A conversation with Fr. Mitch Pacwa

[William1964]

I happened to call into to his radio show. Here in Denver it comes on about 1:00pm. One of my favorite verses in scripture is: Tobias 3:20-25. I asked Fr. Pacwa why this verse was not in the other Catholic translations, that i’ve read anyhow.

His answer was that about 100 yrs. ago they found a latter text, a samaritan text i believe, of Tobias and the one that was shorter the scholars assumed was the correct one.

I said that the Holy Spirit already told us what was scripture in the late 300’s in Holy counsel. The official bible of the Church in the Latin Vulgate and it includes theses verses. I said, “Is it licit to remove verses in the bible once you know they are scriptural?”

His answer was no, it is not licit.

I really thank him for his honesty. I guess it might not be a very important omission. I just keep thinking about St. John’s anathema in Revelation about what happens if we add or remove even on word.

What do you think?

 

[ljubim]

Well… there are different worded versions all over the place, and a few different verses between the Herbew and Greek versions anyway. Obviously the shorter one must have predated the accepted version, I cannot imagine them haphazardly switching it sround unless there was really good historical evidence.

You said it’s a warning to remove or add any words… so would these additions qualify as added words from the original? Not saying they’re dangeroud or anything, just perhaps an unnecessary, but further explanation of the text added to make it clearer.

What is the verse you like so much? It’s always nice hearing people’s favorite verses

 

[COPLAND_3]

I’d like to see Ron Conte answer this one, he knows all the ins and outs on this kind of question.

 

[adriancombe]

I happened to call into to his radio show. Here in Denver it comes on about 1:00pm. One of my favorite verses in scripture is: Tobias 3:20-25. I asked Fr. Pacwa why this verse was not in the other Catholic translations, that i’ve read anyhow.

His answer was that about 100 yrs. ago they found a latter text, a samaritan text i believe, of Tobias and the one that was shorter the scholars assumed was the correct one.

I said that the Holy Spirit already told us what was scripture in the late 300’s in Holy counsel. The official bible of the Church in the Latin Vulgate and it includes theses verses. I said, “Is it licit to remove verses in the bible once you know they are scriptural?”

His answer was no, it is not licit.

I really thank him for his honesty. I guess it might not be a very important omission. I just keep thinking about St. John’s anathema in Revelation about what happens if we add or remove even on word.

What do you think?

Wow! Good stuff! Thanks.

First, literally, Rev 22:19 refers to a scroll or book, not the whole Bible. But yes, I agree the spiritual sense is there.:bible1:

Second, I love that passage (now that you have introduced me to it.)

Third, if I’m not mistaken, this is the only biblical support for St Raphael the Archangel as Patron of Healing. So taking it out makes me suspect protestant bias.

Fourth, I’m not certain which translation you are referencing. At first I thought they had been removed from the NAB at USCCB.org but now I see there is a misalignment of verse numbers somewhere. They are also present at biblegateway.com. Perhaps you could clarify?

I may have more later depending which verses we are talking about.

 

[MonFrere]

I really thank him for his honesty. I guess it might not be a very important omission. I just keep thinking about St. John’s anathema in Revelation about what happens if we add or remove even on word.

What do you think?

Don’t know the full answer, but I think St. John (or some ancient editor) was only speaking of this applying to this specific text – the Apocalypse.

MonFrere

 

[Cachonga]

Prov 30:6 (DR):

Add not any thing to his words, lest thou be reproved, and found a liar:

Rev 22 is not the only place where we find a warning about adding to Gods Word. Even a seemingly “innocent” addition can have serious results. Take, for example, Eve. Gen 3:3 (“But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die.” DR emphasis mine). Did God say not to touch the fruit of the tree? No. But because she added to God’s Word, she was deceived (certainly, she touched it before she ate it, and realized that touching it was not dangerous, so why not eat it as well?)

Since I don’t accept the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals or the infallibility of the magisterium, I don’t believe I should comment directly on the question (and that is not my purpose), but I do believe in Sola Scriptura, and so thought the inclusion of the above comments would be helpful.

Pax!

 

[adriancombe]

Rev 22 is not the only place where we find a warning about adding to Gods Word. Even a seemingly “innocent” addition can have serious results. Take, for example, Eve. Gen 3:3 (“But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die.” DR emphasis mine). Did God say not to touch the fruit of the tree? No. But because she added to God’s Word, she was deceived (certainly, she touched it before she ate it, and realized that touching it was not dangerous, so why not eat it as well?)

Since I don’t accept the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals or the infallibility of the magisterium, I don’t believe I should comment directly on the question (and that is not my purpose), but I do believe in Sola Scriptura, and so thought the inclusion of the above comments would be helpful.

Pax!

With or without sola scriptura your point is valid. Thanks Cachonga.

 

[MonFrere]

With or without sola scriptura your point is valid. Thanks Cachonga.

First I certainly take Fr. Pacwa’s words to heart.

But Second – I do think that this can be taken to extremes. We know that Ezra “edited” what today is canonical scripture. He added a bit of clarification here and there, in Moses, writings, for instance, that today are part of the sacred text. The comment that comes to mind is Numbers 12:3.

(Num 12:3) (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)

Certainly, Moses didn’t write this; though he is the author of the Pentateuch. So, it seems to me that since an established authority could do legitimate “editing” of the biblical text in times past – that the same could be done if circumstances would warrant it. I’m not saying what those circumstances would be. But I think the conclusion to the gospel of St. Mark is a case in point in the New Testament as well as the passage about the woman taken in adultery.

MonFrere

 

[adriancombe]

First I certainly take Fr. Pacwa’s words to heart.

But Second – I do think that this can be taken to extremes. We know that Ezra “edited” what today is canonical scripture. He added a bit of clarification here and there, in Moses, writings, for instance, that today are part of the sacred text. The comment that comes to mind is Numbers 12:3.

Quote:
(Num 12:3) (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)

Certainly, Moses didn’t write this; though he is the author of the Pentateuch. So, it seems to me that since an established authority could do legitimate “editing” of the biblical text in times past – that the same could be done if circumstances would warrant it. I’m not saying what those circumstances would be. But I think the conclusion to the gospel of St. Mark is a case in point in the New Testament as well as the passage about the woman taken in adultery.

MonFrere

On the other hand, humility is truth. So, if he truly was the humblest man to ever live, then his humility would not be corrupted by God directing him to write this.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .

His answer was that about 100 yrs. ago they found a latter text, a samaritan text i believe, of Tobias and the one that was shorter the scholars assumed was the correct one.
. . .

On that basis one might conclude that Reader’s Digest Condensed Books are the originals of much of the mid-20th century literature.

 

[MonFrere]

On the other hand, humility is truth. So, if he truly was the humblest man to ever live, then his humility would not be corrupted by God directing him to write this.

Certainly, but it does to seem “out of place” in the flow of the passage in Numbers and my readings tell me that this is most probably an editorial comment by Ezra.

My comment in this thread isn’t to “push the envelope” and become loose with the Scriptures. That would definitely be wrongheaded. I’m just saying that I don’t think the biblical text is “absolute” and “immutable” where if convincing information became available and church authority would make the determination (not some group of scholars or anything less that the magisterium of the Church) a legitimate change could be made. The decision IN THIS EXAMPLE presented to Fr. Pacwa was determined by scholars not legitimate Church authority. MY assumption would be that this is the real factor in Fr. Pacwa’s mind; not necessarily a change in the biblical text per se.

MonFrere

 

[adriancombe]

Certainly, but it does to seem “out of place” in the flow of the passage in Numbers and my readings tell me that this is most probably an editorial comment by Ezra.

My comment in this thread isn’t to “push the envelope” and become loose with the Scriptures. That would definitely be wrongheaded. I’m just saying that I don’t think the biblical text is “absolute” and “immutable” where if convincing information became available and church authority would make the determination (not some group of scholars or anything less that the magisterium of the Church) a legitimate change could be made. The decision IN THIS EXAMPLE presented to Fr. Pacwa was determined by scholars not legitimate Church authority. MY assumption would be that this is the real factor in Fr. Pacwa’s mind; not necessarily a change in the biblical text per se.

MonFrere

I hear you. I don’t see it as a make or break issue with Moses writing this or that.

I am still waiting for the OP - or anyone - to clarify what was changed in Tobit.

 

[tmancath]

I happened to call into to his radio show. Here in Denver it comes on about 1:00pm. One of my favorite verses in scripture is: Tobias 3:20-25. I asked Fr. Pacwa why this verse was not in the other Catholic translations, that i’ve read anyhow.

His answer was that about 100 yrs. ago they found a latter text, a samaritan text i believe, of Tobias and the one that was shorter the scholars assumed was the correct one.

I said that the Holy Spirit already told us what was scripture in the late 300’s in Holy counsel. The official bible of the Church in the Latin Vulgate and it includes theses verses. I said, “Is it licit to remove verses in the bible once you know they are scriptural?”

His answer was no, it is not licit.

I really thank him for his honesty. I guess it might not be a very important omission. I just keep thinking about St. John’s anathema in Revelation about what happens if we add or remove even on word.

What do you think?

Fr. Mitch is pretty smart guy. I stick to reading the Latin Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims for this kind of reasons. Another is Luke 1:28. I too am curious about St. John’s anathema, I am also curious for the Protestants sake who have 7 less books than we do.

 

[NHInsider]

St. John’s warning can only apply to his Apocalypse - the canon wasn’t yet set at that time, and the individual letters, gospels etc were not compiled into a “book” until much later.

And the fourth century Councils only established the NT canon, so that wouldn’t speak to Tobit.

And even Trent, which affirmed the long-standing OT canon, did not address specific verses.

Hypothetically, to make the point - what if someone were to discover an authentic manuscript of the missing letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians. Assume that it can be proven to be genuine. Would it be Scripture?

If you’re a sola-scriptura Protestant, this is a huge question. Because the Bible is your only authority, and so if this Pauline letter is Scripture, it’s authoritative, and may have all kinds of implications for you faith - but how do you know? You’re forced into that tautological loop where you have to let the rest of Scripture determine whether this particular bit is inspired. If you say “no, it’s not one of the 66 books so it’s not Scripture” you need to figure out how you know the other books are inspired, without giving any authority to the Church, because if you grant that, then you have to deal with all the other things that Church taught at the same time as the canon. (And if you say “sure, of course it’s Scripture if Paul wrote it” then you open up the can of worms that is the Gospel of Thomas and the Acts of Andrew and all the rest of the books that the Church rejected centuries ago.)

If you’re a Catholic, the answer is “I’ll wait for the Church to decide.” Because the Bible is not the final authority. The Bible is one part of the Apostolic Tradition, which is preserved and taught by the Church, to which Jesus promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit to teach everything she would need to know.

This question of verses being “dropped” is the same, only in the other direction. If it turns out that some of the material incorporated into earlier translations of the Bible are not actually part of the manuscript but were marginal glosses or other extraneous bits, and the Church approves a translation that drops them or relegates them to footnotes, we can accept that this is the decision of an authoritative Church - or we can insist on the inspiration of a particular translation or version as being more authoritative than the Church, in which case, I suppose, we might as well be Protestants. . . .

 

[MonFrere]

St. John’s warning can only apply to his Apocalypse - the canon wasn’t yet set at that time, and the individual letters, gospels etc were not compiled into a “book” until much later.

And the fourth century Councils only established the NT canon, so that wouldn’t speak to Tobit.

And even Trent, which affirmed the long-standing OT canon, did not address specific verses.

Hypothetically, to make the point - what if someone were to discover an authentic manuscript of the missing letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians. Assume that it can be proven to be genuine. Would it be Scripture?

If you’re a sola-scriptura Protestant, this is a huge question…

Good points - well stated NHInsider.

MonFrere

 

[David_Zampino]

I happened to call into to his radio show. Here in Denver it comes on about 1:00pm. One of my favorite verses in scripture is: Tobias 3:20-25. I asked Fr. Pacwa why this verse was not in the other Catholic translations, that i’ve read anyhow.

His answer was that about 100 yrs. ago they found a latter text, a samaritan text i believe, of Tobias and the one that was shorter the scholars assumed was the correct one.

I said that the Holy Spirit already told us what was scripture in the late 300’s in Holy counsel. The official bible of the Church in the Latin Vulgate and it includes theses verses. I said, “Is it licit to remove verses in the bible once you know they are scriptural?”

His answer was no, it is not licit.

I really thank him for his honesty. I guess it might not be a very important omission. I just keep thinking about St. John’s anathema in Revelation about what happens if we add or remove even on word.

What do you think?

It’s an interesting question – and one which could be applied to other books as well. For example, there are substantial differences in the manuscripts we have of Sirach.

This is yet another example of why we need the teaching authority of the Church!

 

[adriancombe]

I happened to call into to his radio show. Here in Denver it comes on about 1:00pm. One of my favorite verses in scripture is: Tobias 3:20-25. I asked Fr. Pacwa why this verse was not in the other Catholic translations, that i’ve read anyhow.

His answer was that about 100 yrs. ago they found a latter text, a samaritan text i believe, of Tobias and the one that was shorter the scholars assumed was the correct one.

I said that the Holy Spirit already told us what was scripture in the late 300’s in Holy counsel. The official bible of the Church in the Latin Vulgate and it includes theses verses. I said, “Is it licit to remove verses in the bible once you know they are scriptural?”

His answer was no, it is not licit.

I really thank him for his honesty. I guess it might not be a very important omission. I just keep thinking about St. John’s anathema in Revelation about what happens if we add or remove even on word.

What do you think?

Does anyone know what verses were deleted?

 

[mark_a]

What do you think?

I think I heard your call!

 

[garysibio]

I happened to call into to his radio show. Here in Denver it comes on about 1:00pm. One of my favorite verses in scripture is: Tobias 3:20-25. I asked Fr. Pacwa why this verse was not in the other Catholic translations, that i’ve read anyhow.

His answer was that about 100 yrs. ago they found a latter text, a samaritan text i believe, of Tobias and the one that was shorter the scholars assumed was the correct one.

I said that the Holy Spirit already told us what was scripture in the late 300’s in Holy counsel. The official bible of the Church in the Latin Vulgate and it includes theses verses. I said, “Is it licit to remove verses in the bible once you know they are scriptural?”

His answer was no, it is not licit.

I really thank him for his honesty. I guess it might not be a very important omission. I just keep thinking about St. John’s anathema in Revelation about what happens if we add or remove even on word.

What do you think?

I’m a bit confused which should not surprise anyone who knows me.

The Wikipedia article on Tobit talks about two Greek manuscripts (Greek I and Greek II) of which Greek II is 1700 words longer and is the basis for translations made since 1966. However, I looked at the on-line NJB and chapter 3 ends at v. 17 which seems to indicate that it is lacking the text you are speaking of.

Then I remembered how the NJB takes the last five verses of Joel 2 and makes them Joel 3. It made me wonder if they are not doing something similar here. Might the missing verses from Tob 3 be part of Tob 4.

The trouble is I have no way to check this out. Dou you have the text of Tob 3:18 to the end so I can see if they are part of the next chapter? Thanks.

 

[William1964]

Great replies. Tobias 3:20-23:

“For thy counsel is not in man’s power. But this every one is sure of that worshippeth thee, that his life, if it be under trial, shall be crowned: and if it be under tribulation, it shall be delivered: and if it be under correction, it shall be allowed to come to they mercy. For thou art not delighted in our being lost: because after a storm thou makest a calm, and after tears and weeping thou pourest in joyfulness. Be thy name, O God of Israel, blesssed for ever.”

This is why we need the church as our mother to guide us. Remember that the Latin Vulgate is the preeminant bible version because it is the official bible of the church. No other translation can say that. And because the DR is from that version, I believe it too has a special place.