M
mcq72
Guest
I believe the CC position is they are all equally reliable, inerrant, inspired…Scripture, Magisterium, and Tradition…the three legged stool.
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
lanman87
Guest
I know that it why it confused me. Most of the time when I see someone saying talking about textual variants in the early copies of the scriptures they are trying to show the scriptures are unreliable because there are slight differences between copies.
H
Hume
Guest
How did I miss this?
But spent some years around a Baptist Seminary before becoming Catholic and then leaving Catholicism.
Not even remotely. Jews, like Catholics and any of the other expressions of the Christian faith that claim direct, observable historical continuity with the 1st century Church, held the institution in higher regard than any of the literature it produced. This goes doubly true for the temple in Jerusalem - the “headquarters” of Judaism, if you please.
The Jews didn’t even interpret the writings in the same way. The books were divided up into different categorical sections that were to be read in a different light. If you were in training to be a part of the Jewish religious leadership (the term for who that was changed over time, so I’ll not use one), and insisted that The Song of Songs could be interpreted with the same lens that you used to interpret Leviticus or Deuteronomy, your matriculation would have come to an abrupt end. Certain parts of the scripture were obviously poetic, some obviously legalistic, some obviously figurative. And regardless, it wasn’t for you to individually decide. It was for the priestly caste established by God - particularly in an age where literacy among people peaked at an impressive for the time 10-15%.
Like the early church, the living body was first, the literature was second. God didn’t dwell in a page, it dwelt in the people.
Disclaimer: Non-Catholic weighing in, so take your grain of salt.The Christian denomination that I belong to follows a Sola Scriptura mindset: the Bible is the sole word of God, the highest authority, and nothing that is not plainly and explicitly taught in Scripture can be true…
I’ve been wondering, though - did the Jews themselves follow this kind of Sola Scriptura theology?
But spent some years around a Baptist Seminary before becoming Catholic and then leaving Catholicism.
Not even remotely. Jews, like Catholics and any of the other expressions of the Christian faith that claim direct, observable historical continuity with the 1st century Church, held the institution in higher regard than any of the literature it produced. This goes doubly true for the temple in Jerusalem - the “headquarters” of Judaism, if you please.
The Jews didn’t even interpret the writings in the same way. The books were divided up into different categorical sections that were to be read in a different light. If you were in training to be a part of the Jewish religious leadership (the term for who that was changed over time, so I’ll not use one), and insisted that The Song of Songs could be interpreted with the same lens that you used to interpret Leviticus or Deuteronomy, your matriculation would have come to an abrupt end. Certain parts of the scripture were obviously poetic, some obviously legalistic, some obviously figurative. And regardless, it wasn’t for you to individually decide. It was for the priestly caste established by God - particularly in an age where literacy among people peaked at an impressive for the time 10-15%.
Like the early church, the living body was first, the literature was second. God didn’t dwell in a page, it dwelt in the people.
M
mcq72
Guest
Did Cyprian quote said verse?.Most scholars posit that it originated as a gloss in Latin manuscripts,
Did Gregory cite Arians for deleting it in their manuscripts?
M
mcq72
Guest
What does first mean?Like the early church, the living body was first, the literature was second. God didn’t dwell in a page, it dwelt in the people.
M
mcq72
Guest
CyprianIncorrect
“The Lord says, I and the Father are one; [John 10:30]
(HOLY BIBLE: John 10) and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, And these three are one”
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm
B
Bithynian
Guest
Incorrect
Two aspects of what I wrote were ‘unambiguous’ and ‘profusely’. The few scant phrases identified in Cyprian, Gregory Nazianzen and Tertullian (amongst some other early Church Fathers) have been not been widely recognised by scholarship as witnesses for the Johannine comma: they are more understood as generic statements using formulaic expressions.Did Cyprian quote said verse?.
Did Gregory cite Arians for deleting it in their manuscripts?
With that in mind, I don’t have a dog in this fight and I’m not particularly inclined to pursue this topic down the proverbial rabbit hole of internet debate. I don’t have any theological objection with the Johannine comma itself (rather, I find it spiritually beneficial), and I’m perfectly content to read if it is included in whatever Bible I have at hand.
But this doesn’t obviate the overwhelming consensus in biblical scholarship that the Johannine comma is doubtful in origin. This is not isolated to Western Christianity: I note that most of the current editions of the Patriarchal Text (the Greek NT authorised for use in the Greek Orthodox Church) have the Johannine comma formatted differently (in italics, smaller font or brackets) with an annotation explaining its absence from most major, ancient manuscripts.
B
Bithynian
Guest
I don’t think that context-less quotations from the Church Fathers would provide much edification for those reading this thread. Taking as an example, the quotation from Athanasius is from a work long considered to be spurious. It purports to relate a disputation between Athanasius and Arius at the Council of Nicaea, but neither the synodal literature of Nicaea nor contemporaneous Church Fathers quote from the work.
Again, I will note that the inauthenticity of the Johannine Comma has long been the consensus of scholarship. Taking a Q&A article from this very website which hosts the forum:
Again, I will note that the inauthenticity of the Johannine Comma has long been the consensus of scholarship. Taking a Q&A article from this very website which hosts the forum:
In a decree of June 2, 1927, the Holy Office clarified its earlier statement in declaring that scholars may be inclined to doubt or reject the authenticity of the Johannine Comma subject to any forthcoming judgment of the Church. No scholar any longer accepts its authenticity.
M
mcq72
Guest
"we have the record of the controversy in the Greek Church as early as AD 379 with the Arians seeking to remove the Comma. But when it comes to adding the Comma to the Scriptures, there is a dead silence. The Arians were not challenging Gregory for adding the Comma, but rather, Gregory challenged the Arians for omitting the Comma from the Sacred Text. This in itself is telling.”
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Ok, some might say the scholarship turned more heavily in 1800’s, with discovery of old manuscripts, (Codex Sinaiticas) and also Westcott and Hort translation that became popularAgain, I will note that the inauthenticity of the Johannine Comma has long been the consensus of scholarship
L
LuciusMaximus
Guest
Hello David, can you give any more insight into why the Vulgate is more trustworthy than other versions we have access to, to someone with only limited understanding of the topic? I’m interested in learning more about that.
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes, and I have read some of the personal Christian beliefs of Westcott and Hort and the are a bit liberal.Modern textual criticism is a joke
- Status
- Not open for further replies.