Are Catholics allowed to question the inspiration of Luke 22:43-44?

[Anna_Scott]

Luke 22:43-44 is an interesting variant among the more than 5,000 New Testament manuscripts.

I discovered that Catholic Bibles treat this passage in different ways (Protestant Bibles do, as well.) Some Catholic Bibles include the passage with no footnote. Others add a footnote; and at least one Catholic Bible banishes Luke 22:43-44 to the footnotes–the main body of text ends with verse 42.

New American Bible (Catholic Comparative New Testament)
Luke 22: ** 43 And to strengthen him an angel from heaven appeared to him. 44 He was in such agony and he prayed so fervently that his sweat became like drops of blood falling on the ground.]** Footnote: These verses, though very ancient, were probably not part of the original text of Lk. They are absent from the oldest papyrus manuscripts of Lk and from manuscripts of wide geographical distribution.

The Good News Translation (Catholic Comparative New Testament) places Luke 22:43-44 in the main body of text with a footnote that says, Some manuscripts do not have verses 43-44.

The Revised Standard Version Catholic Bible (Catholic Comparative New Testament) banished Luke 22:43-44 to the footnotes. The passage is absent from the main body of text. The footnotes says, Other ancient manuscripts add verses 43 and 44: 43 And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. 44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground.

The New Revised Standard Version Catholic Bible (Anglicized) (Catholic Comparative New Testament) places Luke 22:43-44 in the main body of text with a footnote that says, Other ancient manuscripts lack verses 43 and 44.

Even though some Catholic Bibles state verses 43-44, though very ancient, were probably not part of the original text of Luke Chapter 22; according to an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org (link: newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm,) Catholics are not allowed to question the inspiration of Luke 22:43-44. So, I’m a bit confused about the Catholic position.

Link: newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
Canon of the New Testament

“. . . . .The formerly disputed passages are three: the closing section of St. Mark’s Gospel, xvi, 9-20 about the apparitions of Christ after the Resurrection; the verses in Luke about the bloody sweat of Jesus (22:43-44); the Pericope Adulteræ, or narrative of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11). Since the Council of Trent it is not permitted for a Catholic to question the inspiration of these passages. . . . .” Link

I’m not sure if the requirement to accept these passages is an infallible requirement/teaching of the CC.

Would Catholics help me to understand the Catholic position on Luke 22:43-44?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I am not a Catholic, but I would think that the Church would accept it as inspired, as long as it’s in the Vulgate (kind of like the part in 1 John about the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit).

 

[Anna_Scott]

I am not a Catholic, but I would think that the Church would accept it as inspired, as long as it’s in the Vulgate (kind of like the part in 1 John about the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit).

**Luke 22:43-44 **is contained in the Latin Vulgate and of course the Douay-Rheims:

Latin Vulgate
Luke 22: 43 apparuit autem illi angelus de caelo confortans eum et factus in agonia prolixius orabat

Douay-Rheims
Luke 22: 43 And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony, he prayed the longer.

Latin Vulgate
Luke 22: 44 et factus est sudor eius sicut guttae sanguinis decurrentis in terram
**
Douay-Rheims**
Luke 22: 44 And his sweat became as drops of blood, trickling down upon the ground.

Yet, the CCC uses the RSV and NRSV for Scripture references; and those are the translations that state this passage was probably not part of the original text of Luke. So, that’s a bit confusing.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I’ve come across stuff like this for other texts in the NAB(RE), and my thinking is, even if it’s not an original writing of the author, it’s still considered inspired if it’s part of the text (the beginning of John 8 comes to mind) since all Scripture is inspired (1 Tim 3:16 - I think thats the verse).

 

[Anna_Scott]

I am not a Catholic, but I would think that the Church would accept it as inspired, as long as it’s in the Vulgate (kind of like the part in 1 John about the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit).

Swiss Guy,

**1 John 5:6-8 **does present a similar problem.

Latin Vulgate
1 John 5: 6 hic est qui venit per aquam et sanguinem Iesus Christus non in aqua solum sed in aqua et sanguine et Spiritus est qui testificatur quoniam Christus est veritas 7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant 8 Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt

Douay-Rheims
1 John 5: 6 This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth that Christ is the truth. 7 And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. 8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one.

Notice in the NAB, the three that testify the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost are omitted.

New American Bible
1 John 5: 6 This is the one who came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth. 7 So there are three that testify, 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.

The same reading is found in the RSV, RSV-CE, NRSV, and NRSV-CE----except the three are of one accord is translated as these three agree, which basically means the same thing.

New Revised Standard Version
1 John 5: 6 This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth. 7 There are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.

New Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition
1 John 5: 6 This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth. 7 There are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.

Revised Standard Version
1 John 5: 6 This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. 7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.

Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition
I John 5: 6 This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. 7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.

The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost is very different from the Spirit, the water, and the blood----and these three are one is very different from*** the three are of one accord*** or these three agree.

At some point in the transmission of Scripture, The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost and these three are one were inserted into the Biblical text. I guess the question is, was the addition inspired and why is it not found in the early manuscripts?

Again, the CCC uses the RSV and NRSV.

Thanks for your comments,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’ve come across stuff like this for other texts in the NAB(RE), and my thinking is, even if it’s not an original writing of the author, it’s still considered inspired if it’s part of the text (the beginning of John 8 comes to mind) since all Scripture is inspired (1 Tim 3:16 - I think thats the verse).

Swiss Guy,

So, later additions to the original texts of Holy Scripture are considered inspired?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Your welcome . If its Scripture, it’s inspired. So the real question is, is it actually Scripture? I say yes, and I think the CC does to.

 

[ZDHayden]

I say no, as it is in the current Vulgate (which has, unfortunately, yet to be translated into English):

“Apparuit autem illi angelus de caelo confortans eum. Et factus in agonia prolixius orabat. Et factus est sudor eius sicut guttae sanguinis decurrentis in terram.” (Nova Vulgata)

I found it also in a rather interesting Latin edition I found earlier this week. It was rather difficult to find it, as the verses are not listed as clearly as in modern Bibles.

“Apparuit autem ei angelus de caelo, qui eum confirmaret. Atque ille, quum esset in aestu, contentius orabat, et sudore manabat simili sanguineis guttis ad terram delabentibus.”

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Swiss Guy,

So, later additions to the original texts of Holy Scripture are considered inspired?

Peace,
Anna

Sorry, I didn’t see this when I posted my last post. I’m pretty sure that they are considered inspired (although I’m not an infallible source )

 

[Anna_Scott]

I say no, as it is in the current Vulgate (which has, unfortunately, yet to be translated into English):

“Apparuit autem illi angelus de caelo confortans eum. Et factus in agonia prolixius orabat. Et factus est sudor eius sicut guttae sanguinis decurrentis in terram.” (Nova Vulgata)

I found it also in a rather interesting Latin edition I found earlier this week. It was rather difficult to find it, as the verses are not listed as clearly as in modern Bibles.

“Apparuit autem ei angelus de caelo, qui eum confirmaret. Atque ille, quum esset in aestu, contentius orabat, et sudore manabat simili sanguineis guttis ad terram delabentibus.”

ZDHayden,

I realize it’s in the Vulgate. What Latin edition are you referring to? I’m always interested in translations.

What is confusing to me is that the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the RSV and the NRSV. “And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one” is absent from 1 John Chapter 5 in both of these translations, even the Catholic Editions.

Just wondering. . . . .
Anna

 

[StrawberryJam]

I would question the heck out of that, sounds more like a tradition like Veronica’s veil than anything else.

 

[ZDHayden]

ZDHayden,

I realize it’s in the Vulgate. What Latin edition are you referring to? I’m always interested in translations.

What is confusing to me is that the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the RSV and the NRSV. “And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one” is absent from 1 John Chapter 5 in both of these translations, even the Catholic Editions.

Just wondering,
Anna

The translation I used is the Biblia Sacra ex Sebastiani Castellionis, which was printed a bit before the old Clementine Vulgate. Its express purpose is to teach a Classical Latin style. Though Sébastien Châteillon, the translator behind this translation, was at one point a one-time Catholic who became a follower of Calvin, an anti-Trinitarian, and an indirect father of the future French Revolution, his translation itself is marvelous and doctrinally neutral. He was known for his skill with numerous languages. His edition also has the full deuterocannon. And, apart from using a far more Classical vocabulary and style (almost like Vergil in the poetic sections), it seems about as orthodox as the Jerusalem Bible.

I have found that if it is read aloud, the Classical pronunciation sounds better with this translation - the long vowels definitely play a part in the rhythm of the whole.

Something interesting I found about it was that it was censored by both Protestants and Catholics - because of its Classical style. For example: in Genesis, instead of the traditional “Domine Deus”, Châteillon used “Iova Deus” - Iova, in the Classical pronunciation, sounds a lot like YHWH, and is one of the many titles for Jupiter in Roman mythology (the Romans had a habit of absorbing the religious figures and vocabulary of surrounding nations into their own). In Matthew, when Jesus says that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, the Vulgate (both New and Old) read “inferni”, which means the infernal regions or the damned. Châteillon uses instead “orci” which, lowercase, is the Lower World, and comes from Orcus, a Roman God of the underworld, often associated with the punishment of the wicked dead.

In Luke 1:28, instead of “gratia plena”, it reads “fortunatissima” - most fortunate, most blessed.

An example of the differences between the Latin editions I am familiar with:
The Clementine Vulgate (Tweedale ed.), Lc. i. 28:
“Et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit: Ave gratia plena: Dominus tecum: benedicta tu in mulieribus.”

The Nova Vulgata, Lc. i. 28:
"Et ingressus ad eam dixit: ‘Ave, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.’

The Châteillon Bible, Lc. i. 28:
“Ad eam ingressus angelus, dixit: salve accepta, cui Dominus adest, quaeque es mulierum fortunatissima.”

 

[Anna_Scott]

I would question the heck out of that, sounds more like a tradition like Veronica’s veil than anything else.

StrawberryJam,
I haven’t talked to you in a long time. Hope you are doing well.

I appreciate your comment.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

The translation I used is the Biblia Sacra ex Sebastiani Castellionis, which was printed a bit before the old Clementine Vulgate. . . . .

ZDHayden,
I’m not familiar with that translation. Interesting information; but what is your answer to the question of the thread?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Telstar]

This kind of thing is the main reason that I will only use the Douay-Rheims translation of the Latin Vulgate for any kind of Bible study or discussions. It’s the only version that I trust to be correct, and the closest to the intended meaning of the original texts. I do not trust newer versions that I find have vastly different meanings inferred, in many passages, in most of those other translations. Those many discrepancies, I believe are the main cause of so much confusion in the entire Christian community. I really wish the RCC would go back to using the DR version, but I’m sure the reason for not doing it is because so many people these days want to read a Bible that’s written in ‘modern English’. (I also happen to prefer the Olde English because I think it’s much more beautiful to read.)

[18]
For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. [19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book.

I tend to believe that the same can be said about the entire Bible, and not just the Apocalypse. Those who willingly change the true meaning of the original Scriptures, or who try to add (or remove) anything that was never a part of the original Bible, are in serious danger of eternal damnation. God does* not *approve of anyone either putting words in His mouth, or taking away anything from what He intended to say. The only purpose that it serves to do that, is to glorify man and not God, by leading people away from the real truth. The devil really is in the details, that’s why he wants to inspire changes to what might shed some light on his own plans.

 

[Anna_Scott]

The translation I used is the Biblia Sacra ex Sebastiani Castellionis, which was printed a bit before the old Clementine Vulgate. . . . .

ZDHayden,
Thanks for identifying the translation.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

This kind of thing is the main reason that I will only use the Douay-Rheims translation of the Latin Vulgate for any kind of Bible study or discussions. It’s the only version that I trust to be correct, and the closest to the intended meaning of the original texts. I do not trust newer versions that I find have vastly different meanings inferred, in many passages, in most of those other translations. . . .

Telstar,

I appreciate your comments. Please don’t be offended by this; but there is an article here on CAF that discusses King James-onlyism and “Douay-Rheims-onlyism.”

Bible Translations Guide
As amusing as King James-onlyism may sound, some people take it very seriously. There is even a Catholic equivalent, which we might call “Douay-Rheims-onlyism.” The Douay-Rheims version, which predates the King James by a few years, (the complete KJV was published in 1611, but the complete Douay-Rheims in 1609) was the standard Bible for English-speaking Catholics until the twentieth century

What many advocates of both King James-onlyism and Douay-Rheims-onlyism do not know is that neither Bible is the original issued in the 1600s. Over the last three centuries, numerous minor changes (for example, of spelling and grammar) have been made in the King James, with the result that most versions of the KJV currently on the market are significantly different from the original. This has led one publisher to recently re-issue the 1611 King James Version Bible. . . . . Link: catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp

I tend to believe that the same can be said about the entire Bible, and not just the Apocalypse. Those who willingly change the true meaning of the original Scriptures, or who try to add (or remove) anything that was never a part of the original Bible, are in serious danger of eternal damnation. God does* not *approve of anyone either putting words in His mouth, or taking away anything from what He intended to say. The only purpose that it serves to do that, is to glorify man and not God, by leading people away from the real truth. The devil really is in the details, that’s why he wants to inspire changes to what might shed some light on his own plans.

How do you know which translations most accurately transmit the original writings? Which translations contain the additions and deletions?

If the Douay-Rheims is so accurate, why did the CC go a completely different way by using the RSV and NRSV for the Catechism of the Catholic Church? I still don’t quite understand this choice, since I’ve heard so many Catholics say that the Latin Vulgate is the most accurate translation of the Bible. Why not translate the Latin Vulgate into modern English?

The CC had to get permission from the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States to use the RSV and NRSV in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. These are considered to be ecumenical translations; but still, I’m surprised by this move.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Telstar]

Telstar,

I appreciate your comments. Please don’t be offended by this; but there is an article here on CAF that discusses King James-onlyism and “Douay-Rheims-onlyism.”

How do you know which translations most accurately transmit the original writings? Which translations contain the additions and deletions?

If the Douay-Rheims is so accurate, why did the CC go a completely different way by using the RSV and NRSV for the Catechism of the Catholic Church? I still don’t quite understand this choice, since I’ve heard so many Catholics say that the Latin Vulgate is the most accurate translation of Bible. Why not translate the Vulgate into modern English?

The CC had to get permission from the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States to use the RSV and NRSV in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. These are considered to be ecumenical translations; but still, I’m surprised by this move.

Peace,
Anna

No offense taken, Anna.

The DR is a direct translation of the Latin Vulgate. If you notice in the link I provided, both versions are available there. You can switch between them on any page. The Church used the DR exclusively up until the changes made as a result of Vat II. That also happens to be one of the things that I think was a big mistake, because it left translations open to errors creeping into the ‘new’ text. No offense intended toward non-Catholics, but the main reason for my having reservations is because the translators of the new version are not all Catholic, so that is already a good part of the problem, IMHO. There are a lot of differences between the DR and KJV for example, largely due to the religious views of the translators. Many of the changes that were made in the KJV reflect the changing beliefs of those who were looking to eliminate certain passages that were ‘problematic’ to the reformers, or at least to reword them to fit their new beliefs better than the DR.

Another huge problem is that the (modern) English language is constantly changing, and word meanings that change are not conducive to keeping the intended meanings in tact. If it were up to me, the RCC would also still be using Latin for every Mass, but, I am an “Old School” Catholic that was raised with nothing but Latin used in the Mass. Well… all except for the Homily.

 

[Anna_Scott]

No offense taken, Anna.

I’m glad. It’s difficult to determine tone sometimes.

The DR is a direct translation of the Latin Vulgate. If you notice in the link I provided, both versions are available there. You can switch between them on any page.

I have a similar site bookmarked. It has the Latin Vulgate and Douay-Rheims side by side. Link: latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=1&b=22. I’ll add your link to my Bookmarks. I love the resources of the Internet. Thanks.

The Church used the DR exclusively up until the changes made as a result of Vat II. That also happens to be one of the things that I think was a big mistake, because it left translations open to errors creeping into the ‘new’ text. No offense intended toward non-Catholics, but the main reason for my having reservations is because the translators of the new version are not all Catholic, so that is already a good part of the problem, IMHO. There are a lot of differences between the DR and KJV for example, largely due to the religious views of the translators. Many of the changes that were made in the KJV reflect the changing beliefs of those who were looking to eliminate certain passages that were ‘problematic’ to the reformers, or at least to reword them to fit their new beliefs better than the DR. . . .

No doubt, the KJV has many errors. As the article said, even Anglicans realize this. The translators used late manuscripts. Many of the early manuscripts we have today, were not available at that time. There have been so many important manuscript discoveries since then. The KJV translators also drew from the Latin Vulgate, even though they weren’t suppose to. I have another thread going on the Latin word lucifer, which was carried over from the Latin Vulgate in only one place in the KJV. Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=582143.

I would also agree that translations can be theologically driven. This became very obvious when I started comparing translations and looking at the way the text can be manipulated. One of the easiest ways to manipulate the text is by careful placement of variants in the footnotes vs. the main body of text, and vice vesa. Also, translators will choose a Greek text over a Hebrew text, even in the Old Testament. For example, some Bible translations have no Virgin prophesy in Isaiah 7:14, including the Jewish TANAKH–but that would require a thread of its own.

Regarding our suspicions of theologically driven translation; there is an interesting note in the Introduction to the Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version, found in the The Catholic Comparative New Testament:

“For four hundred years, following upon the great upheaval of the Reformation, Catholics and Protestants have gone their separate ways and suspected each other’s translations of the Bible of having been in some way manipulated in the interests of doctrinal presuppositions. It must be admitted that these suspicions were not always without foundation. At the present time, however, the sciences of textual criticism and philology, not to mention others, have made such great advances that the Bible text used by translators is substantially the same for all–Protestants and Catholics alike.”

So, maybe we are closing the gap in the area of translation scholarship and honesty.

The Introduction goes on to state:

“This edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible has been prepared for the use of Catholics by a committee of the Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain. It is published with ecclesiastical approval and by agreement with the Standard Bible Committee and the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States. . . . A small committee of members of the Catholic Bible Association was formed and permission obtained to examine this translation and suggest any changes that might be required to make it acceptable to Catholics. The Standard Bible Committee of the U.S.A. was then approached and they gave warm welcome to the proposal."

There were very few changes made to the Catholic Edition.

I suppose it’s obvious that I have The Catholic Comparative New Testament. It’s actually one of my favorite Bibles.

Thanks for your comments.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Anna Scott;8141591]**I’m not sure if the requirement to accept these passages is an infallible requirement/teaching of the CC.

Would Catholics help me to understand the Catholic position on Luke 22:43-44**?

Peace,
Anna

The Catholic position allows the reader the freedom to accept either interpretation with the foot notes or without the foot notes. It does not become a matter of faith if the reader accepts the footnotes apart from the text or included in the text.

We are at liberty to read the scriptures and come away with a private interpretation, so long as ones private interpretation is not voiced out in contradiction to the Catholic Church’s teachings. As far as inspiration from the text questioned by Catholics? to my knowledge is never the case. Only when private interpretations publicly contradict all of scripture and Catholic Church teachings.

What should be noted here, is that the Catholic church does not interpret the scriptures, When she has the Catholic Church has done so in the negative. The Catholic church has a very high standard in interpreting or teaching from sacred scripture.

A biblical interpretation will not and must never contradict the whole of sacred scripture, the revelations of Jesus, the written teachings from the apostles and the sacred Traditions from the apostles. If ones private interpretation meets all these requirements, then it can recieve the seal of the Church as “Nihil Obstat” (does not contradict “all” of Church teaching) and “Imprimi potest” (let it be printed).

Infallibility does not play a part from ones private interpretation from scripture, nor can any individual give an infallible interpretation from scripture. Infallibility comes on the scene based on faith and morals, not interpretation of the scriptures. Infallibility is already believed in by the Catholic faithful in the scriptures as infallibly inspired of God.

The addition or subtraction of Jesus sweating blood is left suspended in mystery for the faithful to contemplate, it does not bring in the question of faith but adds to the already contemplation of the scripture, with the mental picture of Jesus sweating blood or not does not question the faith.

If the interpreters interpretation of Lukes gosples meets the Church’s “Nihil obstate”, “Imprimi potest” that includes the footnotes or not, it meets the requirement of the Church to allow it to be printed with the freedom of the faithful to accept either translation that does not conflict with the Catholic Church.

CCC 113 … read the scripture within “the Living Tradition of the whole Church… sacred scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture, according to the spiritual meaning which the spirit grants the church.

Peace be with you