What's your opinion on Orthodoxy?

[Cavaradossi]

There is not reference among the Fathers?

I saw someone said Scott Hanh breathed life back into the connection of Isaiah w/Matthew. Did it have life before? Where did he get it from? I really want to find out when the first connection was made & by whom.

I’d be willing to grant maybe the St. John Cassian quote, even though I find the argument from similarity to be somewhat dubious. The other two seem to be a real stretch. I’d be interested to see too, if any other first millennium fathers can be pulled up other than the one passage from St. John Cassian.

 

[LionHeart777]

It seems like he got a little off topic. Aphraates does not reference Isaiah 22:22 in that short quotation he provided. St. Ephraem references David and Solomon, but does not mention Eliakim, so it’s hard for me to see how that could possibly be a reference to Isaiah 22:22. The St. John Cassian quotation does seem to have a resemblance to Isaiah 22:22, but I’m just not sure, especially since the fathers would usually point out when they are referencing a prophecy, just as they would when they reference a particular Apostle or Gospel. So maybe it is possible that St. John Cassian is referencing that verse, but it’s hard to tell, since he could just be referencing opening and closing metaphorically as both are a very regular function of a key.

Bonocore says (after the passage from St. John Cassian):

I believe the reason we don’t see Isaiah 22 used more extensively is that it’s rooted in a sense of Jewish national identity. And, since most of the fathers were Gentiles, it’s not surprising that they see the Keys of Matthew 16 referring to authority in a more generic sense (which is equally valid). However, we do see the Kingly, Davidic aspect of the Keys alluded to more often in the Semetic-speaking branches of the Church. For example, Aphraates the Sage (c. 330 A.D.), one of the oldest fathers of the Syrian Church, says … ‘David handed over the Kingdom to Solomon and was gathered to his people; and Jesus handed over the Keys to Simon and ascended and returned to Him Who sent Him."’ (Aphraates, xxi, 13).

Also, St. Ephraem the Syrian (c. 350) writes …

‘Then Peter deservedly received the Vicariate of Christ over His people.’ (Ephraem, Sermon de Martyrio. SS. App. Petri et Pauli).

Source: catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/ThePapacy/Dialogues/KeysOfTheKingdom.aspx

In looking at what he is writing again, it appears he may broaden his focus a bit after the quote from St. John Cassian and have in mind, to use his words, “the Kingly, Davidic aspect of the Keys”, when commenting and/or bringing up those passages from Aphraates the Sage and St. Ephraem the Syrian (sorry if I’m being Captain Obvious here.)

 

[GaryTaylor]

The non-Chalcedonian Orthodox have a different understanding of “nature” than do the Chalcedonians, I think. For the OO, to say that Christ is “in” two natures rather than “from two natures” (the two natures which become one in the incarnate Word) sounds like Nestorianism in that it divides the one person of Christ into two, with one doing all the human stuff, and the other doing all the divine stuff. Now, I know that’s not what modern Chalcedonians believe (having been one, after all), but reading certain passages from the Tome of Leo about how “the divinity receives praises, the flesh receives insults” or what have you really, really sound like it. This is an important thing to understand in the OO-EO divide: Neither side wants to be seen as supporting something heretical, so we balk at accepting things that seem Nestorian (as theChalcedonian Christology seems to the OO), or Eutychian (as the non-Chalcedonian Christology seems to the EO). It’s not about trying to neutralize differences (in other words, we’d rather reject Chalcedon than compromise on it), but avoiding heresy.

I’m not really sure what more to say about this. Chalcedonian Christology, whether coming from Rome or the Chalcedonian Orthodox, is Chalcedonian. We simply don’t agree. What specific differences do you want me to look at?

I don’t know what site to recommend on this issue, as it’s not really the kind of thing that can be sufficiently dealt with in a webpage. There are a few books on the subject of Chalcedon from the OO, but most are not in English. It’s not a quick read, but it’s a bit easier than Fr. V.C. Samuel’s “The Council of Chalcedon Reconsidered”, which is probably the best/most scholarly treatment of Chalcedon from an OO perspective (Fr. Samuel was a Syriac Orthodox priest from India): Coptic Interpretations of the Fourth Ecumenical Council by Fr. Matthias F. Wahba of St. Atonious COC, Hayward CA.

Thanks, I’m gonna read deeper into this just for my own mind. Tragic to me right at this break. I suppose aspects of the truth will remain illusive, mysteries should be contemplated in charity without rash judgement.

That said I remember a tread we were talking on months ago and I started reading into the Spiritual aspect of the Coptic Church in particular. Out of all the Churchs I get a particular sense in that this one speaks to my inner mind. The CC dones this also, somehow the Coptic church just connects with me on that spiritual level. I don’t mean that to distract from other churchs of the Apostles of course, and I have no doubt that many very sound Christians participate from all areas here.

Origen I find absolutely impressive, I tend not to view him in black and white and leave the grey area open for thought. As humans we tend to go with the general consensus, I tend to see this much more critically these days especially when it comes to what we cannot prove in fact.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’d be willing to grant maybe the St. John Cassian quote, even though I find the argument from similarity to be somewhat dubious. The other two seem to be a real stretch. I’d be interested to see too, if any other first millennium fathers can be pulled up other than the one passage from St. John Cassian.

I haven’t seen any, not that this means non exist. I don’t see the level of scholar today as more impressive than the Early Church Fathers. I would like to think that someone would have caught that connection. I don’t believe emphasis was placed on it. In other words once Matthew becomes well known, we already see the genealogy of Jesus to David. Here we know what we need to know in relation to prophecy, the Keys and the Apostles become history and contingent on further scripture.

The issue I see is in the first 4-centuries the church was one, and in many regards was viewed and spoken of as one. Today we have a different situation, in saying this I don’t mean to indicate a Church of the Apostles would lose its status, we don’t know that but through human’s words. What we do see is further indication in Revelation with the Churchs where different thinking existed. Nevertheless, God didn’t consider these Churchs not His Churchs. Nor is there any indication these Churchs were in 100% harmony, very much the contrary I would say. In fact until He speaks, Mercy is His will, then IMO this becomes no different than today, its Mercy all he way till judgement.

I see the connection to the Papacy in Christs statement, Upon this Rock I will build my Church, that Rock is and was St Peter. The Rock indicates the foundation of the Church will always be solid. For if that wasn’t to be than He could have stated I will build this church on sand for example.

The fact St Peter receives the Keys first in noted, the central theme of Rome as a Church has always been noted. That said its certainly not that the other Apostles had to call St Peter to borrow the Key. Course we could spend a 1000-posts in triumphant clamour on this topic also. I would only suggest “google” is used for that information.

This has been a interesting, pretty respectful thread. Perhaps we could address some other issue’s where clarity is in need.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Let me be clear on one other point in relation to “Keys”. For example a Complete Analysis of the Bible has existed a very long time. I have Hitchcocks here from 1869 as I mentioned. So in this sense any word looked up such as “Keys” immediately gives you all the scripture verse connections. Be it that some decided to elaborate on this or not, I would have to suggest this connection has been a known for at least this long.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Were they all from certain countries or regions? Some parts of the world have much longer histories than colonial and post-colonial North America, and their inhabitants have very long memories by comparison to, for example, WASPs in the U.S. and Canada.

It was on the internet so I would assume they were from everywhere in the world… what histories are you referring to, and do you believe that they are still justified for their grudges?

 

[Trebor135]

It was on the internet so I would assume they were from everywhere in the world… what histories are you referring to,

The Sack of Constantinople in 1204 and the thereby enabled decades-long reign of Latin hierarches imposed on the local Byzantines.

and do you believe that they are still justified for their grudges?

No. Christians must learn forgiveness, especially of misdeeds committed many centuries ago.

 

[Hesychios]

… do you believe that they are still justified for their grudges?

Long held grudges are unbecoming and not justifiable for Christians.

However people do have a responsibility to protect the faith, so unjustified claims should provoke some kind of response and it could be seen as having the wrong motivation. Sometimes people who are very zealous can come off as mean and spiteful, especially when pushed. One can see that here, from members of many groups.

One can also see this in many other things besides religion. Patriotism devolves into jingoism and xenophobia, for example. It’s not pretty, but hopefully most people don’t fall into the trap.

 

[hazcompat]

Together we form one person and we cannot be separate…There is no untrue union. The Holy Spirit is evident. I have read all posts, and many threads. We re One as the Father and Son are One. The Spirit of Truth will correct in time that which CANNOT be separate in eternity (no time). What some suggest is impossible!

Come Holy Spirit

peace

 

[ConstantineTG]

Let me be clear on one other point in relation to “Keys”. For example a Complete Analysis of the Bible has existed a very long time. I have Hitchcocks here from 1869 as I mentioned. So in this sense any word looked up such as “Keys” immediately gives you all the scripture verse connections. Be it that some decided to elaborate on this or not, I would have to suggest this connection has been a known for at least this long.

If it was this simple, we wouldn’t have this problem for over a millennia.

 

[10_26]

I’m really happy you asked the question. It’s one that never occurred to me. That the LXX didn’t have the “key” listed in Isaiah that is used to interpret Matthew as a text proof of the Papacy.

I am not so sure now. It appears The Orthodox Study Bible is not an english translation of the lxx. Brenton’s translation of the lxx does include mention of the keys at Isaiah 22:22. So does the Hebrew Masoretic text. However the OSB seems to be some sort of modified NKJV of the OT, not the lxx. One of several examples is in 2 Chronicles 24:20 where the septuagint has “And the Spirit of God came upon Azariah{gr.Azarias} the son of Jehoiada{gr.Jodae} the priest” Whereas the Hebrew Masoretic renders it “Then the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest.” And guess what, the OSB renders it according the the Masoretic text not the Greek lxx. The problem is, Zechariah was not the son of Jehoiada but the son of Barachiah (Zech 1:1, Mat 23:35). The true lxx has it right, the Hebrew and the OSB has it wrong. The Orthodox Study Bible shouldn’t advertise as being the Septuagint when it is a mix between the Septuagint and the New King James Version. Regarding the keys, both the Hebrew and the lxx has it included. The OSB? It is a modified NKJV, you be the judge.

Isn’t it true that the Greek OT was used during the time of Jesus and for several centuries prior to His birth?

Was the Masoretic text the Hebrew OT that was written/re-translated from the much older Greek decades after Jesus Christ died and ascended into heaven at the Jewish council?

That is my understanding.

If the Fathers never referred to Isaiah as it is used today to confirm the Papacy, I have two questions. 1. Until what century does the Logos Bible Software go for the Father’s comments? 2. Do you happen to know when and who was the first to make that link between Isaiah & Matthew?

To answer your first question, Logos links the 37 volumes of the Early Church Fathers to the Bible. If there is a comment from one of the Fathers on a particular verse it will populate with the verse. Granted, this linking was done by humans so vague references may not be linked.

To answer your second question, I am not sure. But it fits perfectly with what Christ did with Peter. Just because the Fathers didn’t write down a comment on Isa 22:22 doesn’t mean the passage doesn’t belong in the Bible or is off limits for interpretation by the Church. My opinion.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I am not so sure now. It appears The Orthodox Study Bible is not an english translation of the lxx. Brenton’s translation of the lxx does include mention of the keys at Isaiah 22:22. So does the Hebrew Masoretic text. However the OSB seems to be some sort of modified NKJV of the OT, not the lxx. One of several examples is in 2 Chronicles 24:20 where the septuagint has “And the Spirit of God came upon Azariah{gr.Azarias} the son of Jehoiada{gr.Jodae} the priest” Whereas the Hebrew Masoretic renders it “Then the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest.” And guess what, the OSB renders it according the the Masoretic text not the Greek lxx. The problem is, Zechariah was not the son of Jehoiada but the son of Barachiah (Zech 1:1, Mat 23:35). The true lxx has it right, the Hebrew and the OSB has it wrong. The Orthodox Study Bible shouldn’t advertise as being the Septuagint when it is a mix between the Septuagint and the New King James Version. Regarding the keys, both the Hebrew and the lxx has it included. The OSB? It is a modified NKJV, you be the judge.

The borrowings from the NKJV seem to be the reason why the OSB received mixed reviews from Orthodox Christians (that and the commentary is a bunch of patristic paraphrases without specific citations).

 

[ByzCathCantor]

If it was this simple, we wouldn’t have this problem for over a millennia.

If we only had the internet back then …

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The borrowings from the NKJV seem to be the reason why the OSB received mixed reviews from Orthodox Christians (that and the commentary is a bunch of patristic paraphrases without specific citations).

Disappointing - do you have a better recommendation (for an Orthodox study Bible, or one in general)?

BTW - my priest who is a published biblical scholar cringes whenever I ask him about Bible versions …

 

[Cavaradossi]

Disappointing - do you have a better recommendation (for an Orthodox study Bible, or one in general)?

BTW - my priest who is a published biblical scholar cringes whenever I ask him about Bible versions …

I have no idea, to be honest. I’m trying to find a good version as well. Something with some patristic commentaries would be nice. That or I’m going to have to teach myself some Greek.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Disappointing - do you have a better recommendation (for an Orthodox study Bible, or one in general)?

BTW - my priest who is a published biblical scholar cringes whenever I ask him about Bible versions …

Of course you have to have the Greek!

 

[GaryTaylor]

I have no idea, to be honest. I’m trying to find a good version as well. Something with some patristic commentaries would be nice. That or I’m going to have to teach myself some Greek.

Rosetta Stone Greek sounds good.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Of course you have to have the Greek!

Perhaps you are right, but of course I was asking for a specific, published edition. And as we know, it is also dependent on what Greek text is the source.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Perhaps you are right, but of course I was asking for a specific, published edition. And as we know, it is also dependent on what Greek text is the source.

This has actually been a point of contention, I think, with the bishops in the GOA. They don’t really like to recommend many modern English bibles because they look at obscure Greek manuscripts and try to cobble a new edition of the bible together piecemeal, while the ideal source material for the Greek Orthodox bishops in America would be our standard liturgical texts.

 

[5Loaves]

Of course you have to have the Greek!

“Is come from the Greek” Gus Portokalos
"There are two kinds of people - Greeks, and everyone else who wish they was Greek. "