Certain video too uncharitable toward Martin Luther?

[SirStephen]

The fact that the LXX follows a different textual tradition doesn’t make that particular tradition older or superior–simply different.

What you might call “imprecise shorthand” others see as playing fast and loose with the facts. This is exactly what is at issue with Voris’ video.

I respectfully disagree that one ‘textual tradition doesn’t make that particular (tradition) older or superior – simply different’ for a number of reasons. The Septuagint was written sometime in the 3rd Century B.C. (although there are arguments that it was as recent as the 1st Century). It was commissioned to be an exact translation of a prevailing Hebrew text in use at the time. Hence, it was a direct translation of a Hebrew Canon existing contemporaneously with that Hebrew canon and not a “proto-Septuagint.” The lingua franca of the region at the time, including in Israel, was Koine Greek. The lure of Hellenism was powerfully seductive for the Jews of that time as Maccabees attests. Israel in the time of the Seleucids was brutal and hence a substantial diaspora population emigrated to Egypt as well as to other places.

Ptolemy II, it is said, commissioned the production of an exact translation for submission to the famous Alexandrian Library. It was also, however, undertaken for the benefit of the diaspora Jewish population that may well have been more conversant in Koine Greek than Hebrew. Whether one wants to accept the story of the 70 Rabbis who independently undertook translations only to find exact equivalence between all the copies when compared (suggesting a miracle) or that 70 (or some other large number of) prestigious Rabbinical schools undertook that same intensive effort also to great exactitude, the story attests to the recognition that the translations were recognized in their own time as being remarkably accurate. Septuagint is Latin for 70 (hence, LXX). It is hard to believe that when undertaking such a large intensive translation effort for such formal official usage that is known to have passed scrutiny with Jews contemporaneous with the times that the effort could have relied on second tier Hebrew texts. It is not an unreasonable inference, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the Hebrew text chosen for translation by upwards of 70 elite Rabbis (or Rabbinical institutions) would be based on a text that represented the standard of its time. Both the Septuagint and the Hebrew text it was derived from existed from the 3rd Century B.C. through the time of Christ to the writing of the New Testament in the time of the Apostles. Qumran demonstrates that there was in fact such a Hebrew text and that the Septuagint was not just the product of poor jisting from a proto-Masoretic text. Hence, there was no “playing fast and loose” on my part.

While bona fide texts existed in the time of Christ and the Apostles that are reflected in the Masoretic Text, the MT itself, as a defined canon, did not exist at the time of Christ and the Apostles. The decisions leading to the formation of the Masoretic Text were made in the early 2nd Century a.d., after the period when what would be the Christian Canon was already written. In other words, after the Apostolic Churches contend that divine inspiration transitioned to the Christian community. What the Rabbinate did after this period in terms of setting its canon should have been of little relevance to the Christian community. The New Testament Canon that was written relied heavily on the Septuagint for reference to and citation of Old Testament canon. The same Holy Spirit that inspired the writers of the New Testament texts did so in such a way that when under inspiration, they relied on the Septuagint when making use of the Old Testament in New Testament texts thus rendering at least those portions of the Septuagint inspired.

 

[SirStephen]

What makes the status of the MT not moot has little to do with the status it enjoys today but rather concerns the issues concerning its adoption in the 2nd Century. There is more to the question of the Masoretic Text than simply what proto-texts it drew from that concerns the considerations involved when deciding what texts to adopt and why in the early 2nd Century a.d. The decisions associated with establishing the Jewish canon can be associated with Rabbi Akiva ben Joseph and are bundled in with Bar Cochba Rebellion around 132 a.d. Borrowing again from Michuta’s Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (68-69)(but easily confirmed other places), Akiva helped foment a rebellion centering on the person of Bar Cochba as the Messiah. Because doing so constituted apostasy, Christians refused to acknowledge Bar Cochba as the Messiah. Justin Martyr himself recorded this in his writings:

For the Jewish war which lately raged, Barchochebas, the leader of the revolt of the Jews, gave orders that Christians alone should be led to cruel punishments, unless they would deny Jesus Christ and utter blasphemy. (First Apology, 31)

In the first writing known to condemn the New Testament, Rabbi Akiva also condemned the Deuterocanon:

The Gospels and heretical books do not defile hands (i.e., are not holy). The books of Ben Sira and all other books written from then on, do not defile the hands. (Tosefta Yadayim, 2:13)

While there were other reasons that impacted the decision to reject both the Septuagint and the Deuterocanon, there was also the fact that it was used and relied on heavily by Jewish Christians. And it goes to the issue as to whether Voris is correct when stating that Luther desacralized the Deuterocanons. It was from out of a political milieu that denied the Gospels, the Deuterocanons, and even the Septuagint that the Masoretic Text was adopted. While there is little question but that the Masoretic Text drew from generally reliable proto texts, they were also seemingly tailored to meet certain objectives that concerned creating separation from the heretics – including the deselection of the Deutercanons. It was around that time that early Christian commentators like Justin Martyr, Tertulian and Origin began to note that the Rabbis were changing some of the content of the scriptures. It should be noted that the Masoretic Text only came into its full development in the 7th to 11th Centuries a.d. By that time, the heat of the political considerations just noted had long since receded and the effort was substantively academic.

 

[SirStephen]

Not for nothing. By way of one example, among the prophetic content in the Deuterocanon disliked by the Rabbis in need of being purged from the canon, Wisdom 2:10-24 stands out. From various points within this string, compare to Matthew 27:42-43, Mark 14:16-17, John 5:18, 16:15, Romans 5:12, and James 5:6.

10 Let us oppress the righteous poor man; let us not spare the widow nor regard the gray hairs of the aged. 11 But let our might be our law of right, for what is weak proves itself to be useless. 12 “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. 13 He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child* of the Lord. 14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; 15 the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. 16 We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. 17 Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; 18 for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 19 Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.” 21 Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, 22 and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls; 23 for God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, * 24 but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it. (Wisdom 2:10-24)

Other types of examples can be provided that demonstrate actual reference of the Deuterocanon in the Gospels and the Epistles. Many others.

 

[RobbyS]

Your suggestion that the Catholic Church does not use Scripture to determine doctrine is simply very incorrect. A simple inventory of the footnotes of the current Catechism of the Catholic Church would quickly bear this out. The point at which you say that ‘Lutherans use scripture to establish doctrine,’ the only thing you are ultimately disagreeing with is the status of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church when compared to its Lutheran counterpart on issues of authority. Because, once you establish that Lutherans in fact do set doctrines, you are held to the reality that there must be an entity vested with such authority capable of determining those doctrines with a view to enforcing them. The Catholic Church simply formally recognizes this reality and designates it as such under the category of “Tradition.”

Finally, you are correct, you did NOT say that “Voris was bearing false witness,” others did. I fully respect the positions you take and you for taking them. They reflect a defense of faith that I recognize even as I may disagree. There is some obligation to defend ones faith and minimally, it should mean that one should not be too quick to attack a co-religionist (not the best term but one that comes first to mind) when one is not clear on the underlying datum. This last point is not directed towards you but rather to those Catholics who seem all too eager to condemn Voris and people like him before any case has been made – often in the absence of any case - in an effort, it seems, to validate ones “ecumenical” bona fides at the expense of that faith however (un)tastefully articulated. A purist who states his case in purist terms, Voris still in not wrong for doing so. As indelicately and crass as some may think, Voris is ultimately correct on the Catholic view to the events discussed concerning Luther. Had he been forced into a more academic milieu, he could have easily recast his commentary to that level of granularity and still easily prevailed with no substantive difference between the two levels of commentary. He easily survives the challenges in this instance. Where one can objectify ones comments, attacks based on “charity” should be severely suspect. The fact that this leaves too many in the Catholic crowd with nothing other than resorting to naked “negative tolerance” attacks under the guise of being uncharitable in an attempt to silence such voices is a deep concern. In a question and answer interview that was largely positive on the issue of ecumenism, Jimmy Akin published Pope Benedict’s comments on ecumenism where the Pope expressed the following concerns:

• Today we can note the many good fruits yielded by ecumenical dialogue. However, we must also recognize that the risk of a false irenism * and of indifferentism * — totally foreign to the thinking of the Second Vatican Council — demands our vigilance. This indifferentism is caused by the increasingly widespread opinion that truth is not accessible to man; hence it is necessary to limit oneself to finding rules for a praxis * that can better the world. And like this, faith becomes substituted by a moralism without deep foundations.***

The view of Richard Rorty that there is no desire of mankind that is truly evil.

 

[SirStephen]

The view of Richard Rorty that there is no desire of mankind that is truly evil.

Ah, I can see that you are sniffing out an underlying philosophical criticism. What Pope Benedict calls “extreme relativism” I would call the postmodern narrative. Rorty, Derrida, blah, blah, blah, and Des Cartes. Consider that if Rorty is correct that there is no truth, then, by his own criteria, he could not hold himself to the truth of the propositions he makes. Ultimately, postmodern thought is an enforced kind of nihilism.

Underlying the repurposed use of the term “charitable” (or “uncharitable”) is a deconstructionist assault on the idea of truth (or, if you will, on “foundationalism” - a constructed term created to be a pejorative strawman). In this context, attacks on people like Voris in the name of being “uncharitable” really constitute attacks on those holding truth claims of the Catholic Church in the interest of not offending those in the forum who might get upset. For postmoderns, because there is no truth, all views are equally weighted, even on a Catholic forum, so Voris cannot be any more right than anyone else. Hence, his truth claims cannot be tolerated. Such a perspective doesn’t reflect a postmodern truth so much as it reflects the doctrinal consequence of holding such views. In truth, however, Protestants who wear their big-boy or big-girl underwear when coming to a Catholic forum are not going to get rocked when Catholic propositions are stated in Catholic terms by committed Catholics. They may be ready to rumble and are looking for a bona fide response by Catholics who actually believe this stuff.

This practice is designed to subordinates thought to its own negation in the mind of the actor and those in the forum who uncritically fold into such enforcement narratives. Most of those engaged in the activity are unaware that they are and little understand that it seeks as it object, among other things, the negation of their own beliefs in their own minds without necessarily being aware that this is even occurring. On a larger scale, it could be argued that the “social justice” catholic church is in some regards the negation of the Catholic Church (this deserves more than one line but not here, not now - but it starts with Bernardin’s alliance with Alinsky, seamless garments, et al). The social justice church subordinates articles of faith to the progressive mandate and ultimately to the progressive state. The Hegelian imperative.

Given that Voris is generally accurate about the statements he makes that draw fire concerning Church Canon (notwithstanding his abrasive and combative style), responses to him based on a lack of charity end up constituting either a defense of the “social justice” church or an ideological need to enforce equivalency of anything Voris might say with what anyone else could say - thus negating the foundationalist basis of Voris claims without actually having to engage in a debate on it (that Voris would, in many cases, prevail on the very facts many postmodernists deny as a consequence of denying that there is truth). This is a tactic.

The reaction to Voris is actually a response to the foundationalism underlying his claims. It is loathed by the postmoderns. Such actions are classic examples of the “negative tolerance” that Pope Benedict’s identifies as a real threat to thought. As the Pope pointed out, when this phenomena plays itself out, “faith becomes substituted by a moralism without deep foundations.” This is a objective. At some point, such denial of truth must collide with both the Christian notion that Jesus Christ is the way, the TRUTH, and the life, and the specifically Catholic notion that it is the one TRUE Church. Rorty’s denial of truth necessarily must constitute a denial of these truths. Injecting such an inherent contradiction into the Catholic (and more broadly Christian) dialog is intentional by those injecting it into the narrative. It is designed to nullify. And it will succeed if not checked.

You should note, without being surprised, that those who challenged what I wrote in this string were non-Catholics with an interest in the discussion they were willing to defend based on their own truth claims. Good on them! Predictably, they did not come from those Catholics claiming Voris to be uncharitable. When such postmodern skirmishes flair up, the claim of being “uncharitable” is supposed to silence. When this doesn’t happen, most are either not able and/or not prepared to proceed further. Political correctness is the enforcement mechanism for the postmodern narrative. “Uncharitable” and terms like it as used by the “social justice” church are calculated to fulfill that role. I’ve already said too much in too little a space.

You could say that its the reason I feel a need to defend Voris.

 

[batman1973]

A Catholic version of Jack T. Chick.

 

[october_baby]

A Catholic version of Jack T. Chick.

See post #145 :banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[october_baby]

A Catholic version of Jack T. Chick.

Spoken in true post-modernist fashion, do you always post such insulting materiel?

 

[SirStephen]

From the Orthodox Perspective

Put out under the Jurisdiction Of The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Of America, Father Demetrious Serfes put out the following commentary in 2000 titled “In a piece In Holy Scripture In The Orthodox Church” that manages to hit much of what has been discussed in this forum. It is a very informative read that can be located at –

serfes.org/orthodox/scripturesinthechurch.htm

What follows are a few outtakes from the Orthodox commentary that are most on point.

There has been some discussion that the Eastern Church was not associated with the list of the canon that initiated in 382 Decree of Pope Damasus following the Council of Rome and affirmed at Councils at Hippo and Catharge (x3 times). As will be further noted later, the following point affirms that Eastern Church was aware and on-board:

The Church is NOT Based on the Bible. Rather, the Bible is a product of the Church. For the first few centuries of the Christian era, no one could have put his hands on a single volume called “The Bible.” In fact, there was no one put his hands on a single volume called “The Bible.” In fact, there was no agreement regarding which “books” of Scripture were to be considered accurate and correct, or canonical.

Looking back over history, there were various “lists” of the canonical “books” comprising the Bible:

• The Muratorian Canon (130 AD) cities all the books we considered as parts of the Bible today, except for Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation/Apocalypse
• Canon 60 of the local Council of Laodicea (364 AD) cited Revelation/Apocalypse
• A festal Epistle by Saint Athanasius (369 AD) lists all of them.

Even so, there was no official, authoritative “canon” listing all the books until the Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople in 680 AD. Canon II of that Council ratifies the First through the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, as well as the local councils at Carthage (255 AD), Ancyra (315 AD), Neocaesaria (315 AD), Gangra (340 AD), Antioch (341 AD), Laodicea (364 A), Sardica (347 AD), Constantinople (394 AD), and Carthage (419 AD).

The following notes one of the reasons, among others, that the Rabbis excluded the Deuterocanonicals in the early Second Century was to remove the prophetic language concerning the coming of the Lord used by Jewish Christians to great effect when preaching to fellow Jews. This need to de-emphasized the prophetic nature of the Old Testament to the New also influenced how proto-texts were massaged when placed in the new canon that would ultimately become the MT –

The “Protestant” Old Testament in Antithetical to Christian Truth. When Protestant Western Christians reviewed the canonical books of Scripture, they adopted the “Hebrew Canon” accepted by the Jews since 100 AD.

The so-called Apocrypha, or Deuterocanonical, books (found in “Catholic” and “Orthodox” versions of the Bible) were a problem for Jews living after the time of Christ, since they often very clearly prophesy concerning Our Lord, and indicate His divinity.

Some of the books were also problematic for both the Jews and the Protestants because they make prophetically evident the special role of the Theotokos in the oikonomia of salvation. In fact, the Orthodox Fathers cite passages quite effectively to discuss the Church"s understanding of the role of the Theotokos.

Also, they only scriptural reference to praying for the dead is found in a Deuterocanonical Book: viz., Maccabees.

Not surprisingly, these Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books were rejected from the “canon” of books indicated in the Jewish Scriptures. This canon was formally pronounced by a rabbinical council at Jamnia (c. 100 AD), which stated that all canonical Scripture had to have been written: in Palestine, in Hebrew (not Greek), and more than 400 years prior (300 BC) to that time.

– later in the article but on point for our discussion here –

The same comparison can be made between an English translation of the Psalms and the Greek version found in the Orologion - they differ in thousands of places. The English has often been translated from the Hebrew Masoretic text which was compiled by Jewish scholars during the first ten centuries after Christ. These scholars used inferior texts or edited them to delete or minimize the messianic prophecies or types which refer to Christ.

 

[SirStephen]

On the sacred status of the Septuagint as the Canon of the Old Testament –

The Holy Scriptures Were Produced by the Orthodox Church. The Church’s holy prophets and Apostles wrote the books contained in the Bible. The Church determined which books were authoritative and belonged in Holy Scripture. The Church preserved and passed on the texts of these Scriptural books.

The seventy-two Jewish rabbis and scholars who gave us the Septuagint Greek Old Testament, produced seventy-two identical Greek translations working independently and in insolation from one another. Writing in Greek, the Holy Apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude produced the books of the New Testament.

On the role of modern “historical critical” analysis resulting in a reduction ad absurdam (think the Jesus Seminar) as well as the hubris of modern Western liberal Biblical scholarship –

The Orthodox Stand on the Critical Eclectic Texts. As Orthodox, we cannot believe that the text of Scripture is arbitrary and governed only by human considerations - especially those of modern scholars who decide what is and what is not “authentic.” We see the presence of God and His providence in our daily lives; how can they be denied to exist in the Church and in the canon and text of the Holy Scriptures? Otherwise everything in our liturgical worship is suspect and unreliable.

The human element cannot be ignored or denied, but neither can the divine. Yet most biblical scholars and textual critics wish to disregard any form of divine intervention or revelation in order to make their study “scientific.” In fact, present-day biblical scholarship hides its fundamental unbelief from believers and even from itself. It ultimately results in such ludicrous claims that Jesus Christ never spoke any of the words recorded in the Bible - claims that make the front page of national news magazines and mislead millions of people.

On the Orthodox Canon. VERY interesting point towards the end on the “Narrow Circle” and “Wide Circle.” Also interesting, it argues that its canon, with 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras, was accepted at the Council of Hippo in 393, hmmm! –

Can You Tell Me How Many Books Are There In The Orthodox Bible?
The Old Testament

The official version of the Old Testament authorized by the Orthodox Church for use in worship and reading is that of theSeptuagint. The number of books in the Septuagint Old Testament edition of the Bible are forty-nine books, twenty-seven in the New Testament. There are seventy-six books in both collections of the Bible. In the King James English Version of the Bible, or as it is commonly called --the Authorized Version, ten books are omitted from the Old Testament. These ten books were rejected by Luther, Calvin, and the Swiss and German reformers. In the English Bible they were placed in a inferior position, until they were finally omitted altogether about a century ago. The Roman Catholic edition omits two books from the Old Testament. The Council of Trent, in the third session (1546), excludes Ist Esdras and the 3rd Maccabees that was confirmed by the Vatican Council of 1870. The preservation of all the Holy Books of the Holy Bible expresses the vigilance of the Orthodox Church in guarding and preserving the Bible and its truth throughout the ages unadulterated.

The books omitted by the Protestant King James Bible are I Esra, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiastical by Sirach, Baruch, the Epistle of Jeremy, the First, Second and Third Books of Maccabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel. These books were included in all the collections of the Bible since Saint Athanasios during the Fourth Century. Also, they were included in the list of the local Synods of Hippo, 393 AD: of Carthage, 397 AD; in the Quintisext at Trullo, 692; and by the local Synods of Jerusalem, 1672; and Constantinople, 1675 A.D. They are also in constant use in our public worship, especially the books, Wisdom of Solomon.

The Church from the beginning, used the Septuagint and not the Palestinian version of the Bible
Note: During the time of our Lord, there were two versions of the of the Old Testament in circulation among the Jews. One was called the “Narrow Circle” of Jerusalem or Palestine and the other was called “Wilder Circle” of Alexandria. Our Lord and the Apostles, in the New Testament, used the “Wilder Circle” or the Septuagint. It was called Septuagint, or Seventy, because there were seventy, (according to tradition 72) scholars who first made the translation into Greek during the reign of Ptolmey II in the third century, B.C. in Alexandria. Our Church recognizes and accepts the Septuagint as the sacred and inspired Word of God. This version of the Bible circulated in the synagogues around the Mediterranean world where Christianity flourished.

 

[JonNC]

A Catholic version of Jack T. Chick.

While I believe Voris clearly misses the mark on our view of the real presence, and isn’t completely accurate regarding the canon, I don’t see him in the company of a Jack Chick, or even a Father O’Hare.

Jon

 

[Mxpxlcp55]

The whole uncharitable charge being thrown at Michael Voris I think is unfair. Reading some of the writings of St. Francis of De Sales such as “The Catholic Controversy”, and even many sermons by the holy Cure’ of Ars and someone may perceive the same feeling, but in reality, all they are really doing is telling the hard truth. Heck, even in St. Thomas Mores writings he takes numerous shots at Luther and the reformers.