www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Which English Translation of the Bible Should I Use? by Metropoli

You can get samples of the new tranlation of the Old Testament LXX from their website (and updates).

http://www.lxx.org/work_d1.htm

Pascha 2008 seems a long time.

Nick

Bob,

That the Gospel writers would have adapted sayings of Jesus, or the apostles for that matter, or would have reconstructed speeches in certain stylized ways, would not have offended or scandalized anyone in the ancient world. The ancients did not write history like court stenographers who merely dictate word for word everything being said and done. I believe that Vatican II's document on divine revelation points this out. That being said, I do think that a homilist ought to be very careful when preaching in order not to confuse or mislead folks who don't have any awareness of these nuances. And, one of my biggest pet peaves is a homily where the preacher says something like "According to Deutero-Paul," or "according to Second Isaiah.." as if he were simply uttering undisputed facts to people who are experts in historical criticism. God bless.

Joe

In one of the earlier posts, someone mentioned the Canon of Sacred Scripture. I understand that the Council of Trent reaffirmed the statements on the Canon made by the (regional) Council of Hippo and Council of Carthage in the years 393 and 397. What is the Orthodox perspective regarding these two councils and their statements regarding the Canon? Does anyone know?

The Vatican announced November 21 that the Pope's new book, Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration, would appear in March. The book's preface and part of its introduction were also handed out.
In the preface (signed "Joseph Ratzinger -- Benedict XVI"), the Pope writes that for decades he has observed an increasing scholarly distinction between the "historical Jesus" and the "Christ of faith" (the idea that Jesus 2,000 years ago in Palestine was not at all the Jesus Christ, Son of God, that faith teaches he was).
In essence, Benedict wants to argue that the Jesus depicted in the Gospels, the Jesus who performed miracles and rose from the dead, is the true Jesus -- that the historical Jesus is the same as the Jesus of faith, that the Gospels are not fables.
"I trust the Gospels," the Pope writes. "I wanted to attempt to present the Jesus of the Gospels as the true Jesus, as the �historic Jesus,' in the true sense of the expression."
The Pope thinks this is a reasonable position, that it is in keeping with evidence which all of us can examine and judge. He writes: "Only if something extraordinary happened, if the figure and words of Jesus radically exceeded all the hopes and expectations of his age, can his crucifixion and his effectiveness be explained."
Inevitably this preface, and the book itself, will be compared with the talk Ratzinger gave to many of the leading practitioners of the historical-critical method of scriptural analysis, including Raymond Brown, in January 1988 in New York. (The occasion was the annual Erasmus Lecture sponsored by the ecumenical Rockford Institute's Center on Religion and Society.)
In his new preface, Ratzinger makes every effort to identify with scriptural interpreters and praise whatever scholarly enlightenment has resulted from the historical-critical method.
In 1988, the first thing the cardinal did was to remind the assembled scholars that one of the great creative visionaries of the previous century, the Russian theologian Vladimir Soloviev (in his haunting History of the Antichrist) had described the Antichrist, "the eschatological enemy of the redeemer," as "a famous exegete." Ratzinger elaborated: "He had earned his doctorate in theology at Tubingen and had written an exegetical work which was recognized as pioneering in the field."
from "Inside the Vatican"

my good friend Bob,
I am so glad that you have asked this question, and I hope I have an answer for you!
I have a Master of Arts in Biblical Studies, so I have some expertise in this area. when one discusses the histoico-critical method,it must be understood that that the purveyors of this are intellectual descendants of the Hegelian school of thought that, in this context, see the Bible as a series of layers interacting with the Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis method, in order to come up with the Bible. perhaps you are aware of the Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis which holds that Torah is built up of Elohist, Jehovist, Priestly and Deuteronomic sources. it was quite the bomb in the nineteenth century, a time of Liberalism that was a reflection of the inevitable progress of Man idea (which died a horrible death in the face the First World War, reality stinks, kid, and the reality is, that Man has NOT progressed, he is still the fallen sinner he was from the time of Adam and Eve). Wellhausen built on the thought of Renan who saw the so called Elohist and Jehovist sources, by the way. here is the thing, many Liberal scholars following the Hypothesis argue amongst themselves as what verse is Elohist, Jehovist, Priestly, Deuteronomic, and armed with their crayons, color in the verse that reflects their idea. the Hypothesis is pretty much over, and I may recommend a short book by Edward Young (don't have the title, but wonder of wonders, it was printed by Fortress Press, a mainline Protestant publisher, and mainliners still wallow in Wellhausen land) that calls the Hypothesis bunk, in so many words.
it is sad when one looks at the introductory sections of the New American Bible that tries to play a cute game of dancing between Wellhausen and the fact that all Scripture is inspired by God (ll Timothy 3:16). the Hypothesis, its attendant schools of historical, source, and whatever criticism in fact denies the fact that the Bible in inspired by God, and is not Man's search for God. it is a question of whether God or Man is the measure of all things, and the source of authority.
may I suggest that you seek out books that introduce one to the Old and New Testaments, you can find them at local Christian bookstores, or contact such publishers as Baker to see what they can suggest and have in stock. I had Archer Gleason's text for OT in seminary, that is one good work.
get to know the Bible, not only what it teaches, but its history as well. you'll be glad that you did, yes you will.
Much Love,
Jonn

whoops!, the author was Gleason Archer

John,

Does this mean that if Moses did not write the pentateuch, then it is not inspired by God? I've noticed that in his "Theology of the Body" Pope John Paul II makes use of the distinction between the "Elohist" and "Yahwist" accounts. I guess I'm confused.

Joe

Jonn:

I appreciate your answer. I didn't mean to pick on one critical method or other but to pose it against the exegesis of the Fathers. There is a series of books entitled "The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers" and I was referring to the interpretation that might be found there as it might stand opposed to the sermon I had heard.

Needless to say, I had never heard a statement like this one and had privately asked some others both on this forum and among my local clergy contacts about this kind of thing. The response was almost universally negative. Many could not believe that this kind of statement could or would be made by a Catholic priest in a public sermon. It also pointed up to me the long raod we have on the way to unity. The Orthodox would not put up with a priest who made this statement for much longer than it would take to defrock him. The Catholics were less likely to be sure that it would come to such a point, but they were uneasy with this type of statement for the most part, too.

I don't have the background that you have--just a layman who finds this kind of statement sending up flags when compared to what he has heard and been taught over many years. I might add that I was sensitized to so much of this by the pastor that I had as I graduated from high school; he was retiring. He told me that "in the future you won't be able to trust your parish priest because of the direction that the seminaries are heading. You'll have to know the Faith and teach it to your children yourself." That was 1968.

In Christ,

BOB

in all honesty, I cannot know what was on the Holy Father's mind when he wrote that, in fact, I haven't even read the book. let me say that I hold to essential Mosaic authorship of Torah, and I have friends in the Orthodox Jewish community who can really do a number when I need help. Catholicism has long been influenced by the Bible critics, and this antedates John Paul the Great, I did notice that a conservative Latin publisher has a text on Biblical scholarship that is orthodox (see Roman Catholic Books (via Internet) that may help). one can only hope and pray that Catholic scholars will return to the historic orthodox perspective.
much Love,
Jonn

John,
So you do think that Mosaic authorship is something that belongs to the faith? If by "essential Mosaic authorship" you mean that the core of the Torah has its roots in the traditions handed down from Moses to Israel then I agree with you. But, I think that even most conservative biblical scholars would say that the Pentateuch as we have it now is clearly a compilation of sources redacted by multiple hands.

Joe

when I say essential Mosaic authorship, I mean that Moses wrote Torah.however, this does not preclude final redaction by say Ezrah or Nehemiah. redaction here is clarification, such as "before there was any king in Israel" an obvious editorial gloss, as there were no kings in Israel when Moses was alive. the body of Torah is Mosaic. what "conservative" scholars are you referring to? have you read Gleason Archer? he is the scholar I studied when I took OT in seminary. does this help?By the way, Moses wrote, in fact there were written languages before the time of Moses in that part of the world.
Much Love,
Jonn

If I am not mistaken, I think it is the case that even the Navarre Bible assumes the document theory (Better known as JEPD) for the Pentatuech. No one could accuse Opus Dei or the Navarre Institute of not being orthodox.

Could an essential Mosaic authorship be reconciled with JEPD? Possibly.

I would add that besides possible redactions by Ezra and Nehemiah, Jeremiah may have had a hand in Deuteronomy.

Either way, it is not a hill I am going to die on, either for Mosaic authorship or JEPD. To me, whether or not there is any redaction in Torah does not undermine my belief in the Divine Authorship and authority of Sacred Scripture.


I am more interested in Benedict's new book coming out that asserts that the Christ of faith is the historical Jesus. I think that is a much more vital argument to be made in these days of skeptical scholarship.

the Graf-Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis (JEPD)stems from a line of critical scholars in the Hegelian tradition. as I suggested to Joe, refer to Gleason L.Archer's work. it is put out by Moody, and gives a lengthy refutation of JEPD. Deuteronomy antedates Jeremiah by many many centuries. why Rome continues to prostrate themselves to a group of scholars who despised Holy Mother Church (and Opus Dei? shame!!). anything is possible, but does not mean likely . but what you hold as to the Divine authorship is a lot more than Liberals will hold to.
oh, the Christ of Faith versus the Jesus History is another thing that Lberals sing about. like the Bible, they seek to dichotomize Jesus and Christ into segments, I, like yourself, look towards the Holy Father's work. it ought to be a good clock cleaning!
Much Love,
Jonn

I guess that I am at the point where I don't really care who wrote the penteteuch or how many authors of Isaiah there were. I do care about the historical reality of Christ. But other than that, it is the spiritual message of the Scriptures I listen for. The rest, to me, is inconsequential.

Joe

The New Oxford Annotated Bible is reportedly to be the most complete bible in English.