Believers are able to interpret Scriptures because of the Holy Ghost. However, ministers have been put into the Church to help people know the truth. Notice that the word "teachers" is present in Ephesians 4.
And I am not a "modalist".
You may not be, however the person who wrote the OP is.
__________________
Infiltrating the feebleminded since 1999
Theology, not morality, is the first business on the church's agenda of reform, and the church, not society, is the first target of divine criticism.
-Michael Scott Horton, Beyond Culture Wars
The beginning of the next 5-page section shows well the purpose.
Chapter II - Of the Hebrew Edition (p. 112)
THE Hebrew is the most ancient of all languages, and was that which alone prevailed in the world before the deluge and the erection of the Tower of Babel.
Good arguments are made for there being one ancient language before Babel, Hebrew, for that language being maintained and for Moses being the first author of scripture. The prophecy of Enoch referenced in Jude is addressed, and how Ezra likely "changed or reformed" the letter shapes.
Since most of our emphasis will be on the NT, this can simply be recommended as a good read.
Chapter III - Of the Greek Version of the Seventy Translators of the Hebrew Books
Hi Folks,
Chapter III - Of the Greek Version of the Seventy Translators of the Hebrew Books (p. 117)
The Chaldee paraphrase is generally allowed great credit and authority ...
The Chaldee paraphrase are the Targumim.
About the LXX being the first Greek translation:
Clemens Alexandrinus (Stromat. Lib. i. 1 ) seems to say that the scripture was translated into Greek long before this period, and read by Plato ;
However Whitaker takes the view of Theodoret:
"For this was the first Greek translation, published about three hundred years before Christ, as Theodoret writes in these words: " This first edition was published three hundred and one years before God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, came to sojourn with us in the flesh."
In this section the 1800s editor, William Fitzgerald, mentions the work of Humphrey Hody in 1684 showing the spuriousness of the letter of Aristeas.
Next is the question about whether :
the seventy interpreters did not translate the whole scripture of the old Testament, but only the law into the Greek language, understanding under the name of the law not the entire ancient scripture, but merely the Pentateuch.
This position is given as Josephus:
opinion of Josephus, as we find in the Proem (Prologue) to his antiquities, where he hath these words : " For Ptolemy did not obtain the whole scripture ; but the interpreters only delivered to him the law ." Which, he says, was the circumstance that led him to introduce the whole scripture to Grecian readers. That this was Josephus opinion is confirmed also by the testimony of Jerome.
We have a thread on Josephus to compare this with, clearly he is a far more significant evidence of 1st century Greek availability than later church writers. (He considered direct Hebrew --> Greek translation, he was in the 1st century and he was working with the Romans who desired more information.)
I found, therefore, that the second of the Ptolemies was a king who was extraordinarily diligent in what concerned learning, and the collection of books; that he was also peculiarly ambitious to procure a translation of our law, and of the constitution of our government therein contained, into the Greek tongue ... for he did not obtain all our writings at that time; but those who were sent to Alexandria as interpreters, gave him only the books of the law, while there were a vast number of other matters in our sacred books.
Nonetheless Whitaker then goes into Chrysostom and Theodoret as giving "the more probable view" noting the assertion from Chrysostom that :
" the scriptures translated by them were reposited in the temple of Serapis, and the version of the prophetic books might be found there even still "
Then Whitaker goes into the high veiw of the LXX held by Epiphanius, Augustine and Irenaeus, yet returns to Jerome about the Aristeas fables and the overall negative view of the text
"In his Commentaries also he frequently blames the Greek version of the seventy translators, not only as depraved by the scribes, but even as faulty in itself;"
So while Whitaker leans towards the view of the LXX being a full translation, he moderates that with the two main views about the LXX today:
"The sounder opinion seems to be that of those who determine that the true Septuagint is wholly lost and that the Greek text, as we have it, is a mixed and miserably corrupted document."
Whitaker points out the huge differences between the Greek OT and the Hebrew Masoretic text and points out that the papists cannot really attack the Hebrew since that was the base of the Jerome Tanach (OT) translation, "their own Latin version" not the Greek.
"the faults of the Greek translation are so manifest, that it is impossible to find any way of excusing them."
In this regards he goes into the chronology differences and difficulties, including :
"It is even a laughable mistake in the Greek by which Methusalem is made to survive the flood fourteen years"
In the final analysis, per Whitaker,
"From these and innumerable examples of the like sort we may conclude, either that this Greek version which hath come down to our times is not the same as that published by the seventy Jewish elders, or that it hath suffered such infinite and shameful corruptions as to be now of very slight authority. Even Jerome had not the Greek translation of the seventy interpreters in its purity ; since he often complains in his commentaries that what he had was faulty and corrupt."
While I would agree with a lot of Whitaker and disagree with his leaning towards Chrysostom and others against Josephus and Jerome on how much was translated and extant, overall Whitaker offers a very solid overview of the scholarship and a very informed opinion.
It is worth pointing out that Whitaker omits referencing the areas where whole sections of the Bible in the Greek manuscripts are hugely different, especially as in Jeremiah, Job and Esther (he does mention the two chapters of Daniel in some mss in the next section) or the gross corruption of the NT section of Romans 3 being put into Psalm 14.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-02-2009 at 11:00 AM.
Chapter IV - Of other Greek Translations of the Old Testament
Hi Folks,
The next section is very short.
Chapter IV - Of other Greek Translations of the Old Testament
A discussion of the hodge-podge of Greek OTs that developed in the second century:
Aquila of Sinope -
Jewish proselyte with a
"depraved and perverse intention .. of obscuring the testimonies which confirm the doctrine of Christ"
(quoting Theodoret)
Symmachus
for the Jews for the confutation of the Samaritans per Epiphanius, Theodoret says he was a Samaritan
Theodotian of Pontus
Marcionite who rejected Marcionism and Christianity for Judaism (gives the two extra chapters of Daniel)
"enemies of the christian faith, and did not translate the scriptures accurately"
Whitaker then discusses Lucian and Origen and the Hexapla of Origen. The main import of this section is that it simply adds even more to our understanding of the unreliability of what we have today in the Greek OT.
Believers are able to interpret Scriptures because of the Holy Ghost. However, ministers have been put into the Church to help people know the truth. Notice that the word "teachers" is present in Ephesians 4.
No doubt that we have teachers and believers are able to interpret Scriptures.
However, you did say: "it would be foolish for Christians to be self-willed interpreters and allowing freedom of Bible versions."
__________________ Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.
Chapter V - Of the Greek Edition of the New Testament
Hi Folks,
An interesting section, short yet with lots of references, about the original languages and the authentic languages of the NT manuscripts.
Chapter V - Of the Greek Edition of the New Testament
It is certain that the whole new Testament was written in Greek, unless, perhaps, we are to except the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews. .... (p. 125)
... how ever that may be, the Greek edition both of the Gospel according to Matthew and of the Epistle to the Hebrews is authentic. For the Hebrew originals (if any such there were) are now nowhere extant, and the Greek was published in the life-time of the apostles (p. 125)
...The Lord willed the new Testament to be written in Greek, because he had determined to bring forth the gospel from the narrow bounds of Judaea into a broader field, and publish it to all people and nations. On this account the Lord selected the Greek language, than which no other was more commonly known by all men, wherein to communicate his gospel to as many countries and persons as possible. He willed also that the heavenly truth of the gospel should be written in Greek in order to provide a confutation of the Gentiles idolatry and of the philosophy and wisdom of the Grecians. (p. 127)
While clearly the NT was largely written in Greek, the case here is unsure, the reasoning less than ironclad and one omission is striking.
Essentially, the reasoning is that the whole NT is authentic in Greek, not that it was originally written in Greek, an important distinction. Authentic, however, is not defined. We might say it has a meaning along the lines of 'primary transmission vehicle, and from the lifetime of the apostles'.
Also the omission : The issue of Mark being written for the Latin-speaking in Rome in Latin or a Graeco-Latin dialect is not addressed, although that is discussed in some depth by Caesar Baronius and Cornelius Lapide in the same general period that Whitaker wrote. While similarly the Greek Mark could be asserted to be authentic, if Whitaker was writing a few years later he may well have addressed this along with Hebrews and Matthew as requiring another specific, exceptional authorship study.
And the theory (even if the original language manuscripts of Matthew and Mark are not extant) that the three languages on the cross (Hebrew, Greek, Latin) were represented by the three gospel writers is surely as spiritually attractive as the theory offered above. The theory above of Greek being the vehicle to reach the Gentiles. Since the three language theory includes that Greek outloook (especially considering Acts, John, epistles, etc...) yet adds a type of adding spiritual panache and fine symmetry, if you will , by matching well with the words written on the cross and the command to teach all nations.
As to the usage of the term "authentic" for the Greek manuscripts, I believe more accurate would be Jerome's "fountainhead". This we plan to examine more later.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-02-2009 at 03:44 PM.
Chapter VI - Of the Latin Vulgate Edition (p. 128)
... there were formerly in the church very many Latin versions of the scriptures, we have the testimony of Augustine ... he did not consider any one in particular authentic
... Jerome, in the preface to Joshua, complains of this so great variety of the Latin texts:
... there was one more famous, which was called Itala ; and which Augustine ... prefers to the others, for keeping closer to the words and expressing the sense more clearly and intelligibly. This was not, however, that version which Jerome published.
... the Hieronymian (Jerome's Vulgate) alone prevailed everywhere throughout the Latin churches, if indeed it hath any just claims to be called the Hieronymian.
... the Latin edition of the new Testament was not made, but only amended, by Jerome:... "The new Testament," says he, "I restored to the Greek fidelity; the old I translated according to the Hebrew."
What Whitaker is showing is that the Vulgate, NT and OT, cannot be considered to be that of Jerome's, at least far less than 100%. eg. in far too many places Jerome's commentary disagrees with the text. Most of the examples, however are OT.
In fact the case is only mildly strong, and we consider this today far less significant than what texts were used by Jerome and what were bypassed from the Greek (e.g. bypassing the Lucian Byzantine manuscripts). It is significant against an rcc claim of Vulgate perfection however.
I found this paragraph, which summarizes this difficulty, interesting.
Next, as to the various signification of words, it is the duty of a good interpreter to consider well what signification is most suitable, and to choose it. But when Jerome says plainly, that he thinks a certain place or word should be translated otherwise than it is translated in the Vulgate, it is manifest that that version cannot be Jerome's.
Those of you who know the issue of the Johannine Comma know that when Jerome's words were shown to actually defend the heavenly witnesses as scripture (which make manifest the original version, as described above) the flimsy fantastic forgery fabricators (accusers) went into overtime mode. This is a fascinating study.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-02-2009 at 04:41 PM.
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
, by matching well with the words written on the cross and the command to teach all nations.
Linear Mode
