tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post7123022631840548585..comments2023-10-20T06:41:31.943-07:00Comments on Visits to Candyland: Where we got the bibleElena LaVictoirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18108910015959872763noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-77714625293736830082009-09-06T13:39:59.396-07:002009-09-06T13:39:59.396-07:00Again, Paul's scholarship here is astounding!Again, Paul's scholarship here is astounding!Daughter of Wisdomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01565795173054909961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-46256959342164338122009-09-05T09:08:34.059-07:002009-09-05T09:08:34.059-07:00Do you see the circularity in that? What if you pr...<b>Do you see the circularity in that? What if you presented the following argument to me?</b><br /><br />A questionable translation is so very different from <i>text that isn't even in the Bible</i>. <br /><br />That the text was translated in that way suggests the Catholic notion of doing penance wasn't beyond the pale. That the text of Mark 16:9-16 has been dropped suggests its contents are. <br /><br />We still have the woman caught in adultery in our Bibles (John 7:53-8:11).Moonshadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277057132720569896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-83761439426232270612009-09-05T08:49:55.079-07:002009-09-05T08:49:55.079-07:00The heart of Divino Afflante Spiritu begins in par...The heart of <i><a href="http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html&sa=U&ei=3oeiSuyLJt_JlQflv5zEDg&ct=res&cd=1&sig2=y3whWs1WN5GwEtePE5SDQA&usg=AFQjCNGnShhbNZgI9GDnVZHIL33sFbz5mg" rel="nofollow">Divino Afflante Spiritu</a></i> begins in paragraph 15. <br /><br />Paragraph 16 says: <i>"In like manner therefore ought we to explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern ...</i><br /><br />Also read 17-2, especially [20], <i>"Nor should anyone think that this use of the original texts, in accordance with the methods of criticism, in any way derogates from those decrees so wisely enacted by the Council of Trent concerning the Latin Vulgate."</i><br /><br />and [21]: <i>"And if the Tridentine Synod wished 'that all should use as authentic' the Vulgate Latin version ... does it [not], doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which 'had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church.' Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical."</i><br /><br />and [22]: <i>"Wherefore this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine by no means prevents - nay rather today it almost demands - either the corroboration and confirmation of this same doctrine by the original texts or the having recourse on any and every occasion to the aid of these same texts, by which the correct meaning of the Sacred Letters is everywhere daily made more clear and evident. Nor is it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts themselves, for the use and benefit of the faithful and for the better understanding of the divine word, as We know to have been already done in a laudable manner in many countries with the approval of the Ecclesiastical authority."</i><br /><br />So, everything you said about the Vulgate from Trent holds up but the original texts are today given a place as well. There's no pitting the original against the Vulgate or vice versa.Moonshadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277057132720569896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-72430913759689110422009-09-04T21:12:41.752-07:002009-09-04T21:12:41.752-07:00Sorry to go off topic (but it is what I do best......Sorry to go off topic (but it is what I do best...)<br /><br />I was looking for more pictures of Grace Lutheran in Tulsa and came across this bit of interesting information about the pastor:<br /><br /><b>...Pastor Beecroft is a converted Evangelical. He is a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary. He and a few other students were in a patristics class (study of the church fathers) one semester at Dallas when it dawned on them that there actually was something abiding and enduring in the historic, traditional, and liturgical approach to spirituality. That began a long road for Mason that has brought him to the LCMS and planted him in the middle of the Bible belt...</b><br /><br />(http://steadfastlutherans.org/blog/?p=5253)Sue Beehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13342939305850558827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-43479417021859703342009-09-04T18:31:28.175-07:002009-09-04T18:31:28.175-07:00Sue Bee, it blew me away. I got that link from iM...Sue Bee, it blew me away. I got that link from iMonk and if there was something like that 'round here I'd go.Moonshadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277057132720569896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-60688976038610156862009-09-04T18:28:39.216-07:002009-09-04T18:28:39.216-07:00Moonshadow wrote: If liturgy is as ancient as many...Moonshadow wrote: <i>If liturgy is as ancient as many believe (watch video of LCMS ad orientem service in Tulsa) and if the Letter to the Hebrews was αντιλεγομένα ("disputed," even by Luther), it seems possible that the Mass is founded upon the Scripture at that time.</i><br /><br />Thank you for the link to the Lutheran mass - I posted it on my blog. Nice! Beautiful church. Perfect setting for ancient liturgy.Sue Beehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13342939305850558827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-66678577895554045632009-09-04T18:27:40.796-07:002009-09-04T18:27:40.796-07:00"Which is precisely what was done by this Bul..."Which is precisely what was done by this Bull not being spread around. Sixtus had used his office to judge the true sense of the Scriptures, and his office was rejected and others of "petulant spirits" went ahead and wrested "the sacred Scripture to his own senses" and presumed "to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary" to what a Pope, in his official seat, declared to be so.<br /><br />Trent goes on to say of works on the Scripture"<br /><br /><b>...even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.</b> (both quotes from Trent taken from here):<br /><a rel="nofollow">http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html</a><br />Thanks to Craig French for his help.<br /><a rel="nofollow">http://www.antipelagian.com/2009/08/installment-three-jays-festal-robes-get.html</a>Algohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11166837376395639695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-57339920964977639212009-09-04T17:34:12.243-07:002009-09-04T17:34:12.243-07:00"It was also noted by David King that Cardina..."It was also noted by David King that Cardinal Pole recommended the original Hebrew and Greek texts be included as authentic texts, but this was rejected. Pope Sixtus V made his own attempt to revise the old Vulgate, but could never seem to satisfy himself...he noticed he omitted entire verses and other embarrassing blunders. Sixtus had his version circulated to cardinals and had a Papal Bull that was to be issued (though was never properly promulgated) that would establish the authority of this perverted text. Fortunately for Rome, Sixtus V died within a few days of issuing his version and sale of his Bible was forbidden (referred to in ibid, pg. 164 in reference to a quote in Steinmuller's Companion to Scripture Studies, Vol I).<br /><br />It may be that Romanists would play down the implication of a Papal Bull not being promulgated and chalk it up to the Providence of God...however, Sixtus V, by virtue of his authority, issued this Papal Bull. Sixtus V consciously made this declaration from his official office. By Rome's standard, this should carry authority since:"<br /><br /><b>Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold...</b>Algohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11166837376395639695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-14782055124204466822009-09-04T17:32:30.086-07:002009-09-04T17:32:30.086-07:00"It is of interest to note that this "mo..."It is of interest to note that this "most holy" and "wise" council was speaking presciently since it is safe to conclude that, even if all of Rome's church had used the old Latin Vulgate, they were not in obedience with this decree...indeed, NONE of Rome's churches were in accordance with this decree because the edition that was to be used in the public reading, preaching, etc did not as of yet exist."<br /><br /><b>It was admitted and brought to the attention of the council only a month prior to this decree that the Vulgate did not agree with the Hebrew and Greek originals, and that a revision of the text to correct the errors was needed. It was then suggested that the 'primitive' Vulgate should be restored, and that the papacy would be best suited to take on the responsibility to oversee this task. (Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Vol I pg. 162)</b><br /><br />Francis Turretin summarizes the embarrassment quite accurately:<br /><b>The council of Trent canonized an edition which at the time had no existence and appeared forty-six years afterwards. The decree was made in 1546. In 1590, the work was finished and published by Sixtus V; two years after that it was published by Clement VIII. Now how could a council approve and declare authentic an edition which it had not examined and in fact had not yet been made? (Quoted in ibid, pg 162-163 comes from Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology Vol I, XV.ix)</b>Algohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11166837376395639695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-47434998697114222412009-09-04T17:29:16.528-07:002009-09-04T17:29:16.528-07:00"Another thing, on the "infallible"...<b>"Another thing, on the "infallible" Sixtine Vulgate, how can something be declared infallible before it's produced? But, of course, accuracy would be a good goal to strive for.</b><br /><br />That's a great question. In fact one that you should ask of Trent since<br />Trent declared in its Fourth Session:<br /><br /><b>But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical,<br />the said books entire with all their parts, as they<br />have been used to be read in the Catholic Church,<br />and as they are contained in the old Latin<br />vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately<br />contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be<br />anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what<br />order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after<br />having laid the foundation of the Confession of<br />faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and<br />authorities it will mainly use in confirming<br />dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.</b><br />source:<br /><a rel="nofollow">http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html</a>Algohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11166837376395639695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-69743315448208407792009-09-04T11:02:13.539-07:002009-09-04T11:02:13.539-07:00"I'm fine with Matthew 4:17 ... there'...<b>"I'm fine with Matthew 4:17 ... there's nothing unCatholic about doing penance."</b><br /><br />Do you see the circularity in that?<br />What if you presented the following argument to me?<br /><br />Mark 16<br />17 And a these signs will accompany those who believe: b in my name they will cast out demons; c they will speak in new tongues; 18 d <i>they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them</i>; e they will lay their hands f on the sick, and they will recover.”<br /><br />Translation Note:<br />16:9 Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8. A few manuscripts insert additional material after verse 14; one Latin manuscript adds after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Other manuscripts include this same wording after verse 8, then continue with verses 9-20 <br /><br />"So Paul, since the manuscript evidence overwhelmingly conflicts with your practice of snake-handling...your use of Rattle-Snakes in worship is unbiblical."<br /><br />My reply:<br />"I'm good with that since there's nothing un-Apostolic about snake handling ."Algohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11166837376395639695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-24628092732491087922009-09-04T08:29:47.789-07:002009-09-04T08:29:47.789-07:00Demonstrates that the Nihil Obstat is rather meani...<b>Demonstrates that the Nihil Obstat is rather meaningless. </b><br /><br />Not at all, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihil_obstat" rel="nofollow">Nihil obstat</a>, just perhaps not as you expect. Condemning the author's work does not necessarily impinge upon his censor. Again, you think Catholic books are censored so as to suppress personal opinion and attitude? <br /><br /><b>fallacious arguments he used.</b><br /><br />And I'm agreeing with you.<br /><br />Another thing, on the "infallible" Sixtine Vulgate, how can something be declared infallible before it's produced? But, of course, accuracy would be a good goal to strive for. <br /><br />I'm no fan of McGrath ... or Pacwa.Moonshadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277057132720569896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-38838025096178525642009-09-04T07:41:02.307-07:002009-09-04T07:41:02.307-07:00I think you of all people ought to recognize that ...I think you of all people ought to recognize that Fr. Graham is being petty and intentionally polemical. As is McGrath. I'm fine with Matthew 4:17 ... there's nothing unCatholic about doing penance.<br /><br />Petty?<br />Fr. Graham: yes<br />Dr. McGrath: no<br />McGrath's observations are accurate and proven to be important by the NAB (currently the official U.S Cath. Bishop's version) revision of Matt. 4:17. Father Pacwa admitted in debate that Augustine was likely influenced in his understanding and development of penance by that mis-translation.Algohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11166837376395639695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-54742497618903979552009-09-04T07:33:17.319-07:002009-09-04T07:33:17.319-07:00Elena put forth Fr. Graham's article and I am ...Elena put forth Fr. Graham's article and I am simply pointing out the Historical inaccuracies, and fallacious arguments he used. The fact that it has had a:<br />Twenty-second Printing <br />Nihil Obstat et Imprimatur JOANNES RITCHIE, Vic. Gen.<br />Glasguae. <br />Demonstrates that the Nihil Obstat is rather meaningless.Algohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11166837376395639695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-9938956230940732402009-09-04T07:16:56.275-07:002009-09-04T07:16:56.275-07:00But you see my point regarding Fr. Graham's ar...<b>But you see my point regarding Fr. Graham's article? </b><br /><br />I think you of all people ought to recognize that Fr. Graham is being petty and intentionally polemical. As is McGrath. I'm fine with Matthew 4:17 ... there's nothing unCatholic about doing penance.<br /><br /><b>set about producing an "infallible" version of it.</b><br /><br />And revision was made as recently as the last century (<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15515b.htm" rel="nofollow">Revision of the Vulgate</a>).<br /><br />Again, Paul, you seem to be insisting, on the one hand, that Catholics ought to be Vulgate-only users while at the same time pointing out that we aren't (NAB/NJB/NRSV used in public worship worldwide) and that the Vulgate is imperfect and in as much need of critical emendation/correction as the NA27/USB4.<br /><br />These days, there's apparently no reason for Protestant Christians to accept the NA27/USB4 - neither the NIV nor the ESV NTs are based upon it faithfully (or blindly, depending upon one's perspective). Some have always favored the TR (not an accurate designation, but you know what I mean) and a growing number favor the Majority Text. The Greeks don't accept the Hebrew MT but we Catholics finally do.<br /><br />Do you see how you are frustrated by your own expectations? Label that as a, what is it, Madridism? Again. I don't know the man.Moonshadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277057132720569896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-53498316452457946252009-09-04T06:59:09.361-07:002009-09-04T06:59:09.361-07:00"I'm all for churches deciding which vers..."I'm all for churches deciding which version of the Bible - even a translation - is authoritative."<br /><br />Yes, I agree. But you see my point regarding Fr. Graham's article? He criticizes the protestant Bibles as corrupting the text. He even describes an "Epistle of Calvin" being added to what eventually became the Geneva Bible. This leaves the impression that Calvin's "Epistle" was raised to the level of Scriptural authority. When what he is referring to is Marginal Study Notes. Similar to what you have in your Reformation Study Bible. <br />At Trent, the Vulgate was in fact declared "authoritative" and shortly after that Pope Sixtus V set about producing an "infallible" version of it.<br /><br />See Madrid v. Sungenis on this:<br />http://bellarmineforum.xanga.com/655871524/question-65-8211-pope-sixtus-v-the-latin-vulgate-and-papal-infallibility/<br /><br />But see my reference to McGrath's observation of Matt. 4:17.<br />This variant was instrumental in a development of doctrine. (doing penance).Algohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11166837376395639695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-38818408227166794992009-09-04T06:43:11.749-07:002009-09-04T06:43:11.749-07:00There was however not "one" standard LXX...<b>There was however not "one" standard LXX in the early church.</b><br /><br />I'm well aware of that, having <a href="http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.amazon.com/Invitation-Septuagint-Karen-H-Jobes/dp/0801022355&sa=U&ei=3xehSr9938mVB-O_nMQO&ct=res&cd=1&sig2=xmdvyzxCsWXUP70f7-m6Gw&usg=AFQjCNHTCQmZXA44HhxseT4-xOOsryXcbA" rel="nofollow">read this long ago</a>. I'm talking today for EO, not back then.<br /><br />Everyone is aware of the Genesis 11/Acts 7 thing; it's not a big deal.Moonshadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277057132720569896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-43283437508562134322009-09-04T06:35:11.097-07:002009-09-04T06:35:11.097-07:00it was not until 1970 that the RCC
In '61, t...<b> it was not until 1970 that the RCC </b><br /><br />In '61, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Bible" rel="nofollow">JB</a> appeared in French; an English version in '66 from the original languages but minimally dependent upon the French. And in '85, the NJB from the original languages.Moonshadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277057132720569896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-9007027511156469912009-09-04T06:33:28.129-07:002009-09-04T06:33:28.129-07:00"You realize, of course, that the Greek Ortho..."You realize, of course, that the Greek Orthodox Churches consider the Greek LXX canonical rather than the Hebrew MT? (Wiki)<br /><br />And you realize that the ESV does not use NA27 as published.<br /><br />I'm all for churches deciding which version of the Bible - even a translation - is authoritative."<br /><br />Yes, that is very interesting. There was however not "one" standard LXX in the early church. This was addressed in the White/Machuta debate.<br /><br />Also, here is an interesting note that I found last week while studying Acts 7. (ESV Study Bibl<br /><br />.<br /><br />Gen. 11:32 By way of completing this short introduction to Terah's family, the narrative records his death at the age of 205. If Abram was born when Terah was 70 years old (see v. 26), and if Abram was 75 years old when he departed for Canaan (see 12:4), then Terah died 60 years after Abram's departure (70 + 75 + 60 = 205). In Acts 7:4, however, Stephen says that Abram left Haran after the death of Terah. A simple way to resolve the chronological difficulty is to suppose that Stephen was following an alternative text (represented today in the Samaritan Pentateuch), which says that Terah died at the age of 145Algohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11166837376395639695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-5891848929435472862009-09-04T06:08:43.701-07:002009-09-04T06:08:43.701-07:00In fact it was not until 1970 that the RCC with th...<b>In fact it was not until 1970 that the RCC with the NAB went back to the Greek/Hebrew manuscripts. </b><br /><br />You realize, of course, that the Greek Orthodox Churches consider the Greek LXX canonical rather than the Hebrew MT? (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament#The_Septuagint" rel="nofollow">Wiki</a>)<br /><br />And you realize that the ESV does not use NA27 as published.<br /><br />I'm all for churches deciding which version of the Bible - even a translation - is authoritative.Moonshadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277057132720569896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-5651522472910769282009-09-04T05:59:50.018-07:002009-09-04T05:59:50.018-07:00"An overt example of textual corruption that ..."An overt example of textual corruption that has subsequently been transmitted by the Vulgate into the English (Roman Catholic) translation of the Douay"“Rheims Bible can be seen in the example of Psalm 2:12 with the translation of the Hebrew "Kiss, do homage, or adore the Son." The Latin Vulgate misses the Hebrew sense completely with adprehendite disciplinam which is subsequently translated by the Douay"“Rheims version as "˜embrace discipline.´ As a side note, the Douay"“Rheims is a translation of a translation, i.e. it is an English translation based on the latin Vulgate.<br /><b>The other example can be seen in the Vulgate translation of Matthew 4:17, which tended to sever, as McGrath suggests, "˜the semantic link between the mental attitude of repentance and the sacrament of penance.´ The translation in the Vulgate read: Exinde coepit Jesus praedicare et dicere paenitentiam agite adpropinquavit enim regnum caelorum. This had been taken to imply the need to "˜do penance´, in preparation for the coming of the Kingdom of God. (The ambiguity of the Latin word poenitentia, which could be translated as the mental state of "˜repentance´, or the sacrament of "˜penance´, should be noted</b>.) This link was initially weakened, and subsequently eliminated, through the rise of the new philology. Thus Erasmus initially translated the Greek verb as poeniteat vos ("˜be penitent´), and subsequently as resipiscite ("˜come to your senses´). See Alister McGrath, The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987), pp. 133"“134.<br />source:<br />Holy Scripture: The Ground And Pillar Of Our Faith Vol I<br />David T. King<br /><br />In fact it was not until 1970 that the RCC with the NAB went back to the Greek/Hebrew manuscripts. Prior to that all English translations came from the Vulgate.<br /><br />NAB: Matt 4:17<br />17<br /> 7 From that time on, Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."<br /><br />D-R:<br />17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at handAlgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11166837376395639695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-38721025569793214872009-09-04T05:48:10.619-07:002009-09-04T05:48:10.619-07:00Fr. Graham claims that the Douay Rheims is an accu...Fr. Graham claims that the Douay Rheims is an accurate translation while Protestant Bibles are corrupted.<br />"We are close now to the moment at which the first Catholic version (and up till today the only one ever<br />sanctioned in English) appeared.<br />(6) But time would fail to tell of all the corruptions and perversions of the original texts which are to be<br />found in practically all the Protestant Bibles, down to the present time, and whose existence is proved by the<br />fact that one after the other has been withdrawn, and its place taken by a fresh version, which in its turn<br />was found to be no better than the rest. Is this reverence for the Word of God? Which of all these corrupt<br />partisan versions was 'the Rule of Faith?' The Bible, and the Bible only, we are told; but which Bible? I ask.<br /><br />It was a translation, of course, from the Latin Vulgate, which had been declared by the Council of<br />Trent to be the authorised text of Scripture for the Church. Martin was the principal translator, whilst Bristow<br />mainly contributed the notes, which are powerful and illuminative. <b>The whole was intended to be of service<br />both to priests and people, to give them a true and sound rendering of the original writings, to save them<br />from the numberless false and incorrect versions in circulation, and to provide them with something<br />wherewith to refute the heretics who then, as ever, approached with a text in their mouth</b>.<br />In 1593<br />the College returned to Douai, and there in 1609 the Old Testament was added, and the Catholic Bible in<br />English was complete, and is called the Douai Bible. Complete we may well call it; it is the only really<br />complete Bible in English, for it contains those seven books of the Old Testament which I pointed out before<br />were, and are, omitted by the Protestants in their editions. <b>So that we can claim to have not only the pure,<br />unadulterated Bible but the whole of it, without addition or subtraction: a translation of the Vulgate, which is<br />itself the work of St. Jerome in the fourth century, which, again, is the most authoritative and correct of all<br />the early copies of Holy Scripture</b>. At a single leap we thus arrive at that great work, completed by the<br />greatest scholar of his day, who had access to manuscripts and authorities that have now perished, and<br />who, living so near the days of the Apostles, and, as it were, close to the very fountainhead, <b>was able to<br />produce a copy of the inspired writings which, for correctness, can never be equalled</b>.<br /><br />But when all<br />is said and done, <b>it is a noble version with a noble history; true, honest, scholarly, faithful to the original</b>.<br /><br />--------------------<br />continuedAlgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11166837376395639695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-11788353075223870322009-09-03T20:53:05.773-07:002009-09-03T20:53:05.773-07:00I remember when the ESV first came out, my Reforme...I remember when the ESV first came out, my Reformed friend was so happy to have an English Bible without study notes. She said she just wanted to read God's Word with nothing added. And I encouraged her in this, of course, with all sincerity. It's very noble.<br /><br />I'm not dissing the ESV, at all. It's a fine translation and I have Sproul's study edition. It just didn't take long for the ESVSB to come along (and, longer than I expected, the ESV+Apocrypha, but, alleluia!)Moonshadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11277057132720569896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-33013988078344929732009-09-03T20:45:44.584-07:002009-09-03T20:45:44.584-07:00Jennie, I'll look at this a bit more tomorrow....Jennie, I'll look at this a bit more tomorrow.<br />Here are the study notes from the ESV Study Bible:<br /><br /><br /><br />Rom. 11:29 Israel will be saved because God never revokes his saving promises. Gifts (Gk. charisma) means things freely given by God, and the word can be used to refer to different kinds of gifts. Sometimes the word refers to spiritual gifts for ministry (as in 1:11; 12:6; 1 Cor. 12:4) and sometimes to the gift of salvation (Rom. 5:15–16; 6:23), but the context here favors yet a third kind of “gifts,” namely, the unique blessings given to Israel which Paul mentioned at the beginning of this long section (9:4–5). calling (Gk. klēsis, using the same root as Gk. eklogē, “election,” in 11:28; also in 9:11; 11:7) refers here to calling to salvation (cf. 8:30; 9:11, 24). <br /><br />Rom. 11:30–31 Salvation history is structured to feature God's great mercy. God saved the Gentiles when one would expect only the Jews to be saved, but in the future he will amaze all by his grace again by saving the Jews, so that it will be clear that everyone's salvation is by mercy alone. The final now in the text does not mean the promise to the Jews is now fulfilled but that the promise of Jewish salvation could be fulfilled at any time. <br /><br />Rom. 11:30–31 Salvation history is structured to feature God's great mercy. God saved the Gentiles when one would expect only the Jews to be saved, but in the future he will amaze all by his grace again by saving the Jews, so that it will be clear that everyone's salvation is by mercy alone. The final now in the text does not mean the promise to the Jews is now fulfilled but that the promise of Jewish salvation could be fulfilled at any time. <br /><br />Rom. 11:32 The word all here refers to Jews and Gentiles (all without distinction, not all without exception). The sin and disobedience of both Jews and Gentiles is highlighted, to emphasize God's mercy in saving some among both Jews and Gentiles.Algohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11166837376395639695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-853207333094285361.post-11620849769813145102009-09-03T20:37:55.116-07:002009-09-03T20:37:55.116-07:00(iii) Here, as I said before, comes in the Council...(iii) Here, as I said before, comes in the Council of Carthage, 397 A.D., confirming and approving the<br />decrees of a previous Council (Hippo, 393 A.D.) declaring, for all time to come, what was the exact collection<br />of sacred writings thenceforth to be reckoned, to the exclusion of all others, as the inspired Scripture of the<br />New Testament. That collection is precisely that which Catholics possess at this day in their Douai Bible. That<br />decree of Carthage was never changed. It was sent to Rome for confirmation. As I have already remarked, a<br />Council, even though not a general Council of the whole Catholic Church, may yet have its decrees made<br />binding on the whole Church by the approval and will of the Pope. A second Council of Carthage over which<br />St Augustine presided, in 419 A.D., renewed the decrees of the former one, and declared that its act was to<br />be notified to Boniface, Bishop of Rome, for the purpose of confirming it. <b>From that date all doubt ceased as<br />to what was, and what was not 'spurious', or 'genuine', or 'doubtful' among the Christian writings then<br />known. Rome had spoken. A Council of the Roman Catholic Church had settled it. You might hear a voice<br />here or there, in East or West, in subsequent times, raking up some old doubt, or raising a question as to<br />whether this or that book of the New Testament is really what it claims to be, or should be where it is. But it<br />is a voice in the wilderness</b>.<br /><br />"Did Hippo, Carthage, or Rome's Bishop Settle the Canon?<br /><br />Some Roman Catholics are under the false impression that the councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and/or Carthage (A.D. 397) authoritatively settled the canon of Scripture for the church - either directly or by endorsement by one or more Roman bishops. To be deep in history, however, is to cease to be so naive.<br /><br />John of Damascus (lived from about A.D. 676 – 749) wrote on the canon of the New Testament:<br /><br /> The New Testament contains four gospels, that according to Matthew, that according to Mark, that according to Luke, that according to John; the Acts of the Holy Apostles by Luke the Evangelist; seven catholic epistles, viz. one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; fourteen letters of the Apostle Paul; the Revelation of John the Evangelist; the Canons of the holy apostles, by Clement.<br /><br />- John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 17<br /><br />You will note that differs from our canon by the inclusion of the canons of Clement. He was wrong to include that work, but the fact remains that there was not a "catholic" (universal) canon of the New Testament even as late as the 8th century. There was widespread agreement by that time on the 27 books that we recognize were inspired, but there was no authoritative presence telling all Christians they must accept one set of books or another. Ask any Eastern Orthodox scholar when their church defined the canon - the answer will not be a date, and it may be a lecture on the difference between the eastern churches and those of the West.<br /><br />On the Old Testament, John of Damascus similarly provides a list:<br /><br /> Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven. For the letters Caph, Mem, Nun, Pe, Sade are double. And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, :"<br />source:<br /><a rel="nofollow">http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2009/08/did-hippo-carthage-or-romes-bishop.html</a>Algohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11166837376395639695noreply@blogger.com