Genesis 1:2 Ruach Elohim "a mighty wind"?

[Catholic_Johnny]

While listening to the Sacred Scripture readings during the Easter Vigil, I was astounded and dismayed that a Catholic translation rendered Genesis 1:2 in the following manner:

Reading 1

In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth,
the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss,
while a mighty wind swept over the waters.

The Hebrew phrase is ruach Elohim (literally the “wind/breath of God”). The Douay-Rheims translation renders the verse

In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

While it is a foregone clonclusion that the modernists have infiltrated every room of the Church’s domain, it is stunning that so contrary a rendering could appear in the Sacred liturgy, and on the occasion of the Easter Vigil.

St. Basil the Great in his brilliant Hexameron (Homily II) provides this commentary on the passage:

1. And the Spirit of God was borne upon the face of the waters. Does this spirit mean the diffusion of air? The sacred writer wishes to enumerate to you the elements of the world, to tell you that God created the heavens, the earth, water, and air and that the last was now diffused and in motion; or rather, that which is truer and confirmed by the authority of the ancients, by the Spirit of God, he means the Holy Spirit. It is, as has been remarked, the special name, the name above all others that Scripture delights to give to the Holy Spirit, and always by the spirit of God the Holy Spirit is meant, the Spirit which completes the divine and blessed Trinity.

What is the agenda here in changing the ancient Traditional translation from Spirit of God to mighty wind?

The only thing I can guess is that the modernist’s preoccupation with so-called theistic evolutionism is better supported by limiting the role of the Holy Spirit in direct creation. What do you think?

Come Holy Ghost
***Creator *blest
And in our hearts
Take up Thy rest…

 

[Verbum]

Hi Johnny,

The translation used is from the NAB. It says in the footnotes that the literal meaning is “wind of God” or “spirit of God”. This translation has been approved by the bishops of the US for use in the liturgy. I personally see no reason for taking God out of it, but I suppose that there are other instances in the Bible where a natural phenomenon is qualified as divine to mean that it is mighty. Obviously, the translators must have agonized over this.

In Latin “spiritus” has the ambiguity of the Hebrew. Douay is translated from the Latin, but, since English cannot convey the ambiguity, the translators had to make a choice – a choice that consisted in applying New Testament theology (the Trinity) to an Old Testament context. Until recently this was considered kosher among Christian translators. But today the consensus is that we should render the text as close as possible to what it meant to the people for whom it was originally written. This explains many changes from traditional renderings.

Last night I listened to the reading in French, and the official liturgical translation for French-speaking countries is very satisfying : “souffle de Dieu” (breath of God), but this has an active connotation in French (like God blowing life into Adam) that the English does not have. So my favorite rendering in English would be “divine wind”.

What do you think?

Verbum

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Verbum,
I sincerely appreciate your exegesis and the time you took to respond to my questions. I don’t doubt that translators ‘agonized’ over the English rendering of ruach Elohim, my issue is why after nearly 1600 years of Tradition change the text? Why are the contemporary translators always more accurate than St. Jerome who had access to multiple copies of manuscripts in the orginal tongues much closer to the primary sources?

This is the arrogance of our age and the idolatry of what passes for science (SEE: Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus). It is so pervasive that we scarcely notice it as being inconsistent with Tradition. We now automatically default to the Raymond Browns and other exegetes who not only trash the Sacred Scriptures but blaspheme the worthy name of St. Jerome with their deceitfully named Jerome Biblical Commentary. The Fathers and Doctors of the Church are summarily dismissed as ‘primitives’ who did not enjoy the advantages of our advanced historico-critical methods and most Catholics today do not believe in the Church’s doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. And no wonder.

The Church produced thousands of Saints with the Vulgate and its children. Where are the saints produced by the neo-modernists?

Happy Easter,
Johnny

 

[rcjones]

… But today the consensus is that we should render the text as close as possible to what it meant to the people for whom it was originally written. This explains many changes from traditional renderings. …

Today in lit classes we ask “What does it mean to you?” rather than “What did the author mean?”

So the modern translator extrapolates… Since we can’t ask Adam, or Seth, or Moses what it meant to him, we’ll start with the doctrine of those who reject Christ… modern Jews… and push it back 4000 years and pretend we know what it meant to them.

It’s so much more intellectually honest to simply seek the meaning of the authors… and not just the human ones. God is the author, and He certainly knew of the Trinity from the beginning.

A good translation illuminates not obfuscates. Such modernist translations prevent the English reader from discerning that the Holy Ghost was involved. Whereas the Hebrew reader would be able to make the connection between the Old and New Testament.

Theology aside, any translation that does not communicate in such a way that permits the linking of the same ideas as the original language is a bad translation.

A single Hebrew word is used for leprosy in houses, clothing, people, etc. The translations that use various words in English, mold, mildrew, rot, etc are bad translations since the original links them together with the same word.

The theology behind the modern translation method is the erroneous assumption that God is not the author, but that the Bible was written by mere men. With God as the author, you don’t have 66 different contexts, you have one unified context wherein it is proper that “mighty wind” is translated “Spirit of God” based on the understanding given by the NT.

Imagine translating a work with a word you don’t understand… say ‘fruply’ and later in the work you are told what a fruply is. It would be preposterous not to consider the later information when translating the earlier. Likewise, if there was any doubt what Ruach Elohim means, it is certainly cleared up by the New Testament. It is preposterous, and dishonest not to use that in the earlier translation.

IMHO of course

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

rcjones:
Fantastic reply, that was really a well-thought out response and I am glad you posted it here. It helps more than you’ll ever know to learn that we are NOT ALONE and that there are others of us who believe as you said, and as the Church teaches that the Holy Spirit is the author of the Sacred Scriptures, and not mere men. Those who perform exegesis as though the Bible were a mere man-made book (or for that matter, part divine and part mortal) are nothing but instruments of satan, whose first words recorded in the Bible were “hath God said?”

In this case the trespass seem particularly egregious as the explicit Hebrew ruach Elohim is completely omitted. How do you take Elohim out of the passage???

Happy Easter,
Johnny

 

[Verbum]

Hi rc.

So the modern translator extrapolates… Since we can’t ask Adam, or Seth, or Moses what it meant to him, we’ll start with the doctrine of those who reject Christ… modern Jews… and push it back 4000 years and pretend we know what it meant to them.

I could quote Cardinal Ratzinger, a couple of encyclicals and many pontifical documents to show that the Church encourages the study of ancient cultures and literary genres, so that we may understand better the literal meaning of the original text. Again and again it is emphasized that the literal meaning is fundamental to determine all other meanings. The understanding of the bible is a work in progress and possibly one that will never end.

Here are some pertinent passages from Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu :

1. Being thoroughly prepared by the knowledge of the ancient languages and by the aids afforded by the art of criticism, let the Catholic exegete undertake the task, of all those imposed on him the greatest, that namely of discovering and expounding the genuine meaning of the Sacred Books. In the performance of this task let the interpreters bear in mind that their foremost and greatest endeavor should be to discern and define clearly that sense of the biblical words which is called literal. Aided by the context and by comparison with similar passages, let them therefore by means of their knowledge of languages search out with all diligence the literal meaning of the words; all these helps indeed are wont to be pressed into service in the explanation also of profane writers, so that the mind of the author may be made abundantly clear.
2. Moreover we may rightly and deservedly hope that our time also can contribute something towards the deeper and more accurate interpretation of Sacred Scripture. For not a few things, especially in matters pertaining to history, were scarcely at all or not fully explained by the commentators of past ages, since they lacked almost all the information which was needed for their clearer exposition. How difficult for the Fathers themselves, and indeed well nigh unintelligible, were certain passages is shown, among other things, by the oft-repeated efforts of many of them to explain the first chapters of Genesis
3. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. **What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East. **The investigation, carried out, on this point, during the past forty or fifty years with greater care and diligence than ever before, has more clearly shown what forms of expression were used in those far off Times New Roman, whether in poetic description or in the formulation of laws and rules of life or in recording the facts and events of history.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p..._enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html

Theology aside, any translation that does not communicate in such a way that permits the linking of the same ideas as the original language is a bad translation.

A single Hebrew word is used for leprosy in houses, clothing, people, etc. The translations that use various words in English, mold, mildrew, rot, etc are bad translations since the original links them together with the same word.

Your point of view is reflected in the old Italian adage : “Traduttore, traditore.” (Translator, traitor). Indeed translating the whole Bible is much more challenging that translating all the books of the Bible individually. If you just translate one book, the vocabulary is likely to be pretty uniform and a particular word likely to have just one meaning. But when you translate the whole Bible,you have cases where the same word in the original text is used with different meanings, yet is meant to establish relationships within those different meanings. In many cases it is absolutely impossible to establish this relationship in a translation. But a translation cannot be labelled as bad for all that. It is to be labelled a translation, and as such as being short of the original, as all translations are bound to be.

Verbum

 

[grace_singh]

C.J.

while not a Catholic, i share your distress and annoyance… to call the Holy Spirit a breeze or a wind (even a mighty one) from God is to strip Him of His personhood, divinity, and role as Lord and God and Giver of Life. in essence to deny Him His rightful dues as the Third person of the Godhead.

the NRSV does this as well, and goes further. it is annoying to say the least to see modern, deconstructionist, impious theology make its way into newer translations of the Bible. it wrongly leads people to belive “this is what the Bible says” and also gives non-Christians ammunition against the basics of Christian faith (the Trinity, Christ’s divinity, etc.)

it is sad, and imo deeply wrong. the translators could spare themselves the agony if they were to respect and uphold the traditional and wholly valid rendering of many words and phrases. a wind from God and the Holy Spirit are two wholly different things. the confusion could lead one to believe that the Spirit is a creation of God, and not Himself fully God.

 

[rcjones]

I could quote Cardinal Ratzinger, a couple of encyclicals and many pontifical documents to show that the Church encourages the study of ancient cultures and literary genres, so that we may understand better the literal meaning of the original text. Again and again it is emphasized that the literal meaning is fundamental to determine all other meanings. The understanding of the bible is a work in progress and possibly one that will never end.

I have no arguement with this provided we are seeking what the author intended rather than what it meant to the listeners, and we don’t forget that God is THE author of authors.

There is a Jewish saying, “The literal never loses it’s meaning”… I would go father and say that since the literal is the voice of God as king, it rules all other interpretation layers (the voices of priest, judge and prophet).

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

C.J.

while not a Catholic, i share your distress and annoyance… to call the Holy Spirit a breeze or a wind (even a mighty one) from God is to strip Him of His personhood, divinity, and role as Lord and God and Giver of Life. in essence to deny Him His rightful dues as the Third person of the Godhead.

the NRSV does this as well, and goes further. it is annoying to say the least to see modern, deconstructionist, impious theology make its way into newer translations of the Bible. it wrongly leads people to belive “this is what the Bible says” and also gives non-Christians ammunition against the basics of Christian faith (the Trinity, Christ’s divinity, etc.)

it is sad, and imo deeply wrong. the translators could spare themselves the agony if they were to respect and uphold the traditional and wholly valid rendering of many words and phrases. a wind from God and the Holy Spirit are two wholly different things. the confusion could lead one to believe that the Spirit is a creation of God, and not Himself fully God.

Grace, whether you are Catholic or not, your beliefs about the Holy Scriptures are in more in line with Catholic Magisterial teaching than many/most Catholics. This is hardly the fault of the Catholics in the pews, who have been fed a steady diet of neo-modernism for a generation. There are scores of faithful Catholics out here, but many of us believe in spite of what we have been taught and not because of what we have been taught.

Thanks for sharing these uplifting insights - you are welcome here and I hope you post often.

cj

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Verbum:
DAS was promulgated to set parameters for the Catholic exegetes who were already transgressing the boundaries set by Leo XIII and St. Pius X. The purpose of the encyclical was to endorse exegesis that would add richness and depth to the theological and moral understanding already established in Magisterial Teaching. It was never intended to do what libertines interpreted to do - license them to deconstruct the Holy Scriptures like damnable heretics as Bultmann and Barth were doing to the Protestant translations and commentaries.

By this time (1943) the rogue theologians cloaking themselves in Catholic garb had already leapt headlong into Bultmann’s deadly errors and destroyed faith in the Catholic Scriptures in ways that would make Bultmann blush. The Jerome Biblical Commentary is a gravestone marking the tomb of those hell-bent on destroying Catholic Faith and who are guilty of the trespass our Lord warns of in Matthew 18:6.

True and devout exegesis in performed in the Spirit of the Sacred Text:

Nor does “the word of God, living and effectual and more piercing than any two-edged sword and reaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit, of the joints also and the marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart”[27] need artificial devices and human adaptation to move and impress souls; for the Sacred Pages, written under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, are of themselves rich in original meaning; endowed with a divine power, they have their own value; adorned with heavenly beauty, they radiate of themselves light and splendor, provided they are so fully and accurately explained by the interpreter, that all the treasures of wisdom and prudence, therein contained are brought to light.

1. In the accomplishment of this task the Catholic exegete will find invaluable help in an assiduous study of those works, in which the Holy Fathers, the Doctors of the Church and the renowned interpreters of past ages have explained the Sacred Books. -Divino Afflante Spiritu

Exegesis that leads a Christian away from the Apostles, the Fathers and Doctors is inspired by another spirit and not the spirit of Christ.

cj

 

[grace_singh]

Grace, whether you are Catholic or not, your beliefs about the Holy Scriptures are in more in line with Catholic Magisterial teaching than many/most Catholics. This is hardly the fault of the Catholics in the pews, who have been fed a steady diet of neo-modernism for a generation. There are scores of faithful Catholics out here, but many of us believe in spite of what we have been taught and not because of what we have been taught.

Thanks for sharing these uplifting insights - you are welcome here and I hope you post often.

cj

i don’t blame the folks in the pews, either. but the watering down of Biblical, orthodox theology does much damage to the faith of laymen. they rely on preists to interpret and teach the Scriptures, and if the interrepation and translation both are heterodox or misleading, it does much damage.

respect for the Bible seems to have been waning over the last couple generations. let us pray that there is a resurgence in traditional, orthodox faith and piety.

nice to get to know you, brother. i’m a Southern Baptist with deep empathy for the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) and Traditional Catholic churches and individuals. fear of God is the begining of wisdom.