Bible Native Language Translation Debate

[Augustine3]

Please share your views (and evidences) if you support these affirmations:

• In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church didn’t allow translations from Latin to the native language as way of controling and suppressing the common people.
• In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church did allow translations into the native language.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Please share your views (and evidences) if you support these affirmations:

• In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church didn’t allow translations from Latin to the native language as way of controling and suppressing the common people.
• In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church did allow translations into the native language.

Controlling? Suppressing? Could it be they were trying to preserve correct interpretation? I suppose they could have had authorized translations in each language for those few who could read. Controlling the doctrine maybe and suppressing heresy.

 

[benhur]

Please share your views (and evidences) if you support these affirmations:

• In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church didn’t allow translations from Latin to the native language as way of controling and suppressing the common people.
• In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church did allow translations into the native language.

Hi A,

Not sure it is either or question. I thought some languages had a translated bible early on, yet Latin evolved to be the rule for church functioning and teaching. And certainly the people were suppressed not only thru the church but thru secular governments, who were also under Rome’s “blessing”.

Suppressed may be a subjective term, but for sure there was a status quo, a social and religious structure, where those on top, in control, sought to maintain such structure. The masses were generally illiterate and ignorant of any form of alternative governance, secular or religious.

They were called the dark ages for a reason…none of us would desire those days back.

As far as the bible, the CC returned to a more apostolic, early centuries view of writ, of being for every man, even in the vernacular, in the twentieth century. Maybe it can be seen and formalized by Second Vatican. (As late as late 19 th century, bible vernacular reading and bible associations were condemned by popes).

Blessings

 

[adamhovey1988]

Hi A,

Not sure it is either or question. I thought some languages had a translated bible early on, yet Latin evolved to be the rule for church functioning and teaching. And certainly the people were suppressed not only thru the church but thru secular governments, who were also under Rome’s “blessing”.

Suppressed may be a subjective term, but for sure there was a status quo, a social and religious structure, where those on top, in control, sought to maintain such structure. The masses were generally illiterate and ignorant of any form of alternative governance, secular or religious.

They were called the dark ages for a reason…none of us would desire those days back.

As far as the bible, the CC returned to a more apostolic, early centuries view of writ, of being for every man, even in the vernacular, in the twentieth century. Maybe it can be seen and formalized by Second Vatican. (As late as late 19 th century, bible vernacular reading and bible associations were condemned by popes).

Blessings

I find that a bit curious that you say that because I got my niece a Dousy Rheims Bible for Christmas which was written in 1609 for I think the Old Testament. I might have the testaments backwards but that was still in the vernacular and was long before the nineteenth century. Now complete Bibles, I don’t think you had so many of those early on but we have books from the bible translated into Anglo Saxon from at least as early as the 700s. Ven. Bede, for instance, I am not sure I read it earlier but I don’t have immediate access to it I think it was the Gospel of John that he wrote in English, I think I might be wrong about that though. I know I am right about the Bible translations from the 700s though these are pretty well documented

 

[adf417]

One only has to look at the modern day translations to see what it was the church was trying to keep out of th hands of the faithful.

It might be an interesting thread in this forum- “List the reasons why these are not approved translations…”

Peace!!!

 

[benhur]

I find that a bit curious that you say that because I got my niece a Dousy Rheims Bible for Christmas which was written in 1609 for I think the Old Testament. I might have the testaments backwards but that was still in the vernacular and was long before the nineteenth century. Now complete Bibles, I don’t think you had so many of those early on but we have books from the bible translated into Anglo Saxon from at least as early as the 700s. Ven. Bede, for instance, I am not sure I read it earlier but I don’t have immediate access to it I think it was the Gospel of John that he wrote in English, I think I might be wrong about that though. I know I am right about the Bible translations from the 700s though these are pretty well documented

Hi adam,

Again a mixed bag . That you have an english Rheims in 1609 does not mean some or one 19 th century pope(s) did not condemn vernacular reading or bible societies . Certainly were not as “open” as second vat… 2000 years is a long time, and middle ages is a specific time period (I would not consider 1609 middle)…yes , i think there were a handful or more of vernacular language bibles by 700.

Blessings

 

[mackbrislawn]

Please share your views (and evidences) if you support these affirmations:

• In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church didn’t allow translations from Latin to the native language as way of controling and suppressing the common people.
• In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church did allow translations into the native language.

There were quite a number of vernaculars in those days, and languages changed rapidly. I suppose it was quite a chore keeping up with them all, let alone translating them onto expensive parchment!

As far as controlling and suppressing the common people, the whole point of conversion to a religion is to control them, to turn them from their sinful ways. As for suppression, I suppose some secularists and freethinkers would insist that religion, that Christianity, itself is suppression.

And as for translation into the vernacular, I don’t know how a translation into the people’s vernacular would keep them from being suppressed, since they couldn’t read anyway.

 

[susanlo]

There were times when Scripture in the native language (or any language) was prohibited to common people. Whether this was done as a “way of controlling and suppressing the common people” or for other reasons is a little harder to determine.

Council of Toulouse 1229:
“We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”

Council of Tarragona 1234:
"No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days, so that they may be burned…”

Council of Trent 16th century:
IV
“Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.”
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENTBKS.HTM

 

[benhur]

As far as controlling and suppressing the common people, the whole point of conversion to a religion is to control them, to turn them from their sinful ways

Hi m,

I think I know what you mean. For sure we are friends of Christ but as Paul says a willful slave to His will also.

But I am also sure of what other folks mean by the balance of free will and obedience. It is one thing to sanction a believer for wrongdoing by the church. It is quite another to use civil authorities to do so.Yes the OT did say to stone adulterers and disobedient youth. At times they failed to discipline period , much less stone. And if they did stone it was hypocritically. Jesus showed mercy yet within the the holy law.

Fact is we have problems either way (union of church and state disciplining and when separated). Not till the Lord comes back, and we join Him ruling perfectly will man be perfectly “controlled”. Till then we have some good discipling, and definitely some bad suppressing also.

As for suppression, I suppose some secularists and freethinkers would insist that religion, that Christianity, itself is suppression.

Agree. Must also agree with CC and PC’s when they say they have wrongly “suppressed” in the past.

And as for translation into the vernacular, I don’t know how a translation into the people’s vernacular would keep them from being suppressed, since they couldn’t read anyway.

because folks were deeply religious (and superstitious) and they would certainly learn to read if they had Writ to read. I mean religion covered all of life in middle ages. Secondly, Writ is the greatest liberator from all kinds of wrong servitude…from spiritual to economic, to governance, to social etc., etc. And what better service to God and church than if you have the same key that writ brings , to understand God and church…now one serves with understanding , and as a "friend’’ a co-priest. Even the priest and monks could also now read Writ much more than when only in Latin.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

There were times when Scripture in the native language (or any language) was prohibited to common people. Whether this was done as a “way of controlling and suppressing the common people” or for other reasons is a little harder to determine.

Council of Toulouse 1229:
“We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”

Council of Tarragona 1234:
"No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days, so that they may be burned…”

Council of Trent 16th century:
IV
“Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.”
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENTBKS.HTM

Hi s,

Good …thank you.

Here is some more:

"But for deeper reasons than this, the attitude of the Church toward the Bible societies is one of unmistakable opposition… Besides this and other regulations concerning Bible-reading in general, we have several acts of the popes directed explicitly against the Bible societies. Perhaps the most notable of these are contained in the Encyclical “Ubi Primum” of Leo XII, dated 5 May, 1824, and Pius IX’s Encyclical “Qui Pluribus”, of 9 November, 1846. Pius VIII in 1829 and Gregory XVI in 1844, spoke to similar effect. It may be well to give the most striking words on the subject form Leo XII and Pius IX. To quote the former (loc. cit.): “You are aware, venerable brothers, that a certain Bible Society is impudently spreading throughout the world, which, despising the traditions of the holy Fathers and the decree of the Council of Trent, is endeavouring to translate, or rather to pervert the Scriptures into the vernacular of all nations. It is to be feared that by false interpretation, the Gospel of Christ will become the gospel of men, or still worse, the gospel of the devil.”

newadvent.org/cathen/02544a.htm

“19. In virtue of Our apostolic office, We too exhort you to try every means of keeping your flock from those deadly pastures(vernacular bibles handed out by Bible societies). Do everything possible to see that the faithful observe strictly the rules of our Congregation of the Index. Convince them that to allow holy Bibles in the ordinary language wholesale and without distinction, would on account of human rashness cause more harm than good.” Pope Leo May 5, 1824

I think Pope Leo instructed Latin to be the teaching language of the church and all her schools.

ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L12UBIPR.HTM

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

It is one thing to sanction a believer for wrongdoing by the church. It is quite another to use civil authorities to do so.

Hi Ben,

As more and more is found out about this time period, we are finding that what has been taught for centuries is not true. Since heresy was considered treason, by the civil authorities, and treason was considered a capital crime, the argument that the church used civil authorities to sanction becomes swiss cheese. This becomes evident when the fact that if a person was tried for heresy in the civil courts, the rate of being found guilty was almost 100%, whereas in the church courts it was less than 5%. From the National Review:

Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church.

Read more at: nationalreview.com/article/211193/real-inquisition-thomas-f-madden

They were called the dark ages for a reason…none of us would desire those days back.

Another myth that is now being deflated by serious historians. Just do a simple google search for myth of the dark ages. Many would argue that the inhabitants of this era, that while most were illiterate, were more pious than Christians of today.

We are finding out that there were tremendous advances in all the arts that laid the groundwork for further advances in the time periods that followed.

There is also more and more scholarship coming to light that the Enlightenment period was not so enlightened.

Even the priest and monks could also now read Writ much more than when only in Latin.

Blessings

Another falsehood. This is what we know. If you can converse in a language, but are illiterate in that language, you can actually become literate in a different language in about the same amount of time as it would take you to become literate in your native language. In other words, the people didn’t need vernacular bibles to become literate, they just needed to be taught to read and write in any language.

 

[Duane1966]

Hi s,

Good …thank you.

Here is some more:

"But for deeper reasons than this, the attitude of the Church toward the Bible societies is one of unmistakable opposition… Besides this and other regulations concerning Bible-reading in general, we have several acts of the popes directed explicitly against the Bible societies. Perhaps the most notable of these are contained in the Encyclical “Ubi Primum” of Leo XII, dated 5 May, 1824, and Pius IX’s Encyclical “Qui Pluribus”, of 9 November, 1846. Pius VIII in 1829 and Gregory XVI in 1844, spoke to similar effect. It may be well to give the most striking words on the subject form Leo XII and Pius IX. To quote the former (loc. cit.): “You are aware, venerable brothers, that a certain Bible Society is impudently spreading throughout the world, which, despising the traditions of the holy Fathers and the decree of the Council of Trent, is endeavouring to translate, or rather to pervert the Scriptures into the vernacular of all nations. It is to be feared that by false interpretation, the Gospel of Christ will become the gospel of men, or still worse, the gospel of the devil.”

newadvent.org/cathen/02544a.htm

“19. In virtue of Our apostolic office, We too exhort you to try every means of keeping your flock from those deadly pastures(vernacular bibles handed out by Bible societies). Do everything possible to see that the faithful observe strictly the rules of our Congregation of the Index. Convince them that to allow holy Bibles in the ordinary language wholesale and without distinction, would on account of human rashness cause more harm than good.” Pope Leo May 5, 1824

I think Pope Leo instructed Latin to be the teaching language of the church and all her schools.

ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L12UBIPR.HTM

Blessings

Hi Ben,

Is it better to be illiterate and be taught the correct meaning of the Scriptures, or be literate, given the bible, and draw your own conclusions, even if those conclusions are wrong? We know those Bible Societies were handing out translations that were inaccurate, and did not contain all the books of the bible. I applaud the popes in the condemnation.

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben,

Is it better to be illiterate and be taught the correct meaning of the Scriptures, or be literate, given the bible, and draw your own conclusions, even if those conclusions are wrong? We know those Bible Societies were handing out translations that were inaccurate, and did not contain all the books of the bible. I applaud the popes in the condemnation.

Hi D,

I think OT common Jewish folk, around Jesus’s time, had both Hebrew and Greek writ, and knew how to read and discuss the readings.

Not sure same can be said of Middle Ages and Christians (of course now that would be respectively vernacular bible and Vulgate).

We both want accurate translations, and accurate understanding.

Not sure the king james bible , which most bible societies at that time handed out, had any more "errors’’ than the thousand year old Vulgate. Pretty sure both have had some minor corrections.

As to the books , ok understand, but would you also understand the negative part of only having a Latin Catholic bible to be taught from, as a few of these popes also advocated?

Blessings

PS- these are better times on this topic for all churches

 

[Duane1966]

Hi Ben,

I think OT common Jewish folk, around Jesus’s time, had both Hebrew and Greek writ, and knew how to read and discuss the readings.

Yet the highest percentage I have seen for literacy in Palestine at the time of Jesus is three percent, so your argument does not hold water. A real shame the Ethiopian Jews didn’t have the OT in the vernacular, and there were many of them.

Not sure same can be said of Middle Ages and Christians (of course now that would be respectively vernacular bible and Vulgate).

Should the Apostles have taught the gospel first, or taught the illiterate to read and write? And I have seen it questioned whether Peter was literate.

We both want accurate translations, and accurate understanding.

Not sure the king james bible , which most bible societies at that time handed out, had any more "errors’’ than the thousand year old Vulgate. Pretty sure both have had some minor corrections.

Here is the important part: If I have a bad translation of the bible, it is no big deal, I am guided by the Church, not my interpretation of the bible. But I have seen, on this very non-Catholic forum, many Protestants who are ultimately guided by their interpretation of the bible, not by whatever church they belong to at the time, and they openly admit it.

It is hard enough to understand the bible with an accurate translation. It becomes near impossible with an inaccurate one, when you are unguided. That is the problem the popes had. Unguided interpretation has proven to lead to chaos, which is why Christianity is so sundered.

As to the books , ok understand, but would you also understand the negative part of only having a Latin Catholic bible to be taught from, as a few of these popes also advocated?

If you read the exhortations of the popes on this issue, one thing is clear. The only reason they may oppose a vernacular translation is if some of the sheep will be led astray.

Blessings

PS- these are better times on this topic for all churches

I hate to say this, but…agreed.

 

[benjohnson]

KJV!

(swiped from Orthodox Lutheran on Facebook)

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...=21017120fb8bd849be2587b48d05a74e&oe=592E092F

 

[Duane1966]

KJV!

(swiped from Orthodox Lutheran on Facebook)

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...=21017120fb8bd849be2587b48d05a74e&oe=592E092F

 

[benhur]

Yet the highest percentage I have seen for literacy in Palestine at the time of Jesus is three percent, so your argument does not hold water. A real shame the Ethiopian Jews didn’t have the OT in the vernacular, and there were many of them.

Hi D,

“Millard (p. 157) reminds us that the literacy situation in Jewish society differed from that in the Greco-Roman world in a notable way. Firstly, there was a strong tradition of the education of males (see e.g. Proverbs or Sirach), so they would be able when called upon to take their turn reading the Hebrew and Aramaic of the OT. In theory all Jewish males were supposed to do this. The Jerusalem Talmud even says that the rule of Simeon ben Schetach (100 B.C.) was that all Jewish children should go to school (J.T. Ket. 8.32c).”… patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2011/11/04/was-jesus-illiterate-part-three/

Also it depends what you mean by literacy. Today that means read and write, but a distinction should be made for earlier societies where reading is much more prevalent than writing, which was more for scribes back then (largely technological…paper and pen issues).

So I would say amongst the Jewish population of His time almost half the population could read (males), male children beginning class at age 6, “house of the book” they called it.

Should the Apostles have taught the gospel first, or taught the illiterate to read and write? And I have seen it questioned whether Peter was literate.

Again, see above…he could probably most certainly read.

Here is the important part: If I have a bad translation of the bible, it is no big deal, I am guided by the Church, not my interpretation of the bible. But I have seen, on this very non-Catholic forum, many Protestants who are ultimately guided by their interpretation of the bible, not by whatever church they belong to at the time, and they openly admit it.

Well, pretty sure their interpretation is a church interpretation somewhere. That is, they first "heard " the teaching of a particular "word’’, that is in accordance with some traditional church teaching (if even only a five hundred year old name church). That one also has the same understanding of a particular part of writ is OK, but not apart from others in the ecclesia.

Jesus did not ask the apostles what the official teaching of their Jewish church religious leaders was regarding Jesus persona, (for it was known, and to be different things), but requested a personal opinion/understanding, knowing it could be divine…Nothing different today…

One can always misunderstand another’s words. For instance that you first trust the churches teachings as paramount, does not negate that you see the light of the matter in a personal way also, that the same Spirit that guided the church guides you also on a particular matter.

It is hard enough to understand the bible with an accurate translation. It becomes near impossible with an inaccurate one, when you are unguided. That is the problem the popes had. Unguided interpretation has proven to lead to chaos, which is why Christianity is so sundered.

Umm,…I think only a few things are hard to understand, especially once one is born again. That is, tradition (early and current teachers) can help with say end time issues, but many things for us, children of God, are not ''mysteries " anymore, according to St. Paul.

And St augustine says , Holy Writ… has surpassing authority…needed for faith, to seek God out in…easy for everyone to understand…and accessible to all me…" Confessions The authority of scripture CH5…years of struggle

Blessings

PS-Teachers are one of the ministerial posts of the ecclessia notwothstanding

 

[Duane1966]

Hi D,

"Millard (p. 157) reminds …

Hi Ben,

What you say, the evidence contradicts. From this website blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents.com/2012/04/02/bart-ehrman-on-literacy-in-the-first-century/

Several significant studies of literacy have appeared in recent years showing just how low literacy rates were in antiquity. The most frequently cited study is by Columbia professor William Harris in a book titled Ancient Literacy. By thoroughly examining all the surviving evidence, Harris draws the compelling though surprising conclusion that in the very best of times in the ancient world, only about 10 percent of the population could read at all and possibly copy out writing on a page. Far fewer than this, of course, could compose a sentence, let alone a story, let alone an entire book. And who were the people in this 10 percent? They were the upper-class elite who had the time, money, and leisure to afford an education. This is not an apt description of Jesus’s disciples. They were not upper-crust aristocrats.

In Roman Palestine the situation was even bleaker. The most thorough examination of literacy in Palestine is by a professor of Jewish studies at the University of London, Catherine Hezser, **who shows that in the days of Jesus probably only 3 percent of Jews in Palestine were literate.** Once again, these would be the people who could read and maybe write their names and copy words. Far fewer could compose sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and books. And once again, these would have been the urban elites.

And from this website: faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/illitera.html

It may be argued that the Tanna ruled in a unique case, but it seems that usually the Tannaim did not speak of rare cases. On the contrary, most if not all, of the cases studied show that the rules of the Tannaim played their role in people’s lives.27 Of course, it does not mean that in all rural places there was such literacy, but, on the other hand, if there were towns with 1% literacy, then the literacy of all the towns was not higher than 5% (at most). Therefore, taking into consideration the above rule, together with the fact that there are rules that reflect a zero literacy rate in the rural areas lead to the assumption of a low rate of literacy in the whole population. Even if we assume that in cities (as happens all over the world in urban areas in comparison to rural areas), such as Tiberias, for example, the literacy rate was double and even triple in comparison with the towns, still the figures of literacy are around 2-15%. With the assumption that the rural population was around 70% (with 0% literacy), 20% of urban population (with 1-5% literacy), and 10% of highly urban population (with 2-15% literacy), the total population literacy is still very low. Thus, it is no exaggeration to say that the total literacy rate in the Land of Israel at that time (of Jews only, of course), was probably less than 3%.

At first glance this figure looks quite low, and maybe too low. However, in a traditional society, knowing how to read was not a necessity: neither for economic reasons, nor for intellectual ones. On the contrary. Why should a farmer send his son to learn how to read when it entails a waste of working time (=money)? Why should he himself learn how to read if his culture is based on oral tradition (though with a written Torah)? According to the Torah, there is no need to read or write, except for writing the Mezuza, Tefilin, and the Torah itself. However, for these purposes there was always a scribe, so a Jew in antiquity could fulfill the commandments of the Torah while being illiterate. **Not only that, but 3% of the total population seems to be high in comparison with other cultures. In ancient Egypt, a land with a lot of scribes, only half a percent were literate.**28 Now, even if it is taken into consideration that training in hieroglyphs takes much more time than script with some 22 symbols, still the conclusion of the extent of literacy in a neighboring country some millennia later with literacy rates that are some six times larger than its predecessor, seems quite plausible.

According to the growth processes in population and urbanization as mentioned above, it may be surmised that before the beginning of these processes, in the days of the Maccabees and at the end of the ‘biblical’ period, the literacy rate of the Jewish people was 1.5% if not lower. Nevertheless, if the conclusion seems farfetched, it can be rejected only by cogent arguments.29

Conclusion

Literacy data from all over the world show the relationship and dependence between farmers (or the state of agriculture), and literacy. This tie has been found in various peoples and in the course of time. The data ‘create’ a world-wide rule.

The other facet of this dependence is population growth, urbanization and infant mortality that apparently go hand in hand with literacy. This connection enables the student of societies in the past to deal with the problem of literacy whenever the direct evidence is not available. This study offers a method to analyze processes that took place in a specific society so that the literacy rate may be derived.

Comparative data show that under Roman rule the Jewish literacy rate improved in the Land of Israel. However, rabbinic sources support evidence that the literacy rate was less than 3%. This literacy rate, a small fraction of the society, though low by modern standards, was not low at all if one takes into account the needs of a traditional society in the past.

I stick with my 3% comment.

 

[Duane1966]

Again, see above…he could probably most certainly read.

Hi Ben,

Acts 4:13, most interpret this as meaning that Peter was illiterate.

Well, pretty sure their interpretation is a church interpretation somewhere. That is, they first "heard " the teaching of a particular "word’’, that is in accordance with some traditional church teaching (if even only a five hundred year old name church). That one also has the same understanding of a particular part of writ is OK, but not apart from others in the ecclesia.

Oh really? What Church ever taught before Luther what he later came to expound?

Jesus did not ask the apostles what the official teaching of their Jewish church religious leaders was regarding Jesus persona, (for it was known, and to be different things), but requested a personal opinion/understanding, knowing it could be divine…Nothing different today…

One can always misunderstand another’s words. For instance that you first trust the churches teachings as paramount, does not negate that you see the light of the matter in a personal way also, that the same Spirit that guided the church guides you also on a particular matter.

The difference between you and I is this: If I interpret the bible to say one thing, and the Church says I am wrong, then I know I am wrong. Can you say you will accept you are wrong, if you believe one way, and your church tells you that you are wrong? Remember this, all the groups in the early Church that the Catholic Church, and most Protestant churches view as heretical, all felt they were guided by the Holy Spirit, and that they were right and the Church wrong.

Umm,…I think only a few things are hard to understand, especially once one is born again. That is, tradition (early and current teachers) can help with say end time issues, but many things for us, children of God, are not ''mysteries " anymore, according to St. Paul.

And yet, you clearly do not believe what the early Church believed, so if you and they both understand, why is it you don’t believe what they believed?

And St augustine says , Holy Writ… has surpassing authority…needed for faith, to seek God out in…easy for everyone to understand…and accessible to all me…" Confessions The authority of scripture CH5…years of struggle

It is accessible to all men. He also says there are parts of Scripture difficult for most men to penetrate.

If it is so easy to understand, why don’t you believe what he believed?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Hi D,

“Millard (p. 157) reminds us that the literacy situation in Jewish society differed from that in the Greco-Roman world in a notable way. Firstly, there was a strong tradition of the education of males (see e.g. Proverbs or Sirach), so they would be able when called upon to take their turn reading the Hebrew and Aramaic of the OT. In theory all Jewish males were supposed to do this. The Jerusalem Talmud even says that the rule of Simeon ben Schetach (100 B.C.) was that all Jewish children should go to school (J.T. Ket. 8.32c).”… patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2011/11/04/was-jesus-illiterate-part-three/

Also it depends what you mean by literacy. Today that means read and write, but a distinction should be made for earlier societies where reading is much more prevalent than writing, which was more for scribes back then (largely technological…paper and pen issues).

So I would say amongst the Jewish population of His time almost half the population could read (males), male children beginning class at age 6, “house of the book” they called it.
Again, see above…he could probably most certainly read.
Well, pretty sure their interpretation is a church interpretation somewhere. That is, they first "heard " the teaching of a particular "word’’, that is in accordance with some traditional church teaching (if even only a five hundred year old name church). That one also has the same understanding of a particular part of writ is OK, but not apart from others in the ecclesia.

Jesus did not ask the apostles what the official teaching of their Jewish church religious leaders was regarding Jesus persona, (for it was known, and to be different things), but requested a personal opinion/understanding, knowing it could be divine…Nothing different today…

One can always misunderstand another’s words. For instance that you first trust the churches teachings as paramount, does not negate that you see the light of the matter in a personal way also, that the same Spirit that guided the church guides you also on a particular matter.

Umm,…I think only a few things are hard to understand, especially once one is born again. That is, tradition (early and current teachers) can help with say end time issues, but many things for us, children of God, are not ''mysteries " anymore, according to St. Paul.

And St augustine says , Holy Writ… has surpassing authority…needed for faith, to seek God out in…easy for everyone to understand…and accessible to all me…" Confessions The authority of scripture CH5…years of struggle

Blessings

PS-Teachers are one of the ministerial posts of the ecclessia notwothstanding

If almost half of the Jewish males of the time could read, that leaves three quarters of the population that still could not read. And, unlike our situation today, even those who could read probably did not have their own personal scripture scrolls. However, does that mean scripture was inaccessible to the faithful? By no means. The synagogues had scrolls, and, as indicated in the above quote, lectors were available to read the scrolls to the people who gathered to listen. So, to these people, and for many generations afterwards, scripture was a group and aural experience. People heard the scriptures collectively, all together, within the bounds of the ecclesia, the church, the family of God. This was quite unlike the solitary individual reading a Gideon bible in the loneliness of his hotel room.

Could Peter read? Maybe. But he was also a Galilean, and hence a rustic who talked funny. The likelihood is that he fell within the 50 percent who could not read.

We all know that a verse of the bible should be read in context. But, we must also remember that the bible itself has a context, which is the Church, the ecclesia, and if not read or heard within that context, it may not be understood correctly. Peter himself refers to that situation when he says in regards to Paul’s writings, “There are things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the scriptures.” The untaught would be those who are untaught in the apostolic teachings, those who read scripture outside of the context of the Church. Misunderstanding scripture is obviously a very serious matter

If Augustine said scripture was easy to understand, he was right, when scripture is understood within the context of the church, the people of God. Easy to understand if scripture is experienced in the God-given way.

Today most can read and they have their own personal bibles. And, sure, we can get our personal spiritual benefit from it. Some things we can apply to ourselves and we can have our own personal opinions about it. But there are some things that apply to the whole world, not just us alone, and when we interpret them, we interpret them also for the whole world! For everybody else. Is that for us to do? Or is it the Church’s job? Of course we know of those who think they have been favored with global understanding, and they convince others, which is how new denominations get started.