Pastoral Epistles

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for all who contributed to this topic.

The posts have given me food for thought. My current thinking is that if only originals are inspired we do not have any inspired biblical texts.

It seems to be a a case of the Catholic* both/and* thing. God is the author/humans are the authors.

Thus what does inspiration mean? Perhaps it means whatever the Church says it means. But what is this?

Fr Collins in the NJBC seems to leave the question open.
 
NoelFitz said:
Thanks for all who contributed to this topic.

The posts have given me food for thought. My current thinking is that if only originals are inspired we do not have any inspired biblical texts.

It seems to be a a case of the Catholic* both/and* thing. God is the author/humans are the authors.

Thus what does inspiration mean? Perhaps it means whatever the Church says it means. But what is this?

Fr Collins in the NJBC seems to leave the question open.
Click to expand...
Noel, I’m a little confused.

Why do we have to have the original inspired texts in order to know what the original Scriptures said? The ancient copyists were very meticulous in their work, and I don’t think there is very much in the New Testament that is questioned to be “added” or “removed”.

Mark and John’s last chapters come to mind. The scene of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 and the tradition of the angel at the pool of Bethseda (John 5?) being the other two.

But even with that said, the Gospels and the New Testament writings are considered, even by Secular “Experts”, to be extremely well-preserved in their authenticity.
 
NotWorthy,
You are lucky, as I seem to be confused most of the time.

You wrote:
The ancient copyists were very meticulous in their work, and I don’t think there is very much in the New Testament that is questioned to be “added” or “removed”.
Click to expand...
I disagree, with respect.

Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, for example, shows how much early copies of the NT varied.
 
NoelFitz said:
NotWorthy,
You are lucky, as I seem to be confused most of the time.

You wrote:

I disagree, with respect.

Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, for example, shows how much early copies of the NT varied.
Click to expand...
Let’s define “variations”.

If they find 20 copies in which 12 of them are 100% identical, but the remaining 8 have small variations, each variation being unique to that copy, well then the scholars can easily determine what was the original text.

Even if each of the 20 copies has unique variations, then the scholars can determine the original text.

ItIs this how Metzger’s explains it?
 
NotWorthy,

life is not that simple.
The following by Daniel Wallace, who is a solid scholar, may help:
bible.org/article/inspiration-preservation-and-new-testament-textual-criticism
Click to expand...
Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism
By: Daniel B. Wallace

The Bible has always been of central importance to evangelicals. It not only defines what we are to believe; it also tells us how we are to behave. A clear and faithful exposition of the scriptures has, historically, been at the heart of any relevant pastoral ministry. Now in order for a particular passage to be applied legitimately, it must first be understood accurately. Before we ask, “How does this text apply to me?” we must ask “What does this text mean?” And even before we ask “What does this text mean?” we must first ask, “What does this text say?” Determining what a text says is what textual criticism is all about. In other words, textual criticism, as its prime objective, seeks to ascertain the very wording of the original. This is necessary to do with the books of the Bible—as with all literary documents of the ancient world—because the originals are no longer extant. Not only this, but of the more than five thousand manuscript copies of the Greek New Testament no two of them agree completely. It is essential, therefore, that anyone who expounds the Word of God be acquainted to some degree with the science of textual criticism, if he or she is to expound that Word faithfully.
Click to expand...
 
NoelFitz said:
NotWorthy,

life is not that simple.
The following by Daniel Wallace, who is a solid scholar, may help:
Click to expand...
I agree with what Mr. Wallace says. But… (maybe life IS that simple).

Let’s say of the 5000 copies, no two ARE exactly alike. I find that quite likely. That’s doesn’t mean, however, that we don’t know what the original text said.

Let’s say that out of the first 10 texts examined, there are 50 errors in each copy.
But only one of the 10 shows a differing text in John, chapter 1.
One or two of the 10 shows a differing text in John, chapter 2.
One to three of the 10 shows a differing text in John, chapter 3.
and so on…

You can still verify what the original text was with some confidence. Now with 5000 copies, even with the more errors, you can still get quite a higher level of certainty that you understand the original text.

I think the Church has done quite a masterful job of keeping to the authenticity of the original text.

Take for instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls. How much did those differ from the other known Greek texts?
 
NotWorthy,

Textual criticism is a very difficult subject and we can never be sure we have the original or the best text.

I would imagine that most scholars of the NT, who use one version would choose the Greek NT, UBS 4th Revised Edition. I think the only Catholic among the editors was (Cardinal) Carlo Montini. So the Church has not really played a masterful role.

PS: are we not wandering off-topic?
 
diggerdomer said:
If having a copy of the original biblical text is required to consider the biblical text inspired, then no Bibles currently printed are inspired.
Click to expand...
That’s accurate, yes. The material from which they originate is inspired, however - so when you read the Bible (in any translation, including really bad translations) there is that link to the inspiration of God. The better the translation, of course, the closer the link - but it’s true that in modern times, we don’t have anything of the Scriptures that God actually touched.
The “inspired material” St. Jerome copied was likely not the originals either, so where is the line drawn?
Click to expand...
It was the original authors who were inspired to write, and it is their original writings that were inspired writings. Insofar as the translations and copies are accurate, or insofar as we can discern by comparing their inaccuracies what the original actually said, we are linked to the original inspiration from God. We can’t actually hold it in our hands, though.

Any more than someone holding an extremely accurate print of the Mona Lisa is actually holding da Vinci’s inspiration in his hands. 🙂
 
jmcrae said:
That’s accurate, yes. The material from which they originate is inspired, however - so when you read the Bible (in any translation, including really bad translations) there is that link to the inspiration of God. The better the translation, of course, the closer the link - but it’s true that in modern times, we don’t have anything of the Scriptures that God actually touched.

It was the original authors who were inspired to write, and it is their original writings that were inspired writings. Insofar as the translations and copies are accurate, or insofar as we can discern by comparing their inaccuracies what the original actually said, we are linked to the original inspiration from God. We can’t actually hold it in our hands, though.

Any more than someone holding an extremely accurate print of the Mona Lisa is actually holding da Vinci’s inspiration in his hands. 🙂
Click to expand...
So how should we treat Bibles we have today? As less than inspired?
 
diggerdomer said:
So how should we treat Bibles we have today? As less than inspired?
Click to expand...
On its own, yes.

But, when its read in line with the Church’s teaching and guidance, it is God’s Word!

For example, what does Jesus mean when He tells Mary, “Woman, how does your concern affect me?” The connotation the modern American gets out of this is far different than the original connotation. But when one see’s how the Church teaches that Jesus is the New Adam and Mary is the New Eve, there is a whole different light shed upon this scene.
 
JMCrae

This topic drifted into a discussion of inspiration.

I was advised to read the article by Collins in the NJBC on this topic and this deepened my understanding.

Some have claimed that no translations are inspired. The original authors were. Thus versions we have today are not inspired.

Therefore for confidence in interpreting a passage of scripture we rely on the magisterium
of the Church, but this opens up another discussion.

My posts on the Pastoral Epistles are helping my understanding, and I am very grateful to you for participating in these discussions.
 
NW

in a reply to JMCrae I gave my views, but they are not really mine, they are yours, which I accept.

Thank you for clarifying my thinking.
 
This is getting very misleading. We aren’t Muslims, believing that the only real Quran is the Quran in Arabic, and that translations don’t count. (And that’s a very important distinction, with huge impact on the intellectual history of the world.)

The Vulgate and the Septuagint both testify to that. The same goes for Biblical variants of wording. The original inspired texts are beyond our reach, even if we read Greek and Hebrew. We’re never going to see the original paper or parchment manuscripts in the original handwritings of the authors.

But God designed the Bible to be resilient. Whatever format the Bible is in, He speaks directly to all of us collectively, and each of us individually, through it. He speaks to us in a way tailored to the precise moment we read, and yet the Bible is unchanging. He is the Word, and hence the Lord of all words in all languages. He inspires all translations (although He doesn’t save them from minor mistakes and typos, since grace builds upon nature).

The Word of God is active. It never goes out, in any format, in vain. Don’t forget it.

That said, it’s helpful to study various translations, and to study Greek and Hebrew. Grace does build upon nature, and God helps those who help themselves. But if you had the world’s cruddiest Bible translation, the Lord could still speak to you through it with life-changing power, if you were minded to listen.
 
NoelFitz said:
NotWorthy,

life is not that simple.
The following by Daniel Wallace, who is a solid scholar, may help:
Click to expand...
Noel,

I wanted to revisit this issue, simply because I stumbled upon it while reading “The Bible Compass” by Edward Sri - a Catholic author whose books I simply love to read!

He said that our original texts are over 98% accurate, but since there are over 5000 copies (or parts of copies) of those original texts, they are rather certain that they are able to get the original wording of the entire New Testament. There is simply:

a) too many existent copies
b) too few derivations among them.
 
I am grateful to all who contributed to this discussion.

In a topic there are two ways of approaching it. One can either ask a question seeking for an answer or one can insist on one’s own previous views and try to convince others you are correct… I try to use CA to get answers.

JMCrae has resolved my concern with:
You are reading the translation of an inspired text.
Click to expand...
Thus when I read the Bible I am not guaranteed that my reading of the text corresponds to the correct interpretation of the “plain meaning”, as was considered the correct reeading for Luther.

Thus instead of my understanding of an inspired text, I should rely on the teaching of the Church.

However the interpretation of most verses is really open to any opinion. The Pontifical Biblical Commission some years ago considered Paul was the author of the Pastoral Epistles, now most Catholic scholars (excepty Luke Timothy Johnson) disagree with this view, which is held by many conservative Protestant exegetes, and most of us here.

The opinions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission are not infallible Church teaching.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top