Thursday, September 30, 2021

The New American Bible on This Day in History

 

This Day in History: The Catholic New American Bible was published on this day in 1970. The 1986 Revised NAB is the basis of the revised Lectionary, and it is the only translation approved for use at Mass in the Latin-rite Catholic dioceses of the United States and the Philippines, and the 1970 first edition is also an approved Bible translation by the Episcopal Church in the United States.

The NAB was a reworking of the the Confraternity Bible, a translation of the Vulgate by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. The Vulgate however was based on the Latin, not the Greek and Hebrew original languages of the Bible.  Pope Pius XII's 1943 encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu changed all that and the New American Bible is the first popular Catholic Bible published using the Greek and Hebrew. It should be noted that James A. Kleist, SJ, and Joseph L. Lilly, SJ produced a Catholic New Testament that was published in the 1950's, using the Greek Text. 

It is interesting to note that many Traditional Catholics reject the New American Bible, preferring either the old Douay-Rheims Bible or, oddly enough, the Protestant Revised Standard Version. The primary complaint was that the New American Bible did not have "Hail, full of grace" at Luke 1:28 as it reads in the Douay Rheims Bible (see also Knox and the Confraternity Bible).

The Douay-Rheims Bible uses the Latin Vulgate which has Gratia Plena here, of which "full of grace" is a proper translation. But the NAB Bible text of Luke, like most modern Bibles, is translated from the Greek, and the Greek word here is KECARITWMENH which most Bibles translate as "favored." The Douay Bible does though often translate Gratia(m) as "favor" (see Acts 2:47, 7:10, 25:3 and numerous times in the Old Testament).

The NAB does however have "full of grace" at Acts 6:8, but, this reading is different in the Greek than it is at Luke 1:28. Acts 6:8 has PLHRHS CARITOS* while Luke 1:28 has KECARITWMENH. From even a cursory examination PLHRHS CARITOS lends itself better as a translation of "full of grace" which leads one to wonder why those two words were not used at Luke 1:28 if the text was really meant to say "full of grace" in regards to Mary.

Additionally, the closing words at Luke 1:28, "blessed art thou among women" (Douay, KJV) appear to be a later interpolation. To go even further, some do not even consider the first 2 chapters of Luke authentic at all:

"The first two chapters of Luke were wanting in the gospels of the first century. They were also wanting in the Gospel of the Hebrews, or Nazarenes, about A. D. 125, as well as in the Gospel of Marcion, A. D. 145. They first appeared in the Protevangelion, about A. D. 125, and were probably not deemed by Marcion, authentic." History of the Christian Religion By Charles Burlingame Waite 1881

Another criticism of the NAB Bible is that it translates Genesis 1:2, "the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters" as opposed to the text in the Douay Bible: "And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters." Many do not like that the word "spirit" is not in the NAB. Did you notice that the word "spirit" in the Douay-Rheims Bible is not capitalized. Why is this? It is because something other than the Holy Ghost is referred to here.

John L. McKenzie S.J., who was once regarded as "the best Catholic theologian...in the United States" wrote of the Spirit:

"In summary, the spirit in the OT [Old Testament], originally the wind and the breath, is conceived as a divine dynamic entity by which Yahweh accomplishes his ends, it saves, it is a creative, charismatic power, and as an agent of His anger it is a demonic power. It remains impersonal. Like the wind, neither its origin nor its course can be discovered..." Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie S.J. (1965)

Monsignor Ronald A. Knox, who translated from the Latin Vulgate renders Genesis 1:2 as "Earth was still an empty waste, and darkness hung over the deep; but already, over its waters, stirred the breath of God."

Another complaint levied against the New American Bible is that has replaced the word "virgin" at Isaiah 7:14 with "young woman." That's not true for older editions, and the footnotes in the newer editions give "virgin" as an alternate rendering.

The NAB seemingly translated texts that went contrary to their own theology but retained a fidelity to the best Greek Testaments at hand. Some argue that that Catholics can be freer with the details of the text because they don’t have to pretend to find their theology in it in full-blown form. 
.................

*Many Greek mss have PISTEWS here instead of CARITOS, but the NAB remained true to better Greek texts.


Wednesday, September 22, 2021

Unitarians and Witches on This Day in History

 


The last hanging of a convicted witch during the Salem Witch Trials happened on this day in 1692, and today is the day that Unitarian John Biddle died in 1662 from an illness contracted during his fourth term in prison.

Some estimate that there may have been 40,000 to 50,000 executions for witchcraft in Europe in the past, and 19 so-called witches were hung in Salem. Some like to say that 50-68 million heretics were killed by the Church, but that number is grossly over-blown. Also, most Unitarians (people who denied the Trinity teaching) were killed by Protestant authorities, or at least with the recommendation of Protestant clergy.  One Unitarian, Norbert Capek, founder of the Czech Unitarian Church was even killed at the Dachau concentration camp in 1942.

Perhaps the first witch executed was Theoris of Lemnos (before 323 BC) in ancient Greece. Using magic was not prohibited in Greece at the time, but she was condemned as a murderer in a poisoning death.

The first Unitarian martyred was possibly William Sawtrey in 1401 (that's if we are not including any anti-Trinitarians killed during the Arian controversy of the 4th century). 










Sunday, September 19, 2021

Lant Carpenter on the Plural Words in the Hebrew

 

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heaven and the earth. 

The Hebrew word for God is Elohim and it is in the plural form. It is a common practice of the Hebrew Language to put in the plural form, words that express dominion, dignity, and majesty : and, farther, when a plural noun is used to denote a single object, the verb is regularly put in the singular, though it is sometimes put in the plural, owing merely to the termination of the noun. These indisputable facts, at once solve the grammatical difficulty, and it is nothing more, If the doctrine which it is supposed to favour, had any solid foundation in the Scriptures, this Hebrew idiom could afford it no support.-When Jehovah says to Moses, 'I have made thee a god to Pharoah,' the original word is Elohim or Aleim. The plural form is employed in reference to the one Golden Calf, Ex. xxxii. 4. 8. 31; to Dagon, Judges xvi. 23; to the Sidonian deities Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and Milcom, each separately. 1 Kings xi. 33. &c. &c. In like manner, Abraham, Pharoah, Joseph, &c. are called Adonim, Lords.--The argument has been rejected by many of the most learned Trinitarians. Even Calvin denies that the plural termination is any evidence of a plurality of Persons in the Godhead.


Genesis 1:26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...

The Supreme Being is in these passages represented as using the language of dignity, according to the practice of earthly sovereigns. Examples of this practice occur in the Scriptures; e. g. 1 Kings xii. 9. Ezra iv. 18. The only wonder is, that it is found in so small a number of instances. In the Koran, God is continually represented as speaking in the plural number, We did-We gade-We commanded; yet the Muslims are strict believers in the Divine Unity. The Jews themselves inferred nothing from this phraseology respecting a plurality of Persons in the one God. In fact, if it taught plurality at all, it would teach that there are more Gods than one, which, in words at least, all Christians, deny.


Thursday, September 2, 2021

The Incomprehensible Trinity Doctrine

 


There are few things more entertaining than reading a Trinitarian try explain and defend the Trinity while acknowledging that this cannot actually be done.

Previously, I had a quote from Bishop Beverage which I will re-post below:

"We are to consider the order of those persons in the Trinity described in the words before us in Matthew 28:19. First the Father and then the Son and then the Holy Ghost; everyone one of which is truly God. This is a mystery which we are all bound to believe, but yet must exercise great care in how we speak of it, it being both easy and dangerous to err in expressing so great a truth as this is. If we think of it, how hard it is to imagine one numerically divine nature in more than one and the same divine person. Or three divine persons in no more than one and the same divine nature. If we speak of it, how hard it is to express it. If I say, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost be three, and everyone a distinct God, it is false. I may say, God the Father is one God and the Son is one God, and the Holy Ghost is one God, but I cannot say that the Father is one God and the Son is another God and the Holy Ghost is a third God. I may say that the Father begat another who is God; yet I cannot say that He begat another God. I may say that from the Father and Son proceeds another who is God; yet I cannot say that from the Father and Son proceeds another God. For though their nature be the same their persons are distinct; and though their persons be distinct, yet still their nature is the same. So that, though the Father be the first person in the Godhead, the Son the second and the Holy Ghost the third, yet the Father is not the first, the Son the second and the Holy Ghost a third God. So hard it is to word so great a mystery aright; or to fit so high a truth with expressions suitable and proper to it, without going one way or another from it." Bishop Beverage, Private Thoughts, Part 2, 48, 49, cited by Charles Morgridge, The True Believers Defence Against Charges Preferred by Trinitarians for Not Believing in the Deity of Christ (Boston: B. Greene, 1837), 16. 

To this I will add Frederick Silver's words below:

"Q: Are the names, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, merely names of office?

A: There is no authority in Scripture for such an assumption. On the contrary, there is much to establish their personal identity. It is a true saying, that this is a mystery incomprehensible to us, and from its infinite nature must ever remain beyond the grasp of a creature's understanding; but its  incomprehensibility is a strong argument in favor of its acceptation. If it were not incomprehensible, it could not be true; because JEHOVAH in his Trinity of Persons is infinite, eternal, immutable, and incomprehensible.

A finite creature may have a capacity to understand how some of the properties in nature, although closely connected, are really distinct things, such as light, heat, and matter; he may have a personal knowledge of the fact, and be able to prove experimentally that heat is not light, and that light is not matter; and he may even understand how these three distinct properties may unite in one, as in the sun. But he can never comprehend, much less explain, how JEHOVAH is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that these three are One: for if he could, Jehovah would not be infinite and incomprehensible. If Jehovah is not the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, from everlasting to everlasting, He is not immutably and eternally the same! The Father cannot be before the Son, nor the Son after the Father. The relationship must be co-eval, for the Father could not be the ETERNAL FATHER without the ETERNAL Son, and the Son could not be the ETERNAL SON without the ETERNAL Father. Neither could I am, be that I AM, if the FATHER, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, were not eternally as such the One JEHOVAH.

It is our mercy to know, that He who is thus revealed, cannot be personally known as THREE eternal nondescript samenesses, defective in foresight; neither is He to be worshipped as such an heathenish deity, having eyes, but seeing not. And such would be the case, if the relative names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were merely names of office, and if they did not see all things as existing, that they know shall exist. Indeed, it appears little short of blasphemy to believe, or even to suggest, that the HOLY Ghost, the INFALLIBLE AUTHOR of Holy Scripture, has given a chimerical revelation of the FATHER and the Son.

Is not the Holy Ghost revealed in Scripture as the SPIRIT of the FATHER; as the Spirit of the Son, as bearing witness of them as the Father, and as the Son? Is He then merely the Spirit of the name of an office? Has He ever said, God might have been God, and never have become a FATHER? Is He not rather the Spirit that searcheth all things, yea, the depths of God?-for so it reads in the original text. Is He not the Spirit of wisdom, and of REVELATION, and of Truth? Is the revelation which He hath made true, or imaginary?--and if true, is it not eternally true?"


"We must recognize the fact that mankind cannot go on without a certain amount of absurdity, that absurdity is an element in its existence, and illusion indispensable; as indeed other aspects of life testify." --Schopenhauer 

"I believe, because it is absurd." Attributed to Tertullian


Wednesday, September 1, 2021

Dr. Robert M. Price on John 1:1 in the New World Translation

 

Listen at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajr47vK0nxc

In his own translations, the Pre-Nicene New Testament and the Human Bible New Testament translates John 1:1 as "In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word stood before God, and the Word was a God."  


Another fairly recent translation of the New Testament, by David Bentley Hart, also does something interesting with John 1:1c. David Bentley Hart's New Testament 2017 reads at John 1:1 "In the origin there was the Logos, and the Logos was present with GOD, and the Logos was god." (Notice the word "god" in small letters in the last clause.)


However, I discovered in his earlier work, "Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies" he actually writes:

"As a general rule, the 'articular' form ho Theos—literally, 'the God'—was a title reserved for God Most High or God the Father, while only the 'inarticular' form theos was used to designate this secondary divinity. This distinction, in fact, was preserved in the prologue to John, whose first verse could justly be translated as: 'In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was a god.'"