"Supersubstantial Bread"?

[COPLAND_3]

Continue…

Note that under the term bread, by a Hebraism, whatsoever is necessary for food, clothing, habitation, and the life both of the body and the soul, is sought for. “We ask for a sufficiency,” says S. Augustine (Epist. 121). “By the word bread we mean everything.”

 

[BklynTony]

Continue…

Note that under the term bread, by a Hebraism, whatsoever is necessary for food, clothing, habitation, and the life both of the body and the soul, is sought for. “We ask for a sufficiency,” says S. Augustine (Epist. 121). “By the word bread we mean everything.”

How about putting that in a nutshell…I might read it then.
Some rules here is to keep it reasonaly short and plagiarism is just not right…lol
Tony

 

[COPLAND_3]

-]/-]

How about putting that in a nutshell…I might read it then.
Some rules here is to keep it reasonaly short and plagiarism is just not right…lol
Tony

Its worth the 3-4 minutes to read, even for us who have grown up in a microwave society! Haha!

 

[BklynTony]

-]/-]

Its worth the 3-4 minutes to read, even for us who have grown up in a microwave society! Haha!

.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Your thoughts are fascinating , but not entirely total in content. Latin was the language of the Romans, the street language was Aramaic(which is most likely what Jesus spoke most often) Hebrew was Temple language(much like Latin is for Catholics today) and Greek was the language of commerce.Greek was extremely important since so many people from various places did trade. Any merchant wanting to make a living would most certainly know at least enough Greek to conduct business.
Jesus being a carpenter would most probably know enough of the above languages to get by in his world.
Speaking more than one language during the time of Jesus was quite common. It is like going to certain parts of Miami and not learning many words in Spanish…it just happens in one’s every day life.
Be Blessed
Tony

Hi Tony,

I don’t disagree with what you stated above, I just took issue with the earlier claim that Latin was relatively unknown. Three Gospels say Latin was posted on the Cross for people to read. As well as Hebrew and Greek. It was definitely a polyglot society, as you point out above, although I don’t think clean lines can be drawn.

 

[ronyodish]

As always that is the question we ask what was the language Matthew wrote and whatever word was used(some words have different meanings) what was his intent. Your telling me of this Peshitta text is only an example of someone else’s translation from a source not confirmed as original.
I have heard the word needy used frequently and I guess it is as good as any we read in the gospel today.
Thank you
Tony

Tony,

The Peshitta text is the official Biblical text of my Aramaic-speaking Chaldean Catholic Church of the East (in full communion with Rome). It is also the official text of the separated Assyrian Church of the East.

God bless,

Rony

 

[BklynTony]

Tony,

The Peshitta text is the official Biblical text of my Aramaic-speaking Chaldean Catholic Church of the East (in full communion with Rome). It is also the official text of the separated Assyrian Church of the East.

God bless,

Rony

First let me say it is a pleasure to meet you here on Catholic Answer website. I have a great deal of respect for the eastern rite churches in full communion with the Pope. I also believe there is so much to learn from the eastern rites of out faith and I am so interested in learning more.
The question at hand is FIRST what Language did Matthew write and second, for what purpose and what audience. I have to suppose The Peshitta text is a translation from some other language and with due respect becomes a mute point for the conversation.
If Matthew wrote in Greek and he used the words EPI OUSIA and the Latin Vulgate comes from the Greek and so on and so on til the PESHITA text is formed…all the same questions exist. From where did the PESHITA come and when?
Thank you for sharing and also to you God’s Blessing
Tony

 

[irenaeuslyons]

First let me say it is a pleasure to meet you here on Catholic Answer website. I have a great deal of respect for the eastern rite churches in full communion with the Pope. I also believe there is so much to learn from the eastern rites of out faith and I am so interested in learning more.
The question at hand is FIRST what Language did Matthew write and second, for what purpose and what audience. I have to suppose The Peshitta text is a translation from some other language and with due respect becomes a mute point for the conversation.
If Matthew wrote in Greek and he used the words EPI OUSIA and the Latin Vulgate comes from the Greek and so on and so on til the PESHITA text is formed…all the same questions exist. From where did the PESHITA come and when?
Thank you for sharing and also to you God’s Blessing
Tony

There is good evidence from the many split words that the Peshitta was before the Greek. I would not be too eager to discount it because of the bias coming from modern scholarship.

 

[COPLAND_3]

As for which language did Matthew write it in, I have believed for a long time that he and many other Biblical authors wrote their accounts in more than one language, and multiple times. Why would they just write one copy of something so important and distribute it in an area where there were numerous languages spoken in such a small area of the map? Those places where some scholars say that there are additions or omissions, those all could be original, but added by the same author in another copy. Why do we assume that the authors before the invention of the printing press limited themselves to just one copy? Greek was a trade language which most people spoke, and those in the area where the Lord and the Apostles were, also spoke Aramaic. And the teachers of the Law and different sects preserved Hebrew, as we see among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Other than epistles written specifically for one person, group or congregation, it only seems logical to me that the authors may have written in more than one language and more than one copy. Just a thought.

 

[NHInsider]

As for which language did Matthew write it in, I have believed for a long time that he and many other Biblical authors wrote their accounts in more than one language, and multiple times. Why would they just write one copy of something so important and distribute it in an area where there were numerous languages spoken in such a small area of the map?

Just a thought.

This is an extremely important point. (It’s funny how we unconsciously impose modern reality on the ancient world . . . obviously none of us, if asked, would have said we think that the first-century Christians were all reading identical copies of the New Testament - but we often act as if we think that.)

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I’ve always heard that Matthew wrote originally in Aramaic.

If that is true–I wonder if Matthew also wrote a translation later in Greek?

I don’t agree with modern scholars who think that the apostles were nearly all illiterate.

I think they knew a little bit of Greek and Latin as well as Hebrew and Aramaic.

I’m not saying they were great with all those languages but I think they did know a little bit of Greek and Latin.

I think that in translating that one should always CONSIDER what words Jesus would have used when He was teaching–what Aramaic words would He have used?

I’m not saying that that consideration should trump Greek or Latin–but I think it should be considered.

I wonder if there are any Aramic scholars who believe that the Peshitta could be improved?

 

[ronyodish]

First let me say it is a pleasure to meet you here on Catholic Answer website. I have a great deal of respect for the eastern rite churches in full communion with the Pope. I also believe there is so much to learn from the eastern rites of out faith and I am so interested in learning more.

Thanks Tony.

The question at hand is FIRST what Language did Matthew write and second, for what purpose and what audience.

I take the opinion that St. Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Aramaic to the Jewish audience for the purpose of declaring that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah, who has come to fulfill the Law and the Prophets.

I am also not opposed to the opinion that St. Matthew may have written in multiple languages in addition to the Aramaic, most notably, Greek. We are told in Acts, chapter 2, that when the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles, they began to speak in different languages, and that all kinds of different people were there receiving the Gospel in their own native languages. So, if the Gospel was being proclaimed orally in different languages by the power of the Holy Spirit, then I can also see it being written in different languages by the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit.

I have to suppose The Peshitta text is a translation from some other language and with due respect becomes a mute point for the conversation.

In Scripture scholarship, the majority opinion is known as the Greek primacy, which holds that Greek was the original written language of the New Testament, and that all other translations are based on it. There is a minority opinion known as Aramaic primacy, which holds that Aramaic is the original language and that all others are based on it. There is also a subset of Aramaic primacy known as Peshitta primacy, which holds that the Peshitta text is the original text and that everyone else’s text is based on it. And finally, there is the multiple languages opinion, which holds that many different languages are simultaneously prime, produced by the same Apostle.

Unfortunately, no one has the original autographs of the New Testament, the original scrolls penned by the Apostles, either because they got lost or got destroyed by the enemies of the Church. Therefore, scholarship will never be able to know with 100% certainty which language was indeed the very first language written. And that’s ok, because since we are not Sola Scriptura Christians, then this question of primacy or originality becomes less of an issue, considering that we have Holy Tradition and the Holy Church to guide us.

So, all I can say is that as an Assyro-Chaldean Catholic, an Aramaic Catholic, who regards the Aramaic language as our official and common language that connects us directly back to the time, culture, and common daily life of the 1st century Apostolic Church, that the Peshitta Aramaic text is the New Testament that we look to for the teachings of the Gospel, and by the Tradition and Communion of the Catholic Church, we are guided to a proper understanding of the Gospel.

If Matthew wrote in Greek and he used the words EPI OUSIA and the Latin Vulgate comes from the Greek and so on and so on til the PESHITA text is formed…all the same questions exist. From where did the PESHITA come and when?

So, if Greek is indeed the original of the New Testament, and the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament is translated from the Greek, then the formation or translation of the Peshitta must have been done early on by the Aramaic Fathers of the Church, probably at Edessa, and probably within the 2nd to 5th centuries.

God bless,

Rony

 

[BklynTony]

Thanks Tony.

I take the opinion that St. Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Aramaic to the Jewish audience for the purpose of declaring that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah, who has come to fulfill the Law and the Prophets.

I am also not opposed to the opinion that St. Matthew may have written in multiple languages in addition to the Aramaic, most notably, Greek. We are told in Acts, chapter 2, that when the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles, they began to speak in different languages, and that all kinds of different people were there receiving the Gospel in their own native languages. So, if the Gospel was being proclaimed orally in different languages by the power of the Holy Spirit, then I can also see it being written in different languages by the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit.

In Scripture scholarship, the majority opinion is known as the Greek primacy, which holds that Greek was the original written language of the New Testament, and that all other translations are based on it. There is a minority opinion known as Aramaic primacy, which holds that Aramaic is the original language and that all others are based on it. There is also a subset of Aramaic primacy known as Peshitta primacy, which holds that the Peshitta text is the original text and that everyone else’s text is based on it. And finally, there is the multiple languages opinion, which holds that many different languages are simultaneously prime, produced by the same Apostle.

Unfortunately, no one has the original autographs of the New Testament, the original scrolls penned by the Apostles, either because they got lost or got destroyed by the enemies of the Church. Therefore, scholarship will never be able to know with 100% certainty which language was indeed the very first language written. And that’s ok, because since we are not Sola Scriptura Christians, then this question of primacy or originality becomes less of an issue, considering that we have Holy Tradition and the Holy Church to guide us.

So, all I can say is that as an Assyro-Chaldean Catholic, an Aramaic Catholic, who regards the Aramaic language as our official and common language that connects us directly back to the time, culture, and common daily life of the 1st century Apostolic Church, that the Peshitta Aramaic text is the New Testament that we look to for the teachings of the Gospel, and by the Tradition and Communion of the Catholic Church, we are guided to a proper understanding of the Gospel.

So, if Greek is indeed the original of the New Testament, and the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament is translated from the Greek, then the formation or translation of the Peshitta must have been done early on by the Aramaic Fathers of the Church, probably at Edessa, and probably within the 2nd to 5th centuries.

God bless,

Rony

I thank you for your insight fulness and the brief lesson in that bible theory. I enjoy reading it and found it most interesting. As you said there are no originals of Matthew writings and what you have writtien is as good as any possiblies I have read or heard.
Thank you
and God Bless
Tony

Question…In your Eucharist practice what is the form and method of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ ?
And is called by any particular name( the way received)?
Thank you

 

[ronyodish]

Question…In your Eucharist practice what is the form and method of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ ?
And is called by any particular name( the way received)?
Thank you

Tony,

The current practice of receiving in the Chaldean Catholic Church, at least how it is done in my eparchy/diocese, is by Intinction, that is, by using an unleavened Host dipped into the Cup, and then placed by the priest/deacon onto the communicant’s tongue, who approaches the altar standing.

Some of our eparchies continue to use a practice that is very similar to the current widespread practice of the Latin/Roman Catholic Church. The communicant is given the unleavened Host standing, either on the tongue, or in the hand with the fingers used to pickup the Host. The only difference is that, unlike the Roman practice, the Cup in not given in these eparchies, only the Host.

A more traditional practice that is kind of unique to our Assyro-Chaldean tradition, but is currently mostly preserved by the Assyrian Church, goes like this: The communicant approaches the altar standing, and first purifies his hands with the Holy Incense. The priest then places a leavened Host onto the communicant’s hand, and the communicant is then supposed to bow down and pick up the Host with his tongue. After that, the communicant is given the Cup to drink. I’m not aware of any particular name by which this traditional practice is called.

Everyone who approaches is supposed to make the sign of the cross before and/or after receiving. The women who come up to receive are veiled; at least, that is the traditional practice.

God bless,

Rony