Heretical Bible Translation?

[Mystophilus]

TEME525:

Mystophilus, again thanks for your contribution, I was hoping to hear from you in this thread, and I hope all those who have contributed to this thread read your post.

I am undeservedly honoured.

Going, from what I believe was the original intent of this thread, I’m going to continue to say I have trouble with the inclusion of the word “Already”. Grammically I’m sure it is acceptable, however, (and this is where I think we experience the difficulty of making the best translation possible) for the important verse in understanding this particular passage lies in vs.17. He Christ reveals that Peter is operating from a special grace from the Father. Perhaps this is what you meant by the emphasis on the Father?

I believe that if this verse forms the basis for Christ’s declaration to Peter, then it would make sense that what Peter would declare or do happened Already in that Peter is acting according to the Will of the Father because of the special Charism given Peter.

With respect, I am not sure that there is a direct connection between those two situations. The charism was the perception that Jesus is the Christ, whereas the “already” occurs in relation to the binding or loosing, as it does in Mt 18:18, when that power is more explicitly extended to the other disciples.

For me, the RSV translation brings this out better than the AV and therefore is the more accurate translation given the context of the whole situation.

Does that make it a more accurate translation of the Greek, or a more accurate representation of the meaning which underlies the message in any language?

 

[TOME]

Mystophilus,
First, sometimes I come into this forum as TEME525 sometimes, as I am doing here as Tome, it’s not to trick anyone or hide, it just depends on the computer I am using. Every so often I like to start by letting all who care know this.

Sorry for the late reply, scheduling has made things difficult and my last post seems not to have made it.

I would like to comment on two things, first about Matthew and second about translations.

In reading the context of Matthew 16 & 18, if you take each passage individually within the context of what is happening you may find that although similar words are being used they are said in very distinct context. Matthew 16 is clearly (in my opinion) in the context of Jesus’ address to Peter and Peter alone. I agree with you and have actually learned from you that the argument over Petra/Petrus is not what it seems and I shouldn’t look on the use of the words as many do. However, in another post (which I think didn’t go through but I haven’t check) there may be a significience lost in the multiple translations. This my show a typical Jewish practice of Jesus’ time and place. But for this post I would like to focus on that, with this play of words (who’s original thought was lost) it may show Jesus was making His address to Peter. Also, in addressing Peter directly, this indicates the Jesus was speaking about a distinct Charism Peter received and Peter’s declaration was a result of this special Charism - Peter’s declaration was the result of a Charism already present and active in his person, not the Church (that is the Apostles and their successors) in general.

For if you look at the context of Matthew 18, there was a different set of circumstances Jesus was addressing. Namely the power of the Church to excommunicate Her members. The authority Jesus was givening, this time to all the Apostles, was an authority over the members of the Church and their daily involvement in the activities and life of the Community. Remember, the context of Matthew 18 was on how to deal with a member who was living against the principles of the Church.

In John Christ gives the Apostles the powers to forgive sins but this is distinct from Matthew 16 and 18 and later in John we find Jesus again giving Peter a particular task distinct from the other Apostles.

So I think, in these discussions, it is very important to study the whole context in which particular verses are spoken.

Earlier, I said I thought that the RSV was the best translation. I based this on a general consesus. Also, however, in saying this and in answer to your question about translations, I think the translation which not only translate the words in the most literal sense but the sense that underlies the meaning. I say this because the nature of the written word is to express that which is being thought, to translate the idea as well as the word. This is why I tend to gravitate towards the RSV.

 

[asteroid]

The Amplified Bible does seem to have a reputation for being anti-catholic.

But check out 1Cor11 on discerning the body in the Eucharist. The Amplified version should be enough to make any protestant start to choke on their cornflakes!

 

[Mystophilus]

TOME:

First, sometimes I come into this forum as TEME525 sometimes, as I am doing here as Tome, it’s not to trick anyone or hide, it just depends on the computer I am using. Every so often I like to start by letting all who care know this.

I supposed as much, when you used one name to refer back to the a post under the other as being yours. I thought of doing something similar, but take a childish pleasure in watching the number of posts rise.

In reading the context of Matthew 16 & 18, if you take each passage individually within the context of what is happening you may find that although similar words are being used they are said in very distinct context. Matthew 16 is clearly (in my opinion) in the context of Jesus’ address to Peter and Peter alone. I agree with you and have actually learned from you that the argument over Petra/Petrus is not what it seems and I shouldn’t look on the use of the words as many do. However, in another post (which I think didn’t go through but I haven’t check) there may be a significience lost in the multiple translations. This may show a typical Jewish practice of Jesus’ time and place. But for this post I would like to focus on that, with this play of words (who’s original thought was lost) it may show Jesus was making His address to Peter. Also, in addressing Peter directly, this indicates the Jesus was speaking about a distinct Charism Peter received and Peter’s declaration was a result of this special Charism - Peter’s declaration was the result of a Charism already present and active in his person, not the Church (that is the Apostles and their successors) in general.

I would agree that it is quite clear from the context that the primary focus of the Mt 16 passage is on Peter, and the Mt 18 passage on the disciples as a group. What I would add to that is that the two passages, while they certainly must be read within their own contexts, must also be read with respect to each other, because both present facets of the same situation, hence the use of the same formula. In addition, they need to be read within the broader context of other references: John, as you mentioned, and in ever-widening circles outward to eventually include all of Greek and Jewish culture and literature.

Specifically with regard to Jewish thought and the appearance of “petra” in Mt 16:18, have you seen what I found regarding the eben shetiyya? Those concepts lend much to the understanding of the passage as a whole from a Jewish perspective.

 

[TOME]

Mystophilus,
First, I think we both childish pleasure in watching the post numbers go up, I wish I could combine the two or go really crazy and approach each thread from opposite view points. The trouble with that is I would probrably end up arguing with myself which would end up with me either loosing the argument or Blocking myself.

Thanks again for your link it was very useful and yes I am familar with it (perhaps from an earlier suggestion of yours?) But for me I come to a bit of an impass and I’m going to have to have to say I can’t add too much more. I think I have come to the point where I’m just going to have to accept The Roman Catholic teaching because, as you wisely pointed out the meaning of these passages and there translations has been a topic of discussion and division for some time.

I would like to add, that your post bring out an important point which you may have thought about when you were writting your post. That is the fundelmental difference between the Eastern and Western concept of Church. Both hold that the Church is One. But in the West this Oneness starts with the Petrine Ministry and is created in the unity with the Pope. In Eastern theology it is the many Churches in union with each other that creates the Oneness - a concept which ironically (if I’m using the term properly) is reflected in our Nations Motto,E Pluribus Unum.

But as I said above, I side with Western Theology which I hope I have expressed correctly through out this thread. But thanks again for all the oportunity you have provided me (and I sincerely hope everyone else who would take advantage of your post) to have an enjoyable learning experience and a chance to grow in my understanding.

I’m looking foreward to many more discussion like this in the very near future!

Thanks again!