By whom and when was scripture written?

[LittleLes]

Dear me. I seem to be addressing topics which aren't to be addressed. This one, I hope, doesn't prove too controversial, because I think it's fascinating.

By way of overview, I assert (and I'm open to challenge here), that a radical change in scriptural scholarship occurred within Catholicism starding about 1950. Pius XII (not my altogether favorite pope) rather remarkably allowed Catholic scriptural scholars to evaluate scripture using the same tools that their Protestant counterparts were using.

Unfortunately, while remarkable progress was made in Catholic scriptural scholarship, a lot of it still hasn't filtered down to the laity.

Any objections thus far??

Littleles

[Qoheleth]

Objections not really from me, but from a bit higher up, can be found [url="http://www.ewtn.org/library/theology/ratzbibl.htm"]here[/url].

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Qoheleth' date='Jun 20 2005, 09:39 PM']Objections not really from me, but from a bit higher up, can be found [url="http://www.ewtn.org/library/theology/ratzbibl.htm"]here[/url].
[right][snapback]617459[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

Please identify what you consider an objection in this Ratzinger writing.

[LittleLes]

In the early thirteenth century, Catholics were forbidden to read scripture.

Council of Toulouse (1229):” Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”


But this teaching was dropped in the early 18th century.

Unigentus. Pope Clement XI (1713): “80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.”

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 20 2005, 10:14 PM']In the early thirteenth century, Catholics were forbidden to read scripture.

Council of Toulouse (1229):” Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”
But this teaching was dropped in the early 18th century.

Unigentus. Pope Clement XI (1713): “80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.”
[right][snapback]617518[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And yet again, LittleLes applies a particular teaching to a regional synod. This was not for the whole of the Church, as you assume, but rather it is specifically for the jusrisdictions of the certain synods.....why, praytell?

Because those particular areas were fighting the Albigensian Heresy....oddly enough, something that flourished in France at the same time of the Council of Toulouse. This proclaimation was to limit the abuse of this heresy, through scripture. Once the heresy was put down, the limitation was lifted. Notice also that this was not a total ban on the use of scripture by the laity, but LittleLes glosses over that quickly.

But you don't get this history from brother LittleLes.

[Guest Eremite]

I was going to provide a long response, but....

This is a LittleLes thread. Why waste my time.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 20 2005, 10:30 PM']And yet again, LittleLes applies a particular teaching to a regional synod.  This was not for the whole of the Church, as you assume, but rather it is specifically for the jusrisdictions of the certain synods.....why, praytell?

Because those particular areas were fighting the Albigensian Heresy....oddly enough, something that flourished in France at the same time of the Council of Toulouse.  This proclaimation was to limit the abuse of this heresy, through scripture.  Once the heresy was put down, the limitation was lifted.  Notice also that this was not a total ban on the use of scripture by the laity, but LittleLes glosses over that quickly.

But you don't get this history from brother LittleLes.
[right][snapback]617549[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

If you are correct, only some Catholics were forbidden to read the bible.

But what about the Council of Trent's probibition on possessing and reading the Bible?

Did this only apply to some Catholics too?

"Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them. "

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 07:24 AM']I was going to provide a long response, but....

This is a LittleLes thread. Why waste my time.


[right][snapback]617742[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Agreed. Now, LittleLes is making up stuff. How does one properly respond to his fantasy-facts? Ho-hum.

Edited June 21, 2005 by Mateo el Feo

[jezic]

did you miss the "translations into the vernacular" part of that?

to answer the main question, by Divinely inspired prophets and others. They wrote it when they got tired of talking (actually whenever they did i guess. We can never really know exact dates)

Edited June 21, 2005 by jezic

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 06:24 AM']I was going to provide a long response, but....

This is a LittleLes thread. Why waste my time.


[right][snapback]617742[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Thank you. I prefer short to the point responses , not excessively long ones. If they are too long, I suspect the poster really doesn't have any clear ideas and is just rambling.

Ditto, the heavy cut and pasters or those who merely refer to long articles without stating their assertion

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 21 2005, 03:00 PM']Agreed.  Now, LittleLes is making up stuff.  How does one properly respond to his fantasy-facts?  Ho-hum.
[right][snapback]618355[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Please specifically state what you claim I am "making up." I will endeavor to give you a more complete reference.

On the other hand, if this is an assertion without evidence, please withdraw your assertion. :angry:

[LittleLes]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jun 21 2005, 03:01 PM']did you miss the "translations into the vernacular" part of that?

to answer the main question, by Divinely inspired prophets and others. They wrote it when they got tired of talking (actually whenever they did i guess. We can never really know exact dates)
[right][snapback]618357[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Translation into the venacular was absolutely essential if the laity, who rarely understood Latin, were to read scripture.

LittleLes

[Aloysius]

the council was clearly suppressing faulty or erroneous translations that were being made by the reformers

[LittleLes]

Before pursuing the "who, when, and what" issues of scripture, it is necessary to observe the state of scripture scholarship.

Two relatively modern papal writing, the latter the most important, underlie this understanding.

The first is "Providentissimus deus" (On the Stury of Holy Scripture) written by Pope Leo XIII in 1893. It is perhaps the final papal document claiming absolute inerrancy of scripture.

The second is "Divine Afflante Spiritu" (On the Most Opportune Way to promote Biblical Studies) by Pope Pius XII in 1947. This papal writing encourages scripture scholars to use textual criticism and scriptures written in the original languages rather than Latin. In short, it allowed Catholic scripture scholars to use the same methods as their Protestant counterparts.

Both are fairly long documents, 18 and 19 pages respectively. But if approached slowly, they are not too difficult to read and understand. They are available at a variety of web sites.

To avoid too long a post, I'll present the salient passages of each separately.

LittleLes

[Aloysius]

I like to play a game with my girlfriend called "which of these would have been burned back in the Age of Faith?" in the Barnes n Noble Bible section. I find it quite enjoyable.. however... it seems to get on her nerves! especially cause I pointed out the Bible that she owns! :rotfl:

she's Catholic, btw (what other girl could there be for me but a Catholic girl?, duh)

oh, and btw, scripture is inerrant and the Catholic Church still teaches that and the Vulgate is infallibly without doctrinal error and completely inspired by the Holy Spirit, though for history's sake the older texts are good for Catholic scholars to dabble in and translate. does that make St. Jerome into one of the human hands which guided by the Spirit penned the word of God? yep, just a bit and so there ya have it... if you believe in transcendent spiritual realities at work on earth, you're fine with the vulage.. if you think that it's somehow possible to figure out the original texts from the bits and peices of the oldest manuscripts we have... you're foolish. but it's good to translate and study them for history's sake, and it's still inspired scripture.

[LittleLes]

The Encyclical
"Providentissimus Deus"

Given by His Holiness Pope Leo XIII
November 18, 1893

(1) INERRANCY NOT LIMITED TO ONLY MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS: para 20.

"But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican."

(2) USE OF APT WORD AND NO ERROR BY SCRIPTURE AUTHORS:

" Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers. "Therefore," says St. Augustine, "since they wrote the things which He showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for His members executed what their Head dictated."

(3) NO ERRORS AT ALL, para 21

"It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error."

IN SHORT:

"And St. Gregory the Great thus pronounces: "Most superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things-we loyally believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution. "

Here we have the God directly dictated scripture assertion.

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU

ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS PIUS XII BY DIVINE PROVIDENCE POPE

(1) RECOURSE TO ORIGINAL TESTS: (para 14)

"In the middle ages, when the Scholastic Theology was at the height of its vigor, the knowledge of even the Greek language had long since become so rare in the West, that even the greatest Doctors of that time, in their exposition of the Sacred Text, had recourse only to the Latin version, known as the Vulgate. 15. On the contrary in this our time, not only the Greek language, which since the humanistic renaissance has been, as it were, restored to new life, is familiar to almost all students of antiquity and letters, but the knowledge of Hebrew also and of other oriental languages has spread far and wide among literary men."

(2) IMPORTANCE OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM: (para 17)

" In the present day indeed this art, which is called textual criticism and which is used with great and praiseworthy results in the editions of profane writings, is also quite rightly employed in the case of Sacred Books, because of that very reverence which is due to the Divine Oracles. For its very purpose is to insure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists and be freed, as far as may be done, from glosses and omissions, from the interchange and repetition of words and from all other kinds of mistakes, which are wont to make their way gradually into writings handed down through many centuries."

(3) AVOID FIGUATIVE SENSE: (para 27)

"Let Catholic exegetes then disclose and expound this spiritual significance, intended and ordained by God, with that care which the dignity of the divine word demands; but let them scrupulously refrain from proposing as the genuine meaning of Sacred Scripture other figurative senses. It may indeed be useful, especially in preaching, to illustrate and present the matters of faith and morals by a broader use of the Sacred Text in the figurative sense, provided this be done with moderation and restraint; it should, however, never be forgotten that this use of the Sacred Scripture is, as it were, extrinsic to it and accidental, and that, especially in these days, it is not free from danger, since the faithful, in particular those who are well-informed in the sciences, sacred and profane, wish to know what God has told us in the Sacred Letters rather than what an ingenious orator or writer may suggest by a clever use of the words of Scripture."

SEVERAL ADDITONAL REMARKS:

(para 31) "Quite wrongly therefore do some pretend, not rightly understanding the conditions of biblical study, that nothing remains to be added by the Catholic exegete of our time to what Christian antiquity has produced; some, on the contrary, these are times have brought to light so many things, which call for a fresh investigation and a new examination, and which stimulate not a little the practical zeal of the present-day interpreter."

(para 33) " Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavor to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed."

(para 47) " Let them bear in mind above all that in the rules and laws promulgated by the Church there is question of doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that in the immense matter contained in the Sacred Books--legislative, historical, sapiential and prophetical--there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous."

Sorry for the long post!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 22 2005, 03:15 AM']
oh, and btw, scripture is inerrant and the Catholic Church still teaches that and the Vulgate is infallibly without doctrinal error and completely inspired by the Holy Spirit, [/quote]

RESPONSE:

Not really. For example:

Douay Rheims, English Translation of Latin Vulgate:

Tobias 8:4 "Then Tobias exhorted the virgin, and said to her: Sara, arise, and let us pray to God to day, and to morrow, and the next day: because for these three nights we are joined to God: and when the third night is over, we will be in our own wedlock."


New American Bible:

Tobias 8:4-8 "When the girl's parents left the bedroom and closed the door behind them, Tobiah arose from bed and said to his wife, "My love, get up. Let us pray and beg our Lord to have mercy on us and to grant us deliverance." She got up, and they started to pray and beg that deliverance might be theirs. He began with these words: "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers; praised be your name forever and ever. Let the heavens and all your creation praise you forever. You made Adam and you gave him his wife Eve to be his help and support; and from these two the human race descended. You said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; let us make him a partner like himself."


Jerome interpolated Tobias making him wait three days to consumate his marriage to Sarah so that Jerome could argue the exclusively procreative purpose for marriage. The original Hebrew texts have Tobias consumating his marriage on the first night saying "It is not good for man to be alone..." Jerome omited this in his Vulgate.

Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pius XII, para 16:

"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; this can be done all the more easily and fruitfully, if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text. "

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 04:20 AM']RESPONSE:

Not really. For example:

Douay Rheims, English Translation of Latin Vulgate:

Tobias 8:4 "Then Tobias exhorted the virgin, and said to her: Sara, arise, and let us pray to God to day, and to morrow, and the next day: because for these three nights we are joined to God: and when the third night is over, we will be in our own wedlock."
New American Bible:

Tobias 8:4-8  "When the girl's parents left the bedroom and closed the door behind them, Tobiah arose from bed and said to his wife, "My love, get up. Let us pray and beg our Lord to have mercy on us and to grant us deliverance." She got up, and they started to pray and beg that deliverance might be theirs. He began with these words: "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers; praised be your name forever and ever. Let the heavens and all your creation praise you forever. You made Adam and you gave him his wife Eve to be his help and support; and from these two the human race descended. You said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; let us make him a partner like himself."
Jerome interpolated Tobias making him wait three days to consumate his marriage to Sarah so that Jerome could argue the exclusively procreative purpose for marriage. The original Hebrew texts have Tobias consumating his marriage on the first night saying "It is not good for man to be alone..."  Jerome omited this in his Vulgate.

Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pius XII, para 16:

"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; this can be done all the more easily and fruitfully, if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text. "

LittleLes
[right][snapback]618847[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Psssssssssssttttttttt.......

Why are you drudging this up again? We already discussed this a loooooooooooooongggg time ago. And we proved you wrong a loooooooooooooonnnnggggg time ago.

Why do you insist upon bringing up these issues again? Honest injun.....

Do you really think that we might change our answer? Do you think that maybe we will change our position? Do you think that you are going to single handedly prove the Church wrong? Do you think that by incessently posting this trype we will convert to LittleLes' version of Christianity...ooops, I mean Catholicism?

Part of being a "true believer" is that we believe the truth. We don't believe in those things that are untrue......so, stop stating things that we have proven untrue.....

Oh, I know, your stock answer......"You have provided no evidence, blah, blah, blah..." WRONG-O BOY-O....

Wanna know why we are all being coy? Because we don't have anything new to add.....we have already proven you wrong and now we are simply having fun.

Perhaps if you try something new and do it in an authentic way, LittleLes, we will take the posts seriously, but until you do that, we really don't need to restate our position......You are not a challenge....never have been.

Good Luck and God Bless.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 22 2005, 06:52 AM']Psssssssssssttttttttt.......

Why are you drudging this up again?  We already discussed this a loooooooooooooongggg time ago.  And we proved you wrong a loooooooooooooonnnnggggg time ago.

Why do you insist upon bringing up these issues again?  Honest injun.....

Do you really think that we might change our answer?  Do you think that maybe we will change our position?  Do you think that you are going to single handedly prove the Church wrong?  Do you think that by incessently posting this trype we will convert to LittleLes' version of Christianity...ooops, I mean Catholicism?

Part of being a "true believer" is that we believe the truth.  We don't believe in those things that are untrue......so, stop stating things that we have proven untrue.....

Oh, I know, your stock answer......"You have provided no evidence, blah, blah, blah..."  WRONG-O BOY-O....

Wanna know why we are all being coy?  Because we don't have anything new to add.....we have already proven you wrong and now we are simply having fun.

Perhaps if you try something new and do it in an authentic way, LittleLes, we will take the posts seriously, but until you do that, we really don't need to restate our position......You are not a challenge....never have been.

Good Luck and God Bless.
[right][snapback]618866[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes, I believe this came up in another thread, but Aloyious has made an erroneous assertion in this thread to which I responsed with clear evidence by comparing the Douay(Vulgate) and the New American Bible pointing out Jerome's interpolation, and I have provided a quote from Afflante.

On the other hand, you have proven nothing, despite your assertion that you have.

But I can understand where you are coming from. St. Augustine had the same mindset.

Pope Leo XIII quotes him in Providentissimus (para 18) thus:

"Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so." (De Gen. ad litt. i, 21,41).

In other words, he is compelled to believe something to be so in spite of all evidence to the contrary. That's the '"true believer" philosophy in a nutshell!

P.S. Despite biblical quotations to the opposite, the earth really does move.