Why did the RCC change the Bible?

[lanceg]

The Roman Catholic Church did not “change” the Bible. The Catholic Church has always recognized the so-called longer canon.

The Bible of the ancient church was the SEPTUAGINT, which has the longer canon.

Jerome is only one scholar, one Father. We look at the WHOLE tradition.

More compelling are synods in the 4th and 5th century at Hippo, Carthage and Rome that recognize the same 46 book canon as in contemporary Catholic Bibles.

If you do not use a bible with the longer canon, you are not using the bible of the Apostles.

Many Protestant bibles are commendable and excellent translations, and to be recommended, but one needs a Catholic bible for the full canon.

 

[NotWorthy]

Abuse of power is error in teaching.

One would say Peter abused his power when he struck down Ananias. IF it was purely the Holy Spirit’s doing, then Peter for sure knew what what he was doing when he struck down the wife.

Abuse of power (in some people’s opinions) is not necessary when one such as Nestorius quits teaching in error.

We teach by example. If our example is in error, then the teaching is in error.
This is special pleading to back up the fallible claim of infallibility.
Everything in G_d’s Universe is imperfect. If it were not so, it could not exist.

Then thank G_d that we have the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in Her teaching.

In a perfect world, your claim might just hold water, but everything is imperfect.
We can reduce the imperfections day by day, but never eliminate them.
Remember, I never called for setting aside the core values, but to allow for excressences to be treated as optional matters.
These are the FUNDAMENTALS. not the rubbish of fundamentalists, but the real truths upon which Christianity is built.
There are probably fewer than a dozen of these real fundamentals.
Most of them begin: 'Jesus said: " . . . . .

OK, NOW I’ve got to look up excressences.

Wow, regarding the “Jesus said…”, it seems that most Protestant heresies begin with “Paul said…”
Hmmmmm…

 

[NotWorthy]

I know I’ve responded to this post, probably ad nauseum, but while I was at Mass today, I couldn’t help but be drawn to this point that you made. So I had to re-respond.

Remember, I never called for setting aside the core values, but to allow for excressences to be treated as optional matters.

And this is exactly what I feel most Protestant Churches have done - setting aside core values. I"ll elaborate as I address the rest of this post.

These are the FUNDAMENTALS. not the rubbish of fundamentalists, but the real truths upon which Christianity is built.
There are probably fewer than a dozen of these real fundamentals.
Most of them begin: 'Jesus said: " . . . . .

HEAR! HEAR!!

I couldn’t agree with you more.

In John 6:51, Jesus said, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”

In John 6:54-55, **Jesus said **to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.”

In John 6:57, Jesus said, “so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me”

This basic fundamental has been dropped by numerous churches that have chosen to follow their conscience. Numerous martyrs have died rather than to deny this basic fundamental. All they had to do was reject that the Eucharist was Christ and they would have lived. And yet, today, we have churches reject this, if for no other reason, than simply because that’s what those Catholics teach and they can’t be right.

Every generation of the Church has taught that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. Every generation. Once this core value was set aside, everything else went to pot with other faiths. Although they still retain varying degrees of truth, they have lost focus on this most important facet of the Christian faith.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I know I’ve responded to this post, probably ad nauseum, but while I was at Mass today, I couldn’t help but be drawn to this point that you made. So I had to re-respond.And this is exactly what I feel most Protestant Churches have done - setting aside core values. I"ll elaborate as I address the rest of this post.
HEAR! HEAR!!

I couldn’t agree with you more.

In John 6:51, Jesus said, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”

In John 6:54-55, **Jesus said **to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.”

In John 6:57, Jesus said, “so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me”

This basic fundamental has been dropped by numerous churches that have chosen to follow their conscience. Numerous martyrs have died rather than to deny this basic fundamental. All they had to do was reject that the Eucharist was Christ and they would have lived. And yet, today, we have churches reject this, if for no other reason, than simply because that’s what those Catholics teach and they can’t be right.

Every generation of the Church has taught that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. Every generation. Once this core value was set aside, everything else went to pot with other faiths. Although they still retain varying degrees of truth, they have lost focus on this most important facet of the Christian faith.

I agree that the Eucharist is the most vital part of the Mass, and to miss Mass, is to lose something very important.
I’ll go however, one step further.
In the context that Our Lord said: “Do this in rememberance of me”. The words can also be understood to mean: “Remember me whenever you eat or drink”.
So every meal, no matter how humble, should be treated as a kind of Eucharist.

 

[NotWorthy]

I agree that the Eucharist is the most vital part of the Mass, and to miss Mass, is to lose something very important.
I’ll go however, one step further.
In the context that Our Lord said: “Do this in rememberance of me”. The words can also be understood to mean: “Remember me whenever you eat or drink”.
So every meal, no matter how humble, should be treated as a kind of Eucharist.

Then you’ve missed the entire meaning of Jesus’ words.

Look up “poien” (I hope I spelled that right) and “anamnesis” and you’ll see that Jesus was instituting a priesthood that was offering up a sacrifice everytime they “did this in memorial of Him” and they were making that Sacrifice present.

Only the Catholic Church (and Her Greek brothers, of course) do that today.

 

[sterryfamily]

The Church either is or is not guided into truth by the Holy Spirit as Christ promised. She cannot possibly “allow doubt” against the Lord’s teaching. Once she does, Christianity is moot.

 

[sterryfamily]

I don’t think it is Luther who removed these. His translations were complete, and he frequently quoted from the removed books of the bible. I don’t htink they were taken out for at least a generation after him.

Every single Protestant Bible, including Luther’s and the first editions of the KJV, included the entire canon. Yes, Luther expressed disdain for some of the Deuterocanonicals (and some of the New Testament as well) but he still included all of the books in his canon (albeit, in a special section in the back). It wasn’t until the 1820’s that the first Protestant Bibles appeared without the deuterocanon.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Then you’ve missed the entire meaning of Jesus’ words.

Look up “poien” (I hope I spelled that right) and “anamnesis” and you’ll see that Jesus was instituting a priesthood that was offering up a sacrifice everytime they “did this in memorial of Him” and they were making that Sacrifice present.

Only the Catholic Church (and Her Greek brothers, of course) do that today.

Well, I don’t know about that, and I onl;y have the Latin to work from.
Curiously though, the Eucharistic prayer whiuch opens: ‘On the night . . .’ seems not to have been taken from any particular Gospel, but indeed seems as if it could have come straight from the Codex Fuldensis, for it is woven in exactly the same way.
Viz:
159/1: Jn 13: 23, 24.
Erat autem recumbens unus ex discipulis eius in sinu Ihesu, quem diligebat Ihesus. Innuit ergo huic Simon Petrus et dicit ei: quis est de quo dicit?
Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him and said to him: Who is it of whom he speaketh?

159/2: Jn 13: 25, 26a.
Itaque cum recubuisset ille supra pectus Ihesu, dicit ei: domine, quis est? Cui respondit Ihesus: ille est cui ego intinctum panem porrexero.
He therefore, leaning on the breast of Jesus, saith to him: Lord, who is it? To whom Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall offer1 bread dipped.

159/3: Jn 13: 26b
Et cum intincxisset panem, dedit Iudæ Simonis Scariothis.
And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot(2).

159/4: Jn 13: 27
Et post buccellam tunc intravit in illum Satanas. Dicit ei Ihesus: quod facis fac citius.
And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly.

159/5: Jn 13: 28, 29.
Hoc autem nemo scivit discumbentium ad quid dixerit ei. Quidam enim putabant, quia loculos habebat Iudas, quod dicit ei Ihesus: eme ea quæ opus sunt nobis ad diem festum, aut egenis ut aliquid daret.
Now no man at the table knew to what purpose he said this unto him. For some thought, because Judas had the purse, that Jesus had said to him: Buy those things which we have need of for the festival day: or that he should give something to the poor.

159/6: Mt 26: 25a
Respondens autem Iudas qui tradidit eum dixit: numquid ego sum, rabbi?
Ait illi: tu dixisti.
And Judas that betrayed him answering, said: Surely it is not me(3), Master(4)?
He saith to him: Thou hast said it.

159/7: Jn 13: 30, 31a.
Cum ergo accepisset ille buccellam, exiit continuo, erat autem nox. Cum ergo exisset, dicit Ihesus:
He therefore, having received the morsel, went out immediately. And it was night. When he therefore was gone out, Jesus said:
159/8: Jn 13: 31b, 32b.
Nunc clarificatus est filius hominis, et deus clarificatus est in eo, et deus clarificavit eum in semetipso et continuo clarificavit eum.
Now is the Son of man glorified; and God is glorified in him. God also will glorify him in himself: and immediately will he glorify him.

160/1: Mt 26: 26, Lc 22: 19b Cenantibus autem eis accepit Ihesus panem et benedixit ac fregit deditque discipulis suis dicens: accipite et comedite: hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur.
And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples, saying: Take ye and eat. This is my body, which is given for you.

160/2: Mt 26: 27, 28.
Et accipiens calicem gratias egit et benedixit et dedit eis dicens: bibite ex hoc omnes: hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro vobis et multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.
And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and blessed and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all, of this, for this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many unto remission of sins.

160/3: Mt 26: 29, Lc 22: 19c
Dico autem vobis: non bibam a modo de hoc genimine vitis usque in diem illum cum illud bibam vobiscum novum in regno patris mei. Hoc facite in meam memorationem.
And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I shall drink it new, with you, in the kingdom of my Father. Do this for a commemoration of me.

(1) ‘porrexero’ – ‘shall reach’ but also correct is ‘shall offer’, and this is much better.
(2) I have restored the Latin sequence of phrases here as it does not aggravate the meaning
(3) ‘numquid’ — ‘surely not’: this Latin word introduces a question expecting a negative response. It can be considered to be rhetorical.
(4) ‘rabbi’ : the Old High German translates this word as ‘meister’, so follow I.

And again now, having looked at the Latin in this context, though I accept that you might see it as you say, to me, it is reminiscent of the normal benediction at a paschal meal, and that all meals should be so treated.

I have already noted how the weekly Gospel readings seem to follow the order found in CF, now I find the Eucharistic prayer following the CF.
It almost seems that the CF Gospel was a standard text when the format of the Mass was being designed.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The Church either is or is not guided into truth by the Holy Spirit as Christ promised. She cannot possibly “allow doubt” against the Lord’s teaching. Once she does, Christianity is moot.

Of course there cannot be any doubt on Our Lord’s teachings.
I was concerned only with the teachings developed and amplified therefrom.
These excressences or outgrowths are NOT core teachings, and though they may be useful to some, to others they are a stumbling block.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Wasn’t 3/4 of the bible (the old testament) “settled” approx. 300 - 400 years before Christ was born, by the jews? And does anyone know the age (date written) and location (of the mss.now) of the oldest copy of the LXX that was quoted by anyone in the New Testament? Just curious.
God Bless,
Benaiah

The Jews did not set there canon of scripture until around AD 100 at the council of Jaffa.

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, I don’t know about that, and I onl;y have the Latin to work from.
Curiously though, the Eucharistic prayer whiuch opens: ‘On the night . . .’ seems not to have been taken from any particular Gospel, but indeed seems as if it could have come straight from the Codex Fuldensis, for it is woven in exactly the same way…

And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I shall drink it new, with you, in the kingdom of my Father. Do this for a commemoration of me.

(1) ‘porrexero’ – ‘shall reach’ but also correct is ‘shall offer’, and this is much better.
(2) I have restored the Latin sequence of phrases here as it does not aggravate the meaning
(3) ‘numquid’ — ‘surely not’: this Latin word introduces a question expecting a negative response. It can be considered to be rhetorical.
(4) ‘rabbi’ : the Old High German translates this word as ‘meister’, so follow I…

I have already noted how the weekly Gospel readings seem to follow the order found in CF, now I find the Eucharistic prayer following the CF.
It almost seems that the CF Gospel was a standard text when the format of the Mass was being designed.

That’s just wonderful. But the problem is…

1. The original text was written in Greek (not Latin).
2. The original text used “poien” and “anamnesis”. We see “poien” used numerous times in the Old Testament in the Jewish Liturgy where the Hebrew priest is “offering up” a sacrifice to God. “Do this as a commemoration” may be the latest translation, and because of this, the congregation doesn’t absorb its meaning. But the priest understands it, just as the original priests, the Apostles, understood its meaning.
3. “anamnesis” is also found in the Old Testament. It means to make present. It’s what the Jews were doing as they celebrated the Passover. It’s what Jews do today (or at least they are supposed to do). They are reaching across time and celebrating the Passover feast with their brothers at the first Exodus. In the Catholic Mass, we are made present at the foot of the Cross in participation of the one true Sacrifice.
4. You ignored Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians, chapter 11. He says “Do this in remembrance of me” (or however your translation says, but the original used poien and anamnesis), not once, but twice.

And again now, having looked at the Latin in this context, though I accept that you might see it as you say, to me, it is reminiscent of the normal benediction at a paschal meal, and that all meals should be so treated.

This is an odd interpretation. Are we to eat every meal discerning the Body and Blood of Christ, or else eat and drink damnation upon us? Are you sure of this?

 

[NotWorthy]

The Jews did not set there canon of scripture until around AD 100 at the council of Jaffa.

I don’t think they “set” the canon at Jaffa (or Jamnia). They merely rejected some of the books. The Jews didn’t “set” the canon until around the 14th century, even though this wasn’t universally accepted among Jews.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

That’s just wonderful. But the problem is…

1. The original text was written in Greek (not Latin).

I agree that Luke was originally written in Greek, but Matthew was an Aramaic text when first translated into Latin.
Yes the line quoted is from Luke, but the Eucharistic prayer seems to be originally in Latin, as was the CF Gospel.
If indeed the CF Gospel was compiled by Tatian or Ammonius Saccas, then it is no later than AD 220, probably as early as AD 200, and it would have been cross compared with the Aramaic/Syriac original, which Ephrem Syrus witnesses.
thus I trust the Latin, and find the Greek irellevant.

1. The original text used “poien” and “anamnesis”. We see “poien” used numerous times in the Old Testament in the Jewish Liturgy where the Hebrew priest is “offering up” a sacrifice to God. “Do this as a commemoration” may be the latest translation, and because of this, the congregation doesn’t absorb its meaning. But the priest understands it, just as the original priests, the Apostles, understood its meaning.

But we are all sent out as priests.

1. “anamnesis” is also found in the Old Testament. It means to make present. It’s what the Jews were doing as they celebrated the Passover. It’s what Jews do today (or at least they are supposed to do). They are reaching across time and celebrating the Passover feast with their brothers at the first Exodus. In the Catholic Mass, we are made present at the foot of the Cross in participation of the one true Sacrifice.

Are you saying that every paterfamilias in everyJewish household at Passover is a priest?
Yes he is the celebrant of a symbolic sacrifice.
Does that make him a priest?
I do not deny your argument, but I do not find it convincing.
In every meal partaken by every creature on the Earth, a life has been sacrificed so that the partakers of the meal might live.

1. You ignored Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians, chapter 11. He says “Do this in remembrance of me” (or however your translation says, but the original used poien and anamnesis), not once, but twice.

I am one of these strange ‘protestants’ who prefers what Jesus said to what Paul said.
Actually, the translation I use is taken directly, in the most part, from what Douay-Rheims says.

This is an odd interpretation. Are we to eat every meal discerning the Body and Blood of Christ, or else eat and drink damnation upon us? Are you sure of this?

I am sure of nothing. Doubt is my ever present companion.

 

[NotWorthy]

I agree that Luke was originally written in Greek, but Matthew was an Aramaic text when first translated into Latin.
Yes the line quoted is from Luke, but the Eucharistic prayer seems to be originally in Latin, as was the CF Gospel.
If indeed the CF Gospel was compiled by Tatian or Ammonius Saccas, then it is no later than AD 220, probably as early as AD 200, and it would have been cross compared with the Aramaic/Syriac original, which Ephrem Syrus witnesses.
thus I trust the Latin, and find the Greek irellevant.

That’s quite odd.

You trust the Latin translation, while calling the God-inspired Greek “irrelevant”.

I don’t even think there bears further argument.

But we are all sent out as priests.

True, we are a nation of priests. But, just as Israel was a nation of priests, there was a different level of priests that could offer up the sacrifices per the Levitical standards. This pre-figured the Catholic Priesthood.

Are you saying that every paterfamilias in everyJewish household at Passover is a priest?

I don’t think they needed to be a priest to make the Passover feast “anamnesis”. They just needed to be loyal Jews. Notice in my earlier text that I specifically said that “poien” was a Sacrificial and Liturgical word. “Anamnesis” meant to make an event present. Thus the two combined to have the priest offer up the Body and Blood of Christ as a re-presentation of Christ’s Sacrifice at Calgary.

Yes he is the celebrant of a symbolic sacrifice.
Does that make him a priest?
I do not deny your argument, but I do not find it convincing.
In every meal partaken by every creature on the Earth, a life has been sacrificed so that the partakers of the meal might live.

I’ll remember that next time I eat a Twinkie. BTW, neither do I find your Latin translation argument convincing.

I am one of these strange ‘protestants’ who prefers what Jesus said to what Paul said.

Now THAT is refreshing!!!

Actually, the translation I use is taken directly, in the most part, from what Douay-Rheims says.

And the DR is a translation of what? The Vulgate? (I’m not sure about that). So the Greek original, that is the only inspired translation - neither the Vulgate or the DR are considered inspired. Nor the King James for that matter (at least by Catholics ) - is not relevant?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

[sign]I agree that Luke was originally written in Greek, but Matthew was an Aramaic text when first translated into Latin.
Yes the line quoted is from Luke, but the Eucharistic prayer seems to be originally in Latin, as was the CF Gospel.
If indeed the CF Gospel was compiled by Tatian or Ammonius Saccas, then it is no later than AD 220, probably as early as AD 200, and it would have been cross compared with the Aramaic/Syriac original, which Ephrem Syrus witnesses.
thus I trust the Latin, and find the Greek irellevant.[/sign]
That’s quite odd.

You trust the Latin translation, while calling the God-inspired Greek “irrelevant”.

I don’t even think there bears further argument.

The Eucharistic prayer, as far as I am aware, is not taken directly from any Gospel, but is a precis of a harmonization of Matthew and Luke, and seems to have come from the CF Gospel, which was composed in Latin.
While I accept that the original Greek of Luke was inspired, I do not believe that the extant Greek Luke is directly derived from the original, but is a back translation of the Latin of AD 200.
This of course is not received wisdom, but texts derived from the Greek only, still have Latinistic constructs within them, even though Latin and Greek are not very close languages grammatically.
The Church had a ‘Golden Age’ which extended from about AD 170 until the firestorm of Diocletian, when Rome was primary, and Latin became the principal language. It was in this era that the Gospels were put into the Latin which St Jerome found, a Latin which he hardly altered.
From these Latin Masters, Native Language texts were generated, and distributed in the Empire.
This included Hebrew and Greek.
The old texts were standardized to the new texts, so that the original readings were lost, as was lost the original Diatessaron.
With the firestorm of repression under Diocletian, much of the Cristian Church was destroyed, and most of the records were lost. Rome became a Christian desert.
The Church survived in Britain and Syria, and NorthWest Africa.
This state continued until the coming of Constantine, actually, a Yorkshireman from Britain! He may have had Roman Blood, but his culture was British, Romano-British if you like.
Given this lost history, then my doubt of the reliability of the Greek, as a primary witness should be seen as reasonable.

True, we are a nation of priests. But, just as Israel was a nation of priests, there was a different level of priests that could offer up the sacrifices per the Levitical standards. This pre-figured the Catholic Priesthood.

I don’t think they needed to be a priest to make the Passover feast “anamnesis”. They just needed to be loyal Jews. Notice in my earlier text that I specifically said that “poien” was a Sacrificial and Liturgical word. “Anamnesis” meant to make an event present. Thus the two combined to have the priest offer up the Body and Blood of Christ as a re-presentation of Christ’s Sacrifice at Calvary.[sign]
Yes he is the celebrant of a symbolic sacrifice.
Does that make him a priest?
I do not deny your argument, but I do not find it convincing.
In every meal partaken by every creature on the Earth, a life has been sacrificed so that the partakers of the meal might live.[/sign]
I’ll remember that next time I eat a Twinkie. BTW, neither do I find your Latin translation argument convincing.
[sign]I am one of these strange ‘protestants’ who prefers what Jesus said to what Paul said.[/sign]
Now THAT is refreshing!!!

And the DR is a translation of what? The Vulgate? (I’m not sure about that).

The DR is a translation of the Clementine Vulgate, as indeed is the KJV. There was much swapping of texts between King James’s team and the Team in France. James should be credited by Catholics with making a brave attempt, allbeit, behind the scenes, of trying to limit the damage caused by Henry, by trying to keep the two translations as close as possible.

So the Greek original, that is the only inspired translation - neither the Vulgate or the DR are considered inspired.

The Greek originals are lost. What we have are reconstructed Greek texts. The Vulgate, though not considered inspired, is considered authoritative.

Nor the King James for that matter (at least by Catholics ) - is not relevant?

See above.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Eucharistic prayer, as far as I am aware, is not taken directly from any Gospel, but is a precis of a harmonization of Matthew and Luke, and seems to have come from the CF Gospel, which was composed in Latin.
While I accept that the original Greek of Luke was inspired, I do not believe that the extant Greek Luke is directly derived from the original, but is a back translation of the Latin of AD 200.

Since we have numerous fragments of the New Testament, dating back to 115ad, and since we have writings from numerous Church Fathers in their original texts, using direct quotes from the Greek Scriptures, (Clement, and Justin Martryr), and since we uncovered texts of the Septuagint, pre-dating the persecutions you talk of, I’m not sure that you can jump to the conclusion that all the Greek texts were back-translated. I think you’re making a leap of faith here, and I don’t think it is correct.

BTW, the signs within quotes is an ingenious way of repeating the dialog, to make it easier to follow what’s been said. I"ve always struggled with demonstrating that, so that will be helpful.

Thanks!!!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

[sign]The Eucharistic prayer, as far as I am aware, is not taken directly from any Gospel, but is a precis of a harmonization of Matthew and Luke, and seems to have come from the CF Gospel, which was composed in Latin.
While I accept that the original Greek of Luke was inspired, I do not believe that the extant Greek Luke is directly derived from the original, but is a back translation of the Latin of AD 200.[/sign]
Since we have numerous fragments of the New Testament, dating back to 115ad, and since we have writings from numerous Church Fathers in their original texts, using direct quotes from the Greek Scriptures, (Clement, and Justin Martryr), and since we uncovered texts of the Septuagint, pre-dating the persecutions you talk of, I’m not sure that you can jump to the conclusion that all the Greek texts were back-translated.

I have been through a similar loop with the original Diatessaron.
Scholars trying to defend the Arabic forgery, claim support from Ephrem Syrus, but at best, only about 10% of the Tatianic text is quoted, and not all is verbatim.
I fear the original Greek fragments are of a similar ilk. If it were not so, someone would have constructed a reproduction of the original Greek, and done much better than the reconstructor of Tatian’s Diatessaron.
Given this perforated collander, one has to pray that the metal present actually contained the verse you quote.
Though my case is not proven, neither is the received wisdom.

I think you’re making a leap of faith here, and I don’t think it is correct.

If you look at a translation of Curetonian Matthew, which is purported to predate Jerome’s work, and thopugh this is in Syriac, yet the translation looks as if it is taken from Latin.

BTW, the signs within quotes is an ingenious way of repeating the dialog, to make it easier to follow what’s been said. I"ve always struggled with demonstrating that, so that will be helpful.

Thanks!!!

 

[NotWorthy]

I have been through a similar loop with the original Diatessaron.
Scholars trying to defend the Arabic forgery, claim support from Ephrem Syrus, but at best, only about 10% of the Tatianic text is quoted, and not all is verbatim.
I fear the original Greek fragments are of a similar ilk. If it were not so, someone would have constructed a reproduction of the original Greek, and done much better than the reconstructor of Tatian’s Diatessaron.
Given this perforated collander, one has to pray that the metal present actually contained the verse you quote.
Though my case is not proven, neither is the received wisdom.

If you look at a translation of Curetonian Matthew, which is purported to predate Jerome’s work, and thopugh this is in Syriac, yet the translation looks as if it is taken from Latin.

OK, Voco, you’re beginning to talk Greek to me. If I understand you correctly, the Romans took all the Greek Scriptures and converted them to Latin, all while destroying them. Then, they converted them back to Greek. And then Jerome reinvented the wheel all over again?!? Jerome had original Hebrew OT Scriptures. Are you saying that he only had re-translated Greek to Latin to Greek Scriptures to work with for the NT?

This is the first time I’ve heard of something like this.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

OK, Voco, you’re beginning to talk Greek to me. If I understand you correctly, the Romans took all the Greek Scriptures and converted them to Latin, all while destroying them. Then, they converted them back to Greek. And then Jerome reinvented the wheel all over again?!? Jerome had original Hebrew OT Scriptures. Are you saying that he only had re-translated Greek to Latin to Greek Scriptures to work with for the NT?

This is the first time I’ve heard of something like this.

In a word,
Yes.
This kind of thing happened quite frequently in the past.
The Pesheeta is a prime example.
For quite some years, scholars have been labouring under the impression that the Syriac Pesheeta was a very early dociment, after all, was in not written in Our Lord’s own tongue.
However, when the surface was scratched, it seems that some presbyterian minister, taking a copy of the KJV, translated it into Syriac for his mission to Syria.
It was a good translation, but it sure messed up the archeological records for some decades.
There are early Pesheetas, but the earliest ones are still traceable to AD 200 Latin.

 

[NotWorthy]

In a word,
Yes.
This kind of thing happened quite frequently in the past.
The Pesheeta is a prime example.
For quite some years, scholars have been labouring under the impression that the Syriac Pesheeta was a very early dociment, after all, was in not written in Our Lord’s own tongue.
However, when the surface was scratched, it seems that some presbyterian minister, taking a copy of the KJV, translated it into Syriac for his mission to Syria.
It was a good translation, but it sure messed up the archeological records for some decades.
There are early Pesheetas, but the earliest ones are still traceable to AD 200 Latin.

But here’s the rub.

The Roman authorities, while actively seeking to destroy a religious sect, takes its writings and, instead of wiping out the writings (which would be what you want to do in order to destroy a culture), they simply re-wrote it in Latin so that it could spread to the common man? This does not make much sense.

And to think that they were able to completely destroy all the existing Greek manuscripts is asking a little too much. For instance, you agree that there are fragments from the year 115ad and later of the Greek texts. Wouldn’t you agree that there were be exponentially more around the 4th century when Jerome translated?