B
BartholomewB
Guest
@po18guy, my friend, your question mark speaks for itself. I rest my case.
Last edited:
- Status
D
Dovekin
Guest
How does disparaging other Catholics help you achieve that? Why do you use negatively charged language when talking about others? You are capable of writing clearly, but you sometimes fall into near incomprehensible when you write. Do you believe Luke composed his gospel? I really cannot tell from what you say about the Magnificat because you turn “Even if not composed by Luke” into “simply a talented composer of pious fables.” I believe, as most Catholics have believed since the first century, that St Luke is a true author of his gospel. I have no problem saying he composed it. Your understanding of compose seems uncharitable at very least, repugnant if it is intentionally deceitful.
I am a vociferous supporter of the NAB not because it is the most accurate, but because it is an act of the Magisterium. It is a production of the bishops of the US from beginning to end. If you are sincere about wanting to be a faithful Catholic, I do not understand why you talk about it so uncharitably.
When I read the Confraternity commentary above, i see a number of unbelievable statements that undermine our faith. The whole “Aramaic into Greek” is little more than a pious fable that calls into question the process by which the gospels became part of the canon. It may be comforting to believe it, but it is not true in any meaningful way. You can use it if you want, but you would be better served by trying to understand what the bishops offer us in the NAB. That is where you will find Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium imo.
po18guy
Well-known member
But, what case? The Confraternity was essentially an update of the Clementine Vulgate. No one screaming over that! As well, lack of a positive does in no way indicate a negative. If there is criticism of the Confraternity bible, it is that it was killed off to bring us the NAB. The OT was used s a basis for the NAB OT, and that much is fine. But for some odd reason, it was felt that the NT (which parallels the Knox IMO) needed to be trashed and done over.
The result was the flaccid NAB NT translation with the sometimes good, often horrid notes. It was when Pius XII advised to consult the Dead Sea scrolls that interpretation seems to have run off the rails - much like the poor implementation of the reforms of Vatican II.
The result was the flaccid NAB NT translation with the sometimes good, often horrid notes. It was when Pius XII advised to consult the Dead Sea scrolls that interpretation seems to have run off the rails - much like the poor implementation of the reforms of Vatican II.
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Look at that last sentence again: “The Greek text, however, is in substantial conformity with the original.” The author of that Introduction in the Confraternity Bible is stating that as if it were a known fact. It isn’t. Very little is known about the “Hebrew” (or Aramaic) Matthew. That assertion about “substantial conformity” is, quite simply, unverifiable.
St. Matthew is the subject of Chapter 3 of St. Jerome’s De Viris Illustribus (“Illustrious Men”). Along with a few brief remarks by Papias, Irinaeus, Eusebius, and Origen, this passage in Jerome is one of the prime sources among the Church Fathers for all that is known about the “Hebrew Matthew”. What follows is the whole of Chapter 3:
• Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek, though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament, he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist: Out of Egypt have I called my son, and for he shall be called a Nazarene.
That is pretty much everything that is known about the “Hebrew Matthew.”
St. Matthew is the subject of Chapter 3 of St. Jerome’s De Viris Illustribus (“Illustrious Men”). Along with a few brief remarks by Papias, Irinaeus, Eusebius, and Origen, this passage in Jerome is one of the prime sources among the Church Fathers for all that is known about the “Hebrew Matthew”. What follows is the whole of Chapter 3:
• Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek, though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament, he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist: Out of Egypt have I called my son, and for he shall be called a Nazarene.
That is pretty much everything that is known about the “Hebrew Matthew.”
Last edited:
po18guy
Well-known member
The best that you can hope for in a translation is the substance being the same. Substance. The root of consubstantial. From the prologue to Sirach, penned by his grandson, who was the original translator:
Well do you know that “original texts” were long gone even before Saint Jerome began to translate in about 380 AD. He had only copies of copies of copies. So, what is to preserve the truth of the texts as to faith and morals?
po18guy
Well-known member
While on the subject of modernism, foot notes and other such contemporary detritus, here is an article detailing the so-called scientific assault on faith and the scripture which feeds it.
https://www.catholicstand.com/do-you-really-believe-that/#
https://www.catholicstand.com/do-you-really-believe-that/#
D
Dovekin
Guest
This is quite like the “modernism of Ratzinger.” Theologians are called modernists by people who should know better.
For example, the blogger claims:
Modern scholarship is not what is being portrayed on the blog, but a caricature. His other examples of bad behavior among catechists do not seem any more egregious than the attempts the blogger is making to discredit by distorting the history. The anti-modernist search for heresy was a painful period of our history that should be left to the past, like the memory of Loisy.
For example, the blogger claims:
Alfred Loisy is recognized as belonging to the modernist scholars who were condemned by Pius X. I do not know of any modern bible scholars who think he had much influence on their work. Père Lagrange is far more likely to be called the founder of modern Catholic biblical criticism. This Servant of God whose Ècole Biblique still provides the most up to date scholarship is far more important than the practically forgotten Loisy.
Modern scholarship is not what is being portrayed on the blog, but a caricature. His other examples of bad behavior among catechists do not seem any more egregious than the attempts the blogger is making to discredit by distorting the history. The anti-modernist search for heresy was a painful period of our history that should be left to the past, like the memory of Loisy.
- Status