Scholars Corner

[copland]

Seamus

I believe that In The Beginning is speaking about the Word. I got the idea from the early Church.

Do this sound correct?

You are in good company, Origen said this in his Homilies on Genesis

“Scripture is not speaking of any temporal beginning, but it says that the heavens and the earth and all things that were made were made ‘in the beginning,’ that is, in the Savior.”

St. Augustine said in his work on the Trinity about Christ (bk 1 chp 12:24,

For, according to the form of God, He is the beginning, that also speaks unto us, in which “beginning” God created the heaven and the earth;

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I believe that In The Beginning is speaking about the Word. I got the idea from the early Church.

Do this sound correct?

Hi Seamus,
‘Word’ is not a very good translation of either ‘Logos’ or ‘Verbum’.
The essence of the meaning seems to be close to ‘logical principle’, so it might be better to retain the Greek word.

Thanks!!

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.

Remember, in the source language, as in some English usage, Earth, World, and Universe are all synonyms.
The rather poor literal translation you are using is hiding this from you. If you find Douay to be too obscure, then I reccommend KJV, or failing that RSVCE.
Remember too that ‘Abyss’ should not be literally understood as a water mass, but merely as an unfathomable depth. This concept is not purely attributable to water, or even concrete entities, but can refer to mysteries.

St. John 1: 1 In the beginning (arch?) was the Word,

in principio erat Verbum

and the Word was with God,

et Verbum erat apud Deum

and the Word was God.

et Deus erat Verbum
There is a problem here with the Latin, in as much as it is impossible with any certainty to determine which of ‘Deus’ and ‘Verbum’ is the subject of ‘erat’, and which is the nominative predicate. This is because, in Latin, as in English, there is no direct object for the verb ‘to be’
I beleive this also to be the case in Greek, but I have no certainty.
In English, the differentiation is made by position alone, but in Latin, word position is variable, as declension normally carries this information, however, here it fails.
So for want of better marker, position is all we have, and position make ‘Deus’ the subject, so ‘Verbum’ is the nominative predicate.
So read not ‘The Word was God.’ but rather ‘God was the Word.’
Actually the essence of the Latin is ‘God and the Word were One and The Same.’

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, “arch?”, I think.

Latin also uses ‘in principio’ in both places.

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.

Revelation 1: 8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “the one who is and who was and who is to come, the almighty.”

Revelation 21: 6 He said to me, "They are accomplished. I (am) the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give a gift from the spring of life-giving water.”

Revelation 22: 12 “Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning (arch?) and the end.”

St. John 8: 25 So they said to him, “Who are you?” Jesus said to them, "What I told you from the beginning (arch?).

There was a misprint in the Latin read by Douay, where ‘quia’ : ‘that’ became ‘qui’ : ‘who’, and this toally confused the sentence.
Here is the corrected Latin:
Dicebant ergo ei: tu quis es? Dixit eis Ihesus: principium (est), quia** et loquor vobis.
Which now translates thus:
They said therefore to him: Who art thou? Jesus said to them:
The first thing (is) that** also I speak unto you.

• Latin commonly omits this verb, I have inserted it for clarity.
  **Here ‘that’ is placed where you find ‘who’. The former makes sense, the latter does not, for as you see, Our Lord then goes on to upbraid his tormentors.
  This new translation is dependant upon the work of H J Schonfeld’s ‘The Original New Testament’ ISBN 0-947752-20-X

26 I have much to say about you in condemnation. But the one who sent me is true, and what I heard from him I tell the world." (The Latin translations of St. Augustine’s time reads: “I AM the Beginning.”)

Revelation 1: 17 When I caught sight of him, I fell down at his feet as though dead. He touched me with his right hand and said, "Do not be afraid. I am the first and the last, 18 the one who lives. Once I was dead, but now I am alive forever and ever. I hold the keys to death and the netherworld.

 

[copland]

Voco proTatiano

et Deus erat Verbum
There is a problem here with the Latin, in as much as it is impossible with any certainty to determine which of ‘Deus’ and ‘Verbum’ is the subject of ‘erat’, and which is the nominative predicate. This is because, in Latin, as in English, there is no direct object for the verb ‘to be’
I beleive this also to be the case in Greek, but I have no certainty.

I can add something here, I am a Greek translator. The Greek reads KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS. Greek does have definate articles, but does not have indefinate articles. LOGOS has the definate article hO which indicates that LOGOS is the subject. QEOS is thrown foward without the article, which stresses its basic quality. A sense for sense translation would be “and the Word was Divine.” Word order in Greek is like Latin, its only for emphasis, and the emphasis is to identify the Word with God, that is, QEOS is the Word’s quality.

 

[copland]

Voco proTatiano

Hi Seamus,
‘Word’ is not a very good translation of either ‘Logos’ or ‘Verbum’.
The essence of the meaning seems to be close to ‘logical principle’, so it might be better to retain the Greek word.
Quote:

Thanks!!

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.
Remember, in the source language, as in some English usage, Earth, World, and Universe are all synonyms.
The rather poor literal translation you are using is hiding this from you. If you find Douay to be too obscure, then I reccommend KJV, or failing that RSVCE.

Seamus seems to be quoting the NAB. The Douay is faithful to the Vulgate which is reliable to the Hebrew that Jerome translated from. Here is the Douay " In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters." I am a Septuagint man myself, and here is my translation of it from the LXX. “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and without form, and darkness was over the abyss, and the Spirit of God hovered over the water.”

 

[Seamus_Sully]

I cannot thank you enough, both of you.

I am going to have to study what both of you are saying.

I will be back soon.

Again, I cannot thank you enough, both of you.

THANKS!

 

[Seamus_Sully]

These are the basic prinicples that I am using:

1. The creation account are inspired.
2. The creation account use symbolic or figurative language.
3. All those figures have literal meanings.
4. I am using the Hebrew and Greek word as it is found in other biblical passages to see what the literal meaning of figure might be.
5. I believe all of the other official teaching to the Church concerning the creation accounts.
6. I am taking my ideas from Doctors and Fathers of the Church.

These are the basic principles that I am using.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

I am pondering the early Church teaching that all things were created on one Day. The division into seven is for our understanding.

[Also, Is the Word The Light and therefore The Day? Well, I will ask that question later.]

Thanks!

Genesis 1: 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” Thus evening came, and morning followed—the first day.

Genesis 2: 4 These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground (KJV).

Sirach 18: 1 God created all things together (A translation at the time of St. Augustine).

 

[copland]

Seamus,

Much of Creation account can be taken literal as well as symbolically. Do you agree? Do you believe that there are more than one sense to most of every figure? I try to apply some basic principles of the Church and St. Augustine to Scripture, understanding that Scripture can be understood as historical, etiological- explanation why something was done, analogical-when a passage is in harmony with another passage or passages, allegorical- the spiritual sense such as prefigurements or just types. St. Augustine coined these principles, and the Church has developed the senses of Scripture as we find in the Catechism. The Catechism speaks of the moral sense, such as ‘how does it apply to you’, and anagogical sense which is like prefigurements but instead of something of the OT prefiguring something of the NT, it is something of the NT prefiguring some of the future glory.

I was just wondering if you are only interest in the spiritual senses right now, or if you hold the position that the Creation account is only to be taken allegorically?

 

[copland]

Seamus,

1. I am using the Hebrew and Greek word as it is found in other biblical passages to see what the literal meaning of figure might be.

If you need any help with the Greek words then let me know, I am sure I can assist you there. I have taken Hebrew but I don’t keep up with it like I should, but I could try with it also. I have access to the Dead Sea Scrolls text, Masoretic Text, and the Aramaic Peshitta. I have 4 different editions of the Greek Septuagint, so just let me know if you need any help in the language department.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

I most certainly believe in all four senses of Scripture.

I most certainly believe in a literal sense of Creation.

As the Church clearly teaches, the literal sense is the starting point.

I am primarily interested in the literal sense.

I do not know if I understand the the relationship between literal and spiritual senses.

I do not know if I understand the relationship with symbolic language of the creation accounts and the literal meaning.

I am not sure if I understand the relationship between all three of them at once.

Also, I would think that a literal meaning of the arm of God is God’s power–this is spiritual literal meaning. This is not a physical literal meaning.

As of now, I understand it in this manner: The accounts are written in symbolic language.

The symbolic language has a literal meaning.

In the Beginning is symbolic.

The literal senses of it is the Word.

The allegorical meaning is: The Word became flesh.

The moral: we too can create goodness with God’s love poured into our new hearts.

The anagogical: the heavenly liturgy.

Let me yell, I do not know if I am correct. I am not sure at all.

I am sorry if this is all confusing. I find it most difficult to explain. I am not a scholar. I am a student.

I have many questions about the languages. I would love to know what words the LXX uses for breastplate. Does the LXX use the same word as St. Paul for breastplate? I think that it would be most important in the intrinsic and extrinsic justification.

I think that LXX and St. John use the same word for beginning. Am I correct?

Yes. I will make good use of the talents that God so generously gave you.

 

[copland]

I have many questions about the languages. I would love to know what words the LXX uses for breastplate. Does the LXX use the same word as St. Paul for breastplate? I think that it would be most important in the intrinsic and extrinsic justification.

St. Paul uses QWRAKA-thoraka in Ephesians 6:14, and according to the Oxford Greek dictionary it means "breastplate.’ The lexical word is QWRAX. The LXX uses QWRAKA in 1 Samuel 17:5, 2 Chron. 26:14, Job 41:18, Isa. 59:17, Jeremiah 26:4, and Ezek. 38:4. The Greek NT uses it in 1 Thess. 5:8, twice in Rev. 9:9, and Rev. 9:17.

Here is a link to an English translation of the LXX. ccel.org/bible/brenton/

Here is another one that is fairly new, it is very good. ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/ Some of the translators and the editor have helped me work on my latest interlinear of the Old Greek version of Daniel.

 

[copland]

I think that LXX and St. John use the same word for beginning. Am I correct?

Yes. In fact that is a very common Greek word. It is ARXH, the Oxford Greek Dictionary has, beginning, origin, cause, motive, principle, element, leadership, power, rule, magistrate…

 

[copland]

In the Beginning is symbolic.

Well, this is where we may be able to apply the different senses of Scripture. St. Basil understands the “beginning” literally, in a very simplistic way, Basil said,

“In the beginning God created”; that is to say, in the beginning of time. He only wishes to tell us that, after the invisible and intellectual world, the visible world, the world of the sense, began to exist."

But St. Augustine and Origen go for a much deeper and spiritual meaning, and that is the Beginning is Christ the Word. Both are correct! This is why St. Gregory said this, “Scripture by the manner of its speech transcends every science, because in one and the same sentence, while it describes a fact, it reveals a mystery.”

 

[Seamus_Sully]

I cannot thank you enough for you constant help.

Concerning the word light in the first chatper of Genesis: Does the LXX and St. John’s Gospel use the same Greek word?

Thanks!

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Concerning the word shepherd in Psalm 23: Does the LXX and St. Luke use the same Greek word? This is for the shepherds that visit the child Jesus and the Parable about the Good Shepherd. Also, Jesus says He is the Good Shepherd.

Again, I cannot thank you enough for you zeal and help!

 

[copland]

Seamus,

I cannot thank you enough for you constant help.

It is my pleasure, totally. Time has been on my side lately, so I am able to devote the time to enjoy being envolved in these discussions.

Concerning the word light in the first chatper of Genesis: Does the LXX and St. John’s Gospel use the same Greek word?

Yes, exactly the same word and inflection. Here it is, I don’t know if your computer will recognize the Greek font or not, let me know how it looks on you computer. The Greek word is FWS.

Gen 1:1 kai eipen o qeoV genhqhtw fwV kai egeneto fwV

John 1:4 en autw zwh hn kai h zwh hn to fwV twn anqrwpwn

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Concerning the word shepherd in Psalm 23: Does the LXX and St. Luke use the same Greek word? This is for the shepherds that visit the child Jesus and the Parable about the Good Shepherd. Also, Jesus says He is the Good Shepherd.

Again, I cannot thank you enough for you zeal and help!

Hi Seamus,
Let me offer you a couple of links:
septuagint.org/LXX/
and:
ecmarsh.com/lxx/
The first is actually the Greek text, the second gives you an English translation of the Greek.
So, in Greek, as in the Vulgate, this is listed as
Psalm 22:

1/ ψαλμος τω Δαυιδ
κυριος ποιμαινει με
και ουδεν με υστερησει

2/ εις τοπον χλοης εκει με κατεσκηνωσεν επι υδατος αναπαυσεως εξεθρεψεν
με

3/ την ψυχην μου επεστρεψεν ωδηγησεν με επι τριβους δικαιοσυνης ενεκεν
του ονοματος αυτου

4/ εαν γαρ και πορευθω εν μεσω σκιας θανατου ου φοβηθησομαι
κακα οτι συ μετ’ εμου ει η ραβδος σου και
η βακτηρια σου αυται με παρεκαλεσαν

5/ ητοιμασας ενωπιον μου τραπεζαν εξ εναντιας των θλιβοντων με ελιπανας
εν ελαιω την κεφαλην μου και το ποτηριον σου μεθυσκον
ως κρατιστον

6/ και το ελεος σου καταδιωξεται με πασας τας ημερας της
ζωης μου και το κατοικειν με εν οικω κυριου εις
μακροτητα ημερων

Whereas in English, as
Psalm 23
A Psalm of David.

1/ The Lord tends me as a shepherd,
and I shall want nothing.

2/ In a place of green grass,
there he has made me dwell:
he has nourished me by the water of rest.

3/ He has restored my soul:
he has guided me into the paths of righteousness,
for his name’s sake.

4/ Yea, even if I should walk in the midst of the shadow of death,
I will not be afraid of evils:
for thou art with me;
thy rod and thy staff,
these have comforted me.

5/ Thou has prepared a table before me in presence of them that afflict me:
thou hast thoroughly anointed my head with oil;
and thy cup cheers me like the best wine.

6/ Thy mercy also shall follow me
all the days of my life:
and my dwelling shall be in the house of the Lord
for a very long time.

I have reformatted the English to match modern interpretation of line breaks, the Greek however, is beyond me after verse one.

 

[copland]

Concerning the word shepherd in Psalm 23: Does the LXX and St. Luke use the same Greek word? This is for the shepherds that visit the child Jesus and the Parable about the Good Shepherd. Also, Jesus says He is the Good Shepherd.

Yes, though in Psalm 23 it is a participle while in Luke it is a noun. The lexical word for the participle is poimainw while the noun is poimhn. Here are the Greek verses. Again, I don’t know if your computer will read the Greek font.

Ps. 23:1 yalmoV tw dauid kurioV poimainei me kai ouden me usterhsei

Luke 2:15 kai egeneto wV aphlqon ap autwn eiV ton ouranon oi aggeloi oi poimeneV elaloun proV allhlouV dielqwmen dh ewV bhqleem kai idwmen to rhma touto to gegonoV o o kurioV egnwrisen hmin

And for the good Shepherd in John 10:11. it is a noun as Luke uses it, but in John it is singular while in Luke it is plural. Notice how it is inflected differently.

John 10:11 egw eimi o poimhn o kaloV o poimhn o kaloV thn yuchn autou tiqhsin uper twn probatwn

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Thanks for the links.

Thanks for the answers.

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?

Again, thanks!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Thanks for the links.

Thanks for the answers.

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?

Again, thanks!

Hi,
I can’t read Greek either. Transliterating the script is hard enough!
Important in what sense? 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.
The point still remains, the actual word used in the translation gives no guarantee of the original word used by the original author.
What we do know is Our Lord was very fond of the psalms of David, and was very wont to quote from them, even in extremis.
David started out as a shepherd, and became a great king. In psalm 2, he claims that G_d acknowledged him as His son. The difference is in Our Lord’s case, the acknowledgement was public, while in David’s case it was in private. The same verb, ‘to beget’ is used in both cases to mean ‘to acknowledge’.