For many generations of Anglicans, the Second Sunday in Advent was 'Bible Sunday'. This is because of a rather over-wrought Proddy interpretation of the Epistle; which is shared by the book of Common Prayer, and the edition of the Roman Rite issued by S Pius V; Romans 15:4sqq. But it is as good a Sunday as any to consider the relationship of PF with Holy Scripture.
[Preliminary Note for those who need to know what "textual criticism" is: contrary to popular assumptions, textual criticism is the science ... or art ... of reconstructing what an ancient text "originally" said. Before the invention of printing, when manuscripts were copied by hand, changes crept in. Scribal mistakes ... scribal improvements ... scribal harmonisations (when S Mark's text differed from S Matthew's, scribes very often brought S Mark into line with S Matthew, which they probably knew better). The textual critic assembles the evidence: the different 'readings' in the different manuscripts or early translations or quotations in early Christian writers. Then s/he uses a variety of (mainly linguistic) tools to work out which 'reading' s/he deems "original".]
Popes have long intervened in making decisions which touch upon the text and Canon of Scripture. A distinguished codicologist has argued that the "Four Gospel Canon" was set in place circa 100 ... in Rome. When the Vulgate was authorised, implicit approval was thereby given to the the readings preferred by S Jerome. During the Counter-Reformation, Pope Sixtus V in 1590, then Pope Clement VIII in 1592, officially established (unidentical) texts of the Vulgate. This meant that, where different manuscripts had different ('variant') readings, an official decision was made about which should be used. The popes were not claiming to know what the 'original writers' 'originally' wrote; they were claiming only to provide a usable and safe and orthodox text for private ... and, more importantly ... public use.
During the current supremacy of Bergoglianity, two constructive changes have been made in Scripture. They involve changes in words ascribed to the Lord in the Gospels, in places where there are no textual variants in the manuscripts. Moreover, these are texts used daily by millions of Catholics.
(1) In the accounts of the Last Supper, the Lord offered the Chalice of His Blood which had been poured out "for many" (peri pollon). In a number of European languages, including the Italian, which the arrogant current boss-class in the Vatican seems to regard as normative, we are offered "per tutti" ("for all": in Latin it would be pro omnibus; in Greek, peri panton).
(2) In both the Matthaean and Lucan texts of the Our Father, et ne nos inducas in tentationem is is now to be rendered e non abbandonarci alla tentazione. I presume that in Latin that would be et ne nos derelinquas tentationi; in Greek, perhaps, Kai me katalipe hemas toi peirasmoi..
I repeat: there is no evidence in the Manuscripts ... all the thousands of them ... or in the Versions ... or in the Patristic citations ... for these tinkerings.
Textual Criticism can do nothing to back up PF.
To be continued.
8 comments:
Fr. Hunwicke,
More properly header could might be:
Novusordoity and Scripture
Ivan
The tendency to impose Italian as the lingua Franca of the Universal Church appears in the Capuchin Order too. All our novices have to learn Italian from now on. Thankfully a proposal to have them make their novitiate in Italy seems to have been dropped.
My two years of school instruction in Greek did not enable me to argue about the meaning of peri pollon. But Jerome's rendering in Latin is pro multis, in which what is normally an adjective is treated as a noun, and Lewis and Short suggest(s) that when multis is used as a noun it usually means 'the common herd' or more politely 'the multitude'. In English one could, I suppose, render it as 'the many', but just using many does not give the same impression. I recall that Papa Ratzinger commented that 'all' and 'many' would both be theologically acceptable in German.
What a thoroughly excellent post!
Consider, for a moment, what interplay there is between Papal Infallibility, and the Free Will of an obstiate and mischievous man!
Some English translations indeed use 'the many' for the reasons E sapelion suggests.
If I may digress, one of the more intriguing questions of New Testament translation is epiousion in the Lord's prayer (a word which, I understand, occurs nowhere else in the corpus if ancient Greek). If I may be so vulgar as to use an analogy from horse racing, Jerome has a bet each way, opting for supersubstantialem in Matthew and quotidianum in Luke. I would be interested in Fr Hunwicke's views on this puzzle.
At least Italian can claim organic development from Latin.
"Jerome has a bet each way, opting for supersubstantialem in Matthew and quotidianum in Luke."
St. Jerome also notes that the word in common use among Syriac speakers is "mahar:" that is "crastinum," giving the sense of "the bread of tomorrow give us today." If "mahar" is the original word, then "supersubstantialis" is an understandable rendition of the word into a different cultural context.
Not one iota of these modern changes is a mystery. There is a new faith amongst the Hierarchy and there has been for a very long time and because, accrd to the change in the ancient axiom - The law of prayer is the law of belief was inverted by Pius XII in Mediator Dei so the new law is -- the law of belief is the law of prayer - any change in faith requires new prayers, new mass, new biblical understandings - to the point where we now routinely are forced to confront eisegesis rather than trust traditional exegesis
Really, the only harm done in attacking Tradition this way is everything, so, not to worry.
I have been confronting this crap my entire adult life and every time - every damn time- I complain about a change in the Faith (Mass, Prayers, Praxis) I am told the changes do not effect what us Catholics believe .
But that is complete BS because if there was no change involved, why the change?
With Bergoglio, the radical rhetoric and progressive praxis are not only often self-refuting and contradictory to what he said a month previous ,on their own the claims are clearly protestant - has any Prelate ever expressed such love for and appreciation of the indefensible claims of that wild boar (as Pope Leo X called him) Martin Luther?
He his unlike every single other one of the 265 popes who preceded him. He is the worst Pope ever
Post a Comment