RC Church rewriting the Bible???

[LutheranDK]

Hi all.

I recently read parts of the RC New Jerusalem Bible translation, and was horrified!
Just to take one example:

Matt 19:9, New Jerusalem Bible:

“Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife – I am not speaking of an illicit marriage – and marries another, is guilty of adultery.’”

It pars very well with RC teachings, but NOT with the Greek text:

“λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται.”

“But I say to you (plural), that if someone dismisses his woman (wife) except because of fornication* commits adultery”

No manuscript has the New Jerusalem-reading whatsoever! Does the RC church feel that it can edit the Bible as it sees fit?

• “πορνείᾳ” actually covers a lot more than just “fornication”, but it was the best one word that I could think of-

 

[Jehoshua]

Im inclined to believe that it is just the translaation of the bible (New Jerusalem) you have because my bible which is not the version you have, but is the catholic bible (tobit and the other books protestants excluded included) has it as.

Matthew 19:9

I tell you, then, that any woman who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, commits adultery if he marries some other woman

---

and i got this bible at my first communion so i know that its fully validated and accepted by the Catholic Church.

 

[NHInsider]

Hi all.

snip

• “πορνείᾳ” actually covers a lot more than just “fornication”, but it was the best one word that I could think of-

I’ve got three translations that use “unchastity.” I think the consensus is that the marriage is invalid because of previous sexual relationship (which would be consistent with Deuteronomy 22). The New American translation also includes a parens “(unless the marriage is unlawful)” but I don’t see it in any other translation, Catholic or Protestant. I agree that I’m not comfortable with translations that incorporate “explanations” or push particular interpretations (it’s why I despise the NIV).

As I don’t read Greek I can’t address the translation question competently. Perhaps you should put this question in the Sacred Scripture forum . . .

 

[Belloc_Fan]

The problem is that the Greek word in question, porneia, literally means “fornication,” but when it’s translated word-for-word, people read that, and think it means “adultery” (moicheia), which it doesn’t – Matthew uses the word at the end of the verse, “whoever divorces except for *porneia *commits moicheia,” so we know that they mean different things.

Here’s an example of what it does mean. So, for example, if two gay people are married in the eyes of the state, and they convert to Christianity, and want to know what to do next, Jesus has made it clear. If He hadn’t included that exemption, they’d be left saying, “our marriage was a sin, divorce is a sin, what now?” But since their marriage (in the law’s eyes) was fornication (in God’s eyes) the entire time, they’re permitted to divorce. This verse actually *is *referring to invalid marriages.

That example is obviously 21st century. But divorced and remarried couples are a pretty obvious example which has been true throughout the ages, and a 1st century example is incestual marriages (that is, marriages which were deemed incestual under Levitical law), since Acts 15 explicitly left Leviticus’ *porneia *standard as binding on Jew and Greek alike.

For a more in-depth take on the meaning, try here, catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2009/07/divorce-and-remarriage-in-matthews.html (a summary of a piece by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, a non-Catholic Bible scholar), or this three-part series here, involving GotQuestions.org’s inaccurate representation of the Catholic position. It’s here, here, and here,

 

[Eucharisted]

It’s a translation, not a rewriting. A rewriting of the Bible would be what Luther did.

And the proper name of the Church is Catholic Church. Not Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hi all.

I recently read parts of the RC New Jerusalem Bible translation, and was horrified!
Just to take one example:

Matt 19:9, New Jerusalem Bible:

“Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife – I am not speaking of an illicit marriage – and marries another, is guilty of adultery.’”

It pars very well with RC teachings, but NOT with the Greek text:

“λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται.”

“But I say to you (plural), that if someone dismisses his woman (wife) except because of fornication* commits adultery”

No manuscript has the New Jerusalem-reading whatsoever! Does the RC church feel that it can edit the Bible as it sees fit?

• “πορνείᾳ” actually covers a lot more than just “fornication”, but it was the best one word that I could think of-

The precise meaning of “porneia” in this and the parallel text in Matt 5 is a well-known crux interpretum - there is nothing sinister in the translation here.​

 

[LutheranDK]

The problem is that the Greek word in question, porneia, literally means “fornication,” but when it’s translated word-for-word, people read that, and think it means “adultery” (moicheia), which it doesn’t – Matthew uses the word at the end of the verse, “whoever divorces except for *porneia *commits moicheia,” so we know that they mean different things.

Here’s an example of what it does mean. So, for example, if two gay people are married in the eyes of the state, and they convert to Christianity, and want to know what to do next, Jesus has made it clear. If He hadn’t included that exemption, they’d be left saying, “our marriage was a sin, divorce is a sin, what now?” But since their marriage (in the law’s eyes) was fornication (in God’s eyes) the entire time, they’re permitted to divorce. This verse actually *is *referring to invalid marriages.

That example is obviously 21st century. But divorced and remarried couples are a pretty obvious example which has been true throughout the ages, and a 1st century example is incestual marriages (that is, marriages which were deemed incestual under Levitical law), since Acts 15 explicitly left Leviticus’ *porneia *standard as binding on Jew and Greek alike.
kind
For a more in-depth take on the meaning, try here, catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2009/07/divorce-and-remarriage-in-matthews.html (a summary of a piece by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, a non-Catholic Bible scholar), or this three-part series here, involving GotQuestions.org’s inaccurate representation of the Catholic position. It’s here, here, and here,

THAT is the kind of answer I have use for, because it adresses my point and the question I raise without side-tracking, beating a dead horse, or necromancing dead topics (did you get the hint, “Eucharisted”?).
Thank you

I would, however, still be of the opinion that the explanation about incestual marriages is better suited in a footnote or comment on the verse, and not IN the verse itself. The New Jerusalem Bible is, to my knowledge at least, supposed to be a translation of the text, not a commentary on it.

 

[LutheranDK]

Im inclined to believe that it is just the translaation of the bible (New Jerusalem) you have because my bible which is not the version you have, but is the catholic bible (tobit and the other books protestants excluded included) has it as.

Matthew 19:9

I tell you, then, that any woman who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, commits adultery if he marries some other woman

---

and i got this bible at my first communion so i know that its fully validated and accepted by the Catholic Church.

Ok, might just be the New Jerusalem people who messed up
But “unfaithfullness” is still not the correct translation of “porneia”. Unfaithfullness seems to be synonomous to “adultery”, which is “moicheia”.

 

[ChosenAndCalled]

It’s a translation, not a rewriting. A rewriting of the Bible would be what Luther did.

And the proper name of the Church is Catholic Church. Not Roman Catholic Church.

And the Proper name for my faith is the Reformed Faith - but, I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to reciprocate respect. You’ll continue to hurl Protestant at people who have never even protested a parking ticket.

I personally always say Catholic Church as a means of respect in spite of the fact that I do not belive the true Catholic church is contained only in the Catholic Church.

so, I assume you’ll refer to non-Catholics as Reformed believers now?

 

[Belloc_Fan]

THAT is the kind of answer I have use for, because it adresses my point and the question I raise without side-tracking, beating a dead horse, or necromancing dead topics (did you get the hint, “Eucharisted”?).
Thank you

I would, however, still be of the opinion that the explanation about incestual marriages is better suited in a footnote or comment on the verse, and not IN the verse itself. The New Jerusalem Bible is, to my knowledge at least, supposed to be a translation of the text, not a commentary on it.

I take your point. However, in the Levitical context (Greek version, of course), porneia literally meant invalid marriage broadly, or incestual marriage narrowly (I’ve read both interpretations). So I think it’s a defensible translation even in a formal equivalence context.

It’s certainly an issue of controversy, and Catholic Bibles (as well as individual Catholics) have come out on both sides. A literal translation, “fornication,” has an implication directly opposed to what Christ meant in most people’s minds, since the notion of porneia to a Jewish listener is very different than the notion of fornication to an Angophone listener. Many English speakers hear “fornication” and think “adultery” or “sexual immorality,” and I think that some Bible translators are concerned that the initial impression will be what sticks, given how the relatively few readers who read all of the footnotes.

To some extent, it’s an issue of formal equivalence v. dynamic equivalence. Is it more important to render the text word-for-word, or to render it thought-for-thought? I typically prefer the former, but this is a unique case. It’s not simply that a word-for-word translation is confusing, but that a word-for-word translation could serve to undermine Jesus’ entire point, which is that He hates and forbids divorce (as the parallel verses show). Some Bibles today have entire pages of explaination of hard concepts, things which are too complex to fit into a footnote. In my mind, this would be a good candidate for that. Until then, I’m fine with either “fornication” or “unlawful marriage,” although both choices are likely to confuse without some cogent footnotes.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

so, I assume you’ll refer to non-Catholics as Reformed believers now?

Really, only Calvinist traditions tend to like to be called Reformed. The Anabaptist traditions, for example, often claim that theirs is the True Church and that it never disappeared from the Earth - that it was just “hidden” while the Catholic Church was the visible Church. So to call them “Reformed” would actually be insulting. And Eastern Orthodox are non-Catholics, but adamantly opposed the Reformation - they think that the “Latins” are too into St. Augustine already, so the idea of Calvin basing a whole heck of his systematic theology off of Augustine’s works wasn’t exactly going to entice them.

I think that Eucharisted’s point was just that there’s a tendency amongst some to use “Roman Catholic” as a pejorative - like “Rome’s agents,” or “Romanist/Romanism,” etc. - as if we’re just blind peons of the pope in Vatican City, rather than a global Church of a billion thinking people.

“Protestant,” on the other hand, is the normal term, used by both insiders and outsiders, to describe, as a catch-all, the various traditions descending from the Reformation. It’s a vague term, but intentionally so - it’s describing people who may agree upon little else. Do you genuinely not like the term “Protestant” for some reason other than its vagueness?

 

[JonNC]

=Eucharisted;5838799]It’s a translation, not a rewriting. A rewriting of the Bible would be what Luther did.

Nope. Luther’s was a translation.
ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm

And the proper name of the Church is Catholic Church. Not Roman Catholic Church

You are right, but Catholics have generally adopted what was once a perjorative, just like Evangelical Catholics have adopted the perjorative “Lutheran”.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi all.

:frighten: Scared me there for a second, LDK. The title had me thinking they “added” alone to Romans 3:28.



Jon

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Ok, might just be the New Jerusalem people who messed up
But “unfaithfullness” is still not the correct translation of “porneia”. Unfaithfullness seems to be synonomous to “adultery”, which is “moicheia”.

But, moicheia and the other thing are both examples of unfaithfulness - so a generic name as an equivalent for a word of uncertain meaning would not be out of place.​

 

[Belloc_Fan]

But, moicheia and the other thing are both examples of unfaithfulness - so a generic name as an equivalent for a word of uncertain meaning would not be out of place.​

if you’re being unfaithful, you’re cheating on your spouse. If you’re fornicating, you don’t have a spouse. Jesus lists porneia and moicheia as separate sins: one isn’t a subset of the other.

 

[imkingdad]

Nope. Luther’s was a translation.
ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm

No Luther’s & the Anglican KJV were REWRITES. Clear Exclusions were & remain evident from all previous versions. The OP’s concern is a Translation issue ( and perhaps a Politically correct attempt too). Inclusive language games can be found in many Bibles.

Unfortunately, Our Church & yours have engaged in a practice of watering down sin, of glossing over it, so as not to offend the sensibilities of the sinners in the pews. Personally
we need to hear more about Sin & our personal responsibilities rather than less.

regards.

 

[Jason_1977]

It’s a translation, not a rewriting. A rewriting of the Bible would be what Luther did.

And the proper name of the Church is Catholic Church. Not Roman Catholic Church.

well said. :coffeeread:

 

[JonNC]

JonNC;5840578:

Nope. Luther’s was a translation.
ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm

No Luther’s & the Anglican KJV were REWRITES. Clear Exclusions were & remain evident from all previous versions. The OP’s concern is a Translation issue ( and perhaps a Politically correct attempt too). Inclusive language games can be found in many Bibles.

Unfortunately, Our Church & yours have engaged in a practice of watering down sin, of glossing over it, so as not to offend the sensibilities of the sinners in the pews. Personally
we need to hear more about Sin & our personal responsibilities rather than less.

I respcetfully disagree with your first paragraph, but while I am not so bold to accuse your Chruch in the second paragraph, I’ll take your word for it and agree.

Jon