's translation can hardly be called a translation of the LXX.

Is "Sir Branceton" what all the cool kids are calling "Sir Lancelot Brenton" these days?  Tongue

LOL yeah that was an interesting blend I made there, wasn't it?
maybe I haven't had enough coffee. I don't get it.

It means I took the two words and combined them into one:

Lancelot Brenton > Branceton

It's the same process as the one that gave rise to "brunch", a blend of "breakfast" and "lunch".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blend
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #107 on: December 21, 2013, 03:59:46 PM »

If you want old-time language for your English readings, you can use KJV for the NT and Sir Branceton's LXX translation for the OT. Problem solved.

Sir Branceton's translation can hardly be called a translation of the LXX.

Is "Sir Branceton" what all the cool kids are calling "Sir Lancelot Brenton" these days?  Tongue

LOL yeah that was an interesting blend I made there, wasn't it?
maybe I haven't had enough coffee. I don't get it.

It means I took the two words and combined them into one:

Lancelot Brenton > Branceton

It's the same process as the one that gave rise to "brunch", a blend of "breakfast" and "lunch".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blend

There are at least three translations of the LXX version of the Psalms. Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston publishes one as does Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, and New Skete. The New Skete version is in modern English. The others are in more traditional Elizabethan English. The Jordanvill version also has the traditional prayers said after each Kathisma.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #108 on: December 21, 2013, 04:03:15 PM »

These letters, allegedly between Seneca and St. Paul, were revered by early authorities, but most scholars now doubt their authenticity

IOW, you can't vouch for their authenticity, but you will use them as if they are authoritative to prove a dubious point.  

I give it the benefit of the doubt just as I give the authorship of the gospels

Secondly Paul was a roman! Do you honestly think that when he ws proving his roman citizenship when conversing with the roman authorities who wanted to arrest him, that they spoke Greek? REALLY???

Thirdly if you believe in the gift of tongues the apostles received, then you have to believe Paul could speak latin

More history you need to read.


except that in the western part of the empire , Latin was the first language of all natives and Greek secondary. Even Wikipedia gets this right Roll Eyes. As such its absurd to think to Romans who could speak Latin would speak in Greek in general conversation especially when speaking to native Romans as Paul was. However since tarsus was a a Greek city and Paul grew up there his his primary language was Greek. He could also speak Aramaic because of being Jewish. However his parents were actual roman citizens from Rome who would moat probably would have taught him Latin besides him receiving the gift of tongues.

Now writing  to a roman community that's speaks Latin primarily and Greek secondarily , it makes no sense for him to write to them in a language they do not comprehend best. Just like writing to the Hebrews in Greek when they spoke Aramaic primarily. Its illogical
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 04:06:46 PM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #109 on: December 21, 2013, 04:35:05 PM »

A lot of Roman citizens, and even some consuls and governors, only spoke Greek. Many Roman citizens in the East didn't speak Latin. Besides, letters were sent to other churches as well and they wouldn't have been able to read Latin. Greek back then was what English is for us today.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 04:36:26 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #110 on: December 21, 2013, 05:02:12 PM »

These letters, allegedly between Seneca and St. Paul, were revered by early authorities, but most scholars now doubt their authenticity

IOW, you can't vouch for their authenticity, but you will use them as if they are authoritative to prove a dubious point.  

I give it the benefit of the doubt just as I give the authorship of the gospels

Secondly Paul was a roman! Do you honestly think that when he ws proving his roman citizenship when conversing with the roman authorities who wanted to arrest him, that they spoke Greek? REALLY???

Thirdly if you believe in the gift of tongues the apostles received, then you have to believe Paul could speak latin

More history you need to read.


except that in the western part of the empire , Latin was the first language of all natives and Greek secondary. Even Wikipedia gets this right Roll Eyes. As such its absurd to think to Romans who could speak Latin would speak in Greek in general conversation especially when speaking to native Romans as Paul was. However since tarsus was a a Greek city and Paul grew up there his his primary language was Greek. He could also speak Aramaic because of being Jewish. However his parents were actual roman citizens from Rome who would moat probably would have taught him Latin besides him receiving the gift of tongues.

Now writing  to a roman community that's speaks Latin primarily and Greek secondarily , it makes no sense for him to write to them in a language they do not comprehend best. Just like writing to the Hebrews in Greek when they spoke Aramaic primarily. Its illogical
you need to read history more and trust in your own logic less.

btw, what do you take for the basis of your assertion that St. Paul was speaking to "native Romans."  And, btw, what was a "native Roman"?
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 05:05:08 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,549



« Reply #111 on: December 21, 2013, 05:46:08 PM »

Well, a lot of different countries speak the common lingua franca of English. Maybe English as a secondary language.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 05:46:54 PM by WPM » Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #112 on: December 21, 2013, 06:18:44 PM »

These letters, allegedly between Seneca and St. Paul, were revered by early authorities, but most scholars now doubt their authenticity

IOW, you can't vouch for their authenticity, but you will use them as if they are authoritative to prove a dubious point. 

I give it the benefit of the doubt just as I give the authorship of the gospels

Secondly Paul was a roman! Do you honestly think that when he ws proving his roman citizenship when conversing with the roman authorities who wanted to arrest him, that they spoke Greek? REALLY???

Thirdly if you believe in the gift of tongues the apostles received, then you have to believe Paul could speak latin

More history you need to read.


except that in the western part of the empire , Latin was the first language of all natives and Greek secondary. Even Wikipedia gets this right Roll Eyes. As such its absurd to think to Romans who could speak Latin would speak in Greek in general conversation especially when speaking to native Romans as Paul was. However since tarsus was a a Greek city and Paul grew up there his his primary language was Greek. He could also speak Aramaic because of being Jewish. However his parents were actual roman citizens from Rome who would moat probably would have taught him Latin besides him receiving the gift of tongues.

Now writing  to a roman community that's speaks Latin primarily and Greek secondarily , it makes no sense for him to write to them in a language they do not comprehend best. Just like writing to the Hebrews in Greek when they spoke Aramaic primarily. Its illogical


At that particular point in history Greek was the international language. Any educated person would understand Greek. All theology, even in the West was written in Greek. Tertullian who died in 220 was the first major Latin Father.

I want to comment on the quotes from Sts. Irenaeus of Lyons and Cyprian at the bottom of your post. You have taken them both completely out of context. St. Ireanaeus was writing in France to a Western audience. It was only natural that he would hold up the only Apostolic see in the area as the example for all to follow. St. Irenaeus did not hesitate to admonish the Pope when he went too far and threatened to break Communion with the Churches in Asia Minor over the Pascha controversy. 
St. Cyprian did not hesitate to publicly disagree with Pope St. Stpehen on the matter of Baptism administered outside of the Church and even rewrote his "On the Unity of the Catholic Church" to make it clear that all Bishops are successors to St. Peter and that no Bishop can claim to be the "Bishop of Bishops." Supporters of the papacy are very good at taking statements completely out of context to support their beliefs. The fact is that none of the 7 Ecumenical Councils recognized the Pope as having the authority given him by the 1st Vatican Council during the age of the Ecumenical Councils, the canon of which make it clear that the Pope had no universal jurisdiction and like all other Bishops was bond to obey the decisions of an Ecumenical Council.  During the age of the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils, the Bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor only. He did not have universal jurisdiction. He did not have the authority to interfere in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchates, and certainly did not have the authority to make infallible statements on the doctrine of the Church. In the ancient Church the pope was "first among equals" and had no more authority than the Ecumenical Patriarch has in the Eastern Orthodox Church today.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 06:19:56 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #113 on: December 21, 2013, 06:34:06 PM »

However since tarsus was a a Greek city

Cilician

Quote
He could also speak Aramaic because of being Jewish.

Not really. Aramaic was a local language of Jews in Palestine due to Assyrian legacy. Unless his parents had been recent emigrants he, as a Hellenised Hebrew would not speak it most likely. At least before he moved to Palestine.

Quote
However his parents were actual roman citizens from Rome who would moat probably would have taught him Latin

Really? His parents were from Rome? How do you know that? Was Rome city where they spoke Aramaic on the streets?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Laird
Not yet able to attend an Orthodox church
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer (Catechumen soon hopefully)
Jurisdiction: Baptist
Posts: 287


Lord, have mercy on me


« Reply #114 on: December 21, 2013, 11:41:32 PM »

... especially when speaking to native Romans as Paul was. However since tarsus was a a Greek city and Paul grew up there his his primary language was Greek. He could also speak Aramaic because of being Jewish. However his parents were actual roman citizens from Rome who would moat probably would have taught him Latin besides him receiving the gift of tongues.

Paul was a native of Tarsus, not of Rome. Where did you read that his parents were actual Roman citizens from Rome? He and his parents were merely Roman citizens. That does not require them to be from Rome.
Logged
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,936


Ice cream for sale! 14 and under only, please!


« Reply #115 on: December 22, 2013, 07:10:53 PM »

Well I not only got an answer but a interesting viewpoint on why we are still fighting East and West all these years. Not laying blame on anybody here but it is good to see everyone get to passionate about their views on the biblical superiority of either Latin and Greek. Even as a traditional Catholic I always understood that Greek was the language of the original New Testament texts, translated to Latin by St. Jerome and then eventually to the vernacular around the Reformation. So I am not sure there is much claim that the New Testament, even the epistle to to the Romans was written in Latin rather than Greek. St. Paul may well have spoke Latin and he may have even written in Latin to Seneca, if that is even true--I think it would be cool, like I am sure my dear old Francisco Petrarch would. He was a great lover of Latin after all and the virtuous pagans like Seneca. But I think it is just as unlikely that the actual epistle to the Romans was written in Latin. I think all educated Romans would have been able to read and speak Greek. And I am not much on the history but I suppose St. Jerome translated the Greek to Latin, even for the epistle to the Romans. And I do think even many trads who go to the Latin Mass agree that the liturgical language of the Western Church was Greek for the first couple of centuries and say that is why the Kyrie is still in Greek.

Most however are ignorant of the fact that the Western Church did not have what they know as the Latin Mass today--the "mass of all ages" but various liturgical rites throughout Western Europe. St. Thomas More did not go the the "Latin Mass', though it was in Latin, but I believe the Sarum Rite, and there were many rites in Western Europe before the Council of Trent. I believe they were all in Latin in Western Europe though and certainly more similar to the Tridentine Mass than even a conservative Novus Ordo. And I suppose the educated people of Western Europe read Holy Scripture in Latin, but I think they knew that the original text of the New Testament was Greek. But I am not very educated on the whole translation issue which is one reason I posed the question. Most traditionalist Catholics like me are ignorant of any real Church history before the Middle Ages. Trent is the Nicea for most trads. Not an insult to them, just a sad fact. But from all I heard and read as a trad, Greek certainly was the language of the New Testament and even liturgy in the early Church, even in Rome.

On a side note even as a SSPX trad I used to think that to convert England back from Anglicanism the Anglican Use was a good first step and a beautiful liturgy. Most trads thought I was crazy to want the liturgy in anything but Latin. One friend did agree but thought they would be better to use the Sarum Rite. I agreed, but still thought a baptized use of the Book of Common Prayer was a good first step and way better than most Novus Ordos in the English speaking world.
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #116 on: December 22, 2013, 07:44:57 PM »

Quote
And I suppose the educated people of Western Europe read Holy Scripture in Latin, but I think they knew that the original text of the New Testament was Greek. But I am not very educated on the whole translation issue which is one reason I posed the question. Most traditionalist Catholics like me are ignorant of any real Church history before the Middle Ages. Trent is the Nicea for most trads. Not an insult to them, just a sad fact.

Actually, some Roman Catholics after and during the Reformation were steadfast to claim, against Protestants, that the Latin Vulgate version was superior to the original Greek and Hebrew texts.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2013, 07:46:47 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #117 on: December 22, 2013, 09:18:12 PM »

Quote
And I suppose the educated people of Western Europe read Holy Scripture in Latin, but I think they knew that the original text of the New Testament was Greek. But I am not very educated on the whole translation issue which is one reason I posed the question. Most traditionalist Catholics like me are ignorant of any real Church history before the Middle Ages. Trent is the Nicea for most trads. Not an insult to them, just a sad fact.

Actually, some Roman Catholics after and during the Reformation were steadfast to claim, against Protestants, that the Latin Vulgate version was superior to the original Greek and Hebrew texts.

Well, to the surviving Greek and Hebrew, at any rate. None of this has anything to do with the lousiness of the Douay as a translation, no what text it translates.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #118 on: December 22, 2013, 09:58:38 PM »

Well I not only got an answer but a interesting viewpoint on why we are still fighting East and West all these years. Not laying blame on anybody here but it is good to see everyone get to passionate about their views on the biblical superiority of either Latin and Greek. Even as a traditional Catholic I always understood that Greek was the language of the original New Testament texts, translated to Latin by St. Jerome and then eventually to the vernacular around the Reformation. So I am not sure there is much claim that the New Testament, even the epistle to to the Romans was written in Latin rather than Greek. St. Paul may well have spoke Latin and he may have even written in Latin to Seneca, if that is even true--I think it would be cool, like I am sure my dear old Francisco Petrarch would. He was a great lover of Latin after all and the virtuous pagans like Seneca. But I think it is just as unlikely that the actual epistle to the Romans was written in Latin. I think all educated Romans would have been able to read and speak Greek. And I am not much on the history but I suppose St. Jerome translated the Greek to Latin, even for the epistle to the Romans. And I do think even many trads who go to the Latin Mass agree that the liturgical language of the Western Church was Greek for the first couple of centuries and say that is why the Kyrie is still in Greek.

Most however are ignorant of the fact that the Western Church did not have what they know as the Latin Mass today--the "mass of all ages" but various liturgical rites throughout Western Europe. St. Thomas More did not go the the "Latin Mass', though it was in Latin, but I believe the Sarum Rite, and there were many rites in Western Europe before the Council of Trent. I believe they were all in Latin in Western Europe though and certainly more similar to the Tridentine Mass than even a conservative Novus Ordo. And I suppose the educated people of Western Europe read Holy Scripture in Latin, but I think they knew that the original text of the New Testament was Greek. But I am not very educated on the whole translation issue which is one reason I posed the question. Most traditionalist Catholics like me are ignorant of any real Church history before the Middle Ages. Trent is the Nicea for most trads. Not an insult to them, just a sad fact. But from all I heard and read as a trad, Greek certainly was the language of the New Testament and even liturgy in the early Church, even in Rome.

On a side note even as a SSPX trad I used to think that to convert England back from Anglicanism the Anglican Use was a good first step and a beautiful liturgy. Most trads thought I was crazy to want the liturgy in anything but Latin. One friend did agree but thought they would be better to use the Sarum Rite. I agreed, but still thought a baptized use of the Book of Common Prayer was a good first step and way better than most Novus Ordos in the English speaking world.

There are good scholarly reasons to favor a translation of the New Testament from the original Greek over a translation from Latin.
I do not understand why the Roman Rite did not simply translate the Mass into the vernacular and leave everything else the same. The old Latin Mass in English, which is served with a few changes to conform to Orthodox theology in Western Rite Orthodox parishes, is much more beautiful than the Novo Ordo. That is what the Eastern Orthodox did. We simply translated our Liturgy into English or whatever language was spoken by the people. In America, Antiochian Eastern Orthodox serve the same liturgy in English that they serve in Arabic in Lebanon, in Greek in Athens and in Slavonic in Moscow.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: December 22, 2013, 10:22:52 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,936


Ice cream for sale! 14 and under only, please!


« Reply #119 on: December 22, 2013, 11:22:40 PM »

Well I not only got an answer but a interesting viewpoint on why we are still fighting East and West all these years. Not laying blame on anybody here but it is good to see everyone get to passionate about their views on the biblical superiority of either Latin and Greek. Even as a traditional Catholic I always understood that Greek was the language of the original New Testament texts, translated to Latin by St. Jerome and then eventually to the vernacular around the Reformation. So I am not sure there is much claim that the New Testament, even the epistle to to the Romans was written in Latin rather than Greek. St. Paul may well have spoke Latin and he may have even written in Latin to Seneca, if that is even true--I think it would be cool, like I am sure my dear old Francisco Petrarch would. He was a great lover of Latin after all and the virtuous pagans like Seneca. But I think it is just as unlikely that the actual epistle to the Romans was written in Latin. I think all educated Romans would have been able to read and speak Greek. And I am not much on the history but I suppose St. Jerome translated the Greek to Latin, even for the epistle to the Romans. And I do think even many trads who go to the Latin Mass agree that the liturgical language of the Western Church was Greek for the first couple of centuries and say that is why the Kyrie is still in Greek.

Most however are ignorant of the fact that the Western Church did not have what they know as the Latin Mass today--the "mass of all ages" but various liturgical rites throughout Western Europe. St. Thomas More did not go the the "Latin Mass', though it was in Latin, but I believe the Sarum Rite, and there were many rites in Western Europe before the Council of Trent. I believe they were all in Latin in Western Europe though and certainly more similar to the Tridentine Mass than even a conservative Novus Ordo. And I suppose the educated people of Western Europe read Holy Scripture in Latin, but I think they knew that the original text of the New Testament was Greek. But I am not very educated on the whole translation issue which is one reason I posed the question. Most traditionalist Catholics like me are ignorant of any real Church history before the Middle Ages. Trent is the Nicea for most trads. Not an insult to them, just a sad fact. But from all I heard and read as a trad, Greek certainly was the language of the New Testament and even liturgy in the early Church, even in Rome.

On a side note even as a SSPX trad I used to think that to convert England back from Anglicanism the Anglican Use was a good first step and a beautiful liturgy. Most trads thought I was crazy to want the liturgy in anything but Latin. One friend did agree but thought they would be better to use the Sarum Rite. I agreed, but still thought a baptized use of the Book of Common Prayer was a good first step and way better than most Novus Ordos in the English speaking world.

There are good scholarly reasons to favor a translation of the New Testament from the original Greek over a translation from Latin.
I do not understand why the Roman Rite did not simply translate the Mass into the vernacular and leave everything else the same. The old Latin Mass in English, which is served with a few changes to conform to Orthodox theology in Western Rite Orthodox parishes, is much more beautiful than the Novo Ordo. That is what the Eastern Orthodox did. We simply translated our Liturgy into English or whatever language was spoken by the people. In America, Antiochian Eastern Orthodox serve the same liturgy in English that they serve in Arabic in Lebanon, in Greek in Athens and in Slavonic in Moscow.

Fr. John W. Morris

Well, I am afraid it is a bit more than a simple making it more understandable to the "People of God" that caused the Novus Ordo. I really do think the was Freemasonic, etc, involvement in that whole new mass thing. There are just too many fishy things. Some, maybe even Archbishop Lefevbre himself would have been happy enough with the Tridentine Liturgy converted right to the vernacular....but as we see there was something more demonic planned than that as the whole old Catholic way of looking at things quickly changed by people who had slowly been for years trying to infiltrate the Church.

On that note it is interesting that with communism and everything evil in Eastern Europe that though some degree of modernism naturally leaked into the Orthodox Church, even Mother Russia is still more traditional than Rome right now.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #120 on: December 23, 2013, 12:40:57 AM »

Well I not only got an answer but a interesting viewpoint on why we are still fighting East and West all these years. Not laying blame on anybody here but it is good to see everyone get to passionate about their views on the biblical superiority of either Latin and Greek. Even as a traditional Catholic I always understood that Greek was the language of the original New Testament texts, translated to Latin by St. Jerome and then eventually to the vernacular around the Reformation. So I am not sure there is much claim that the New Testament, even the epistle to to the Romans was written in Latin rather than Greek. St. Paul may well have spoke Latin and he may have even written in Latin to Seneca, if that is even true--I think it would be cool, like I am sure my dear old Francisco Petrarch would. He was a great lover of Latin after all and the virtuous pagans like Seneca. But I think it is just as unlikely that the actual epistle to the Romans was written in Latin. I think all educated Romans would have been able to read and speak Greek. And I am not much on the history but I suppose St. Jerome translated the Greek to Latin, even for the epistle to the Romans. And I do think even many trads who go to the Latin Mass agree that the liturgical language of the Western Church was Greek for the first couple of centuries and say that is why the Kyrie is still in Greek.

Most however are ignorant of the fact that the Western Church did not have what they know as the Latin Mass today--the "mass of all ages" but various liturgical rites throughout Western Europe. St. Thomas More did not go the the "Latin Mass', though it was in Latin, but I believe the Sarum Rite, and there were many rites in Western Europe before the Council of Trent. I believe they were all in Latin in Western Europe though and certainly more similar to the Tridentine Mass than even a conservative Novus Ordo. And I suppose the educated people of Western Europe read Holy Scripture in Latin, but I think they knew that the original text of the New Testament was Greek. But I am not very educated on the whole translation issue which is one reason I posed the question. Most traditionalist Catholics like me are ignorant of any real Church history before the Middle Ages. Trent is the Nicea for most trads. Not an insult to them, just a sad fact. But from all I heard and read as a trad, Greek certainly was the language of the New Testament and even liturgy in the early Church, even in Rome.

On a side note even as a SSPX trad I used to think that to convert England back from Anglicanism the Anglican Use was a good first step and a beautiful liturgy. Most trads thought I was crazy to want the liturgy in anything but Latin. One friend did agree but thought they would be better to use the Sarum Rite. I agreed, but still thought a baptized use of the Book of Common Prayer was a good first step and way better than most Novus Ordos in the English speaking world.

There are good scholarly reasons to favor a translation of the New Testament from the original Greek over a translation from Latin.
I do not understand why the Roman Rite did not simply translate the Mass into the vernacular and leave everything else the same. The old Latin Mass in English, which is served with a few changes to conform to Orthodox theology in Western Rite Orthodox parishes, is much more beautiful than the Novo Ordo. That is what the Eastern Orthodox did. We simply translated our Liturgy into English or whatever language was spoken by the people. In America, Antiochian Eastern Orthodox serve the same liturgy in English that they serve in Arabic in Lebanon, in Greek in Athens and in Slavonic in Moscow.

Fr. John W. Morris

Well, I am afraid it is a bit more than a simple making it more understandable to the "People of God" that caused the Novus Ordo. I really do think the was Freemasonic, etc, involvement in that whole new mass thing. There are just too many fishy things. Some, maybe even Archbishop Lefevbre himself would have been happy enough with the Tridentine Liturgy converted right to the vernacular....but as we see there was something more demonic planned than that as the whole old Catholic way of looking at things quickly changed by people who had slowly been for years trying to infiltrate the Church.

On that note it is interesting that with communism and everything evil in Eastern Europe that though some degree of modernism naturally leaked into the Orthodox Church, even Mother Russia is still more traditional than Rome right now.

I am not privy to what considerations led to the Novo Ordo Mass, but I do know that it lacks the majesty and beauty of the old Tridentine High Mass. I agree that it should have been translated into the language understood by the people, but that has always been the practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but in my opinion they went too far and threw out too much of the old practices and lost the sense of the sacred.
What modernism? The Orthodox Church has suffered terrible persecution during most of its history from Jews, Romans, Muslims, Communists and now from secularists, but it never changed its doctrine or forms of worship.
Logged
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,936


Ice cream for sale! 14 and under only, please!


« Reply #121 on: December 23, 2013, 02:56:08 AM »

I am not privy to the state of the Orthodox Church, but just reading here and there I have read there is some minor modernism but nothing compared to Rome, no matter how blind conservatives are to the fact or try to mud the waters and say that there is too much infighting in the Orthodox churches--like a trad friend tried to say.

As for the Roman Catholic Church I think that is clear enough where modernism lies. Putting the liturgy aside the conservatives look like idiots when they pretend nothing at all is wrong except that Vatican II somehow went astray and that there was no foul play or conspiracy. I mean the SSPX deal is not just: "Well they won't listen to the Pope!" The Pope has not exactly been fair to them no matter what the conservatives say. It's a very complicated matter as recent talks between the SSPX and Rome have shown, causing a split within the SSPX itself. I myself in a way blame Scholasticism, though it is not that simple and I am just waiting for our devout Roman Catholics to jump on me for attacking Thomism and all that. I am not saying the Scholastic approach is evil or demonic. I am just saying the rationalistic approach has so made its way into Latin thinking that is has made things difficult. Everything is legalistic. The SSPX is legally is schism because

1. They do not completely submit to the Bishop of Rome
2. Yet they do not deny he is the Supreme Bishop and universal Pontiff.
3. And so they on the  one hand give reverence to his office and thus would have to say that objectively the Sedevacantists are in schism like the Eastern Orthodox and they only disobey to obey a higher authority
4. But they do not have any canonical (legal) authority to really do anything. Their justification for their action is based on another legal loophole, which while it may be just, weakens them in making an attack on the Pope because they cannot condemn him or anything and must to, some degree, reverence him. Yet on the other they must attack him.

So it's really legal when it comes down to it. Rationalism helps the legalist, but it also creates problems when the authority is a tyrant or wrong, especially when there is a claim of infallibility involved.
Logged
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,936


Ice cream for sale! 14 and under only, please!


« Reply #122 on: December 23, 2013, 02:58:37 AM »

P.S....It does not help that there are so many ultramontanists in the right wing, whether mainstream or more far right of the Latin Church. Even from a medieval view they are fighting with fact. Dante, for example, would just love to have a chance to attack the Pope getting too much power, even if he though the only successor of Peter was the Bishop of Rome.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #123 on: December 23, 2013, 12:10:55 PM »

I am not privy to the state of the Orthodox Church, but just reading here and there I have read there is some minor modernism but nothing compared to Rome, no matter how blind conservatives are to the fact or try to mud the waters and say that there is too much infighting in the Orthodox churches--like a trad friend tried to say.

As for the Roman Catholic Church I think that is clear enough where modernism lies. Putting the liturgy aside the conservatives look like idiots when they pretend nothing at all is wrong except that Vatican II somehow went astray and that there was no foul play or conspiracy. I mean the SSPX deal is not just: "Well they won't listen to the Pope!" The Pope has not exactly been fair to them no matter what the conservatives say. It's a very complicated matter as recent talks between the SSPX and Rome have shown, causing a split within the SSPX itself. I myself in a way blame Scholasticism, though it is not that simple and I am just waiting for our devout Roman Catholics to jump on me for attacking Thomism and all that. I am not saying the Scholastic approach is evil or demonic. I am just saying the rationalistic approach has so made its way into Latin thinking that is has made things difficult. Everything is legalistic. The SSPX is legally is schism because

1. They do not completely submit to the Bishop of Rome
2. Yet they do not deny he is the Supreme Bishop and universal Pontiff.
3. And so they on the  one hand give reverence to his office and thus would have to say that objectively the Sedevacantists are in schism like the Eastern Orthodox and they only disobey to obey a higher authority
4. But they do not have any canonical (legal) authority to really do anything. Their justification for their action is based on another legal loophole, which while it may be just, weakens them in making an attack on the Pope because they cannot condemn him or anything and must to, some degree, reverence him. Yet on the other they must attack him.

So it's really legal when it comes down to it. Rationalism helps the legalist, but it also creates problems when the authority is a tyrant or wrong, especially when there is a claim of infallibility involved.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is not in schism. It is Rome that went into schism. Your other arguments are right, but through them you attack the foundation of modern Roman Catholicism, which is scholasticsm.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,936


Ice cream for sale! 14 and under only, please!


« Reply #124 on: December 23, 2013, 03:32:11 PM »

I am not privy to the state of the Orthodox Church, but just reading here and there I have read there is some minor modernism but nothing compared to Rome, no matter how blind conservatives are to the fact or try to mud the waters and say that there is too much infighting in the Orthodox churches--like a trad friend tried to say.

As for the Roman Catholic Church I think that is clear enough where modernism lies. Putting the liturgy aside the conservatives look like idiots when they pretend nothing at all is wrong except that Vatican II somehow went astray and that there was no foul play or conspiracy. I mean the SSPX deal is not just: "Well they won't listen to the Pope!" The Pope has not exactly been fair to them no matter what the conservatives say. It's a very complicated matter as recent talks between the SSPX and Rome have shown, causing a split within the SSPX itself. I myself in a way blame Scholasticism, though it is not that simple and I am just waiting for our devout Roman Catholics to jump on me for attacking Thomism and all that. I am not saying the Scholastic approach is evil or demonic. I am just saying the rationalistic approach has so made its way into Latin thinking that is has made things difficult. Everything is legalistic. The SSPX is legally is schism because

1. They do not completely submit to the Bishop of Rome
2. Yet they do not deny he is the Supreme Bishop and universal Pontiff.
3. And so they on the  one hand give reverence to his office and thus would have to say that objectively the Sedevacantists are in schism like the Eastern Orthodox and they only disobey to obey a higher authority
4. But they do not have any canonical (legal) authority to really do anything. Their justification for their action is based on another legal loophole, which while it may be just, weakens them in making an attack on the Pope because they cannot condemn him or anything and must to, some degree, reverence him. Yet on the other they must attack him.

So it's really legal when it comes down to it. Rationalism helps the legalist, but it also creates problems when the authority is a tyrant or wrong, especially when there is a claim of infallibility involved.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is not in schism. It is Rome that went into schism. Your other arguments are right, but through them you attack the foundation of modern Roman Catholicism, which is scholasticsm.

Fr. John W. Morris

Yes the SSPX uses very Scholastic arguments in his justification for its actions. Actually one I found annoying, even as a big fan of Thomas Aquinas was their Scholastic justification about whether one should give money to beggars. Basically it went on and on about prudence and how it is more important to take care of our own family and financial need before giving foolishly to beggars. That not every one who asks deserves it. True enough--we should take care of our family before giving to others. But there was not even a mention of giving to beggars being a corporeal work of mercy and that those who do it with a compassionate heart to a great act of charity, taking compassion of those in need. Nothing about it. It hardly mentioned it was good and while it did not take the modern American Protestant approach to not giving to beggars it did pretty much say it was imprudent and all that, using a very scholastic manner to justify it. I understand saying give with prudence and good judgment, but I have always done so. I give what I can give and do it because it is simply the right thing to do. I do not go and give out hundred dollar bills. I usually give a couple dollars or maybe a five. Anyway the SSPX uses a very scholastic manner in moral questions and theological questions like this--including it's justification of it's rebellion from Rome.

But of course there does have to be a legal argument for that, since according to their canons they are at least flirting with schism from the Pope. It has to be a legal argument in that case since it is a matter of canon law. One of their problems they admit is they have no objective canonical jurisdiction.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #125 on: December 23, 2013, 03:39:54 PM »

Quote
However his parents were actual roman citizens from Rome

Do you have a source for this one?
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #126 on: December 23, 2013, 05:26:00 PM »

Well I not only got an answer but a interesting viewpoint on why we are still fighting East and West all these years. Not laying blame on anybody here but it is good to see everyone get to passionate about their views on the biblical superiority of either Latin and Greek. Even as a traditional Catholic I always understood that Greek was the language of the original New Testament texts, translated to Latin by St. Jerome and then eventually to the vernacular around the Reformation. So I am not sure there is much claim that the New Testament, even the epistle to to the Romans was written in Latin rather than Greek. St. Paul may well have spoke Latin and he may have even written in Latin to Seneca, if that is even true--I think it would be cool, like I am sure my dear old Francisco Petrarch would. He was a great lover of Latin after all and the virtuous pagans like Seneca. But I think it is just as unlikely that the actual epistle to the Romans was written in Latin. I think all educated Romans would have been able to read and speak Greek. And I am not much on the history but I suppose St. Jerome translated the Greek to Latin, even for the epistle to the Romans. And I do think even many trads who go to the Latin Mass agree that the liturgical language of the Western Church was Greek for the first couple of centuries and say that is why the Kyrie is still in Greek.

Most however are ignorant of the fact that the Western Church did not have what they know as the Latin Mass today--the "mass of all ages" but various liturgical rites throughout Western Europe. St. Thomas More did not go the the "Latin Mass', though it was in Latin, but I believe the Sarum Rite, and there were many rites in Western Europe before the Council of Trent. I believe they were all in Latin in Western Europe though and certainly more similar to the Tridentine Mass than even a conservative Novus Ordo. And I suppose the educated people of Western Europe read Holy Scripture in Latin, but I think they knew that the original text of the New Testament was Greek. But I am not very educated on the whole translation issue which is one reason I posed the question. Most traditionalist Catholics like me are ignorant of any real Church history before the Middle Ages. Trent is the Nicea for most trads. Not an insult to them, just a sad fact. But from all I heard and read as a trad, Greek certainly was the language of the New Testament and even liturgy in the early Church, even in Rome.

On a side note even as a SSPX trad I used to think that to convert England back from Anglicanism the Anglican Use was a good first step and a beautiful liturgy. Most trads thought I was crazy to want the liturgy in anything but Latin. One friend did agree but thought they would be better to use the Sarum Rite. I agreed, but still thought a baptized use of the Book of Common Prayer was a good first step and way better than most Novus Ordos in the English speaking world.

There are good scholarly reasons to favor a translation of the New Testament from the original Greek over a translation from Latin.
I do not understand why the Roman Rite did not simply translate the Mass into the vernacular and leave everything else the same. The old Latin Mass in English, which is served with a few changes to conform to Orthodox theology in Western Rite Orthodox parishes, is much more beautiful than the Novo Ordo. That is what the Eastern Orthodox did. We simply translated our Liturgy into English or whatever language was spoken by the people. In America, Antiochian Eastern Orthodox serve the same liturgy in English that they serve in Arabic in Lebanon, in Greek in Athens and in Slavonic in Moscow.

Fr. John W. Morris

Well, I am afraid it is a bit more than a simple making it more understandable to the "People of God" that caused the Novus Ordo. I really do think the was Freemasonic, etc, involvement in that whole new mass thing. There are just too many fishy things. Some, maybe even Archbishop Lefevbre himself would have been happy enough with the Tridentine Liturgy converted right to the vernacular....but as we see there was something more demonic planned than that as the whole old Catholic way of looking at things quickly changed by people who had slowly been for years trying to infiltrate the Church.

On that note it is interesting that with communism and everything evil in Eastern Europe that though some degree of modernism naturally leaked into the Orthodox Church, even Mother Russia is still more traditional than Rome right now.

I am not privy to what considerations led to the Novo Ordo Mass, but I do know that it lacks the majesty and beauty of the old Tridentine High Mass. I agree that it should have been translated into the language understood by the people, but that has always been the practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but in my opinion they went too far and threw out too much of the old practices and lost the sense of the sacred.
What modernism? The Orthodox Church has suffered terrible persecution during most of its history from Jews, Romans, Muslims, Communists and now from secularists, but it never changed its doctrine or forms of worship.

I have been thinking about your arguments. There is one fundamental flaw. In Roman Catholicism, the Pope holds all power. There is no authority within Roman Catholicism to overrule the decisions of the Pope. Therein lies your problem. A Pope like Paul VI can throw out all most all old Roman traditions and make radical changes in Catholic worship and there exist no authority to over rule his decisions. No one has that kind of authority within Eastern Orthodoxy. Thus what happened to the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church could not happen to us.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,936


Ice cream for sale! 14 and under only, please!


« Reply #127 on: December 23, 2013, 08:33:09 PM »

Yes, Father....one reason I am considering Orthodoxy. I very much like the culture of the West, at least historically. I am not very familiar with Byzantine culture or even historic Russian culture. For example I suppose I shall always be fond of Italian art, Dante, Petrarch, Shakespeare. But of course I think many Orthodox Christians are and Orthodox Christianity is not really Eastern but universal. It just happens to be geographically eastern for various reasons of historic events. One reason I do not think any race or people are superior, at least in any way that matters in the end. The idea that Christianity is a "white, European religion" is not only foolish, but shows a clear historical ignorance. And as for the great beauties that Western Europe gave us, like Dante, sure it is very much Roman Catholic, but even an atheist can appreciate The Divine Comedy, so I think an Orthodox Christian can.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #128 on: December 23, 2013, 11:36:34 PM »

Yes, Father....one reason I am considering Orthodoxy. I very much like the culture of the West, at least historically. I am not very familiar with Byzantine culture or even historic Russian culture. For example I suppose I shall always be fond of Italian art, Dante, Petrarch, Shakespeare. But of course I think many Orthodox Christians are and Orthodox Christianity is not really Eastern but universal. It just happens to be geographically eastern for various reasons of historic events. One reason I do not think any race or people are superior, at least in any way that matters in the end. The idea that Christianity is a "white, European religion" is not only foolish, but shows a clear historical ignorance. And as for the great beauties that Western Europe gave us, like Dante, sure it is very much Roman Catholic, but even an atheist can appreciate The Divine Comedy, so I think an Orthodox Christian can.

You should be aware of the fact that not all Eastern Orthodox are Eastern. I am an American convert from Protestantism. My ancestors came from the British Isles.
Neither do all in Communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church follow the Eastern or Byzantine Liturgy. The Russian Orthodox Outside of Russia, and the North American Archdiocese under Antioch both have Western Rites. Because I am Antiochian, I am most familiar with the Western Rite in the Antiochian Archdiocese, although I am a Byzantine Rite Priest. The Antiochian Western Rite uses two Liturgies. The Liturgy of St. Tikhon, which is the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer and the Liturgy of St. Gregory which is the Tridentine pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Mass, both with a few minor changes to bring them into conformity with Orthodox theology. You can download the official service book of the Antiochian Western Rite at
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CEoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.allmercifulsavior.com%2FLiturgy2%2Fsasb.pdf&ei=IgW5UuGfE4aF2AWY2oCwCw&usg=AFQjCNE1H9MUpRvc1QPY1BnSLVlksw3kmw&sig2=pWeDUnZwqr9tuZ9IoznpMA

You can read about the Antiochian Western Rite at http://www.antiochian.org/western-rite

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #129 on: December 25, 2013, 01:45:38 AM »

I must admit that upon further research and studying, i concede that until evidence can be provided, Greek was the original language of the letter to the Romans. Thanks for all the Reponses here.

With regards to the letter to the Hebrews Eusabius accounts :

He[Clement] says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.

. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name."
« Last Edit: December 25, 2013, 01:46:47 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,936


Ice cream for sale! 14 and under only, please!


« Reply #130 on: December 25, 2013, 09:51:12 AM »

I must admit that upon further research and studying, i concede that until evidence can be provided, Greek was the original language of the letter to the Romans. Thanks for all the Reponses here.

With regards to the letter to the Hebrews Eusabius accounts :

He[Clement] says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.

. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name."

Well I like Latin as much as anyone. In fact I was glad to sing Adeste Fideles at midnight mass last night and likely be one of the few people there other than the choir who got the pronunciation right. I am also glad they did the Kyrie in Greek instead of English. But some people, not you, but whoever you read that said it was originally written in Latin may have meant well or thought they were right, but I think some Latins want everything to be in Latin, even the original New Testament. Like that Latin is the language of Paradise. Personally I think they speak Elvish in Paradise. This would all work better if I could figure out how to post videos directly on here. It's Liv Tyler speaking Elvish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa1HZKhjpIs
« Last Edit: December 25, 2013, 09:52:43 AM by wainscottbl » Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #131 on: December 25, 2013, 01:34:16 PM »

I must admit that upon further research and studying, i concede that until evidence can be provided, Greek was the original language of the letter to the Romans. Thanks for all the Reponses here.

With regards to the letter to the Hebrews Eusabius accounts :

He[Clement] says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.

. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name."

Well I like Latin as much as anyone. In fact I was glad to sing Adeste Fideles at midnight mass last night and likely be one of the few people there other than the choir who got the pronunciation right. I am also glad they did the Kyrie in Greek instead of English. But some people, not you, but whoever you read that said it was originally written in Latin may have meant well or thought they were right, but I think some Latins want everything to be in Latin, even the original New Testament. Like that Latin is the language of Paradise. Personally I think they speak Elvish in Paradise. This would all work better if I could figure out how to post videos directly on here. It's Liv Tyler speaking Elvish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa1HZKhjpIs

Even if Romans was originally written in Latin, a theory that seems rather far fetched, the text accepted by the Church is the Greek text of Romans.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #132 on: December 25, 2013, 07:10:34 PM »

I must admit that upon further research and studying, i concede that until evidence can be provided, Greek was the original language of the letter to the Romans. Thanks for all the Reponses here.

With regards to the letter to the Hebrews Eusabius accounts :

He[Clement] says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.

. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name."

Well I like Latin as much as anyone. In fact I was glad to sing Adeste Fideles at midnight mass last night and likely be one of the few people there other than the choir who got the pronunciation right. I am also glad they did the Kyrie in Greek instead of English. But some people, not you, but whoever you read that said it was originally written in Latin may have meant well or thought they were right, but I think some Latins want everything to be in Latin, even the original New Testament. Like that Latin is the language of Paradise. Personally I think they speak Elvish in Paradise. This would all work better if I could figure out how to post videos directly on here. It's Liv Tyler speaking Elvish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa1HZKhjpIs

Even if Romans was originally written in Latin, a theory that seems rather far fetched, the text accepted by the Church is the Greek text of Romans.

Fr. John W. Morris

until a Latin original can be found or some sort of proof of it being written in Latin first. The original language should always be most important. Fir now its accepted that it was written in greek
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #133 on: December 25, 2013, 07:19:32 PM »

The original language should always be most important.

You may have difficulty getting many Orthodox to agree with you on that.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #134 on: December 25, 2013, 07:51:25 PM »

I must admit that upon further research and studying, i concede that until evidence can be provided, Greek was the original language of the letter to the Romans. Thanks for all the Reponses here.

With regards to the letter to the Hebrews Eusabius accounts :

He[Clement] says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.

. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name."

Well I like Latin as much as anyone. In fact I was glad to sing Adeste Fideles at midnight mass last night and likely be one of the few people there other than the choir who got the pronunciation right. I am also glad they did the Kyrie in Greek instead of English. But some people, not you, but whoever you read that said it was originally written in Latin may have meant well or thought they were right, but I think some Latins want everything to be in Latin, even the original New Testament. Like that Latin is the language of Paradise. Personally I think they speak Elvish in Paradise. This would all work better if I could figure out how to post videos directly on here. It's Liv Tyler speaking Elvish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa1HZKhjpIs

Even if Romans was originally written in Latin, a theory that seems rather far fetched, the text accepted by the Church is the Greek text of Romans.

Fr. John W. Morris

until a Latin original can be found or some sort of proof of it being written in Latin first. The original language should always be most important. Fir now its accepted that it was written in greek

The version accepted by the Church is the one with authority because the book of the Bible derive their authority from their recognition by the Church. The recognized version of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans is the Greek version. Besides there is no evidence whatsoever that the Epistle of Romans was originally written in  Latin or any respectable Biblical Scholar who believes that it was. Why do you believe that St. Paul's Epistle to Romans was originally written in Latin when no respectable scholar makes this argument?

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #135 on: December 25, 2013, 08:12:46 PM »

I cannot see why the Douay is a good choice for any Orthodox use, or for that matter, anyone who doesn't specifically need an Official Catholic Translation, and even then, in my opinion there are better choices. As Ialmisry has said, and as I have pointed out a number of times, the RSV Common Bible enjoys some degree of official Orthodox approval, and moreover it and the NRSV equivalent are the only translations which include all the Orthodox OT texts.

I also have to say that it seems to me that notion that there is one special source text which can be read in one special translation is a low Protestant idea foreign to the episcopally-organized churches.


The New Revised Standard is not an approved version for use in the Eastern Orthodox Church because it changes the text to use so called inclusive language. I believe that the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America actually issued a decree forbidding the use of the New Revised Version in Bible studies and liturgically.
All English translations are only translations. Therefore, whenever studying the Bible one must the original Greek text which is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Holy Scriptures.
The English version used for the English language Gospel books published by the Greek and Antiochian Archdioceses is from the Revised Standard Version. When I was in seminary, we were told that it is the most accurate English translation of the Bible. Of course, the Orthodox Study Bible had not yet been published.
The Orthodox Study Bible has all of the Old Testament books used by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
There is a very simple version why the Eastern Orthodox do not use the Douay version. It is a translation from the Latin Vulgate. Why would we use a translation of a translation when we can use a translation from the original Greek text? Remember we have Greeks in our Church who can understand the original text of the Bible. Besides the Douay version has notes that would confuse the Faithful because they reflect Roman Catholic doctrine. The Vulgate also contains several important mistranslations from the original Greek text. These mistakes are the origins of many of the doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, as well as the errors in the teachings of Augustine.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: December 25, 2013, 08:30:18 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,498


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #136 on: December 25, 2013, 09:11:05 PM »

I cannot see why the Douay is a good choice for any Orthodox use, or for that matter, anyone who doesn't specifically need an Official Catholic Translation, and even then, in my opinion there are better choices. As Ialmisry has said, and as I have pointed out a number of times, the RSV Common Bible enjoys some degree of official Orthodox approval, and moreover it and the NRSV equivalent are the only translations which include all the Orthodox OT texts.

I also have to say that it seems to me that notion that there is one special source text which can be read in one special translation is a low Protestant idea foreign to the episcopally-organized churches.


The New Revised Standard is not an approved version for use in the Eastern Orthodox Church because it changes the text to use so called inclusive language. I believe that the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America actually issued a decree forbidding the use of the New Revised Version in Bible studies and liturgically.
All English translations are only translations. Therefore, whenever studying the Bible one must the original Greek text which is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Holy Scriptures.
The English version used for the English language Gospel books published by the Greek and Antiochian Archdioceses is from the Revised Standard Version. When I was in seminary, we were told that it is the most accurate English translation of the Bible. Of course, the Orthodox Study Bible had not yet been published.
The Orthodox Study Bible has all of the Old Testament books used by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
There is a very simple version why the Eastern Orthodox do not use the Douay version. It is a translation from the Latin Vulgate. Why would we use a translation of a translation when we can use a translation from the original Greek text? Remember we have Greeks in our Church who can understand the original text of the Bible. Besides the Douay version has notes that would confuse the Faithful because they reflect Roman Catholic doctrine. The Vulgate also contains several important mistranslations from the original Greek text. These mistakes are the origins of many of the doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, as well as the errors in the teachings of Augustine.

Fr. John W. Morris


Father

IS there a list of Bibles that are, like the NRSV, forbidden for use by various jurisdictions?
Logged

SCREW BON JOVI!
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #137 on: December 25, 2013, 09:22:54 PM »

I cannot see why the Douay is a good choice for any Orthodox use, or for that matter, anyone who doesn't specifically need an Official Catholic Translation, and even then, in my opinion there are better choices. As Ialmisry has said, and as I have pointed out a number of times, the RSV Common Bible enjoys some degree of official Orthodox approval, and moreover it and the NRSV equivalent are the only translations which include all the Orthodox OT texts.

I also have to say that it seems to me that notion that there is one special source text which can be read in one special translation is a low Protestant idea foreign to the episcopally-organized churches.


The New Revised Standard is not an approved version for use in the Eastern Orthodox Church because it changes the text to use so called inclusive language. I believe that the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America actually issued a decree forbidding the use of the New Revised Version in Bible studies and liturgically.
All English translations are only translations. Therefore, whenever studying the Bible one must the original Greek text which is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Holy Scriptures.
The English version used for the English language Gospel books published by the Greek and Antiochian Archdioceses is from the Revised Standard Version. When I was in seminary, we were told that it is the most accurate English translation of the Bible. Of course, the Orthodox Study Bible had not yet been published.
The Orthodox Study Bible has all of the Old Testament books used by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
There is a very simple version why the Eastern Orthodox do not use the Douay version. It is a translation from the Latin Vulgate. Why would we use a translation of a translation when we can use a translation from the original Greek text? Remember we have Greeks in our Church who can understand the original text of the Bible. Besides the Douay version has notes that would confuse the Faithful because they reflect Roman Catholic doctrine. The Vulgate also contains several important mistranslations from the original Greek text. These mistakes are the origins of many of the doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, as well as the errors in the teachings of Augustine.

Fr. John W. Morris


Father

IS there a list of Bibles that are, like the NRSV, forbidden for use by various jurisdictions?

The NRSV was specifically condemned by an Orthodox Synod.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #138 on: December 25, 2013, 09:38:31 PM »

I cannot see why the Douay is a good choice for any Orthodox use, or for that matter, anyone who doesn't specifically need an Official Catholic Translation, and even then, in my opinion there are better choices. As Ialmisry has said, and as I have pointed out a number of times, the RSV Common Bible enjoys some degree of official Orthodox approval, and moreover it and the NRSV equivalent are the only translations which include all the Orthodox OT texts.

I also have to say that it seems to me that notion that there is one special source text which can be read in one special translation is a low Protestant idea foreign to the episcopally-organized churches.


The New Revised Standard is not an approved version for use in the Eastern Orthodox Church because it changes the text to use so called inclusive language. I believe that the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America actually issued a decree forbidding the use of the New Revised Version in Bible studies and liturgically.
All English translations are only translations. Therefore, whenever studying the Bible one must the original Greek text which is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Holy Scriptures.
The English version used for the English language Gospel books published by the Greek and Antiochian Archdioceses is from the Revised Standard Version. When I was in seminary, we were told that it is the most accurate English translation of the Bible. Of course, the Orthodox Study Bible had not yet been published.
The Orthodox Study Bible has all of the Old Testament books used by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
There is a very simple version why the Eastern Orthodox do not use the Douay version. It is a translation from the Latin Vulgate. Why would we use a translation of a translation when we can use a translation from the original Greek text? Remember we have Greeks in our Church who can understand the original text of the Bible. Besides the Douay version has notes that would confuse the Faithful because they reflect Roman Catholic doctrine. The Vulgate also contains several important mistranslations from the original Greek text. These mistakes are the origins of many of the doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, as well as the errors in the teachings of Augustine.

Fr. John W. Morris


Father

IS there a list of Bibles that are, like the NRSV, forbidden for use by various jurisdictions?

Not to my knowledge. What is important to remember when reading any English translation of the Bible is that it is a translation. To get to the real meaning, it is necessary to consider the meaning of the original Greek text as interpreted by the Holy Fathers and Tradition of the Church. Any version that is not a direct translation, a paraphrase, or translation done to further an agenda such as political correctness like the New Revised Standard Version is to be avoided for what should be obvious reasons. I have read that the New International Version should also be read with caution because it reflects a Calvinist bias, as does the Geneva Bible which has suddenly become popular among American Protestants, who are falling more and more under the influence of Calvinism.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
FormerCalvinist
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #139 on: December 25, 2013, 09:53:11 PM »

Not to my knowledge. What is important to remember when reading any English translation of the Bible is that it is a translation. To get to the real meaning, it is necessary to consider the meaning of the original Greek text as interpreted by the Holy Fathers and Tradition of the Church. Any version that is not a direct translation, a paraphrase, or translation done to further an agenda such as political correctness like the New Revised Standard Version is to be avoided for what should be obvious reasons. I have read that the New International Version should also be read with caution because it reflects a Calvinist bias, as does the Geneva Bible which has suddenly become popular among American Protestants, who are falling more and more under the influence of Calvinism.

Fr. John W. Morris

Yes the Geneva Bible is very problematic. It was translated and annotated by Calvinists during the Reformation, and its annotations (such as in a modern "study Bible") are purely Calvinist in nature. Calvin himself was involved in the production of it.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #140 on: December 25, 2013, 10:33:58 PM »

Not to my knowledge. What is important to remember when reading any English translation of the Bible is that it is a translation. To get to the real meaning, it is necessary to consider the meaning of the original Greek text as interpreted by the Holy Fathers and Tradition of the Church. Any version that is not a direct translation, a paraphrase, or translation done to further an agenda such as political correctness like the New Revised Standard Version is to be avoided for what should be obvious reasons. I have read that the New International Version should also be read with caution because it reflects a Calvinist bias, as does the Geneva Bible which has suddenly become popular among American Protestants, who are falling more and more under the influence of Calvinism.

Fr. John W. Morris

Yes the Geneva Bible is very problematic. It was translated and annotated by Calvinists during the Reformation, and its annotations (such as in a modern "study Bible") are purely Calvinist in nature. Calvin himself was involved in the production of it.

It seems rather hypocritical for someone like Calvin who taught the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura which rejects the authority of Holy Tradition as the guide for the proper understanding of the Bible and argues that each individual Christian can interpret the Bible for themselves because the Bible is self interpreting felt the need to provide extensive "study notes" to tell people how to correctly interpret the Bible.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #141 on: December 25, 2013, 11:50:25 PM »

I must admit that upon further research and studying, i concede that until evidence can be provided, Greek was the original language of the letter to the Romans. Thanks for all the Reponses here.

With regards to the letter to the Hebrews Eusabius accounts :

He[Clement] says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.

. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name."

Well I like Latin as much as anyone. In fact I was glad to sing Adeste Fideles at midnight mass last night and likely be one of the few people there other than the choir who got the pronunciation right. I am also glad they did the Kyrie in Greek instead of English. But some people, not you, but whoever you read that said it was originally written in Latin may have meant well or thought they were right, but I think some Latins want everything to be in Latin, even the original New Testament. Like that Latin is the language of Paradise. Personally I think they speak Elvish in Paradise. This would all work better if I could figure out how to post videos directly on here. It's Liv Tyler speaking Elvish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa1HZKhjpIs

Even if Romans was originally written in Latin, a theory that seems rather far fetched, the text accepted by the Church is the Greek text of Romans.

Fr. John W. Morris

until a Latin original can be found or some sort of proof of it being written in Latin first. The original language should always be most important. Fir now its accepted that it was written in greek

The version accepted by the Church is the one with authority because the book of the Bible derive their authority from their recognition by the Church. The recognized version of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans is the Greek version. Besides there is no evidence whatsoever that the Epistle of Romans was originally written in  Latin or any respectable Biblical Scholar who believes that it was. Why do you believe that St. Paul's Epistle to Romans was originally written in Latin when no respectable scholar makes this argument?

Fr. John W. Morris

umm did you miss the part where I said :

"I must admit that upon further research and studying, i concede that until evidence can be provided, Greek was the original language of the letter to the Romans. Thanks for all the Reponses here."

I don't believe that anymore. All I was saying that in the event that a Latin original might be found, it takes authority as its closer to the original then than what would then be considered a Greek translation.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #142 on: December 26, 2013, 12:33:40 AM »

I must admit that upon further research and studying, i concede that until evidence can be provided, Greek was the original language of the letter to the Romans. Thanks for all the Reponses here.

With regards to the letter to the Hebrews Eusabius accounts :

He[Clement] says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.

. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name."

Well I like Latin as much as anyone. In fact I was glad to sing Adeste Fideles at midnight mass last night and likely be one of the few people there other than the choir who got the pronunciation right. I am also glad they did the Kyrie in Greek instead of English. But some people, not you, but whoever you read that said it was originally written in Latin may have meant well or thought they were right, but I think some Latins want everything to be in Latin, even the original New Testament. Like that Latin is the language of Paradise. Personally I think they speak Elvish in Paradise. This would all work better if I could figure out how to post videos directly on here. It's Liv Tyler speaking Elvish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa1HZKhjpIs

Even if Romans was originally written in Latin, a theory that seems rather far fetched, the text accepted by the Church is the Greek text of Romans.

Fr. John W. Morris

until a Latin original can be found or some sort of proof of it being written in Latin first. The original language should always be most important. Fir now its accepted that it was written in greek

The version accepted by the Church is the one with authority because the book of the Bible derive their authority from their recognition by the Church. The recognized version of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans is the Greek version. Besides there is no evidence whatsoever that the Epistle of Romans was originally written in  Latin or any respectable Biblical Scholar who believes that it was. Why do you believe that St. Paul's Epistle to Romans was originally written in Latin when no respectable scholar makes this argument?

Fr. John W. Morris

umm did you miss the part where I said :

"I must admit that upon further research and studying, i concede that until evidence can be provided, Greek was the original language of the letter to the Romans. Thanks for all the Reponses here."

I don't believe that anymore. All I was saying that in the event that a Latin original might be found, it takes authority as its closer to the original then than what would then be considered a Greek translation.

There is no way that a Latin original of the Epistle to the Romans could be found and authenticated. The only thing that finding an ancient Latin text of Romans would prove is that an ancient Latin text of Romans exists. There is no way to scientifically prove that it is the original text composed or approved by St. Paul. Since we know historically that the ancient Roman Church worshiped in Greek rather than Latin, and there is no ancient account that the original language of Romans was Latin, it is obvious that St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans in Greek.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #143 on: December 26, 2013, 05:39:42 AM »

All I was saying that in the event that a Latin original might be found, it takes authority as its closer to the original then than what would then be considered a Greek translation.

Then you said wrong either. The Church decides what takes authority. And the Church decided Greek version of that Epistle does.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #144 on: December 26, 2013, 08:01:21 AM »

All I was saying that in the event that a Latin original might be found, it takes authority as its closer to the original then than what would then be considered a Greek translation.

Then you said wrong either. The Church decides what takes authority. And the Church decided Greek version of that Epistle does.

And the Catholic church can change its decision on what takes authority if new evidence if found and it decides to. Its not set in stone. Just like is the Hebrew version were to be found from the first century of the gospel of Matthew. The church can easily change what is the basis of authority.

Just like the church changing its opinion on those called Monophysites and Nestorians who turned out to be just the opposite in that they were orthodox all along. Things can change if enough evidence is given. Do not hold onto the past simply because its from the past. Hold on to the past because it is true
« Last Edit: December 26, 2013, 08:07:13 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #145 on: December 26, 2013, 08:02:55 AM »

All I was saying that in the event that a Latin original might be found, it takes authority as its closer to the original then than what would then be considered a Greek translation.

Then you said wrong either. The Church decides what takes authority. And the Church decided Greek version of that Epistle does.

And the Catholic church can change its decision on what takes authority if new evidence is found and it decides to. Its not set in stone. Just like id the Hebrew version were to be found from the first millenium of the gospel of Matthew. The church can easily change what is the basis of authority

Yeah. Vatican changes faith constantly. We know that.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #146 on: December 26, 2013, 08:07:41 AM »

All I was saying that in the event that a Latin original might be found, it takes authority as its closer to the original then than what would then be considered a Greek translation.

Then you said wrong either. The Church decides what takes authority. And the Church decided Greek version of that Epistle does.

And the Catholic church can change its decision on what takes authority if new evidence is found and it decides to. Its not set in stone. Just like id the Hebrew version were to be found from the first millenium of the gospel of Matthew. The church can easily change what is the basis of authority

Yeah. Vatican changes faith constantly. We know that.

In your imagination..sure
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #147 on: December 26, 2013, 11:31:11 AM »

All I was saying that in the event that a Latin original might be found

Even if it would have existed it won't be found. It's impossible that a Latin manuscript from the 1st century AD would have made it to the present day.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2013, 11:32:15 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #148 on: December 26, 2013, 12:33:37 PM »

All I was saying that in the event that a Latin original might be found, it takes authority as its closer to the original then than what would then be considered a Greek translation.

Then you said wrong either. The Church decides what takes authority. And the Church decided Greek version of that Epistle does.

And the Catholic church can change its decision on what takes authority if new evidence is found and it decides to. Its not set in stone. Just like id the Hebrew version were to be found from the first millenium of the gospel of Matthew. The church can easily change what is the basis of authority

Yeah. Vatican changes faith constantly. We know that.

The Church cannot quite easily change what is the basis for its authority without producing spiritual anarchy.
The Vatican has been quite consistent for centuries. It is true that certain tendencies have developed and grown into doctrines that were not held by the ancient Catholic Church, such as the papacy as defined by the 1st Vatican Council, but once Rome declares something doctrine, it does not change its doctrinal teachings.

Why are you so obsessed with this issue? I have read no scholarly source that argues that Romans was originally written in Latin. Why are you so persistent about something that every church historian and Biblical scholar is wrong about the origins of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans? Is there some sort of hidden agenda here, such as the fact that most of the teachings of Calvinism depend on the mistakes that were made when the Greek text of Romans was translated into Greek? Is that what is behind your stubborn persistence on this. issue. Is the argument that the Latin version of Romans is the authentic version of the Epistle instead of the Greek text, because the Latin translation contains differences from the original Greek  text of Romans that produced the writings  of Augustine that laid the foundation for the teachings of Calvin some new Calvinist fad to support Reformed theology about which I have not yet heard?

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #149 on: December 26, 2013, 12:36:21 PM »

Why are you so obsessed with this issue? I have read no scholarly source that argues that Romans was originally written in Latin. Why are you so persistent about something that every church historian and Biblical scholar is wrong about the origins of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans? Is there some sort of hidden agenda here, such as the fact that most of the teachings of Calvinism depend on the mistakes that were made when the Greek text of Romans was translated into Greek? Is that what is behind your stubborn persistence on this. issue. Is the argument that the Latin version of Romans is the authentic version of the Epistle instead of the Greek text, because the Latin translation contains differences from the original Greek  text of Romans that produced the writings  of Augustine that laid the foundation for the teachings of Calvin some new Calvinist fad to support Reformed theology about which I have not yet heard?

You do not read my posts carefully or mistake me with another one user.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #150 on: December 26, 2013, 01:20:08 PM »

Why are you so obsessed with this issue? I have read no scholarly source that argues that Romans was originally written in Latin. Why are you so persistent about something that every church historian and Biblical scholar is wrong about the origins of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans? Is there some sort of hidden agenda here, such as the fact that most of the teachings of Calvinism depend on the mistakes that were made when the Greek text of Romans was translated into Greek? Is that what is behind your stubborn persistence on this. issue. Is the argument that the Latin version of Romans is the authentic version of the Epistle instead of the Greek text, because the Latin translation contains differences from the original Greek  text of Romans that produced the writings  of Augustine that laid the foundation for the teachings of Calvin some new Calvinist fad to support Reformed theology about which I have not yet heard?

You do not read my posts carefully or mistake me with another one user.

That is not impossible because in a discussion like this it is frequently to tell who is writing what.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Velsigne
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 448



« Reply #151 on: December 26, 2013, 04:50:08 PM »

The KJV/NKJV translation is a very good Anglican translation, a time when the Church of England was very much Catholic, so there is not as much a concern for Protestant bias such as in the NIV or some other modern Protestant/Evangelical translation.

I've also always liked the ESV. A literal translation that is in modern, readable English. Have any of you guys seen the EOB? It looks like a pretty good Orthodox translation.



Christ is born! 

Forgive me if your question was addressed, but I didn't find one. 

I have used the EOB and like it, but as far as I know, there is only the New Testament available.  I also use the Orthodox New Testaments in two volumes by the Holy Apostles Convent and Dormition Skete: The Holy Gospels and Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. 

I've heard one priest say he has reservations about the EOB, but I don't know the specifics. 

I also use the Orthodox Study Bible for the Old Testament and sometimes the new. 

For the Psalter in private prayer, I use a mixture, but for Psalm 50 (since we are supposed to be praying it at least twice a day) I have memorized it as translated by a team of scholars in cooperation with The Grail, and is translated for singing:  The Psalms, A New Translation, Singing Version that was gifted to me by a priest at an OCA parish.



Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #152 on: December 26, 2013, 05:09:56 PM »

The KJV/NKJV translation is a very good Anglican translation, a time when the Church of England was very much Catholic, so there is not as much a concern for Protestant bias such as in the NIV or some other modern Protestant/Evangelical translation.

I've also always liked the ESV. A literal translation that is in modern, readable English. Have any of you guys seen the EOB? It looks like a pretty good Orthodox translation.



Christ is born! 

Forgive me if your question was addressed, but I didn't find one. 

I have used the EOB and like it, but as far as I know, there is only the New Testament available.  I also use the Orthodox New Testaments in two volumes by the Holy Apostles Convent and Dormition Skete: The Holy Gospels and Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. 

I've heard one priest say he has reservations about the EOB, but I don't know the specifics. 

I also use the Orthodox Study Bible for the Old Testament and sometimes the new. 

For the Psalter in private prayer, I use a mixture, but for Psalm 50 (since we are supposed to be praying it at least twice a day) I have memorized it as translated by a team of scholars in cooperation with The Grail, and is translated for singing:  The Psalms, A New Translation, Singing Version that was gifted to me by a priest at an OCA parish.


I am not familiar with the EOB. Who publishes it. I usually use the Orthodox Study Bible because the notes were prepared by Eastern Orthodox scholars and the Old Testament corrected to correspond with the Septuagint, the Old Testament of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Of course there is no substitute for the Fathers. You can download the homilies of St. John Chrysostom which covers almost the entire New Testament at http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html. You can download the writings of most of the Fathers at the same site and use the Scriptural index at the end of each vol. to see how the Fathers interpreted a particular passage.
For the Psalms, I prefer the edition published by Jordanville. It has the correct Orthodox numbering of the Psalms and includes the traditional prayers said after reading each Kathisma.
Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #153 on: December 26, 2013, 06:24:40 PM »

Why are you so obsessed with this issue? I have read no scholarly source that argues that Romans was originally written in Latin. Why are you so persistent about something that every church historian and Biblical scholar is wrong about the origins of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans? Is there some sort of hidden agenda here, such as the fact that most of the teachings of Calvinism depend on the mistakes that were made when the Greek text of Romans was translated into Greek? Is that what is behind your stubborn persistence on this. issue. Is the argument that the Latin version of Romans is the authentic version of the Epistle instead of the Greek text, because the Latin translation contains differences from the original Greek  text of Romans that produced the writings  of Augustine that laid the foundation for the teachings of Calvin some new Calvinist fad to support Reformed theology about which I have not yet heard?


Good heavens, Wandile's a Roman Catholic. If there's a kind of people who wouldn't be looking to support Calvinism it's them.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2013, 06:26:23 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #154 on: December 26, 2013, 07:31:49 PM »

For the Psalter in private prayer, I use a mixture, but for Psalm 50 (since we are supposed to be praying it at least twice a day) I have memorized it as translated by a team of scholars in cooperation with The Grail, and is translated for singing:  The Psalms, A New Translation, Singing Version that was gifted to me by a priest at an OCA parish.

Smiley

I used this every day for a couple of years and eventually had the Psalter more or less committed to memory.  Then I stopped praying the Psalter regularly and I forgot them.  I need to start again.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Velsigne
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 448



« Reply #155 on: December 26, 2013, 07:40:13 PM »

The KJV/NKJV translation is a very good Anglican translation, a time when the Church of England was very much Catholic, so there is not as much a concern for Protestant bias such as in the NIV or some other modern Protestant/Evangelical translation.

I've also always liked the ESV. A literal translation that is in modern, readable English. Have any of you guys seen the EOB? It looks like a pretty good Orthodox translation.



Christ is born! 

Forgive me if your question was addressed, but I didn't find one. 

I have used the EOB and like it, but as far as I know, there is only the New Testament available.  I also use the Orthodox New Testaments in two volumes by the Holy Apostles Convent and Dormition Skete: The Holy Gospels and Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. 

I've heard one priest say he has reservations about the EOB, but I don't know the specifics. 

I also use the Orthodox Study Bible for the Old Testament and sometimes the new. 

For the Psalter in private prayer, I use a mixture, but for Psalm 50 (since we are supposed to be praying it at least twice a day) I have memorized it as translated by a team of scholars in cooperation with The Grail, and is translated for singing:  The Psalms, A New Translation, Singing Version that was gifted to me by a priest at an OCA parish.


I am not familiar with the EOB. Who publishes it. I usually use the Orthodox Study Bible because the notes were prepared by Eastern Orthodox scholars and the Old Testament corrected to correspond with the Septuagint, the Old Testament of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Of course there is no substitute for the Fathers. You can download the homilies of St. John Chrysostom which covers almost the entire New Testament at http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html. You can download the writings of most of the Fathers at the same site and use the Scriptural index at the end of each vol. to see how the Fathers interpreted a particular passage.
For the Psalms, I prefer the edition published by Jordanville. It has the correct Orthodox numbering of the Psalms and includes the traditional prayers said after reading each Kathisma.
Fr. John W. Morris

Just noticed a few weeks ago that NewRome publishers have it out in two paperbacks.  

Here is a link to the website where I initially purchased my copy:  http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/eob/index.asp

There are links to the left for various information.

Yes, I think I had a large version of the Jordanville and it found it's way home to an aspiring Church reader.  It was a beautiful book.  

Edit: Nope.  I just looked it up: A Psalter for Prayer

Not sure about all the other editions of Bibles out there, I just used to get theologically stuck every time I read Psalm 50 in the English version commonly read in church: "...that you might be justified in your sentence and prevail when you are judged...."  Every time I wondered, "Who can judge God?" 2x a day every day of the year and wonder once a day why it is bad to say "Well done, well done" to someone (Psalm 69 during Compline).  Finally I just learned a version for private prayer, though I can still pretty much recite the church version if we are called to pray it together during Orthros or something.  

I've tired of trying to pronounce every prayer in fakey Old English.  By the time I get to St. Symeon's prayer in the Preparation, I can't even pronounce anything anymore, and I fight being tongue tied, "...all mine evil deeds Thou knowest, and my wounds Thou knowest also, and my bruises Thou beholdest, but my faith Thou knowest likewise and mine eagerness Thou seest and my groan Thou hearest also...."  Cry and by then I want to cry just because this is nearly impossible to pronounce at that point and there is no prayer.  So now I'm using a prayer book just published by NewRome in modern English.  It has the six Psalms for morning prayers, which I will do as time allows.  I wanted to look at the Ukrainian one, but don't know where to find it.  Don't know about the Antiochian daily prayers

Is the Jordanville in modern English?  I see one on Amazon in Slavonic, but I'm probably not going to be learning Church Slavonic beyond the common hymns, the Oce Nas, and some Gospode pomiluys.  Where do you find the Jordanville Psalter in English for online purchase?  

Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,025


"My god is greater."


« Reply #156 on: December 26, 2013, 08:24:12 PM »

I've tired of trying to pronounce every prayer in fakey Old English.

That's not Old English. It is an archaic form of modern English.  

Quote
Is the Jordanville in modern English?

Yes, but not in contemporary English.

A contemporary English psalter is available from Dormition Monastery. For some reason they don't mention it on their website. Email them for details

http://www.dormitionmonastery.org/

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Velsigne
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 448



« Reply #157 on: December 26, 2013, 08:33:24 PM »

For the Psalter in private prayer, I use a mixture, but for Psalm 50 (since we are supposed to be praying it at least twice a day) I have memorized it as translated by a team of scholars in cooperation with The Grail, and is translated for singing:  The Psalms, A New Translation, Singing Version that was gifted to me by a priest at an OCA parish.

Smiley

I used this every day for a couple of years and eventually had the Psalter more or less committed to memory.  Then I stopped praying the Psalter regularly and I forgot them.  I need to start again.

You had the entire Psalter by memory???  That's great!  I bet it will still be there once you pick it up again. 
Logged
Velsigne
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 448



« Reply #158 on: December 26, 2013, 08:41:00 PM »

I've tired of trying to pronounce every prayer in fakey Old English.

That's not Old English. It is an archaic form of modern English.  

Yes, I know better.  Sorry for my inaccuracy. I read Beowulf through Chaucer through two years of college level Shakespeare study.  To me it just seems like fakey English.


Quote
Is the Jordanville in modern English?

Yes, but not in contemporary English.

A contemporary English psalter is available from Dormition Monastery. For some reason they don't mention it on their website. Email them for details

http://www.dormitionmonastery.org/



Why is that better than praying the singing Psalms version that are already numbered like the LXX?  Does it still have the 'when You are judged' and 'well done well done' bit? 

I must be at the rebellion stage of my prayer rule life  Grin
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #159 on: December 26, 2013, 09:51:04 PM »

I've tired of trying to pronounce every prayer in fakey Old English.

That's not Old English. It is an archaic form of modern English.  

Yes, I know better.  Sorry for my inaccuracy. I read Beowulf through Chaucer through two years of college level Shakespeare study.  To me it just seems like fakey English.


Quote
Is the Jordanville in modern English?

Yes, but not in contemporary English.

A contemporary English psalter is available from Dormition Monastery. For some reason they don't mention it on their website. Email them for details

http://www.dormitionmonastery.org/



Why is that better than praying the singing Psalms version that are already numbered like the LXX?  Does it still have the 'when You are judged' and 'well done well done' bit? 

I must be at the rebellion stage of my prayer rule life  Grin

New Skete published a modern English version of the Psalter translated from the LXX and numbered according to Eastern Orthodox practice.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #160 on: December 26, 2013, 10:23:54 PM »

The KJV/NKJV translation is a very good Anglican translation, a time when the Church of England was very much Catholic, so there is not as much a concern for Protestant bias such as in the NIV or some other modern Protestant/Evangelical translation.

I've also always liked the ESV. A literal translation that is in modern, readable English. Have any of you guys seen the EOB? It looks like a pretty good Orthodox translation.



Christ is born!  

Forgive me if your question was addressed, but I didn't find one.  

I have used the EOB and like it, but as far as I know, there is only the New Testament available.  I also use the Orthodox New Testaments in two volumes by the Holy Apostles Convent and Dormition Skete: The Holy Gospels and Acts, Epistles, and Revelation.  

I've heard one priest say he has reservations about the EOB, but I don't know the specifics.  

I also use the Orthodox Study Bible for the Old Testament and sometimes the new.  

For the Psalter in private prayer, I use a mixture, but for Psalm 50 (since we are supposed to be praying it at least twice a day) I have memorized it as translated by a team of scholars in cooperation with The Grail, and is translated for singing:  The Psalms, A New Translation, Singing Version that was gifted to me by a priest at an OCA parish.


I am not familiar with the EOB. Who publishes it. I usually use the Orthodox Study Bible because the notes were prepared by Eastern Orthodox scholars and the Old Testament corrected to correspond with the Septuagint, the Old Testament of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Of course there is no substitute for the Fathers. You can download the homilies of St. John Chrysostom which covers almost the entire New Testament at http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html. You can download the writings of most of the Fathers at the same site and use the Scriptural index at the end of each vol. to see how the Fathers interpreted a particular passage.
For the Psalms, I prefer the edition published by Jordanville. It has the correct Orthodox numbering of the Psalms and includes the traditional prayers said after reading each Kathisma.
Fr. John W. Morris

The EOB is an independent translation translated from the 'official' Orthodox New Testament, the Patriarchal text. There was supposed to be a Old Testament Septuagint translation forthcoming, but it seems to have been cancelled or delayed.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2013, 10:24:42 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 17,784


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #161 on: December 26, 2013, 10:38:58 PM »

You had the entire Psalter by memory???  That's great!  I bet it will still be there once you pick it up again. 

Yeah, I didn't really know them in terms of their number.  If you asked me to recite Psalm 114, I wouldn't be able to do it.  But if you gave me the first few words, I could recite the whole thing.  If you started somewhere in the middle as opposed to the beginning, I could pick it up from there, but not the whole thing.  So it wasn't perfect, but it was good.  That's why I like the Grail translation: there are better translations if you want a thoroughly accurate version of the Psalms, but because the Grail translation was designed for singing/chanting, its rhythms help you internalise the words faster. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,025


"My god is greater."


« Reply #162 on: December 26, 2013, 10:49:30 PM »

I've tired of trying to pronounce every prayer in fakey Old English.

That's not Old English. It is an archaic form of modern English.  

Yes, I know better.  Sorry for my inaccuracy. I read Beowulf through Chaucer through two years of college level Shakespeare study.  To me it just seems like fakey English.


Quote
Is the Jordanville in modern English?

Yes, but not in contemporary English.

A contemporary English psalter is available from Dormition Monastery. For some reason they don't mention it on their website. Email them for details

http://www.dormitionmonastery.org/



Why is that better than praying the singing Psalms version that are already numbered like the LXX?  Does it still have the 'when You are judged' and 'well done well done' bit? 

I must be at the rebellion stage of my prayer rule life  Grin

New Skete published a modern English version of the Psalter translated from the LXX and numbered according to Eastern Orthodox practice.

Fr. John W. Morris

The Dormition Monastery psalter is numbered according to the LXX, and also includes the kathisma prayers which the Jordanville psalter has. It is basically the NKJV psalms revised to conform more to the LXX. There are however a few parts where for some reason they stuck with the NKJV- so, for instance, psalm 50 says "when You judge" instead of "when You are judged."  Undecided IMO it's not perfect but it's the best contemporary English psalter available. It also helps that it's a nicely bound hardcover.

From what I've seen of it, the New Skete psalter makes no attempt to conform to the LXX at all. LXX numberings are given in parentheses and that's it.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,025


"My god is greater."


« Reply #163 on: December 26, 2013, 10:55:02 PM »

Why is that better than praying the singing Psalms version that are already numbered like the LXX? 

I don't know what you mean by "singing Psalms version." The Dormition Monastery psalter does say "When you judge" which I found odd. I intend submitting them a list of typos I've found- hopefully there will be another edition where they clear those up and also make it closer to the LXX.

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #164 on: December 26, 2013, 11:56:19 PM »

You had the entire Psalter by memory???  That's great!  I bet it will still be there once you pick it up again. 

Yeah, I didn't really know them in terms of their number.  If you asked me to recite Psalm 114, I wouldn't be able to do it.  But if you gave me the first few words, I could recite the whole thing.  If you started somewhere in the middle as opposed to the beginning, I could pick it up from there, but not the whole thing.  So it wasn't perfect, but it was good.  That's why I like the Grail translation: there are better translations if you want a thoroughly accurate version of the Psalms, but because the Grail translation was designed for singing/chanting, its rhythms help you internalise the words faster. 

There were ancient canons requiring prospective candidates for ordination to the priesthood to have memorized the Psalter. We need to get Mor a bishop... and maybe a wife... or a monastic tonsure. angel
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #165 on: December 26, 2013, 11:57:47 PM »

I've tired of trying to pronounce every prayer in fakey Old English.

That's not Old English. It is an archaic form of modern English.  

Yes, I know better.  Sorry for my inaccuracy. I read Beowulf through Chaucer through two years of college level Shakespeare study.  To me it just seems like fakey English.


Quote
Is the Jordanville in modern English?

Yes, but not in contemporary English.

A contemporary English psalter is available from Dormition Monastery. For some reason they don't mention it on their website. Email them for details

http://www.dormitionmonastery.org/



Why is that better than praying the singing Psalms version that are already numbered like the LXX?  Does it still have the 'when You are judged' and 'well done well done' bit? 

I must be at the rebellion stage of my prayer rule life  Grin

New Skete published a modern English version of the Psalter translated from the LXX and numbered according to Eastern Orthodox practice.

Fr. John W. Morris

The Dormition Monastery psalter is numbered according to the LXX, and also includes the kathisma prayers which the Jordanville psalter has. It is basically the NKJV psalms revised to conform more to the LXX. There are however a few parts where for some reason they stuck with the NKJV- so, for instance, psalm 50 says "when You judge" instead of "when You are judged."  Undecided IMO it's not perfect but it's the best contemporary English psalter available. It also helps that it's a nicely bound hardcover.

From what I've seen of it, the New Skete psalter makes no attempt to conform to the LXX at all. LXX numberings are given in parentheses and that's it.

About 12 years ago, they had a translation of Psalm 104 which read "and Leviathan whom you made to amuse yourself." That's since been changed, but I liked it.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.59 seconds with 192 queries.