Is it legal to add a single word to the Holy Scripture?

[dronald]

If we were to keep from adding or removing a word of scripture, then were would never have been any translations. Concepts in one language that are encapsulated in one word may take a sentence to state in another. Even then, some expressions may not be at all sensible if translated literally. An example: in German, we speak of " auf die Schlange stehen." It means “queing up” in British English, or “standing on or in ] line” in American English. If you translate the German literally, it would be “standing on the snake.” As far as In know, snake handling was never a German practice.

A second consideration is that words may change meaning or lose meaning. Jews discovered some centuries after the Exodus that some of the animal names known to the Israelites were no longer in use, so that animals to which they referred could not be identified. The reason that this was important was that the terms concerned food laws.

We also have to think about textual variations, such as the end of the Book of Mark. Some of the ancient texts include Mark 16:9-20 and others have different endings. Does one accept the idea of lectio difficile and go with the harder reading, or does one go with the oldest witnesses, or make a democratic decision and use what the majority of witnesses have?

For those who would like an English example of a direct translation see 1 Peter 1:13

“Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

The original translation says, “gird up your loins” which referenced the practice of getting your garment ready before a race. However such is no longer relevant and one would be quick to miss such a meaning; so it’s been simplified. Nothing wrong here in my opinion.

 

[Peter_J]

If we were to keep from adding or removing a word of scripture, then were would never have been any translations. Concepts in one language that are encapsulated in one word may take a sentence to state in another. Even then, some expressions may not be at all sensible if translated literally. An example: in German, we speak of " auf die Schlange stehen." It means “queing up” in British English, or “standing on or in ] line” in American English. If you translate the German literally, it would be “standing on the snake.” As far as In know, snake handling was never a German practice.

A second consideration is that words may change meaning or lose meaning. Jews discovered some centuries after the Exodus that some of the animal names known to the Israelites were no longer in use, so that animals to which they referred could not be identified. The reason that this was important was that the terms concerned food laws.

We also have to think about textual variations, such as the end of the Book of Mark. Some of the ancient texts include Mark 16:9-20 and others have different endings. Does one accept the idea of lectio difficile and go with the harder reading, or does one go with the oldest witnesses, or make a democratic decision and use what the majority of witnesses have?

You have a good point, in so far as it goes. But the “filioque” isn’t a question of translation per se.

A question of translation would be: Should ek to Patros ekporeumenon be translated as “who proceeds from the Father” or “who proceeds eternally from the Father” (or even “who originates from the Father”)?

 

[DelsonJacobs]

DelsonJacobs, if we want to apply logic, then we should first clarify our premises. So you agreed that it is not legal to add a single word to the Scripture. Now let us clarify what is the exact reason that it is not legal. Is it not legal only because of the prohibition in the book of Revelation, or rather, the prohibition in the book of Revelation doesn’t impose any new laws on us, but, rather, repeats something that is already self-evident – that is, repeats that it is not legal, but is sinful, to add a single word to any written documents that are considered God breathed?

Since I did not raise the issue of “legality” about adding words to Scripture, and because Catholicism does not speak of textual transmission in these terms, I made no reference to it being legal or not.

Recall that I previously wrote:

Actually there is no dogma regarding “adding a single word to the Holy Scripture” in Catholicism that violates any of its doctrines regarding Scripture or Canon Law.

Therefore I never agreed with your original premise in the first place, even though in your above quoted post you write:

So you agreed that it is not legal to add a single word to the Scripture.

I did no such thing.

My words have no connection to your argument regarding whether such an act is considered “legal” or not.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Dronald, you give a good example. I do remember my grandmothers, one Russian born and the other American, pulling their skirts from the back and tucking them into the waistbands in from to work in the garden. Unless you have watched mountain women at work or men in some country where men wear skirts, the saying “gird your loins,” would be incomprehensible.

The usage of “logos” was more fluid in Greek than in English. The closest English comes to the Greek meaning is in the saying. " to take someone’s word." The Greek for the Ten Commandments is the Decalogue. Translated directly, it is the ten words. Obviously, it is longer than ten words as used in English.

 

[Vadim244]

Therefore I never agreed with your original premise in the first place, even though in your above quoted post you write:

So you agreed that it is not legal to add a single word to the Scripture.

I did no such thing.

My words have no connection to your argument regarding whether such an act is considered “legal” or not.

I’m sorry. But what about other term, “grave sin”, used by Cricket2, who wrote:
In scripture we are warned to neither add too or take away from the Word of God. This is a grave sin, not a legal issue.?
Do you agree that adding even a single word to the Scripture is a grave sin? If yes, then what is the exact reason that it is a grave sin: is it a grave sin only because of the prohibition in the book of Revelation, or rather, the prohibition in the book of Revelation doesn’t impose any new laws on us, but, rather, repeats something that is already self-evident – that is, repeats that it is a grave sin to add a single word to any written documents that are considered God breathed?