Pet Peeve...A comment of Tim Staples

[SingleMomMonica]

Three Proofs, along with links, for you that the Greek Orthodox Church uses for the English Translation of the Bible the New King James Version.

It was the New King James I quoted, but the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of the Americas does offer a link to access either the New King James Version or the King James Version: goarch.org/ (go to the mid-left hand side in the blue section under the icon of Jesus under “Bible Search”) Both have been recognized to be the most accurate English Translations of the Greek New Testament.

During Divine Liturgies in the U.S., the original Greek is read and then the English translation. During other Liturgies usually it’s either only the original Greek or only the English translation that is read. The Laity, at home, daily either read the Greek or English translation depending on which language they are most comfortable with. You can also see that in the GOARCH’s On-Line Chapel, the reader can click on either an American Flag or the Greek Flag to get either the Greek or English translation of the that day’s readings: goarch.org/chapel/

Also, the Orthodox Study Bible which is accepted by all English Speaking Orthodox Christians does utilize the New King James Version because of the accuracy of the translation except in those places that the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures (which the NKJV uses) differ from the Septuagint (LXX) - in which case the Orthodox scholars have provided new English Translation of the original Greek Septuagint (LXX). conciliarpress.com/books/orthodox-study-bible/red-leather-edition-complete-orthodox-study.html

The link you provided to me was the King James Version. I posted the Catholic one and the New American. I think you might be mistaken about it being the official GO translation (no way they would use the KJ). I would like to see the official one, if you don’t mind reposting it.

Paul did not write it, either. Luke did. James called him Simon. That is what I am addressing. I gave you a possible answer to your aside

You’re right! It was St. Luke…oops! And you are also right that St. Luke uses the name “Peter” for St. Peter, while St. James is quoted by St. Luke to have used the name “Simon” for St. Peter. Good eye

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I posted the Catholic one and the New American.

You say that you posted two versions - one the Catholic and one the New American.

In light of the Vatican’s website, this comment doesn’t make sense.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM

The New American Bible IS the Official English Catholic Version. The Vatican does not offer any other English version of the Bible as being Catholic.

I wonder what are you meaning when you say you also used the “Catholic”?

 

[ralphinal]

You say that you posted two versions - one the Catholic and one the New American.

In light of the Vatican’s website, this comment doesn’t make sense.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM

The New American Bible IS the Official English Catholic Version. The Vatican does not offer any other English version of the Bible as being Catholic.

I wonder what are you meaning when you say you also used the “Catholic”?

It is from the USCCB. It is the NAB. I messed the OTHER one up. It is the New International version. I am not perfect enough to be Orthodox, I guess .

I am looking at the GOAA site now. I find it interesting that they use the King James version and not one of their own. Actually, I am shocked that they do so.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy the Catholic Church itself admits James was leading the church administratively from Jerusalem. Pacwa admitted this and then proceeded to admit that he doesn’t understand why any Catholic would deny that given how clear scripture is on this. The church did not look to Peter exclusively for leadership just as the church today does not look exclusively to the Pope for leadership. The church councils throughout history never relied solely on the Pope for leadership. Scripture never shows Peter as the sole leader which is another thing Pacwa admitted to.

And I have asked you for documentation of others who hold Fr. Pacwa’s position. I’m happy to read and learn if you have anything. In the absence of this, I believe the position I have stated regarding Acts 15 is the mainstream view.

I think I made this point in my previous post, that both sides will point to Acts 15 and try to cherry pick verses to support their point. That’s an exercise in futility because it just demonstrates the misunderstanding of how the church functioned. If we read verse 22 of Acts 15 and I quote:

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.

Once James issued his decision, it represented everyone including the Apostles, Elders and the entire church. The leadership of the church did not operate in a vacuum and James most certainly was not representing only the faction that was for Jewish conversion of the Gentiles. This is where you and others are trying to cherry pick verses in an effort to isolate James from Peter and subdue his role. James’ decision was for the entire council and the entire church.

It gets old seeing people post the same isolated comments from ECFs as if it somehow vindicates their position. Many of those quotes are taken out of context and only represent their opinion. It’s not representative of the entire church.

Perhaps Fr. Pacwa’s comments are similarly taken out of context or not representative of the Church’s position.

I’m eager for more evidence to support this view.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Please re-read what you typed above…and answer this question:

Whose Judgement was it?

“It is MY Judgement” Remind me again…who was the one speaking here?

Oh yeah, that’s right, it was ST. JAMES!!!

And you claim that the passage destroys my entire position!?!

Wow! You really have been blinded. I am truly sorry for you and I have prayed for you that your scales will be removed when you read Sacred Scripture.

**May the blessings of God be upon you, Elvisman, now and always. **

Somehow I don’t believe that “blessing” was genuinely offered…especially in light of the previous sentence. :nope:

As for James’ judgment, I have already explained why James had to express his agreement with Peter for the benefit of the Judaizers among his local flock.

 

[ufamtobie]

Yesterday on Catholic Radio (may have been live or a repeat of a Catholic Answers Call In Show) I heard Tim Staples repeat something I’ve heard him say before…something along the lines of How Clear It Is in Acts 15 That St. Peter Was In Charge At The Council Record There.

That is a Pet Peeve of mine…just like seeing a random single shoe in the road. I mean really, how does that happen? Where is the other shoe? Didn’t the person feel it when it fell off? Why didn’t they go back and get it? If they were trying to throw them out, where is the other Shoe? Where is the other Shoe!!!

When I read Acts 15 I see that St. James was clearly the one in authority at that council. When I was Catholic, I tried really hard to read into it that St. Peter was the one in charge, but I had to be honest with myself that that was just Not the case. The passage is too clear that St. James heard everyone who wanted to speak on the matter and then St. James made the decisions of the council based on what he heard.

What are your thoughts after reading Acts 15 in it’s entirety?

SingleMom,

Re: (Acts 15) who was first one who stood up and addressed them? …(Acts 15: 7) States Peter, did.

It was James who in (Acts 15: 13) who listend to Peter and then agrees with Peter aka (Rock). James only ruled what Peter had already ruled in his heart! Amen.

SingleMom, in (Acts 10:10) Tell me who was the one who fell in a Trance Peter, or James, reGarding Gentiles/Pagans being converted? …(Acts 10: 10) States It was Peter who fell into a trance by the Power of JESUS, all this happened before Act 15 the Controversy in Jerusalem regarding pagans.

Jesus Christ put Peter in a trance realizing that Peter being the Leader or the Rock would tell this vision to the others and so he did, as James State in (Acts 15: 13,14) And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. 14 Simon hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name.

It was Peter not James who ordered the First baptism to the Pagans/Gentiles you will find this in …/Acts 10: 44-47 While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. 45 And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. 47 Then **Peter answered: **Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days.

SingleMom the above bible verse (Acts 10:44-47) happened before (Acts 15) Amen.

SingleMom, It was Peter who truly ruled regarding the Gentiles/Pagans being baptized in (Acts 10: 44-47)again this happened before Acts 15 and your pet peeve.

Ufam Tobie

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, it is called Sacred Tradition.

Every Christian who knows St. James the elder step-brother of Jesus Christ and his life and who knows the history of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem knows that St. James was the first head of the Church in Jerusalem.

The Sacred Tradition shows that the Church Faithful looked to each of the Apostles for leadership. Particularly those Apostles who established the Church in the cities in which the Faithful resided.

*Side Note: I’m continuing to be annoyed by the fact that the Catholics here are persistently posting the Apostles by name without giving them the honor and respect of their title of Saint. I’m annoyed because it is completely disrespectful! *

I understand that the Apostles had individual authority and leadership, but I specified that the Church looked to Peter as the head of the universal Church. This does not conflict with James’ leadership of the local church in Jerusalem.

 

[aspirant]

So if the homilies on John, homilies on Matthew, and many other writings are later forgeries, which writings of St. John Chrysostom are authentic? Are there any authentic writings of St. John Chrysostom left? What documentation can you provide where we can further research this?

Bump.

 

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Gabriel of 12

“Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that One set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church.” Chrysostom, In illud, hoc Scitote, n. 4, p. 282. I read this in the book called Jesus, Peter & the Keys A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren & Rev. Mr. David Hess

In response SMM, wrote:

That quote has already been proven to be a forgery over the centuries by various Catholic Historians - some of which were burned alive for questioning it’s authenticity…

When asked for sources, SMM gave this response:

The known lies that have been perpetuated here are those not lies of St. John Chrysostom, but quotes that created in the 8th & 9th centuries that have been falsely attributed to him. Those forgeries did Not contain the teaching of St. John Chrysostom - which is why they are lies.

As far as the Catholics Historians (not heretics) who were burned alive in Strasburg for doubting the authenticity of these forgeries in 1229-1230, you can learn more about them in “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” Second Series, Vol. I.

To read about the Catholic Italian Scholar Lorenzo Valla from 1407 to 1457 and his revealing through critical analaysis of content and style the writings were forgeries you can read Christopher B. Coleman’s translation of the “The Treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the Donation of Constantine” by University of Toronto Press in 1993.

You may also want to read:
Catholic Historian Lord Acton “Lectures on Modern History” by MacMillan & Co. Ltd. 1960
Michael Whelton’s “Popes and Patriarchs” by Conciliar Press 2006
Philip Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church” p. 3 (www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/5_chI5.htm)
“Cambridge Medieval History” Vol. 5 & Vol. 11,
“New Cambridge Medieval History” Vol. VIII
I.S. Robinson’s “The Papacy, 1073-1198”
Peter De Rosa’s “The Vicar of Christ” by Poolbeg Press in 1988, 2000.

The first reference, was easily googled up. There were a “couple of unfortunates” burned alive in Strasburg for doubting the authenticity of certain forgeries in 1229-1230. But the forgery in question was the Donation of Constantine.

Is the Chrysostom quote from the Donation of Constantine or from the “Thesaurus of the Greek Fathers”? Did these executions, in fact have anything at all to do with the Chrysostom quote? Please clarify, SMM, Not much time left.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Ralphinal, I like how dramatic you are! I knew that there had to be an explanation. The NIV, I’ve heard (don’t know if accurate) is a transliteration rather than an actual translation.

It is from the USCCB. It is the NAB. I messed the OTHER one up. It is the New International version. I am not perfect enough to be Orthodox, I guess .

I am looking at the GOAA site now. I find it interesting that they use the King James version and not one of their own. Actually, I am shocked that they do so.

I think it’s because when Orthodoxy goes to new people, it translates the Bible and the Liturgies into the language of the people, even creating a written language when necessary that you would assume the same would be true for English. It’s a logical conclusion you came to based on the practice of the GOC.

The reason it’s not the case is because the Bible was already available in the English language that the Church reviewed the existing translations to detemine which was the most faithful to the original Greek and use it rather than “reinvent the wheel”.

I can see how you being surprised makes sense.

Now that you know, does it now seem understandable to you?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I note that you have ignored the post from Aspirant above.

You have 24 hours to respond.

Tick…tick…tick…

:coffeeread:

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Tick…tick…tick…

:coffeeread:

That’s a very cute little icon!

I’m on my cell, so navagation is difficult…please quote what it is you want me to respond to.

And yep the time is counting down for me to wash my hands of this thread since no one has provided early ChurchFathers referencing Council of JErusalem.

 

[aspirant]

The NIV, I’ve heard (don’t know if accurate) is a transliteration rather than an actual translation.

“Transliteration” doesn’t refer to translation, but an attempt to render a word in a different form of writing, like a different alphabet, than the original. An example will better clarify what I mean…

English speakers write English in a modified Roman alphabet. Chinese speakers write Chinese languages in characters sometimes known as sinographs. The Chinese word 道 is transliterated into our modified Roman alphabet as “Tao” or “Dao.” “Tao” is not a translation of the word, just an attempt to spell the Chinese word in the alphabet normally used by English speakers. The most common translation of 道 is “Way” (though others are possible, depending on context).

If the NIV were a transliteration, the opening of St. John’s Gospel would begin something like “en arche en ho logos.”

I think the word you might be searching for is “paraphrase,” a less formal kind of translation that attempts to render a text more “thought for thought” (also called “dynamic equivalence”) than “word for word.” This involves more interpretation than a formal translation, and yields quite varied results, some are much better or worse than others.

In reality, of course, all translations-- even the most formal-- involve some interpretation. Formal and dynamic equivalence are a spectrum. Peterson’s “The Message” is less formal and more interpretive than the Contemporary English Version, which is less formal than the King James Version, which is less formal and more interpretive than an interlinear translation.

FWIW, the NIV is not a paraphrase. On the formal-dynamic spectrum, it tries to strike a balance. It does have some noteworthy problems, but overall it’s not so bad.

I find it interesting that they use the King James version and not one of their own.

I understand not wanting to reinvent the wheel when translations already exist, but I think it is odd to prefer such an archaic translation. Many English words have changed meaning since the 1600s. Most contemporary English speakers would be much better served by a translation like the RSV or ESV, which are comparable in formal equivalence but rendered in modern English.

 

[aspirant]

please quote what it is you want me to respond to.

So if the homilies on John, homilies on Matthew, and many other writings are later forgeries, which writings of St. John Chrysostom are authentic? Are there any authentic writings of St. John Chrysostom left? What documentation can you provide where we can further research this?

 

[SingleMomMonica]

aspirant:
Oh thank you Aspirant. I already cited the sources. Post # 89. Got buried on page 6.

 

[aspirant]

Oh thank you Aspirant. I already cited the sources. Post # 89. Got buried on page 6.

The sources cited in post #89 do not answer the questions. If the homilies on John, homilies on Matthew, and many other writings are later forgeries, which writings of St. John Chrysostom are authentic? Are there any authentic writings of St. John Chrysostom left? What documentation can you provide where we can further research this?

Also worth asking: If St. John Chrysostom’s homilies on the gospels of St. John and St. Matthew are late forgeries, why do so many Orthodox websites recommend reading them? Why does the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, for example, quote these homilies with approval? Shouldn’t they be foremost in denouncing them?

 

[dvdjs]

Oh thank you Aspirant. I already cited the sources. Post # 89. Got buried on page 6.

No.

It has already been noted in post #106 that the two references that you give pertain to the forged “Donation of Constantine”, and not, apparently to the the Chrysostom quote.

In the “also want to read” category, I have searched Schaff (the URL should read5_ch15, not 5_chl5, btw). Nothing on the point of the alleged forgery of the Chrysostom quote.

SMM, you can us save a lot of time by being specific: is there anything in the list of reference that you gave that specifically shows the Chrysostom quote to be forgery. Since, as you reported on another thread, this finding was the “earthquake” that shook your faith, you presumably have something. But sadly, you’ve cited a good bit of nothing.

 

[aspirant]

Why does the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, for example, quote these homilies with approval? Shouldn’t they be foremost in denouncing them?

Among many other passages, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America says: “Saint John was surnamed Chrysostom (‘Golden-mouth’) because of his eloquence. He made exhaustive commentaries on the divine Scriptures and was the author of more works than any other Church Father, leaving us complete commentaries on the Book of Genesis, the Gospels of Saints Matthew and John, the Acts, and all the Epistles of Saint Paul.” These are homilies they quote with approval, for example in Archbishop Demetrios Trakatellis’ keynote address to the 4th Archdiocesan Greek Orthodox Young Adult League Conference, “Growing in the Knowledge of Christ.”

It seems that SMM is implicitly accusing the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America of promoting forgeries.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

It seems that SMM is implicitly accusing the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America of promoting forgeries.

No I’m not.

You’re being contrary because you are unable to bring to this thread a single early Church Father that contradicts St. John Chrysostom’s teaching that at the council of Jerusalem St. James had the highest authority.

Since you are unable to respond to this thread with a defense of your position on Acts 15, you are throwing mud to try to deflect your failure to bring anything pertinant to this discussion…reminds me of how JW’s operate. back at ya!

Tick…tick…tick

 

[aspirant]

You’re being contrary

I’m inviting an answer. You have asserted that the St. John Chrysostom’s homilies on the gospels of Sts. Matthew and John, among other writings, are forgeries. If this is true, the Greek Orthodox Church would have a responsibility to denounce those forgeries. Instead, at least here in America, the GOC refers to and even quotes those homilies with approval. The only logical conclusion is that if you are right, the GOC is promoting forgeries. I would assume they are doing it in ignorance rather than malevolence, of course, but it would still be a problem.

And you have yet to answer the questions: If the homilies on John, homilies on Matthew, and many other writings are later forgeries, which writings of St. John Chrysostom are authentic? Are there any authentic writings of St. John Chrysostom left? What documentation can you provide where we can further research this?

your position on Acts 15

Which is?

you are throwing mud

I have thrown no mud. I’m just noting that the mud you’ve already thrown is unfortunately sticking to the Greek Orthodox Church in America.