Lying in the Bible

[kimmielittle]

Hiyas

Are lies Sins…yeppers
Have I told untruths…yeppers untruths equate here, as being what I thought was the truth ]

Would I lie… like to Nazis trying to save a life ] prolly. I’m a sinner

I asked Father Mike one time…"Father Mike, What do you tell the parents of a hmmm an unattractive baby when they ask you ‘if it wasn’t the cutest baby you ever saw’ …He said " kimmie, I say ’ my what a baby’.

 

[AthanasiusOx]

…people, listen to yourselves. Hello?!? No… it’s not. It is never right to sin. Ever…

Erm, this discussion emerged out of me citing Aquinas’ theory that sometimes it is impossible to avoid sin.

I said, “sometimes it is right to sin” as a means of trying simplify the point, because Peter Dawson didn’t seem to understand what I was saying.

The Nazi example may or may not be a genuine example of this, it is fair to debate that issue. If it is such an example, then the argument would go that the person in that situation cannot avoid committing a sin of one kind or another, and so he or she must choose whichever sin is the least. The Chuch has always recognised duress as a mitigating factor, but I contend that this NEVER means that the sin stops being a sin.

However, an interesting approach would be to challenge whether or not such instances ever truly exist as Aquinas lays out: and to return to the OP, do the instances in the Bible constitute such a case? I don’t know the answer to either question, but I think this is the avenue of thought that should be followed.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Peter Dawson: Sometimes, lying is morally required. Sometimes, telling the truth is deeply sinful.

Masterjedi: …what are you on? Seriously?!
Have you picked up the Catholic Catechism lately?

Okay, then since you feel so strongly about your particular ethic, let the folks here see how you handle my hypothetical, especially the part about the Jones’. Be brave. If you are correct, it will become apparent in your answer.

If you are not well-thought-out, then you will evade the question, here…

Hypothetical: After the Nazis took the Netherlands, they sent SS to the home of everyone to flush-out Jews hiding with Gentile families.

Imagine three stormtroopers, armed with machineguns, going door to door in your neighborhood.

They come to a row of townhouses. Each of the townhouses has Jews hiding in the walls.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith are approached by the Nazis first, as Mr. and Mrs. Jones and Mr. and Mrs. Doe watch from their front doors.

The stormtroopers ask, “Do you have any Jews hiding in there somewhere?”

Mr. Smith, to avoid the sin of lying because you convinced the Smith’s that lying is always a sin and therefore always offensive to God, keeps silent. Mrs. Smith changes the subject for the same reason.

Unsatisfied with the answers, two stormtroopers enter. One stays behind to keep an eye on the Jones’ and the Doe’s. Machinegun shots are heard. The stormtroopers drag-out 4 bloodied bodies of Jewish children found hiding in the walls. Mr. and Mrs. Smith are lined-up against their house and executed with machinegun fire.

**Next, it’s the Jones’ turn.

The stormtroopers ask, “Do you have any Jews hiding in there somewhere?”

The Jones, looking at the bullet-riddled bodies of the Smith’s, resolve to honor God by telling the full truth. “We will not lie! We are good Catholics. And, we are fans of AthanasiusOx and Masterjedi. So, yes, we have Jews in there!”

Thoroughly satisfied with the answers, two stormtroopers enter. One stays behind to keep an eye on the Doe’s. Machinegun shots are heard. The stormtroopers drag-out 4 bloodied bodies of Jewish children found hiding in the walls. The commanding officer of the small unit, splattered with the children’s blood, says, “It is good for you to avoid sin in this way! You ARE good Catholics! Were it not for you, we might not have been able to slaughter these little Jewish children! You will go straight to Heaven!” And he smiles and shakes their hands.**

Finally, it’s the Doe’s turn.

The stormtroopers ask, “Do you have any Jews hiding in there somewhere?”

Mr. Doe, filled with zeal, decides to tell the best lies he has ever told in his life.

“No, we don’t, friend. But our walls are filled with British, French, Americans and Russians! And we have Jewish cookies in our pantry, straight from the concentration camps! So, please, come in, shoot up our walls, and dine on some cookies!” Mr. and Mrs. Doe burst out laughing, and start urging the stormtroopers to come in. “Please, come in! We really do have dinner in the oven. Chicken! The best you’ve ever tasted! We put on extra when we heard that you were making the rounds!”

The SS, unused to such a warm welcome, and to such anti-Allied and antisemitic sentiments, relax, thank the Doe’s, and go on to the next house.

The 36 Jewish children in the walls of their attic are saved!

Now, tell us all here how God will view the Smith’s, the Jones’ and the Doe’s.

 

[grannymh]

Peter_Dawson:
However, as people really know, in your example actual soldiers did not stop to question the door opener nor did they wait patiently until people reasoned out all those hypothetical thoughts so they could answer. Two minutes of hypothetical delay would allow the hidden Jews to escape.

Besides, Mr. and Mrs. Jones and Mr. and Mrs. Doe are no hypothetical dummies standing at their front doors watching.

Neither are Mr. and Mrs. Smith hypothetical dummies. One answer which comes to mind: “See for yourself”.

 

[grannymh]

Now, tell us all here how God will view the Smith’s, the Jones’ and the Doe’s.

However, as people really know, in your example actual soldiers did not stop to question the door opener nor did they wait patiently until people reasoned out all those hypothetical thoughts so they could answer. Two minutes of hypothetical delay would allow the hidden Jews to escape.

Besides, Mr. and Mrs. Jones and Mr. and Mrs. Doe are no hypothetical dummies standing at their front doors watching.

Neither are Mr. and Mrs. Smith hypothetical dummies. One answer which comes to mind: “See for yourself”.

My real answer to all this is definitely not hypothetical. I do not consider myself qualified to predict Almighty God’s actions. Does anyone? Who can know what is in the individual soul? You may keep all your hypotheticals about sin.

As for me, I choose learning from the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Here is a handy link:

 

[Peter_Dawson]

However, as people really know, in your example actual soldiers did not stop to question the door opener nor did they wait patiently until people reasoned out all those hypothetical thoughts so they could answer. Two minutes of hypothetical delay would allow the hidden Jews to escape.

Besides, Mr. and Mrs. Jones and Mr. and Mrs. Doe are no hypothetical dummies standing at their front doors watching.

Neither are Mr. and Mrs. Smith hypothetical dummies. One answer which comes to mind: “See for yourself”.

My real answer to all this is definitely not hypothetical. I do not consider myself qualified to predict Almighty God’s actions. Does anyone? Who can know what is in the individual soul? You may keep all your hypotheticals about sin.

As for me, I choose learning from the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Here is a handy link:

Hi, Granny.

I knew that you would evade the question.

 

[graceandglory]

I wonder if this discussion might be in the Catechism in the section, “Thou shall not bear false witness.”

 

[graceandglory]

Peter Dawson: Sometimes, lying is morally required. Sometimes, telling the truth is deeply sinful.

Masterjedi: …what are you on? Seriously?!
Have you picked up the Catholic Catechism lately?

Okay, then since you feel so strongly about your particular ethic, let the folks here see how you handle my hypothetical, especially the part about the Jones’. Be brave. If you are correct, it will become apparent in your answer.

If you are not well-thought-out, then you will evade the question, here…

Hypothetical: After the Nazis took the Netherlands, they sent SS to the home of everyone to flush-out Jews hiding with Gentile families.

Imagine three stormtroopers, armed with machineguns, going door to door in your neighborhood.

They come to a row of townhouses. Each of the townhouses has Jews hiding in the walls.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith are approached by the Nazis first, as Mr. and Mrs. Jones and Mr. and Mrs. Doe watch from their front doors.

The stormtroopers ask, “Do you have any Jews hiding in there somewhere?”

Mr. Smith, to avoid the sin of lying because you convinced the Smith’s that lying is always a sin and therefore always offensive to God, keeps silent. Mrs. Smith changes the subject for the same reason.

Unsatisfied with the answers, two stormtroopers enter. One stays behind to keep an eye on the Jones’ and the Doe’s. Machinegun shots are heard. The stormtroopers drag-out 4 bloodied bodies of Jewish children found hiding in the walls. Mr. and Mrs. Smith are lined-up against their house and executed with machinegun fire.

**Next, it’s the Jones’ turn.

The stormtroopers ask, “Do you have any Jews hiding in there somewhere?”

The Jones, looking at the bullet-riddled bodies of the Smith’s, resolve to honor God by telling the full truth. “We will not lie! We are good Catholics. And, we are fans of AthanasiusOx and Masterjedi. So, yes, we have Jews in there!”

Thoroughly satisfied with the answers, two stormtroopers enter. One stays behind to keep an eye on the Doe’s. Machinegun shots are heard. The stormtroopers drag-out 4 bloodied bodies of Jewish children found hiding in the walls. The commanding officer of the small unit, splattered with the children’s blood, says, “It is good for you to avoid sin in this way! You ARE good Catholics! Were it not for you, we might not have been able to slaughter these little Jewish children! You will go straight to Heaven!” And he smiles and shakes their hands.**

Finally, it’s the Doe’s turn.

The stormtroopers ask, “Do you have any Jews hiding in there somewhere?”

Mr. Doe, filled with zeal, decides to tell the best lies he has ever told in his life.

“No, we don’t, friend. But our walls are filled with British, French, Americans and Russians! And we have Jewish cookies in our pantry, straight from the concentration camps! So, please, come in, shoot up our walls, and dine on some cookies!” Mr. and Mrs. Doe burst out laughing, and start urging the stormtroopers to come in. “Please, come in! We really do have dinner in the oven. Chicken! The best you’ve ever tasted! We put on extra when we heard that you were making the rounds!”

The SS, unused to such a warm welcome, and to such anti-Allied and antisemitic sentiments, relax, thank the Doe’s, and go on to the next house.

The 36 Jewish children in the walls of their attic are saved!

Now, tell us all here how God will view the Smith’s, the Jones’ and the Doe’s.

As an educator who studied in secular universities, we learned about Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development. It can be reconciled with Christian thought. This is the psychology of thinking behind moral dilemmas like the ones you are suggesting.

vtaide.com/blessing/Kohlberg.htm

We will not be judged on our maturity level. God will judge our hearts in the end.

 

[grannymh]

Peter Dawson:

Hi, Granny.

I knew that you would evade the question.

Actually, I deleted my post. I decided that such hypothetical questions belong somewhere else. They certainly don’t belong on Thanksgiving when real thanks should be given to God.

As for me, I choose the real teachings of the Catholic Church.

Here is a handy link: www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[masterjedi747]

Erm, this discussion emerged out of me citing Aquinas’ theory that sometimes it is impossible to avoid sin.

…an interesting approach would be to challenge whether or not such instances ever truly exist as Aquinas lays out…

I’d very much to see the text where Aquinas lays this out, because I’m fairly certain that he never said exactly what you’re indicating here. There are cases in which it might certainly be impossible to avoid some evil (in which case, choosing the least possible evil is not a sin), but nevertheless it is always possible to avoid sin.

Okay, then since you feel so strongly about your particular ethic…

It’s not just mine, you know. This is Catechism of the Catholic Church we’re talking about here…

let the folks here see how you handle my hypothetical, especially the part about the Jones’.

Fine. But I’d appreciate it if you quit the theatrics… “drag-out 4 bloodied bodies of Jewish children”? First of all, they’re martyrs who went straight to heaven. Second of all, how does all this imagery impact the scenario at all? It doesn’t. You’re amping up on the graphic nature of the situation, simply to appeal to the emotions.

All that ASIDE from the fact that you present a ridiculous scenario in the first place: do you really think the Nazis are going to ask you if you’re hiding Jews? They’re not. They’re simply going to enter and search. Because there’s no point in asking, since they wouldn’t trust you even if you didn’t have any Jews hiding in your house, and told them that you didn’t. If they have orders to search every house in the area, then that’s what they’re exactly going to do, no matter what you do (or don’t) say to them. All you can do is try hide the Jews well enough that they won’t be found when the Nazis do search your house.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith are approached by the Nazis first, as Mr. and Mrs. Jones and Mr. and Mrs. Doe watch from their front doors.

The stormtroopers ask, “Do you have any Jews hiding in there somewhere?”

Mr. Smith, to avoid the sin of lying because you convinced the Smith’s that lying is always a sin and therefore always offensive to God, keeps silent. Mrs. Smith changes the subject for the same reason.

Unsatisfied with the answers, two stormtroopers enter.

Not the best response, perhaps, but acceptable.

**Next, it’s the Jones’ turn.

The stormtroopers ask, “Do you have any Jews hiding in there somewhere?”

The Jones, looking at the bullet-riddled bodies of the Smith’s, resolve to honor God by telling the full truth. “We will not lie! We are good Catholics. And, we are fans of AthanasiusOx and Masterjedi. So, yes, we have Jews in there!”

Thoroughly satisfied with the answers, two stormtroopers enter.**

I never proposed admitting that you have Jews hidden in your house. That response was stupid, and quite possibly sinful insofar as they just willingly betrayed the people that they had promised to protect. If you’re going to tell the Nazis that you have Jews hidden in your house, then you do not offer to hide Jews in your house in the first place, since you’re clearly unwilling to protect them.

Finally, it’s the Doe’s turn.

The stormtroopers ask, “Do you have any Jews hiding in there somewhere?”

Mr. Doe, filled with zeal, decides to tell the best lies he has ever told in his life.

“No, we don’t, friend. But our walls are filled with British, French, Americans and Russians! And we have Jewish cookies in our pantry, straight from the concentration camps! So, please, come in, shoot up our walls, and dine on some cookies!” Mr. and Mrs. Doe burst out laughing, and start urging the stormtroopers to come in. “Please, come in! We really do have dinner in the oven. Chicken! The best you’ve ever tasted! We put on extra when we heard that you were making the rounds!”

The SS, unused to such a warm welcome, and to such anti-Allied and antisemitic sentiments, relax, thank the Doe’s, and go on to the next house.

The Nazis would never have left that house without searching first.

Regardless, the response was well intentioned, yet improperly carried out. They shouldn’t have lied, even though they’re attitude was far closer to the ideal response: “If we were hiding Jews in here, do you really expect that we’d tell you? Please, come in and search our house. If you need anything, just let us know!” …or even an angry “get out of my house, you can’t just barge in like this, this is private property” rant would be sufficient to evade the question. There are other options out there, you just need to be a bit creative.

Now, tell us all here how God will view the Smith’s, the Jones’ and the Doe’s.

None of the responses were ideal.
Smith = well intentioned, but could be less transparent
Jones = ill-intentioned and stupid, quite possibly mortally sinful
Doe = well intentioned, but poorly executed and at least venially sinful

 

[John7]

There is an instance in John’s gospel where Jesus seems to tell a “white lie” – in other words, a lie – to get the Apostles off His back! He apparently didn’t want them to announce His arrival in town for one of the Jewish festivals. So, He tells them, “You go; I’m not going this year.”

See John 7:8-10.

I disagree. Jesus is not a liar.

B (Vaticanus) P66, P75, and a ton of other witnesses read
“εγω ουπω αναβαινω εις την εορτην ταυτην”

instead of ουκ αναβαινω

big difference:
ουπω = ‘not yet’
ουκ = ‘not’

rendering Jo 7:8 “…I am not yet going up to this feast…”

The ‘committee’ over at UBS (of UBS4) only assigned this variant reading a ‘C’ in their apparatus (C=“indicates that the committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text”). A C-rating for a variant is not something to use with any confidence in defending the position that Jesus is a liar. This C-rating combined with Heb 6:18 “it is impossible for God to lie” and the fact that **Jesus is God **assures, at least me, that,

Jesus is not a liar.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I’d very much to see the text where Aquinas lays this out, because I’m fairly certain that he never said exactly what you’re indicating here. There are cases in which it might certainly be impossible to avoid some evil (in which case, choosing the least possible evil is not a sin), but nevertheless it is always possible to avoid sin.

It’s not just mine, you know. This is Catechism of the Catholic Church we’re talking about here…

Fine. But I’d appreciate it if you quit the theatrics… “drag-out 4 bloodied bodies of Jewish children”? First of all, they’re martyrs who went straight to heaven. Second of all, how does all this imagery impact the scenario at all? It doesn’t. You’re amping up on the graphic nature of the situation, simply to appeal to the emotions.

All that ASIDE from the fact that you present a ridiculous scenario in the first place: do you really think the Nazis are going to ask you if you’re hiding Jews? They’re not. They’re simply going to enter and search. Because there’s no point in asking, since they wouldn’t trust you even if you didn’t have any Jews hiding in your house, and told them that you didn’t. If they have orders to search every house in the area, then that’s what they’re exactly going to do, no matter what you do (or don’t) say to them. All you can do is try hide the Jews well enough that they won’t be found when the Nazis do search your house.

Not the best response, perhaps, but acceptable.

I never proposed admitting that you have Jews hidden in your house. That response was stupid, and quite possibly sinful insofar as they just willingly betrayed the people that they had promised to protect. If you’re going to tell the Nazis that you have Jews hidden in your house, then you do not offer to hide Jews in your house in the first place, since you’re clearly unwilling to protect them.

The Nazis would never have left that house without searching first.

Regardless, the response was well intentioned, yet improperly carried out. They shouldn’t have lied, even though they’re attitude was far closer to the ideal response: “If we were hiding Jews in here, do you really expect that we’d tell you? Please, come in and search our house. If you need anything, just let us know!” …or even an angry “get out of my house, you can’t just barge in like this, this is private property” rant would be sufficient to evade the question. There are other options out there, you just need to be a bit creative.

None of the responses were ideal.
Smith = well intentioned, but could be less transparent
Jones = ill-intentioned and stupid, quite possibly mortally sinful
Doe = well intentioned, but poorly executed and at least venially sinful

Hi, Masterjedi.

The “hypothetical” was from history. The Nazis did go door-to-door looking for hidden Jews in the Netherlands. They did ask the homeowners if they were hiding Jews, first, to help them determine if they should execute the homeowners, too.

Some of the people who lied to the Nazi searchers are heros in Israel today. They have trees planted in their name in Israel. The survivors, the survivors’ children, and the survivors’ grandchildren thank God for their saviors’ skillful lies up to the present moment. They would regard your characterization…

Doe = well intentioned, but poorly executed and at least venially sinful

…as puzzling, and an articulation of an evil theology.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I disagree. Jesus is not a liar.

B (Vaticanus) P66, P75, and a ton of other witnesses read
“εγω ουπω αναβαινω εις την εορτην ταυτην”

instead of ουκ αναβαινω

big difference:
ουπω = ‘not yet’
ουκ = ‘not’

rendering Jo 7:8 “…I am not yet going up to this feast…”

The ‘committee’ over at UBS (of UBS4) only assigned this variant reading a ‘C’ in their apparatus (C=“indicates that the committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text”). A C-rating for a variant is not something to use with any confidence in defending the position that Jesus is a liar. This C-rating combined with Heb 6:18 “it is impossible for God to lie” and the fact that **Jesus is God **assures, at least me, that,

Jesus is not a liar.

Wel-l-l-l-l, look at what you’re doing, here. “C” rating or not, you’re STILL “going against the experts” on this one, aren’t you? In effect, by invoking the “C” rating, you are implying, “The Church’s translators aren’t unanimous, but they do think that I am probably WRONG.”

I understand the reasons why “yet” was dropped out of the Catholic Church’s current English translation, and then footnoted.

There are two “ουπω’s” in Jesus’ sentence. The first one – the one you discuss – does not appear in the oldest manuscripts of John, and so the New Testament Committee wrote in its footnote that the first " ουπω " – again, the one you discuss – appears to be a post-inspired-text “correction.”

In other words, the " ουπω " you discuss appears to be a corruption of the text. Youn are waxing philosophical about a corruption.

The New Testament Committee also infers that they went with the older text – and thus rejected your very interpretation – BECAUSE they felt that the scribe making the correction was trying to do precisely what you are doing – trying to avoid an inference that Jesus told a white lie.

One of the really great characteristics of the USCCB’s translations is that they avoid imposing exogenous theology upon the text. (This effort began with Genesis 1:1. So, though our Protestant brothers and the Douay-Rheims added a period to Genesis 1:1 – “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” – the Old Testament Committee thought that that falsely implied that the ancient Hebrews believed in creation out of nothing, and so recreated the probable original meaning by writing, “1 In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth,
2 the earth was a formless wasteland,…”

You are imposing what you believe to be correct exogenous theology upon the text. I.e., you are BENDING the original Greek text by using a LATER Greek text which produces the English you want because for you it is impossible to believe that God could tell a white lie.

In fact, your interp is belied by the fact, and my interp is corroborated by the fact, that the succeeding text says that Jesus went “in secret” to the festival – where an intention to go “in secret” is PRECISELY the plan Jesus would have wanted to protect with a white lie.

I respectfully stand by my interp, although congratulations on the depth of your thought.

 

[LilyM]

Hi, Masterjedi.

The “hypothetical” was from history. The Nazis did go door-to-door looking for hidden Jews in the Netherlands. They did ask the homeowners if they were hiding Jews, first, to help them determine if they should execute the homeowners, too.

Some of the people who lied to the Nazi searchers are heros in Israel today. They have trees planted in their name in Israel. The survivors, the survivors’ children, and the survivors’ grandchildren thank God for their saviors’ skillful lies up to the present moment. They would regard your characterization…

Doe = well intentioned, but poorly executed and at least venially sinful

…as puzzling, and an articulation of an evil theology.

What you’re saying here is the moral correctness of a person’s actions is determined by others’ opinion of those actions. In which case Jesus must’ve been extremely IMmoral, since even his closest associates disapproved enough of his actions to run away from Him, betray Him, deny Him, at the end.

And the likes of Oprah, Bono from U2 and Barrack Obama must be among the most saintly people in history - few things they do have been received with other than popular acclaim.

“What profit it a man if he gain the whole world but lose his soul”. As Our Lord so bluntly put it. Saving the world entire by your actions is no guarantee that your soul is not in jeopardy from those same actions.

There is One whose job description includes Saviour, and it isn’t you or me! As Our Lord indicates, it is perfectly possible to damn yourself by offending His essence, which is Truth, while at the same time patting yourself on the back for temporarily saving your or others’ skins, which are condemned to death in any circumstances. Just don’t dare presume that He is as short-sighted as those people whose miserable hides (as all our hides are) you spared for an extra minute or two.

 

[John7]

Wel-l-l-l-l, look at what you’re doing, here. “C” rating or not, you’re STILL “going against the experts” on this one, aren’t you? In effect, by invoking the “C” rating, you are implying, “The Church’s translators aren’t unanimous, but they do think that I am probably WRONG.”

Wait-t-t-t-t , bear me out I’m new to this text criticism stuff but will do best to explain…
I should have said in previous post that the A-D ratings for variant readings is not from USCCB but from UBS (United Bible Society). Metzger and crew are ‘the committee’, (I’m not sure if there were/are Catholics onboard) for the Greek New Test. UBS4th ed.
amazon.com/Greek-New-Testament-Greek-english-Dictionary/dp/1598561693/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259456770&sr=1-3
A=text is certain
B=text is almost certain
C=text difficulty in deciding
D=text great difficulty in deciding

Metzger etal assigned a C to let reader know that they had difficulty in deciding to whether ‘ouk’ or ‘oupw’ should be used

I understand the reasons why “yet” was dropped out of the Catholic Church’s current English translation, and then footnoted.

There are two “ουπω’s” in Jesus’ sentence. The first one – the one you discuss – does not appear in the oldest manuscripts of John, and so the New Testament Committee wrote in its footnote that the first " ουπω " – again, the one you discuss – appears to be a post-inspired-text “correction.”

In other words, the " ουπω " you discuss appears to be a corruption of the text. Youn are waxing philosophical about a corruption.

Actually the ‘oupw’ is older:
‘ouk’ comes from Aleph Codex (Sinaiticus), D, 1071 etc (this info from UBS4)
‘oupw’ comes from Codex B (Vaticanus text), Parchments P66 and P75

if scroll half-way down this article scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html
the little chart shows dates of the manuscripts

for ‘oupw’ there is:
P66 = ~200 AD
P75 = ~250 AD
B = ~300 AD

but for ‘ouk’
Aleph (Sin.) = ~350 AD
D = 5th Cent AD

So, from this ‘oupw’ is definitely found on older manuscripts than ‘ouk’

Metzger etal reasoned ‘oupw’ was used in the earlier texts simly “to alleviate the inconsistency between verse 8 and verse 10”. Therefore they chose ‘ouk’ (which brings the inconsistency that brings about as you put it a ‘white lie’) in spite of the fact that ‘oupw’ if found in earlier witnesses/manuscripts. That’s it. That’s the only reason they give…I guess they figured some scribe (before ~200 AD) replaced ‘ouk’ with ‘oupw’ to ‘alleviate the inconsistency’. But that’s just conjecture! Granted I’m no expert and they (Metzger etal) are/were, I still would have chosen the older rendering.

UBS4/NA27 are very highly respected in translators circles (its what profs. use at most seminaries). The NASB New Testament is based on it as well as the ESV, and NAB (not sure about NAB). The variant they choose can be seen in these translations. Unfortunately in this case the experts are wrong and I’m right (at least I think so)

You are imposing what you believe to be correct exogenous theology upon the text. I.e., you are BENDING the original Greek text by using a LATER Greek text which produces the English you want because for you it is impossible to believe that God could tell a white lie.

No Sir,
I chose the earlier variant…just because using ‘oupw’ makes verse 8 consistent with verse10 doesn’ make it wrong.

In fact, your interp is belied by the fact, and my interp is corroborated by the fact, that the succeeding text says that Jesus went “in secret” to the festival – where an intention to go “in secret” is PRECISELY the plan Jesus would have wanted to protect with a white lie.

I’ve heard this before, and I don’t agree…whether he went in secret or not to me makes no difference. If he knew before the feast that he definitely was not going to go up in whatever manner he would have said the truth…how could he be the ‘Way, Truth, and the Life’ if he was given to telling unTruths? How could he be sinless and hence our saviour if he sinned, even once?

I respectfully stand by my interp, although congratulations on the depth of your thought.

Thank you.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

What you’re saying here is the moral correctness of a person’s actions is determined by others’ opinion of those actions. In which case Jesus must’ve been extremely IMmoral, since even his closest associates disapproved enough of his actions to run away from Him, betray Him, deny Him, at the end.

And the likes of Oprah, Bono from U2 and Barrack Obama must be among the most saintly people in history - few things they do have been received with other than popular acclaim.

“What profit it a man if he gain the whole world but lose his soul”. As Our Lord so bluntly put it. Saving the world entire by your actions is no guarantee that your soul is not in jeopardy from those same actions.

There is One whose job description includes Saviour, and it isn’t you or me! As Our Lord indicates, it is perfectly possible to damn yourself by offending His essence, which is Truth, while at the same time patting yourself on the back for temporarily saving your or others’ skins, which are condemned to death in any circumstances. Just don’t dare presume that He is as short-sighted as those people whose miserable hides (as all our hides are) you spared for an extra minute or two.

The rules are for us. They are not for God.

For example, God can kill all He wants, can’t He? Read Joshua 6:15-27 The ban included “men and women, young and old.” Presumably, this included babies.

No presumption is needed in 1 Samuel 15:1-3. It is a command by God to “kill men, women, children and infants.”

Tell me, which is worse: Telling a white lie; or killing babies?

These things are not simple. God is frequently portrayed as a kind of Platonistic computer. I don’t think that God the Platonistic computer is a correct portrayal. If you can explain to me why God the source of truth can’t lie, while God the source of life can command soldiers to dash little babies’ heads out on rocks, maybe you have a chance of convincing me.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Wait-t-t-t-t , bear me out I’m new to this text criticism stuff but will do best to explain…
I should have said in previous post that the A-D ratings for variant readings is not from USCCB but from UBS (United Bible Society). Metzger and crew are ‘the committee’, (I’m not sure if there were/are Catholics onboard) for the Greek New Test. UBS4th ed.
amazon.com/Greek-New-Testament-Greek-english-Dictionary/dp/1598561693/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259456770&sr=1-3
A=text is certain
B=text is almost certain
C=text difficulty in deciding
D=text great difficulty in deciding

Metzger etal assigned a C to let reader know that they had difficulty in deciding to whether ‘ouk’ or ‘oupw’ should be used

Actually the ‘oupw’ is older:
‘ouk’ comes from Aleph Codex (Sinaiticus), D, 1071 etc (this info from UBS4)
‘oupw’ comes from Codex B (Vaticanus text), Parchments P66 and P75

if scroll half-way down this article scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html
the little chart shows dates of the manuscripts

for ‘oupw’ there is:
P66 = ~200 AD
P75 = ~250 AD
B = ~300 AD

but for ‘ouk’
Aleph (Sin.) = ~350 AD
D = 5th Cent AD

So, from this ‘oupw’ is definitely found on older manuscripts than ‘ouk’

Metzger etal reasoned ‘oupw’ was used in the earlier texts simly “to alleviate the inconsistency between verse 8 and verse 10”. Therefore they chose ‘ouk’ (which brings the inconsistency that brings about as you put it a ‘white lie’) in spite of the fact that ‘oupw’ if found in earlier witnesses/manuscripts. That’s it. That’s the only reason they give…I guess they figured some scribe (before ~200 AD) replaced ‘ouk’ with ‘oupw’ to ‘alleviate the inconsistency’. But that’s just conjecture! Granted I’m no expert and they (Metzger etal) are/were, I still would have chosen the older rendering.

UBS4/NA27 are very highly respected in translators circles (its what profs. use at most seminaries). The NASB New Testament is based on it as well as the ESV, and NAB (not sure about NAB). The variant they choose can be seen in these translations. Unfortunately in this case the experts are wrong and I’m right (at least I think so)

No Sir,
I chose the earlier variant…just because using ‘oupw’ makes verse 8 consistent with verse10 doesn’ make it wrong.

I’ve heard this before, and I don’t agree…whether he went in secret or not to me makes no difference. If he knew before the feast that he definitely was not going to go up in whatever manner he would have said the truth…how could he be the ‘Way, Truth, and the Life’ if he was given to telling unTruths? How could he be sinless and hence our saviour if he sinned, even once?

Thank you.

Listen, I have to apologize on one thing: Age is not the sole criterion. Contextual canoncity is another. I’d have to know, for example, why Papyrus 66 differs significantly from other manuscripts. I’d want to compare it to Bodmer XV in the Vatican Library, for example. I would investigate why the New Testament Committee rejected the first " ουπω. " Why would a manuscript contain that first " ουπω " despite the fact that it logically conflicts with the manuscript’s logic? I would ask why the verse would contain an inelegant repetition of " ουπω ." (I checked. Elsewhere in the NT, repetitions of the " ουπω " idea are “elegantized” by a variation in the word structure. Thus, the Greek in the gospels normally reflects a desire to achieve good rhetorical structure in Jesus’ original Aramaic. “You do not find Jesus not refraining from repeating ‘nots,’” so to speak.)

The reason why these considerations are important is that manuscripts were often redactions of older papyrii which are no longer extant. The uninspired redactors frequently inserted their own corrections, thus tampering with God’s Own words. Berner and Comfort both agreed about 15 years ago, for example, that Papyrus 66 was very significanlty “corrected” by two people. I.e., you are looking at a corrected redaction of a corrected redaction of an original.

On balance, I have to go with the NT Committee on this one. In this website, I “call them as I see them,” and I don’t “try to be Catholic,” per se, even if the result outrages a lot of the devout Catholics, here (as I frequently do). Your enthusiastic endorsement of " ουπω " just doesn’t make the verse make sense in context. It makes it make less sense, with *inelegant * language.

I enjoyed reading your analysis, but I believe, on balance, that you are wrong.

 

[grannymh]

I enjoyed reading your analysis, but I believe, on balance, that you are wrong.

Apparently, lots of people throughout history have made their own analysis and formed their own opinions. This is why when one is interested in Catholic teaching on a particular matter, the Catechism of the Catholic Church should be consulted. Chapter Two: “I Believe in Jesus Christ” is a good place to start. Following the cross references in the margin adds to one’s knowledge. Obviously, one always checks the footnotes for Scripture references.

Here’s the link. Enjoy!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The rules are for us. They are not for God.

For example, God can kill all He wants, can’t He? Read Joshua 6:15-27 The ban included “men and women, young and old.” Presumably, this included babies.

No presumption is needed in 1 Samuel 15:1-3. It is a command by God to “kill men, women, children and infants.”

Tell me, which is worse: Telling a white lie; or killing babies?

These things are not simple. God is frequently portrayed as a kind of Platonistic computer. I don’t think that God the Platonistic computer is a correct portrayal. If you can explain to me why God the source of truth can’t lie, while God the source of life can command soldiers to dash little babies’ heads out on rocks, maybe you have a chance of convincing me.

I totally agree. God judges what is in a person’s heart, not how well they play by the rules. Jesus told us that over and over and over.

 

[grannymh]

I totally agree. God judges what is in a person’s heart, not how well they play by the rules. Jesus told us that over and over and over.

Of course God understands our hearts. However, our destiny after death depends on our free choice as to which rules we follow or don’t follow.

Here’s a handy link – www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm