R
ronyodish
Guest
DaveBj,
I’m not sure I see any significant difference between “penance” and “repent/repentance”. It seems to me that these English words, derived from a common origin, are equivalent to one another.
God bless,
Rony
- Status
I’m not sure I see any significant difference between “penance” and “repent/repentance”. It seems to me that these English words, derived from a common origin, are equivalent to one another.
God bless,
Rony
D
DaveBj
Guest
In the New Testament the English words “repent/repentance” translate the Greek words metanoeo/metanoia, which means to change one’s mind or one’s way of thinking about something. In action, it is describes as finding out that one is going the wrong way, turning around, and going the other way.
Penance (from the Catholic Encyclopedia): Penance (poenitentia) designates (1) a virtue; (2) a sacrament of the New Law; (3) a canonical punishment inflicted according to the earlier discipline of the Church; (4) a work of satisfaction enjoined upon the recipient of the sacrament.
The two concepts aren’t related at all, except that the English words come from the same root.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Is “do repent” in between the meanings of “do penance” and “repent”?
Is it possible to “do repent” without doing penance?
In my opinion there is a BIG difference between simply “repent” and “do repent”.
It seems like “repent” only involves a decision or turning of the mind or heart while “do penance” is more about penitential acts.
“do repent” involves more than just the turning of the mind or heart but while it may involve “doing penance” it is somewhere in between the turning and the penitential acts–a state of BEING repentant.
You don’t get that feel with only “metanoia” of the Greek while “do penance” in the Latin may be too much more in the penitential acts side of the equation.
Isn’t the REAL truth somewhere in between?
Is it possible to “do repent” without doing penance?
In my opinion there is a BIG difference between simply “repent” and “do repent”.
It seems like “repent” only involves a decision or turning of the mind or heart while “do penance” is more about penitential acts.
“do repent” involves more than just the turning of the mind or heart but while it may involve “doing penance” it is somewhere in between the turning and the penitential acts–a state of BEING repentant.
You don’t get that feel with only “metanoia” of the Greek while “do penance” in the Latin may be too much more in the penitential acts side of the equation.
Isn’t the REAL truth somewhere in between?
D
DaveBj
Guest
To paraphrase Yoda, there is no “do repent;” there is only “repent.” I am not commenting about the benefits of performing “penitential acts;” I am only saying that the Catholic understanding of “doing penance” is not contained in the Greek word “metanoia.”
This is somewhat off the OP topic, but since I am the OPer, I don’t mind.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
I guess what I’m really asking is how well does the Greek word “metanoia” convey the Aramaic word that Jesus might have used?
What exactly was Jesus trying to convey?
I think that’s a question that isn’t answered much–people argue over what the Greek had to say or the Latin had to say or how English translated from Greek or Latin says–nobody asks “What was Jesus trying to convey when He spoke in Aramaic”?
Is what Jesus was trying to convey 100% contained in the current English word “repent”?
I think the answer to that question is NO–what English conveys with the word repent is NOT what Jesus was trying to convey because the Jewish world of Jesus’ time when He was speaking did not view repentance in the way that the English language later on would view repentance.
Sorry but I just don’t buy a Protestant only view of metanoia nor do I buy the modern Catholic scholarship view that is nearly identical because such an ecumenical convergence is thought to be sophisticated.
In other words ask any Aramaic speaker in Jesus’ time if when he heard the word “repent” or whatever Jesus said in ARAMIC that it only connoted a turning of the mind or heart “metanoia style”.
I think they would answer NO. Especially a Jew speaking Aramaic.
When you cut down the number of definitions CONTAINED in a word you can certainly alter the word’s meaning.
Getting 95% of the words meaning right in another language is certainly not the 100% Fullness of truth that may be contained in the word.
It’s kind of like “supersubstantial bread” in the Our Father.
“Daily bread” is true but I wouldn’t say that it is the 100% fullness of truth.
I think that there hasn’t been enough scholarship in the realm of Aramaic–If Jesus taught in that language–that language should be given a little more importance when it comes to translation–Latin and Greek shouldn’t be the all end all.
What exactly was Jesus trying to convey?
I think that’s a question that isn’t answered much–people argue over what the Greek had to say or the Latin had to say or how English translated from Greek or Latin says–nobody asks “What was Jesus trying to convey when He spoke in Aramaic”?
Is what Jesus was trying to convey 100% contained in the current English word “repent”?
I think the answer to that question is NO–what English conveys with the word repent is NOT what Jesus was trying to convey because the Jewish world of Jesus’ time when He was speaking did not view repentance in the way that the English language later on would view repentance.
Sorry but I just don’t buy a Protestant only view of metanoia nor do I buy the modern Catholic scholarship view that is nearly identical because such an ecumenical convergence is thought to be sophisticated.
In other words ask any Aramaic speaker in Jesus’ time if when he heard the word “repent” or whatever Jesus said in ARAMIC that it only connoted a turning of the mind or heart “metanoia style”.
I think they would answer NO. Especially a Jew speaking Aramaic.
When you cut down the number of definitions CONTAINED in a word you can certainly alter the word’s meaning.
Getting 95% of the words meaning right in another language is certainly not the 100% Fullness of truth that may be contained in the word.
It’s kind of like “supersubstantial bread” in the Our Father.
“Daily bread” is true but I wouldn’t say that it is the 100% fullness of truth.
I think that there hasn’t been enough scholarship in the realm of Aramaic–If Jesus taught in that language–that language should be given a little more importance when it comes to translation–Latin and Greek shouldn’t be the all end all.
D
DaveBj
Guest
We aren’t privy to the Aramaic vocabulary that Jesus used (with a couple exceptions). However, the people who were privy to those conversations used metanoia, and whether you like it or not, we do know what that means.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
What other Greek words could have been used?
The fact that someone when translating used metanoia means absolutely nothing!
Now I guess if you could prove that one of the original gospel writers also translated their original into Greek and that they who HAD heard Jesus actually speak–such as Matthew or John–if they would then proceed to use metanoia then I guess you would have something to hang your hat on.
But barring that, it does matter the Aramaic words that Jesus could have used because any Greek translation is just a translation of whatever He said. What is more important–what Jesus actually said or what Greek says He said?
In other words you can’t say that Jesus means exactly ONLY this because we believe that Greek ONLY means this and that that particular word in Greek as we conceive of it is in 100% lockstep with the mind of Jesus.
While it is true that if many examples of early Greek manuscripts have Jesus saying essentially the same thing are probably very much on the mark–you must always look at what Jesus COULD HAVE said in Aramaic as a check on how Greek as a language might not exactly match what Jesus would have said.
I think it is comical that someone would protest til the death the accuracy of Latin and then on the other hand would maintain that there is no way that Greek could ever be wrong.
That is ludicrous!
The fact that someone when translating used metanoia means absolutely nothing!
Now I guess if you could prove that one of the original gospel writers also translated their original into Greek and that they who HAD heard Jesus actually speak–such as Matthew or John–if they would then proceed to use metanoia then I guess you would have something to hang your hat on.
But barring that, it does matter the Aramaic words that Jesus could have used because any Greek translation is just a translation of whatever He said. What is more important–what Jesus actually said or what Greek says He said?
In other words you can’t say that Jesus means exactly ONLY this because we believe that Greek ONLY means this and that that particular word in Greek as we conceive of it is in 100% lockstep with the mind of Jesus.
While it is true that if many examples of early Greek manuscripts have Jesus saying essentially the same thing are probably very much on the mark–you must always look at what Jesus COULD HAVE said in Aramaic as a check on how Greek as a language might not exactly match what Jesus would have said.
I think it is comical that someone would protest til the death the accuracy of Latin and then on the other hand would maintain that there is no way that Greek could ever be wrong.
That is ludicrous!
D
DaveBj
Guest
But we don’t have a record of the Aramaic, so we don’t know what Jesus said, or even what he could have said. The only starting point we have is the Greek record of what those who heard him said that he said.
???
Where the heck did that come from?
- Status