Scholars Corner

[Seamus_Sully]

Exodus 28: 30 And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart, when he goeth in before the LORD: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually.

In Hebrew Urim is Lights, and Thummin is perfection.

How are they translated in the LXX?

Do those words occur in the N. T.?

I think that this might have some relationship to the two parts of the breastplate of St. Paul.

Thanks! Thanks! Thanks!

 

[copland]

Seamus,

I cannot read Greek.

In your judgment: Are your findings important? In other words, is there just one word for shepherd? Or could the authors used a several other words?

In the Septuagint there is a place in 2Kings 3:4 where the Septuagint translators transliterated a Hebrew word for Sherpherd into Greek, it is NWKHD, and 2 manuscripts (Vaticanus and Alexandrinus) have NWKHQ. I checked Origen’s Hexapla to see what Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion translated the Hebrew word NoKeD into, and Aqulia used POIMNIOTROFOS-sheepmaster, and Symmachus used TREFWN BOSKHMATA-maintaining pastures. Another variant for Symmachus is ARXIPOIMHN-chief shepherd. Is it important? Not really, because POIMHN-shepherd is so commonly used in Greek.

 

[copland]

Seamus,

Exodus 28: 30 And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart, when he goeth in before the LORD: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually.

In Hebrew Urim is Lights, and Thummin is perfection.

How are they translated in the LXX?

The Greek Septuagint has thn dhlwsin kai thn alhqeian- “the manifestation and the truth.” DHLWSIN is found in the NT but as an adjective instead of a noun. ALHQEIAN-truth is found many times in the NT.

 

[copland]

We do not even know what language the original author used. Pesheeta fans insist all four Gospels were written in Aramaic. I doubt that, I believe Mark was written in Latin, Luke and John in Greek, leaving Mattew for Aramaic, but that is by the bye.
I have no faith in the theory of Greek presidence, for the ‘original Greek’ are no longer extant, and the best witness of the original Greek is the Old Latin, or Vetus Latina, which I accept is translated from the original Greek.
The received Greek is then a back translation from the Old Latin. Mother Church has a reputation for destroying old records for the sake of catholicity.
So, as I see it, for Luke, Greek to Latin, then Latin to Greek, then Jerome cross correlated the Latin with the Greek, to accord with the Greek, before Douay translated into English. Tortuous isn’t it!
LXX is then not so bad: Hebrew into Greek, then Greek into English.

I do believe that all evidence points towards Matthew writting his Gospel in Aramaic. I recall doing a study in Mark and found that while reading it in Greek it sure seemed like it had alot of Aramaic influence. The Catholic Encyclopedia said it best, Mark probably wrote it in Greek but he was thinking in Aramaic. I believe that John and Luke wrote their Gospels in Greek, and we have enough ancient Greek manuscripts to verify that we have reliable Greek texts, especially with the Early Greek Fathers who quoted from them.

I love the Greek Septuagint! I passionately defend its authority. Though it is a translation from the Hebrew and Aramaic, it is a very ancient translation that used a Hebrew and Aramaic manuscript tradition that is superior to the Masoretic Text and even the Dead Sea Scrolls. I also love the Dead Sea Scrolls. I have a project that I am working on right now, well it is sort of on hold due to another project, but I am translating the Greek Dead Sea Scrolls manuscript 8HevX!!gr, it is a Septuagint manuscript of the Minor Prophets found among the Dead Sea Scroll in Nahal Hever, it dates back to about 150BC. Great stuff!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I do believe that all evidence points towards Matthew writing his Gospel in Aramaic. I recall doing a study in Mark and found that while reading it in Greek it sure seemed like it had a lot of Aramaic influence.

Hi, friend,
Yes, it would have. The old tradition has it that it was dictated by Peter to Mark from the condemned cell, and Peter was speaking Aramaic, and Mark was translating on-the-fly as he wrote. The only question really is: was the audience primarily educated Romans, or street urchins and slaves. I feel it was the latter, and the appearance of Latin slang in the text seems to support that. Street Latin contained words from all over the empire, and yes, I accept that Mark was probably more comfortable in Greek, than in Latin, but all subjects of Rome needed to understand basic Latin, for that was the language of the Legions who policed the empire.

The Catholic Encyclopedia said it best, Mark probably wrote it in Greek but he was thinking in Aramaic. I believe that John and Luke wrote their Gospels in Greek, and we have enough ancient Greek manuscripts to verify that we have reliable Greek texts, especially with the Early Greek Fathers who quoted from them.

I love the Greek Septuagint! I passionately defend its authority. Though it is a translation from the Hebrew and Aramaic, it is a very ancient translation that used a Hebrew and Aramaic manuscript tradition that is superior to the Masoretic Text and even the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Here tradition supports you, in that this translation was the work of the university of Alexandria, better known as the Great Library. Though Caesar is reputed to have destroyed that library, there is reliable evidence that the destruction was minor, and it was still in operation right up to the time of St Jerome. Ammonius Saccar, whom I believe to be an alias of Tatian clearly worked there. Origen too, whose name I take the liberty of spelling in my tale, Aurigen, the Golden one!
Up to its destruction at the hands of a religious zealot, soon after the completion of Jerome’s Vulgate, this was a place of great learning, and much of the source material Jerome used, came from there, and is now lost in the fire.
One document which survived this inferno was found some hundred years later, and attributed by some scholars to Ammonius, but Victor of Capua, in his preface to the volume in which he incorporated it, is convinced that it is from the hand of Tatian.
Received wisdom is that this is a Greek or Aramaic text translated into Latin buy correlation and substitution with Jerome’s Vulgate, however, this ignores the acknowledged fact that Jerome, in editing the Gospels altered each word in fear of his life, and left over 95% untouched. This concurs well with minor differences found between the text of the harmonized Gospel and the two major sources, Matthew and John, which are found virtually intact in the harmony, though slightly re-arranged.
I am convinced that if Victor of Capua is truthful, and I have no reason to doubt him, then this harmonized Gospel he found and incorporated into what is now known as the Codex Fuldensis, or Victor Codex, is probably the best extant witness of Vetus Latina Matthew and John, setting a latest possible date as AD 220, and maybe as early as AD 200. This is on a par with the Gospels of Carthage, which I believe were used as the source text for the harmony.
Such Latin as I now have is learned from this translation project, which I acknowledge is imperfect, but from what I have found, this is the best harmonized Gospel in existence, and stands together extremely well.

I also love the Dead Sea Scrolls. I have a project that I am working on right now, well it is sort of on hold due to another project, but I am translating the Greek Dead Sea Scrolls manuscript 8HevX!!gr, it is a Septuagint manuscript of the Minor Prophets found among the Dead Sea Scroll in Nahal Hever, it dates back to about 150BC. Great stuff!

I suppose I am attached to this Gospel very much like you are to LXX.
Would it not be great if LXX, the Gospel, and a VL sourced remainder of the NT could be combined.
I certainly agree that the masoretic text should be discarded as an artificial invention, and the LXX should be restored, even if some minor adjustments to the translation are required.
It does however seem strange that the Gospel picks up ‘parthenos’ in Isaiah, suggesting that the Greek text was in fact being used, and not the Hebrew, which would not contain such an error, if indeed it is an error!

 

[copland]

I am not overly familar with Codex Fuldensis, though I am interested in learnign about it. I respectfully share a different idea about the reliability of the existant Vulgate and Greek texts, especially when you say this,

Latin buy correlation and substitution with Jerome’s Vulgate, however, this ignores the acknowledged fact that Jerome, in editing the Gospels altered each word in fear of his life, and left over 95% untouched.

I don’t believe for a minute that St. Jerome would corrupt Sacred Scripture, but he would willfully give his life for the protection of it as would most of the Early Fathers would.

I am convinced that if Victor of Capua is truthful, and I have no reason to doubt him, then this harmonized Gospel he found and incorporated into what is now known as the Codex Fuldensis, or Victor Codex, is probably the best extant witness of Vetus Latina Matthew and John, setting a latest possible date as AD 220, and maybe as early as AD 200. This is on a par with the Gospels of Carthage, which I believe were used as the source text for the harmony.

I don’t want to sound confrontational, but I must say that I take a different stand again. Not that I don’t trust Victor of Capua as being truthful, but I am Catholic first and trust 2000 years of evidence and tradition. Also, as a textual critic myself, I have various Bible manuscripts that I am partial to, but I don’t hang my religious faith upon them as virtually infallible.

I know that variant readings sometimes makes people question authenticity of certian manuscript traditions, but I do believe that some of the so-called major textual differences could have come about by the possibility of the author writing one account more than once, meaning than the Biblical authors could have rewritten their text in order to publish it abroad. It would not mean that one is more accurate than the other, but they would both be reliable. I truly believe that to be the case with the book of Daniel. I am doing an interlinear of the original LXX version of Daniel, not Theodotion but what the LXX translators themselves did. It is quite a bit different than the traditional Hebrew text today and what Theodotion did. But I have come to beleive that Daniel wrote it at least twice at different times, and the LXX translated from one of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts that Daniel produced. And I believe that possible with any Biblical author.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I am not overly familar with Codex Fuldensis, though I am interested in learnign about it. I respectfully share a different idea about the reliability of the existant Vulgate and Greek texts, especially when you say this, [sign]
Latin buy correlation and substitution with Jerome’s Vulgate, however, this ignores the acknowledged fact that Jerome, in editing the Gospels altered each word in fear of his life, and left over 95% untouched.[/sign]
I don’t believe for a minute that St. Jerome would corrupt Sacred Scripture, but he would willfully give his life for the protection of it as would most of the Early Fathers would.

Allow me to copy a paragraph for you from:
tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_gospels.htm
PREFACE TO THE GOSPELS 1

BEGINNING OF THE PREFACE FOR THE GOSPELS OF SAINT JEROME THE PRESBYTER

To the blessed Pope Damasus, from Jerome,

You urge me to make a new work from the old, and that I might sit as a kind of judge over the versions of Scripture dispersed throughout the whole world, and that I might resolve which among such vary, and which of these they may be which truly agree with the Greek. Pious work, yet perilous presumption, to change the old and aging language of the world , to carry it back to infancy, for to judge others is to invite judging by all of them. Is there indeed any learned or unlearned man, who when he picks up the volume in his hand, and takes a single taste of it, and sees what he will have read to differ, might not instantly raise his voice, calling me a forger, proclaiming me now to be a sacrilegious man, that I might dare to add, to change, or to correct anything in the old books? Against such infamy I am consoled by two causes: that it is you, who are the highest priest, who so orders, and truth is not to be what might vary, as even now I am vindicated by the witness of slanderers. If indeed faith is administered by the Latin version, they might respond by which, for they are nearly as many as the books! If, however, truth is to be a seeking among many, why do we not now return to the Greek originals to correct those mistakes which either through faulty translators were set forth, or through confident but unskilled were wrongly revised, or through sleeping scribes either were added or were changed? Certainly, I do not discuss the Old Testament, which came from the Seventy Elders in the Greek language, changing in three steps until it arrived with us 2. Nor do I seek what Aquila, or what Symmachus may think, or why Theodotion may walk the middle of the road between old and new. This may be the true translation which the Apostles have approved. I now speak of the New Testament, which is undoubtedly Greek, except the Apostle Matthew, who had first set forth the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters in Judea. This (Testament) certainly differs in our language, and is led in the way of different streams; it is necessary to seek the single fountainhead. I pass over those books which are called by the name of Lucian and Hesychius, for which a few men wrongly claim authority, who anyway were not allowed to revise either in the Old Instrument after the Seventy Translators, or to pour out revisions in the New; with the Scriptures previously translated into the languages of many nations, the additions may now be shown to be false.

Yes, I put a picturesque interpretation on this paragraph, but I am not the first so to do.

I don’t want to sound confrontational, but I must say that I take a different stand again. Not that I don’t trust Victor of Capua as being truthful, but I am Catholic first and trust 2000 years of evidence and tradition. Also, as a textual critic myself, I have various Bible manuscripts that I am partial to, but I don’t hang my religious faith upon them as virtually infallible.

The Codex Fuldensis is a time capsule.
I am running out of space, but I am not sure what you are getting at.

I know that variant readings sometimes makes people question authenticity of certian manuscript traditions, but I do believe that some of the so-called major textual differences could have come about by the possibility of the author writing one account more than once, meaning than the Biblical authors could have rewritten their text in order to publish it abroad. It would not mean that one is more accurate than the other, but they would both be reliable. I truly believe that to be the case with the book of Daniel. I am doing an interlinear of the original LXX version of Daniel, not Theodotion but what the LXX translators themselves did. It is quite a bit different than the traditional Hebrew text today and what Theodotion did. But I have come to beleive that Daniel wrote it at least twice at different times, and the LXX translated from one of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts that Daniel produced. And I believe that possible with any Biblical author.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

[sign]I am convinced that if Victor of Capua is truthful, and I have no reason to doubt him, then this harmonized Gospel he found and incorporated into what is now known as the Codex Fuldensis, or Victor Codex, is probably the best extant witness of Vetus Latina Matthew and John, setting a latest possible date as AD 220, and maybe as early as AD 200. This is on a par with the Gospels of Carthage, which I believe were used as the source text for the harmony.[/sign]
I don’t want to sound confrontational, but I must say that I take a different stand again. Not that I don’t trust Victor of Capua as being truthful, but I am Catholic first and trust 2000 years of evidence and tradition. Also, as a textual critic myself, I have various Bible manuscripts that I am partial to, but I don’t hang my religious faith upon them as virtually infallible.

As I said, the Codex Fuldensis is a time capsule.
Wynfried of Crediton, who became St Boniface took this Testament with him on his mission to restore Germany and the low countries. Though his mission was an unqualified success, he was assasinated in Holland in his old age, and interred at Fulda, with the Testament, which, spattered with his blood, was a relic of a martyr.

I know that variant readings sometimes makes people question authenticity of certian manuscript traditions, but I do believe that some of the so-called major textual differences could have come about by the possibility of the author writing one account more than once, meaning than the Biblical authors could have rewritten their text in order to publish it abroad. It would not mean that one is more accurate than the other, but they would both be reliable. I truly believe that to be the case with the book of Daniel. I am doing an interlinear of the original LXX version of Daniel, not Theodotion but what the LXX translators themselves did. It is quite a bit different than the traditional Hebrew text today and what Theodotion did. But I have come to beleive that Daniel wrote it at least twice at different times, and the LXX translated from one of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts that Daniel produced. And I believe that possible with any Biblical author.

Yes, the Latin Diatessaron is a rework. The original, written in Syriac, or perhaps Greek, was utterly lost under the auspices of Rabula, and the only extant parts are those commented on by Ephrem Syrus. The Arabic is utterly corrupt, and probably a pious forgery.
There has been an attempt to keep alive the myth that the Diatessaron was utterly lost, yet for 300 years, from AD 540, until AD 840, the Latin Diatessaron was a blessed Catholic evangelical instrument.
There are two complete texts of the harmonized Gospel, both now at St Gall in Switzerland, and several fragments in France.

 

[copland]

Voco proTatiano,

Are you saying that you believe that the paragraph of St. Jerome to Pope Damascus indicates that Jerome corrupted the Scriptures out of pressure from the Pope? It seems very obvious to me that St. Jerome intended on preserving the original readings of Scripture by translating from what he considered to be the most reliable texts. I have worked with various Old Latin Bible manuscripts and I can see why Jerome as well as others understood that there was a need to produce a standardized Latin version based upon the “original” readings. I don’t always agree with what Jerome considered to be “original” but I do believe he did the best that he could at translating from those texts into Latin.

As for Codex Fuldensis being a time capsule, I get that. Most of the ancient manuscripts are. I am working with one right now called Codex 967, I am using it for the Old Greek version of Daniel, Sussanna, and Bel and the Dragon. I am just unclear though how much emphasis you are putting on it and how much lack of emphasis you are putting on our traditional belief about our Catholic Bible and its trustworthiness as God’s Word.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Voco proTatiano,

Are you saying that you believe that the paragraph of St. Jerome to Pope Damascus indicates that Jerome corrupted the Scriptures out of pressure from the Pope? It seems very obvious to me that St. Jerome intended on preserving the original readings of Scripture by translating from what he considered to be the most reliable texts. I have worked with various Old Latin Bible manuscripts and I can see why Jerome as well as others understood that there was a need to produce a standardized Latin version based upon the “original” readings. I don’t always agree with what Jerome considered to be “original” but I do believe he did the best that he could at translating from those texts into Latin.

Ah friend, now I understand your question.
St Jerome had expressed the opinion, as I understand it, that he should provide a ‘de novo’ translation from the Greek, of the Gospels, but this raised such a howl of protest that he agreed to do the bare minimum of editing to bring the Old Latin into conformance with the sense of the Greek. The style and dialect was left strictly untouched except where it was so archaic as to be confusing.
This was against St Jerome’s instinct, and his introduction is in the form of a reassurance that he has not un-necessarily meddled with a beloved text.

As for Codex Fuldensis being a time capsule, I get that. Most of the ancient manuscripts are. I am working with one right now called Codex 967, I am using it for the Old Greek version of Daniel, Sussanna, and Bel and the Dragon. I am just unclear though how much emphasis you are putting on it and how much lack of emphasis you are putting on our traditional belief about our Catholic Bible and its trustworthiness as God’s Word.

The value of a time capsule is that it helps to gives a time line for alterations to the text.
The Harmonized Gospel that Victor attributes to Tatian:
1/ Omits the tale of the adulteress,(accepted into the canon post AD 200),
2/ Omits Matthew 16: 2-3, ‘Red sky at night’,(missing from ancient Eastern documents, and geographically, only accurately applicable in Northern UK),
3/ Reverses the verdict on the two sons in the vineyard, to accord with Stuttgart, and with Roman, and military law, thus mocking the pro-Roman quislings,
4/ Restores the missing 100 to the 60 furlongs, (stadia), between Jerusalem and Emmaus. 160 furlongs is 20 miles, a stiff, but not impossible evenings forced march, easily achieved in bright moonlight in the time between sunset and midnight, to a people well used to traveling on foot.
I never ceased to be amazed at tales of farm-workers and apprentices walking ten miles to work every morning, to arrive by seven in the morning, but that was the rule in the nineteenth century here in UK.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

It seems that these passages reveal the Holy Trinity, as understood through the New Testament.

Also, I think that it is a traditional interpretation.

SPIRIT OF GOD
Genesis 1: 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters (KJV).

Genesis Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters (NAB).

GOD, AS IN GOD THE FATHER
Genesis 1: 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters (KJV).

IN THE BEGINNIG/WORD
Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters.

St. John 1: 1 In the beginning (archē) was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be. What came to be 4 through Him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; 5 the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
[N. B. B. The Septuagint uses the same word in Genesis 1: 1 and St. John 1: 1, that is, “archē”.]

Colossians 1: 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For in Him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through Him and for Him.

Furthermore, I believe the first three chapters of Genesis reveal God’s absolute love for us–that is, He creates good beings from His benevolence.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

In English the word is PATTERN, that is, of Exodus 25: 40.

How does the LXX translate Exodus 25: 40 And look that thou make [them] after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount?

Pattern in English, but the Hebrew escapes men.

I think that I have asked about this before, but I cannot recall your answer.

thanks!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

In English the word is PATTERN, that is, of Exodus 25: 40.

How does the LXX translate Exodus 25: 40 And look that thou make [them] after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount?

Pattern in English, but the Hebrew escapes men.

I think that I have asked about this before, but I cannot recall your answer.

thanks!

Hi Seamus,
I gave you the link, but here it is anyhow:

40 See, thou shalt make them according to the pattern shewed thee in the mount.

Copland can tell you if it is a good translation of the Greek, I can’t.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Voco proTatiano

THANKS!!!

 

[copland]

In English the word is PATTERN, that is, of Exodus 25: 40.

How does the LXX translate Exodus 25: 40 And look that thou make [them] after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount?

Pattern in English, but the Hebrew escapes men.

I think that I have asked about this before, but I cannot recall your answer.

thanks!

Here is my translation.

Ex. 25:40 ora poihseiV kata ton tupon ton dedeigmenon soi en tw orei

Ex. 25:40 See, you shall make them according to the type shown to you on the mountain.

I translated tupon as type because that is as literal as you can get. It is where the Church has coined the term “typology,” (typo and logos). Pattern is also a sufficient translation as well as stamp, mark, figure, image, statue, outline, sketch, model, system, and character.

 

[copland]

Voco proTatiano

The value of a time capsule is that it helps to gives a time line for alterations to the text.
The Harmonized Gospel that Victor attributes to Tatian:
1/ Omits the tale of the adulteress,(accepted into the canon post AD 200),
2/ Omits Matthew 16: 2-3, ‘Red sky at night’,(missing from ancient Eastern documents, and geographically, only accurately applicable in Northern UK),
3/ Reverses the verdict on the two sons in the vineyard, to accord with Stuttgart, and with Roman, and military law, thus mocking the pro-Roman quislings,
4/ Restores the missing 100 to the 60 furlongs, (stadia), between Jerusalem and Emmaus. 160 furlongs is 20 miles, a stiff, but not impossible evenings forced march, easily achieved in bright moonlight in the time between sunset and midnight, to a people well used to traveling on foot.
I never ceased to be amazed at tales of farm-workers and apprentices walking ten miles to work every morning, to arrive by seven in the morning, but that was the rule in the nineteenth century here in UK.

Most variants are 99.9% of the time supported by other manuscripts and not supported by others. Such as Matt. 16:1-2 is supported by Ephreami Rescriptus, Codex Bezae, Codex Cyprius, Codex Regis, Codex N, Codex W, etc etc, and it is not supported by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Codex X, etc etc. Plus there are some ancient versions such as the Peshitta and some Coptic that support it and then some the other way around too, and also some very ancient Fathers who support it and an Armenian version of Origen that does not support it. You run into these type of variants because no 2 ancient manuscripts are pefectly identical. But this is where we as Catholic’s are able to rely upon the the authority of the Catholic Church to reveal to us what is reliable and not reliable as Sacred Scripture, the same Church and the same authority that determined what writings were canonical and what was not.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Copland

My guess was that it would be “tupos.”

I cannot thank you enough for your help!

I have a list of questions, I do not expect you to tackle any of them. I do not expect you to tackle all of them. But if you would like to answer one now and one or two later. BEAUTIFUL.

Now for a tougher one: What do the Fathers says Moses actually envisioned–the Word or a copy of the Word? What?

Also, you may tackle any of these crazy questions.

Back in October of 06, I asked you questions about God’s love and fire. Your answers were great. But it sounded like you had a lot more to offer. The questions are in the late 20s of this thread.

Also, have the Fathers created a list of elementary principle biblical symbols? Let me give an example: tree, ground, earth, sun, moon, light, fire and so forth. Then did they explain their literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical meanings?

These are just a few of the questions for any person who reads this page, but especially for Copland and Voco pro Tatiano.

Again, I cannot tell you how much help you are.

 

[copland]

Seamus,

I was curious, have you gotten any of my emails, I sent you some of the commentaries that I have made, and an interlienar that I am working on. I was just wondering if they have come out ok on your computer because I sent them on a microsoft word document.

Now for a tougher one: What do the Fathers says Moses actually envisioned–the Word or a copy of the Word? What?

The Fathers don’t seem to understand Moses as seeing some type of Revelation as St. John did, but more like God spoke to him in person. St. Basil said this,

God taught his servant (Moses) when He spoke to him in person without riddles.

St. John Chrysostom said this,

The blessed author, being born many generations after the event, was guided by the Deity on High and judged worthy to narrate what had been created by the Lord of all from the very beginning… Since we therefore listen to these words not as the words of Moses but as the words of God of all things, coming to us through the tongue of Moses.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

I hope our email is fixed by tomorrow, 1-8-08.

I am sure that they will appear then.

Oh, I have word. They should open okay. But the emails or down for a day or two.

I shall let you know as soon as they are up and running.

THANKS!

 

[copland]

Seamus

Also, have the Fathers created a list of elementary principle biblical symbols? Let me give an example: tree, ground, earth, sun, moon, light, fire and so forth. Then did they explain their literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical meanings?

This is a question that may take some time, because I am sure that they are scattered throughout the writings of the Fathers and Doctors, it would require some time to sift through and organize them into a list of some sort. The problem arises that each word is used many time through Scripture and can signify so many things based upon the context of the passage, especially so according to the Fathers It would require a word search in the Fathers and Scripture. For example, you have “tree” at the first of your list. St. Augustine talks about a Tree in Psalm 1:3

That “tree” then, that is, our Lord, from the running streams of water, that is, from the sinful people’s drawing them by the way into the roots of His discipline, will “bring forth fruit,” that is, will establish Churches; “in His season,” that is, after He has been glorified by His Resurrection and Ascension into heaven.

Cassiodorus says much the same

As I see it, the Lord Christ is well compared to a fruit-bearing tree because of the cross which He took up for the salvation of men.

The tree in Psalm 1:3 would no doubt have a different meanign than the “good tree” mentioned in Matt. 7:17. Each word you mentioned would does not have a universal meaning throughout the Bible, context is key ot this question.