Is Paul an Apostle?

[_thaddeus]

The newer translations water down the original Greek in their attempt to make it “meaningful” to the modern audience and in the process do violence to the scriptures. The older versions stick closer to the Greek. For instance the Douay Rheims is quite clear on Acts 1:23-26:

"23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
26 And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the **eleven **apostles.

In verse 26 how did the number eleven in the DR get changed to twelve in the NEB?

If we look at Jerome’s Vulgate of 405 AD we see Acts 1:26 written thusly [in Latin]:

" Et dederunt sortes eis, et cecidit sors super Mathiam: et annumeratus est cum **undecim **Apostolis."

I emboldened the word 'undecim’ In Latin the number one is uno and the number ten is decem. undecim is 1+10 and that is eleven not twelve. Now you tell me if your newer bible is truly inerrant.

I believe patrick457 has answered your question quite clearly. Read his answer.

“The older versions stick closer to the Greek”. What Greek?

“Now you tell me if your newer bible is truly inerrant.” The Jerusalem Bible is a Catholic bible. The New English Bible is a Protestant bible. I understand that the people (biblical scholars that actually know ancient languages) who did these translations were both competent and honest. Plus my bible is better than your bible.

I am curious though. Do you have a list of “inerrant” bibles that are written in engish?

 

[ezeekl]

I believe patrick457 has answered your question quite clearly. Read his answer.

“The older versions stick closer to the Greek”. What Greek?

“Now you tell me if your newer bible is truly inerrant.” The Jerusalem Bible is a Catholic bible. The New English Bible is a Protestant bible. I understand that the people (biblical scholars that actually know ancient languages) who did these translations were both competent and honest. Plus my bible is better than your bible.

I am curious though. Do you have a list of “inerrant” bibles that are written in engish?

I believe the Council of Trent answered this in 1546. There you have a general council teaching on a matter of faith. That makes its teaching infallible. That is good enough for me. How about you?

 

[rcwitness]

Once again, I’ll put a link to a commentary by Benedict VII.

He mentions some people refering to Paul as the 13th Apostle.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061025_en.html

 

[ezeekl]

Once again, I’ll put a link to a commentary by Benedict VII.

He mentions some people refering to Paul as the 13th Apostle.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061025_en.html

But does he say he agrees with them?

Here is something I uncovered by Scott Hahn, former protestant and now professor of Theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville in Steubenville, Ohio as well as professor of Theology at St. Vincent College in Latrobe, PA and who has had various teaching programs on EWTN.

In his article about the papacy Dr. Hahn wrote:

"Peter’s Place in the Early Church

But what does the Church do after Jesus is ascended into heaven, after Judas has committed suicide? Turn to Acts 1 to see what the Church does in response to Judas’ death and Jesus’ departure. It’s very interesting and important because Peter stands up with the eleven in the Upper Room, verse 15, and He speaks about Judas’ death and He says, “It was known beforehand and had even been prophesied in the Old Testament” and so what should we do now?

Notice that Peter – and by the way, notice that it is Peter who stands up. He’s not just contributing an opinion. When Peter declares an opinion it is binding and immediately following, exactly what he advises. And what is it he advises? He quotes the Psalms, “Let his habitation become desolate and let there be no one to live in it.” But then he doesn’t say, “Hey, guys, we’re from twelve down to eleven. We better hang together now or we might end up hanging separately. No we’re just down to eleven and it’s going to be us from now on.” He doesn’t say that.

**He says, “His office, let another take.” Or as the King James version says, “His bishopric, let other men take.” The word there is episcopae, where we get the word episcopacy or episcopal. It’s the word for bishop. In other words, there’s an epioscopal office that is now empty and vacant. Peter stands up and says, “Well obviously, automatically, in line with the Old Testament tradition, in line with this Old Testament practice of patriarchal succession at every level in God’s family, not just at top with Moses and his seed and his successors, but even the seventy elders, when they died, they left empty offices that must be filled,” Peter is just obviously appealing to this Old Testament precedent is saying, “Let another man his bishopric, his office, take.” **

And they draw lots and they choose Matthias. No debate, no novelty. The other ten don’t say, “Huh, what are you talking about, Simon? This is weird.” No, they understand, but even more, they submit. There’s no debate, no discussion. "

catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

Notice Dr. Hahn says, **"…there is there’s an epioscopal office that is now empty and vacant…" **and **"…in line with this Old Testament practice of patriarchal succession at every level in God’s family, not just at top with Moses and his seed and his successors, but even the seventy elders, when they died, they left empty offices that must be filled," Peter is just obviously appealing to this Old Testament precedent is saying, “Let another man his bishopric, his office, take.” **

It was an episcopal [bishop’s] office that was vacant and that is the one Matthias was elected to. If you don’t agree with that then all you need do is provide the names of the apostles that filled the offices of the other eleven apostles when they died. Let’s start with John. What apostle replaced the Apostle John? How about the Apostle Andrew? You know as well as I did that no Apostle replaced them because there is no ecclesiastical office of Apostle. Therefore the original Apostles, when they died, did not leave apostolate offices to be filled. They left episcopal offices which were filled by bishops.

 

[rcwitness]

But does he say he agrees with them?

…I thought you might say that. How are you bro? Im glad to read your posts again. However, I wish it was on a different topic.

The way I end up looking at this, is like this,…
What is the purpose of the “12” Apostles? We already established from Patrick, that there are two approaches to the title Apostle. One is specific to the number 12 as the close pack chosen during the ministry of the Lord, who witnessed everything from the beginning. The other, is general, as in everyone sent out by Jesus personally to preach the gospel. The number 12 represents the 12 tribes, right? Im NOT an expert on the tribes at all, but there is meaning there. They are to bring the Jewish covenant into fullfillment, or into the new covenant by way of anouncement of the ministry given to them. The Apostles at the time Matthias was chosen had no district as an overseeing Bishop would be left into the care of. The Apostles actually established the foundation of the Church…bringing about parish’s from their witness and testimony of the life of Jesus. Jesus Himself makes mention of preaching the gospel to the people of Israel first and foremost. Yet, it was revealed that faith was to be found even in the gentiles, and rejection even in the Jewish chosen people of God. So, Saul, who persecuted the Church (which was already founded on 12 Apostles) was, in the manner of the last one personally chosen by Jesus, to preach and suffer for the name of Jesus. Paul says Peter’s ministry was to the circumcised and his was to the uncircumcised. I believe, when he says “Peter” he implies all the others as well. Then Paul’s ministry is an extention to “reach out”. Paul was converted soley by means of revelation! He was taken to the 3rd heaven and blinded in the flesh! He did not convert. He was converted by the revelation of Jesus, so that he had no doubt in his mind that his ministry would be to the exhiled ones. He was in addition to the twelve. He was confirmed through them, but not by them. He was dead set on following the Lord and not men. He was least of the Twelve chosen, because they contained faith which lead them to follow Jesus (though, He chose them). Paul persecuted them! So his Apostleship was not as one of the 12, but nevertheless Apostolic by means of Revelation directly from Jesus Christ. Yet, he was baptised by the Apostles, and healed through the laying on of hands by them, and still received the Holy Spirit through them! He then, was even sent by revelation to present his gospel to the Apostles in order to be confirmed. Which, he was and given their right hand of fellowship.

 

[rcwitness]

The Apostles actually established the foundation of the Church…

Yet, he was baptised by the Apostles, and healed through the laying on of hands by them, and still received the Holy Spirit through them!.

I should correct myself in these two statements. The Apostles were the pillars which the Church would be built on.

And it was the disciple Ananias who was sent by Jesus to heal and baptise…
“Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

 

[POJIUJH]

I should correct myself in these two statements. The Apostles were the pillars which the Church would be built on.

And it was the disciple Ananias who was sent by Jesus to heal and baptise…
“Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

He was still ordained by the Apostles though of course.

 

[_thaddeus]

I believe the Council of Trent answered this in 1546. There you have a general council teaching on a matter of faith. That makes its teaching infallible. That is good enough for me. How about you?

I have no problem with the Council of Trent.

These are extracts from a couple of Catholic encyclopedias.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912) newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

“After exhaustive preliminary discussions in the various congregations, two decrees were ready for debate at the fourth session (8 April, 1546), and were adopted by the fathers. In treating the canon of Scripture they declare at the same time that in matters of faith and morals the tradition of the Church is, together with the Bible, the standard of supernatural revelation; then taking up the text and the use of the sacred Books they declare the Vulgate to be the authentic text for sermons and disputations, although this did not exclude textual emendations. It was also determined that the Bible should be interpreted according to the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and never misused for superstitious purposes. Nothing was decided in regard to the translation of the Bible in the vernaculars.”

The New Catholic Encyclopedia 2nd edition. The entire article is accessible via highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3407711646.html

“As recently as 1941 a long letter had to be addressed
by the PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION to the archbishops
and bishops of Italy to put them on their guard
against an anonymous attack, made earlier in the year,
upon the scientific study of Scripture, that claimed justification
in the Tridentine decree Insuper (Enchiridion symbolorum
3794; Encyclopedia biblica 526). This letter,
issued under the authority of Pope Pius XII, and especially
two paragraphs of the same Pontiff’s encyclical of September
1943, DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU (par. 21–22;
Enchiridion symbolorum 3825; Encyclopedia biblica
549), state plainly the meaning of the council’s use of the
term ‘‘authentic’’: that the decree applied only to the
Latin Church and to its public use of the Scriptures; that
it diminished in no way the authority and value of the
original texts, Hebrew or Greek; that the decree in effect
affirmed that the Vulgate was free from any error whatever
in matters of faith and morals and so could be quoted
with complete authority in disputations, lectures, and
preaching—that, in short, the term had been used primarily
in a juridical rather than a critical sense; and that there
had been no intention to prohibit the making of vernacular
versions from the original texts rather than from the
Vulgate.”

I decided to practise my cut and paste.This is Acts 1:26 from a few English translations.

NAB Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles
NAB(RE) Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.
GNT Then they drew lots to choose between the two men, and the one chosen was Matthias, who was added to the group of eleven apostles.
DR And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
KNOX They gave them lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he took rank with the eleven apostles.
CCB Then they drew lots between the two and the choice fell on Matthias who was added to the eleven apostles.
JB They then drew lots for them, and as the lot fell to Matthias, he was listed as one of the twelve apostles.
NJB They then drew lots for them, and as the lot fell to Matthias, he was listed as one of the twelve apostles.
NEB They drew lots and the lot fell on Matthias, who was then assigned a place among the twelve apostles.
RSV And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi´as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.
NRSV And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.
KJV And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
NET Then they cast lots for them, and the one chosen was Matthias; so he was counted with the eleven apostles.
NIV Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
CEB When they cast lots, the lot fell on Matthias. He was added to the eleven apostles.
RSV2ce And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

I don’t see a problem with 12 apostles. It appears to be more of a problem in understanding English as opposed to understanding Greek or Latin. The idea of 12 apostles is the same in all of these translations.

Infinity is hard for me to get my head around but 12-1=11 and 11+1=12 is fairly easy to grasp.
12 apostles - 1 apostle (Judas) = 11 apostles.
11 apostles + 1 apostle (Matthias) = 12 apostles.

If you wish to believe that Matthia was not added to the eleven apostles then so be it.

I still remain somewhat curious though. Do you have a list of “inerrant” bibles? (preferably in English translation) If you can supply this, it would be a wonderfull help not just for Catholics.

 

[ezeekl]

I don’t see a problem with 12 apostles. It appears to be more of a problem in understanding English as opposed to understanding Greek or Latin. The idea of 12 apostles is the same in all of these translations.

Infinity is hard for me to get my head around but 12-1=11 and 11+1=12 is fairly easy to grasp.
12 apostles - 1 apostle (Judas) = 11 apostles.
11 apostles + 1 apostle (Matthias) = 12 apostles.

If you wish to believe that Matthia was not added to the eleven apostles then so be it.

I still remain somewhat curious though. Do you have a list of “inerrant” bibles? (preferably in English translation) If you can supply this, it would be a wonderfull help not just for Catholics.

You are forgetting that Peter in Acts 1:20 called for someone to replace Judas in the office of bishop that Judas vacated by his death. Peter never called for another Apostle to replace Judas. In fact he said that Judas’ house [habitation] would be desolate and noone would reside in it. Peter was obviously making a distinction between the office of bishop that was to be Judas’s and his Apostleship or line of succession.

Matthias is added to the eleven apostles not as an Apostle but as a bishop and he therefore is the scriptural precedent for the Apostolic Succession of bishops wherein bishops replaced Apostles. But if you want to insist that Matthias was an Apostle also then you and the church have got a lot of problems. For instance how can the church, on one hand, teach that there were twelve Apostles [See the Catechism; paragraphs # 858, 865, 869, 880 and 1577]and then say there were actually thirteen or fourteen? Or how can the church teach that an Apostle [Matthias] replaced another Apostle [Judas] and not teach that the other Apostles were not also succeeded by replacement Apostles? Or how can the church teach something that goes against what Peter says in Acts 1:20? To me that statement of Peter’s is infallible on two counts being both scripture as well as a teaching of the first pope.

Explain all this to me because I see fundamental problems here that completely undermine the teaching authority of the church.

 

[_thaddeus]

You are forgetting that Peter in Acts 1:20 called for someone to replace Judas in the office of bishop that Judas vacated by his death. Peter never called for another Apostle to replace Judas. In fact he said that Judas’ house [habitation] would be desolate and noone would reside in it. Peter was obviously making a distinction between the office of bishop that was to be Judas’s and his Apostleship or line of succession.

Matthias is added to the eleven apostles not as an Apostle but as a bishop and he therefore is the scriptural precedent for the Apostolic Succession of bishops wherein bishops replaced Apostles. But if you want to insist that Matthias was an Apostle also then you and the church have got a lot of problems. For instance how can the church, on one hand, teach that there were twelve Apostles [See the Catechism; paragraphs # 858, 865, 869, 880 and 1577]and then say there were actually thirteen or fourteen? Or how can the church teach that an Apostle [Matthias] replaced another Apostle [Judas] and not teach that the other Apostles were not also succeeded by replacement Apostles? Or how can the church teach something that goes against what Peter says in Acts 1:20? To me that statement of Peter’s is infallible on two counts being both scripture as well as a teaching of the first pope.

Explain all this to me because I see fundamental problems here that completely undermine the teaching authority of the church.

The only bible translations where I could find the terms “his bishopric” or “his bishoprick” were the DR and the KJV. Most of the others (mainly Catholic) use “his office”. Some others (mainly Protestant) use terms such as “his place of service”, “his charge”, “his position of overseer”, “his place of leadership”, “his position of responsibility” and “his position of leadership”.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300&CFID=15259878&CFTOKEN=80547082 “Uncomfortable Facts About The Douay-Rheims” by James Akin is a very readable article which touches on Douay-Rheims Onlyists and King James Onlyists and the Vulgate in English and could answer some questions.

You will enjoy reading the text and notes from the original 1582, printed at Rheims copy of “THE NEVV TESTAMENT OF IESVS CHRIST, TRANSLATED FAITHFVLLY INTO ENGLISH”. It is pretty interesting. Act 1 is at image page 190. I was a bit surprised when the note around 1:21 read “No fmall myfterie, that the number of the twelve Apoftles muft needes be made vp againe.” There are more notes further down. You can read it at
books.google.ca/books?id=kofWAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=true

Check out the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible and Commentaries.
Acts 1:20-26

20For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘Let his habitation become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it’;
and
‘His office let another take.’

21So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection." * 23And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab’bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi’as. 24And they prayed and said, “Lord, you know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two you have chosen 25to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” 26And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.​

1:20 the book of Psalms: Peter gives free quotations from the Psalter to explain the removal (Ps 69:25) and replacement of Judas (Ps 109:8). • Psalms 69 and 109 are imprecatory psalms that curse the enemies of God and Israel. In both, the righteous man groans in agony over the treachery of the wicked. Peter reads them messianically, i.e., the suffering Psalmist prefigures the suffering and betrayal of Christ by his enemies. office: The Greek term refers to a position of oversight and was used in early Christianity for an episcopal office or bishopric (1 Tim 3:1). • The replacement of one apostle with another is a pattern repeated in the episcopal succession of bishops from the first century to the present day (1:26; CCC 77, 860).

1:21 accompanied us: Candidates for the vacant apostolic office had to have witnessed the full scope of Jesus’ ministry (1:22). Paul was a unique exception to this rule; though an apostle, he saw only the risen and glorified Jesus (26:15-18; 1 Cor 9:1).

• Acts 1:22: An apostle must be a witness to Christ’s resurrection.

1:26 cast lots: A process of selection using marked sticks or stones. It was not a game of chance but a venerated means of discerning God’s will (Lev 16:7-10; Prov 16:33). It was also a means for assigning ritual duties to Levitical priests serving in the Temple (1 Chron 24:31). Matthias: His enrollment with the Eleven reconstitutes the original number of the Twelve, who represent the restored tribes of Israel gathered around the Messiah (Lk 22:30; Rev 21:12-14; CCC 765). For Luke, the main point of the election is to recover the symbolic number 12, as seen in the fact that Matthias never again appears in the narrative of Acts. Note that the Twelve belong to the period of the Church’s founding and do not represent an ongoing institution in the life of the Church (no mention is made in Acts 12:2 of a replacement for the Apostle James after his martyrdom).

 

[_thaddeus]

…continued from previous

But if you want to insist that Matthias was an Apostle also then you and the church have got a lot of problems.

I don’t believe that the Church has any “splaining to do”. Unfortunately I may have some splaining to do, you know, about this and that, here and there, but not about this matter.

Explain all this to me because I see fundamental problems here that completely undermine the teaching authority of the church.

I’m sorry to hear that. There are many other people that could explain all of that much more competently. I can suggest that you read a variety of bibles with an open mind understanding that they are translations of different quality. Try to avoid any Protestant translation that censors out what they call the Apocrypha. Maybe also try re-reading the Catechism 75-79 and 857-865.

 

[ezeekl]

The only bible translations where I could find the terms “his bishopric” or “his bishoprick” were the DR and the KJV. Most of the others (mainly Catholic) use “his office”. Some others (mainly Protestant) use terms such as “his place of service”, “his charge”, “his position of overseer”, “his place of leadership”, “his position of responsibility” and “his position of leadership”.

How about Jerome’s Vulgate? He uses the Latin word episcopatum which is derived from the Greek episkope. Look up the word that is translated as “office” in Acts 1:20 in any lexicon. It will tell you that the original word in Greek was episkope. [IEpiskope* means 'office of bishop. So the older translations are more specific as to what the ‘office’ was. The English word “bishop” is the normal translation of the Green noun episkopos, which occurs five times in the New Testament (Acts 20:28 ; Philippians 1:1 ; 1 Timothy 3:2 ; Titus 1:7 ; 1 Peter 2:25 ).

Prior to the advent of Christianity episkopos meant “inspector,” “watchman,” or “overseer.” It was used of the finance officers of Greek guilds and of the officers Athens sent to its subject-states. Finance officers administered revenues for Greek temples.

So the 'office" that Peter is calling to be filled is the office of bishop. Matthias is a bishop.

Finally this from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
bish´up -rik ( ἐπισκοπή , episkopḗ ; Acts 1:20 the King James Version, quoted from Psalm 109:8 ): the Revised Version (British and American) “office,” margin, “overseership.” See BISHOP .

---

 

[_thaddeus]

How about Jerome’s Vulgate? He uses the Latin word episcopatum which is derived from the Greek episkope. Look up the word that is translated as “office” in Acts 1:20 in any lexicon. It will tell you that the original word in Greek was episkope. [IEpiskope* means 'office of bishop. So the older translations are more specific as to what the ‘office’ was. The English word “bishop” is the normal translation of the Green noun episkopos, which occurs five times in the New Testament (Acts 20:28 ; Philippians 1:1 ; 1 Timothy 3:2 ; Titus 1:7 ; 1 Peter 2:25 ).

…

---

It is incomprehensible that you insist that your personal understanding of what the translators of the Rheims New Testament meant is superior to what those same translators actually say they mean. i.e. “No fmall myfterie, that the number of the twelve Apoftles muft needes be made vp againe.” “No small mysterie, that the number of the twelve Apostles must needes be made up againe.”]

You see “fundamental problems here that completely undermine the teaching authority of the church.”

What you are attempting to claim is plainly understood.
It’s getting boring but for the third time, can you name any bible or any “scriptures” in English translation that you consider “inerrant”?
If so then please supply it. If not then good luck to you.

 

[ezeekl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezeekl
How about Jerome’s Vulgate? He uses the Latin word episcopatum which is derived from the Greek episkope. Look up the word that is translated as “office” in Acts 1:20 in any lexicon. It will tell you that the original word in Greek was episkope. [IEpiskope* means 'office of bishop. So the older translations are more specific as to what the ‘office’ was. The English word “bishop” is the normal translation of the Green noun episkopos, which occurs five times in the New Testament (Acts 20:28 ; Philippians 1:1 ; 1 Timothy 3:2 ; Titus 1:7 ; 1 Peter 2:25 ).

It is incomprehensible that you insist that your personal understanding of what the translators of the Rheims New Testament meant is superior to what those same translators actually say they mean. i.e. “No fmall myfterie, that the number of the twelve Apoftles muft needes be made vp againe.” “No small mysterie, that the number of the twelve Apostles must needes be made up againe.”]

You see “fundamental problems here that completely undermine the teaching authority of the church.”

What you are attempting to claim is plainly understood.
It’s getting boring but for the third time, can you name any bible or any “scriptures” in English translation that you consider “inerrant”?
If so then please supply it. If not then good luck to you.

To answer your question there are no inerrant English translations because the scriptures are inerrant only in their original language. And that is why I have based my case on the original Greek words used. You see, I believe there is a reason why the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to write episkope meaning the office of a bishop and not any other word. I think the Holy Spirit knew full well the meaning of the word. Now, if that is incomprehensible to you then maybe you don’t have as much of an appreciation of the Writen Tradition as maybe you should. The Cathechism of the Catholic Church states the following in Para 107:

“107 The inspired books teach the truth. ‘Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.’”

Luke, guided by the Holy Spirit, wrote episkope and that is good enough for me.

 

[_thaddeus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezeekl
How about Jerome’s Vulgate? He uses the Latin word episcopatum which is derived from the Greek episkope. Look up the word that is translated as “office” in Acts 1:20 in any lexicon. It will tell you that the original word in Greek was episkope. [IEpiskope* means 'office of bishop. So the older translations are more specific as to what the ‘office’ was. The English word “bishop” is the normal translation of the Green noun episkopos, which occurs five times in the New Testament (Acts 20:28 ; Philippians 1:1 ; 1 Timothy 3:2 ; Titus 1:7 ; 1 Peter 2:25 ).

To answer your question there are no inerrant English translations because the scriptures are inerrant only in their original language. And that is why I have based my case on the original Greek words used. You see, I believe there is a reason why the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to write episkope meaning the office of a bishop and not any other word. I think the Holy Spirit knew full well the meaning of the word. Now, if that is incomprehensible to you then maybe you don’t have as much of an appreciation of the Writen Tradition as maybe you should. The Cathechism of the Catholic Church states the following in Para 107:

“107 The inspired books teach the truth. ‘Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.’”

Luke, guided by the Holy Spirit, wrote episkope and that is good enough for me.

Thanks for that information. It wasn’t fully appreciated that you were somewhat fluent in ancient dialects of Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.

While you were reading CCC 107 you may have noticed CCC 108.

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living.” If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”

Most people to different degrees see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. It is something to be aware of.
Good luck on your quest. Hopefully it is not completely dependent on whether Matthias was one of the twelve apostles.

 

[ezeekl]

Thanks for that information. It wasn’t fully appreciated that you were somewhat fluent in ancient dialects of Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.

Greek is similar to Latin as Latin is derived from Greek. I’m not an expert in Greek but then that is why there are lexicons available.

While you were reading CCC 107 you may have noticed CCC 108.

Quote:
108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living.” If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”

Most people to different degrees see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. It is something to be aware of.
Good luck on your quest. Hopefully it is not completely dependent on whether Matthias was one of the twelve apostles.

Indeed, the christian faith is not a religion of the book. After all, sola scriptura is heresy. But we also cannot ignore the written tradition. Paul urges us to hold on to both the written and the oral teachings. The Church has not formally defined whether Matthias is or is not an Apostle of Jesus Christ. But when it does, if it does, then I suspect a lot of parishes named St. Matthias the Apostle will be renamed just St. Matthias.

 

[patrick457]

Greek is similar to Latin as Latin is derived from Greek. I’m not an expert in Greek but then that is why there are lexicons available.

Nope. While Greek and Latin are both Indo-European languages, one is not directly derived from the other - although the Latin alphabet is derived from a version of the Greek alphabet. If you wanna get technical, Latin is one of the so-called Italic languages spoken in the Italian Peninsula (another example of an Italic language would be Faliscan - if you’ve never heard of that language until now, neither did I ). Languages like Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, or even Occitan or Catalan are the so-called Romance languages, which are descendants of Latin. (Nope, nothing to do with love here - it’s ‘Romance’ as in ‘Roman’. ) Greek, meanwhile, is an Hellenic language - a completely different branch of its own.

BTW, Sanskrit, Farsi (‘Persian’ - spoken in modern Iran obviously and nearby areas), Pashto (one of the languages spoken in Afghanistan), Armenian, Welsh, Russian, and English are actually all “Indo-European,” although they each belong in completely different branches. It’s actually quite interesting how languages work - sometimes you find out that the languages you least likely expect to be related are actually from the same group. I mean, who would have thought that English, Hindi, or Ukranian are from the same language family, or that Hebrew and Tigrinya (a language spoken in Ethiopia) are both Semitic?

 

[ezeekl]

Nope. While Greek and Latin are both Indo-European languages, one is not directly derived from the other - although the Latin alphabet is derived from a version of the Greek alphabet. If you wanna get technical, Latin is one of the so-called Italic languages spoken in the Italian Peninsula (another example of an Italic language would be Faliscan - if you’ve never heard of that language until now, neither did I ). Languages like Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, or even Occitan or Catalan are the so-called Romance languages, which are descendants of Latin. (Nope, nothing to do with love here - it’s ‘Romance’ as in ‘Roman’. ) Greek, meanwhile, is an Hellenic language - a completely different branch of its own.

BTW, Sanskrit, Farsi (‘Persian’ - spoken in modern Iran obviously and nearby areas), Pashto (one of the languages spoken in Afghanistan), Armenian, Welsh, Russian, and English are actually all “Indo-European,” although they each belong in completely different branches. It’s actually quite interesting how languages work - sometimes you find out that the languages you least likely expect to be related are actually from the same group. I mean, who would have thought that English, Hindi, or Ukranian are from the same language family, or that Hebrew and Tigrinya (a language spoken in Ethiopia) are both Semitic?

I said Latin was similiar to Greek and was derived from it. Languages do not remain static. The Greek of two thousand years ago is not the Greek of today anymore than the English of Chaucer’s day is what we speak tody. Greek was the universal language of Jesus’ time and even before. That is why the Jewish scriptures were translated into Greek and we got the Septuagint. When Rome took over what had been the Greek empire they found a readily available means of communication via the Greek language. Romans , especially in the east learned and spoke Greek. Intermingling of the language was inevitable. Latin would evetually take over as the universal language in the West and thus necessitate Jerome’s Vulgate. But for a considerable amount of time the two languages co existed and there was extensive borrowing of terms from the Greek into Latin. So the Greek presbuteros became the Latin presbyter and which came down to us today as priest.

But back to the topic of this thread. I have laid out my position using scripture as my evidence. I see a reason behind the words used by Luke. The Holy Spirit guided him to write what he wrote. Therefore what he wrote was true. If the Holy Spirit wanted Luke to say that Matthias was an Apostle then Luke would so state it. However, he doesn’t do it. The Holy Spirit apparently had no trouble claiming Paul to be an Apostle as he is called that no less than ten times in scripture. And let’s be clear here, we are speaking of the men called by and sent by Christ. Paul meets both criteria. Judas meets one of the criteria and Matthias meets none.

 

[rcwitness]

But back to the topic of this thread. I have laid out my position using scripture as my evidence. I see a reason behind the words used by Luke. The Holy Spirit guided him to write what he wrote. Therefore what he wrote was true. If the Holy Spirit wanted Luke to say that Matthias was an Apostle then Luke would so state it. However, he doesn’t do it. The Holy Spirit apparently had no trouble claiming Paul to be an Apostle as he is called that no less than ten times in scripture. And let’s be clear here, we are speaking of the men called by and sent by Christ. Paul meets both criteria. Judas meets one of the criteria and Matthias meets none.

I would only contend, that Matthias was called by Jesus Himself, since Matthias was a witness to His whole ministry.

Also, where did Jesus send Saul? And when, where and by whom was Saul sent on his ministry?

 

[patrick457]

I said Latin was similiar to Greek and was derived from it. Languages do not remain static. The Greek of two thousand years ago is not the Greek of today anymore than the English of Chaucer’s day is what we speak tody. Greek was the universal language of Jesus’ time and even before. That is why the Jewish scriptures were translated into Greek and we got the Septuagint. When Rome took over what had been the Greek empire they found a readily available means of communication via the Greek language. Romans , especially in the east learned and spoke Greek. Intermingling of the language was inevitable. Latin would evetually take over as the universal language in the West and thus necessitate Jerome’s Vulgate. But for a considerable amount of time the two languages co existed and there was extensive borrowing of terms from the Greek into Latin. So the Greek presbuteros became the Latin presbyter and which came down to us today as priest.

I think what you want to say is that Greek words made it to Latin, contributing to its vocabulary, and vice versa. Yes, that’s a part of the evolution of language. To be frank though, your choice of words here is a bit misleading: you speak of “Latin [being] derived from Greek.” I think what you mean is - based on what you’re saying right now - that there are loanwords in Latin derived from Greek, and vice versa (you mentioned presbyteros = presbyter; there’s also ekklēsia = ecclesia, apothekē = apotheca, euangelion = evangelium, synagogē = synagoga, etc.).

Now there are some words in Greek and Latin which (almost) look and mean the same, yet are not really borrowings from each other but are words native to both languages. They are similar because (as I mentioned earlier) both languages are part of the same language family - the Indo-European language family - and share a common ancestor - in this case, Proto-Indo-European.

Let’s say for example, the word for “mother.” In ancient Greek it is mētēr (mitera in modern Greek), in Latin mater, in Sanskrit mātṛ, in modern German Mutter, in Russian mat’, in Irish máthair. All of these words (including the English) ultimately derive from Proto-Indo-European *méh2tēr. How about “six”? In Greek hex (as in ‘hexagon’), in Latin sex, in German sechs, in Irish sé, in Welsh chwech, in Armenian vec’, in Albanian gjashtë, in Hindi chah. All of these come from *swéḱs.

But back to the topic of this thread. I have laid out my position using scripture as my evidence. I see a reason behind the words used by Luke. The Holy Spirit guided him to write what he wrote. Therefore what he wrote was true. If the Holy Spirit wanted Luke to say that Matthias was an Apostle then Luke would so state it. However, he doesn’t do it. The Holy Spirit apparently had no trouble claiming Paul to be an Apostle as he is called that no less than ten times in scripture. And let’s be clear here, we are speaking of the men called by and sent by Christ. Paul meets both criteria. Judas meets one of the criteria and Matthias meets none.

The Twelve are ‘apostles’, but not all the ‘apostles’ in the Scriptures belong to the Twelve. If so, what are we then to make of Jesus - who is (I’m quoting Hebrews again) “the apostle and high priest of our confession”? Or Barnabas (doesn’t matter whether you count Matthias or Paul as the twelfth)?