OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 30, 2014, 09:13:52 AM *
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 3391 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,927


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: 1,147


@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
********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,392



« 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: 2,962


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: 2,962


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
Warned
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: 1,147


@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: 1,147


@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: 1,147


@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
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,596


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: 2,367



« 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
********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,392



« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,927


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: 1,147


@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: 1,147


@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: 1,147


@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: 1,147


@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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,927


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: 1,147


@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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,927


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: 1,147


@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: 1,147


@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: 1,147


@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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,927


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
********
Online Online

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,392



« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,927


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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,927


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
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,927


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
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,596


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
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 0.188 seconds with 71 queries.