Was the Virgin Birth a mistranslation?

[JerryZ]

Really? So no early father peppered their letters with Scripture? That’s why no Scripture is read during the Mass? That’s why there isn’t a plenary indulgence available for the pious reading of Scripture?
I’m not sure where you’re getting your information - the study of Scripture is essential to learning the Faith. Catechesis supplements that.
There are at least 40 universities still in operation that date to before 1500 (the oldest of those dating to 1088), each of them founded by the Church. The Society of Jesus was formed in 1540. Pretty impressive, to have promoted education almost 500 years before they were founded.

But you know what the typical response is right?

“Hey don’t confuse the issue with facts!”

There is no worse blind than the one who refuses to see!

Only the Holy Spirit can open the hearts, let’s pray He gives light to the blind.

–

 

[nmgauss]

Really? So no early father peppered their letters with Scripture? That’s why no Scripture is read during the Mass? That’s why there isn’t a plenary indulgence available for the pious reading of Scripture?

I am referring to the Church as it existed at the time of Martin Luther. What the Church does today is not the same as what was done then when people were burned at the stake for heresy. Today, there is an expectation that people can read Scripture. But this expectation was unrealistic in the early 1500’s, so Scripture had to be read aloud by priests.

How can an illiterate person read Scripture? A priest could pretend to read the Scripture to an illiterate parishioner and he/she would not know any difference. Because there were no printed copies of Scripture before about 1450, it is unrealistic to assume that parishioners had easy access to Scripture to read? Besides, books were very expensive and so precious that the Church had to protect the ones they had.

I’m not sure where you’re getting your information - the study of Scripture is essential to learning the Faith. Catechesis supplements that.

There are at least 40 universities still in operation that date to before 1500 (the oldest of those dating to 1088), each of them founded by the Church. The Society of Jesus was formed in 1540. Pretty impressive, to have promoted education almost 500 years before they were founded.

And what were they originally teaching? Arithmetic, Astronomy, Geometry, and Music. This was the Aristotelian model that was promulgated through the efforts of Arabic Muslims such as Avicenna who had translated Greek into Arabic. Once professors learned Arabic, they could spew their “pearls of wisdom” to their students. By the end of the 12th century, much of the Arabic text was translated into Latin. But how were the students going to get printed copies of this text? Almost three hundred years had to pass before printed literature became available.

Illustrations of medieval universities show professors on elevated podiums as if in ivory towers, spewing out their “pearls of wisdom”. Again. books were extremely expensive, most of the students were likely soaking up whatever the professor was dishing out similar to how the Nazis and Fascists spread their “pearls of wisdom”. Martin Luther was professor of theology in 1512-1517 at the University of Wittenburg until he posted his 95 theses and was promptly excommunicated.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I am referring to the Church as it existed at the time of Martin Luther. What the Church does today is not the same as what was done then when people were burned at the stake for heresy.

Yes, the protestant churches as well as the Catholic Church had been involved in this at the time of Luther.

Today, there is an expectation that people can read Scripture. But this expectation was unrealistic in the early 1500’s, so Scripture had to be read aloud by priests.

Yes.

How can an illiterate person read Scripture? A priest could pretend to read the Scripture to an illiterate parishioner and he/she would not know any difference.

Do you have any actual references that such a thing had occurred?

Because there were no printed copies of Scripture before about 1450, it is unrealistic to assume that parishioners had easy access to Scripture to read? Besides, books were very expensive and so precious that the Church had to protect the ones they had.

Yes. Until the famous Catholic, Johannes Gutenberg, invented the printing press.

And what were they originally teaching? Arithmetic, Astronomy, Geometry, and Music.

Are you implying that they DIDN’T teach scripture and theology?
Do you have a source for this?

Martin Luther was professor of theology in 1512-1517 at the University of Wittenburg until he posted his 95 theses and was promptly excommunicated.

“Promptly” excommunicated? 4 years later?

 

[zz912]

In the early days of the Catholic Church very few people could read. Even many priests and bishops were illiterate. Thus they could be influenced to believe anything the
Church wanted them to believe. If it appealed to the emotional sensibilities of the parish, it was likely to be welcomed. The Bible was not the authority, the Church was. That is how indulgences could be sold to the uninformed.

I’d like a citation for this claim that many priests and bishops were illiterate. Considering that we have descriptions of the Mass from the second century, and those descriptions tell of the readings of Scripture during Mass, I’d like to know how that was done when no one could read Scripture?

I’m not sure you really know what you are talking about here. Universal literacy among the priesthood was almost a requirement simply because the Mass demands literacy. Either the priest, deacon, or bishop has to read the Gospel at Mass. Where did you get your information that this opinion is based upon?

 

[nmgauss]

I’d like a citation for this claim that many priests and bishops were illiterate. Considering that we have descriptions of the Mass from the second century, and those descriptions tell of the readings of Scripture during Mass, I’d like to know how that was done when no one could read Scripture?

I’m not sure you really know what you are talking about here. Universal literacy among the priesthood was almost a requirement simply because the Mass demands literacy. Either the priest, deacon, or bishop has to read the Gospel at Mass. Where did you get your information that this opinion is based upon?

the-orb.net/textbooks/westciv/medievalsoc.html

“Within the priesthood was a tremendous range of social standing. A village priest might be only a local village boy who was sent off to a monastery to learn his duties, as poor as his parishoners. On the other hand, a bishop was also a priest, and he might be the son of a nobleman, wealthy and powerful. A priest might be illiterate, though literacy was higher in the clergy than in the general population.”

thefinertimes.com/Middle-Ages/priests-in-the-middle-ages.html

“The structure of priesthood, just like in society had hierarchies. The village priest was lower in the hierarchy. He might be just a local boy who went to the monastery to study religion. There often was no difference between the village priest and the parishioners. Higher on the priesthood hierarchy, was the parish priest who oversaw the church and even though he still interacted with the community, he was viewed as having a higher status. Compared to the village priest and the local parishioners, a parish priest would be more educated, but illiterate nevertheless. Sometime the bishop would be the priest in a parish too. Such priests were at the top of the hierarchy as they doubled as priests and bishops; they typically came from the noble families, were more powerful, wealthier and more educated than their counterparts were.”

 

[Hieronymi]

How have we come from, “Was the Virgin Birth a mistranslation?” to obscure citations of “Priests in the Middle Ages”; citations with no references.

Is that the sound of a grinding axe?

 

[zz912]

the-orb.net/textbooks/westciv/medievalsoc.html

“Within the priesthood was a tremendous range of social standing. A village priest might be only a local village boy who was sent off to a monastery to learn his duties, as poor as his parishoners. On the other hand, a bishop was also a priest, and he might be the son of a nobleman, wealthy and powerful. A priest might be illiterate, though literacy was higher in the clergy than in the general population.”

thefinertimes.com/Middle-Ages/priests-in-the-middle-ages.html

“The structure of priesthood, just like in society had hierarchies. The village priest was lower in the hierarchy. He might be just a local boy who went to the monastery to study religion. There often was no difference between the village priest and the parishioners. Higher on the priesthood hierarchy, was the parish priest who oversaw the church and even though he still interacted with the community, he was viewed as having a higher status. Compared to the village priest and the local parishioners, a parish priest would be more educated, but illiterate nevertheless. Sometime the bishop would be the priest in a parish too. Such priests were at the top of the hierarchy as they doubled as priests and bishops; they typically came from the noble families, were more powerful, wealthier and more educated than their counterparts were.”

That is a pretty weak citation, to say the least. Mostly ill-informed opinion of the article writers (and one was clearly borrowing from the other). They simply don’t know what they are talking about. How it can be claimed that someone went to a monastery to study to become a priest, but that person remain illiterate is just stunning. And they admit that the priests perform the sacraments, including Mass. Well how do you do this if you are illiterate? The priest is required to read the Gospel reading.

For a second, let’s assume that your links are even close to true (they aren’t). Even so, that means that only SOME of the priests MIGHT be illiterate. This is VERY different from your claim that MANY priests and bishops were illiterate.

Your entire argument on this point fails. A few illiterate priests would not be nearly enough to complete a gross change in the Christian faith. You have also not answered how this would be carried out uniformly across the entire Christian world, and how it would be accomplished since there would have to be countless numbers of priests who were complicit for 1500 years.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

That is a pretty weak citation, to say the least. Mostly ill-informed opinion of the article writers (and one was clearly borrowing from the other).

Regardless, this is a red herring.
Fine, priests were less educated since there was a huge shortage after the time of the plagues.

But the Church’s doctrines hadn’t changed.

I find this to be a common misconception among protestants: that history stopped at the time of the Apostles and then picked up again in the 15th century.

 

[nmgauss]

That is a pretty weak citation, to say the least. Mostly ill-informed opinion of the article writers (and one was clearly borrowing from the other). They simply don’t know what they are talking about. How it can be claimed that someone went to a monastery to study to become a priest, but that person remain illiterate is just stunning. And they admit that the priests perform the sacraments, including Mass. Well how do you do this if you are illiterate? The priest is required to read the Gospel reading.

For a second, let’s assume that your links are even close to true (they aren’t). Even so, that means that only SOME of the priests MIGHT be illiterate. This is VERY different from your claim that MANY priests and bishops were illiterate.

Your entire argument on this point fails. A few illiterate priests would not be nearly enough to complete a gross change in the Christian faith. You have also not answered how this would be carried out uniformly across the entire Christian world, and how it would be accomplished since there would have to be countless numbers of priests who were complicit for 1500 years.

historyguide.org/ancient/lecture20b.htmlhistoryguide.org/ancient/lecture20b.html

The most durable and significant of all Charlemagne’s efforts was the revival of learning in his kingdom. This was especially so among the clergy, many of whom were barely literate. On the whole, the monks were not much better educated. Even those monks who spent their days copying manuscripts could barely read or understand them. The manuscripts from the 7th and 8th centuries were confusing. They were all written in uppercase letters and without punctuation. There were many errors made in copying and handwriting was poor. There were, however, a few educated monks as well as the beginnings of a few great libraries. But Charlemagne could not find one good copy of the Bible, nor a complete text of the Benedictine Rule. He had to send to Rome for them. Above all, Charlemagne wanted unity in the Frankish Church, a Church wholly under his supervision. Charlemagne, although illiterate as a youth, was devoted to new ideas and to learning. He studied Latin, Greek, rhetoric, logic and astronomy. He wanted to meet an educated man – he was very lucky. He was in northern Italy when he met the Anglo-Saxon scholar, Alcuin.

 

[nmgauss]

A lack of Latin literacy in eighth century western Europe caused problems for the Carolingian rulers by severely limiting the number of people capable of serving as court scribes in societies where Latin was valued. Of even greater concern to some rulers was the fact that not all parish priests possessed the skill to read the Vulgate Bible. An additional problem was that the vulgar Latin of the later Western Roman Empire had begun to diverge into the regional dialects, the precursors to today’s Romance languages, that were becoming mutually unintelligible and preventing scholars from one part of Europe being able to communicate with persons from another part of Europe.

 

[Hieronymi]

The sources being used to support the premise are taken directly from the internet.
Click here
and here.

Are there more original sources that could be cited?

 

[Usagi]

A lack of Latin literacy in eighth century western Europe caused problems for the Carolingian rulers by severely limiting the number of people capable of serving as court scribes in societies where Latin was valued. Of even greater concern to some rulers was the fact that not all parish priests possessed the skill to read the Vulgate Bible. An additional problem was that the vulgar Latin of the later Western Roman Empire had begun to diverge into the regional dialects, the precursors to today’s Romance languages, that were becoming mutually unintelligible and preventing scholars from one part of Europe being able to communicate with persons from another part of Europe.

All right, so this was recognized as an issue as early as the eighth century. That’s eight hundred years before the Reformation – in fact, it’s just slightly closer to the time of Christ Himself than to the Reformation. Did it remain a completely unaddressed problem for the next eight hundred years, or were there efforts to promote priestly literacy by those kings who saw it as a problem?

Further, the eighth century is several hundred years later than the tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity, which existed either during or, at the latest, immediately after the writing of the New Testament since it is taken as a given in the Protevangelium of James. (That’s not Scripture, of course, and may not be a true account of what happened, but it is a historical source as to the antiquity of the belief. Plus, it’s attributed to James the brother of the Lord, meaning that the readers had no difficulty in believing in both Jesus’ Scriptural brothers and in the idea that Mary had no other children.)

Finally, as you yourself point out, the actual physical ability to supply a copy of the Bible to every Christian came about only shortly before the Reformation. Before that, having the local pastor read and preach from the Scriptures to the congregation was in fact the best way to get the knowledge out there. Once the printing press made the wider spread of copies possible, the Catholic Church jumped on that as well. It’s well known that the first thing Gutenberg printed was a Bible. As far as translations, we know the Douay-Rheims (the “old-style” Catholic translation into English, roughly equivalent to the Protestant King James Version) actually predates the KJV by a few years, so the Church didn’t object to the Bible being translated but to its being translated and interpreted by the sorts of people who would use it to spread false doctrine.

Usagi

 

[FathersKnowBest]

A lack of Latin literacy in eighth century western Europe caused problems for the Carolingian rulers by severely limiting the number of people capable of serving as court scribes in societies where Latin was valued. Of even greater concern to some rulers was the fact that not all parish priests possessed the skill to read the Vulgate Bible. An additional problem was that the vulgar Latin of the later Western Roman Empire had begun to diverge into the regional dialects, the precursors to today’s Romance languages, that were becoming mutually unintelligible and preventing scholars from one part of Europe being able to communicate with persons from another part of Europe.

This is not unlike the issue that the Jewish communities faced post-Babylonian exile, which precipitated the writings of the Targums (in Aramaic) and the LXX (in Greek).

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I really have no qualms with Isaiah 7:14 translations reading “Young Woman,” “Maid,”
and so forth, because it’s just like this: YOUNG [Jewish] Woman, in ISRAEL, FIRST
century, BETROTHED, how is this NOT a Virgin?

It’s real lousy when some people attempt to use Isaiah 7:14 to suggest that Mary WASN’T
a Virgin, but when using intelligence, there is no other interpretation of the verse, no matter
how it is translated. “Young Woman,” “Maid,” “Virgin,” they’re all synonyms essentially in
ancient Israel.

Besides, in Mary’s own words, no man has ever touched her.

 

[nmgauss]

A lack of Latin literacy in eighth century western Europe caused problems for the Carolingian rulers by severely limiting the number of people capable of serving as court scribes in societies where Latin was valued. Of even greater concern to some rulers was the fact that not all parish priests possessed the skill to read the Vulgate Bible. An additional problem was that the vulgar Latin of the later Western Roman Empire had begun to diverge into the regional dialects, the precursors to today’s Romance languages, that were becoming mutually unintelligible and preventing scholars from one part of Europe being able to communicate with persons from another part of Europe.

Compounding the problem was that candidates for monasteries were often sponsored by financial supporters, with the expectation that the abbots would accept their illiterate relatives as monks. Admittedly, a monk may be a mendicant (beggar) to obtain money to run the monastery. St. Francis of Assisi did this. However, most monasteries needed outside financial support.

The need was for people who knew Latin. In western Europe, Latin was the language of the learned, and few people knew it. For a person using the vernacular in daily communication, acquiring reading and writing skill in Latin was a tall order.

Even when Latin Scripture was read to parishioners, they could not understand it. Sixty years ago, when I was a child, I remember priests mumbling Latin passages in Mass. I could not understand it, and I doubt few people could. The priest could have been pretending to read Scripture and few people would have known the difference.

 

[Hieronymi]

Lively discussion is much appreciated. However, something has been lost in the sauce.
What happened to,” Was the Virgin Birth a mistranslation"?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Subjects like this I think are short lived, the matter is settled, I think anyway.
Sorry.