Bible – Page 33 – Jimmy Akin

Jimmy Carter: Bible Scholar?

Former President Jimmy Carter has a new Bible!

One he wrote himself!

Partly!

The publishing house Zondervan has produced a new study Bible titled the NIV Lessons from Life Bible: Personal Reflections with Jimmy Carter.

Get yours today!

Or don’t. Actually, let’s go with that: Don’t. Definitely don’t.

Not if you want Bible commentary from someone who knows what he’s talking about.

Carter can’t even display minimal coherence regarding biblical interpretation in friendly interviews designed to promote his . . . er . . . book.

Consider the veritable storm of nonsense he unleashed in this interview with the Huffington Post.

Paul Brandeis Raushenbush: Thank you so much for talking with me President Carter. As I warned, I am going to be asking the tough questions. So … Did God write the Bible?

President Jimmy Carter: God inspired the Bible but didn’t write every word in the Bible. We know, for instance that stars can’t fall on the earth, stars are much larger than the earth. That was a limitation of knowledge of the universe or physics, or astronomy at that time, but that doesn’t bother me at all.

Hmmm. God inspired the Bible but he didn’t write every word in it.

How does that square with Jesus’ statement: “I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished” (Matt. 5:18)? This seems to suggest that God didn’t only supply the words but the individual letters and strokes.

That doesn’t mean that God intended everything in Scripture to be a straightforward, literal assertion to be understood in the sense a modern would take it. Clearly he doesn’t. Let’s take the passages about stars falling to earth as an example.

KEEP READING.

Was Jesus UGLY?

A high school theology teacher writes:

I had a student ask me quite blunty “was Jesus ugly?” He cited some early Fathers quoting Isaiah 53:2, and gave me several other sources that expanded on this topic as well. From what I understand and have read, the verse from Isaiah seems to (me anyways) point towards Jesus at his Passion and Death – the Suffering Servant. Am I on the right track or have you heard anything on this?

Let’s start by looking at the text in question. It is part of the fourth “Servant Song” in Isaiah, which runs from 52:13-53:12. Here’s the verse in context:

Isaiah 52:13–53:12

13 Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. 14 As many were astonished at him— his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the sons of men— 15 so shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they shall see, and that which they have not heard they shall understand.

1 Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? 2 For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?

9 And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand; 11 he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

There are several things that can be said here.

One is that we have to be a bit careful when looking at Messianic passages in the Old Testament and applying them directly to Jesus. It is clear that there are multiple passages in the Old Testament that point forward to Christ, but they do not all do so in a way that allows us to take every detail of the original text and apply it directly to Jesus.

KEEP READING.

Who’s Punning? Jesus or John?

A reader writes:

Question: An atheist has claimed that Jesus’s conversation with Nicodemus couldn’t have happened because it’s a greek word that has two meanings, critical to the story, and Jesus didn’t speak greek.

I know neither greek nor aramaic, and according to some english, so any thing you happen to know would be useful. Thanks!

It’s true that in John’s account of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus (John 3:1ff) the Greek word anothen (an-OH-thin) is used, and that this word can mean either “from above” or “again.” It is often assumed that the Gospel of John uses this word as a deliberate pun (“born again” vs. “born from above”).

However, from an apologetic perspective, this is a non-problem.

#1 Paraphrase is allowed in writings of this sort. It is easy to demonstrate that the New Testament authors employ paraphrase (as do ALL ancient historical writers). The claim is that the gospels faithfully reflect the teaching of Jesus (they speak with his ipsissima vox) not that they give an exact word-for-word Greek translation of what he said on all occasions (his ipsissima verba). Thus in faithfully transmitting the *teaching* of Jesus, John may have noticed that a Greek pun was possible and chosen to use it. On the other hand . . .

#2 Cross-language puns are far easier to construct than people imagine. Just because there is a pun in one language doesn’t mean that there can’t be an *equivalent* pun in another. Jesus may have made a pun in Aramaic and then John constructed an equivalent pun in Greek. On the other hand . . .

#3 The pun may not be intentional on John’s part. The objection assumes that John was deliberately punning, but as we all know, it’s quite possible for someone “to be a poet and not know it.” On the other hand . . .

#4 They *did* speak a good bit of Greek in first century Palestine. While it is more likely that they were speaking in Aramaic, this conversation could have taken place in Greek.

I don’t view these alternatives as equally likely (my money would be on #1 as the most likely explanation, then #2), but they are all possible, and the claim that the conversation couldn’t have happened because of a Greek pun in the gospel is simply false.

Did the Church Forbid Bible Study?

A reader writes:

I am a Protestant and love listening to Catholic Answers Live. I am hoping you can help me out with the papal bull “Unigenitus” which appears to be condemning the idea of personal Scripture reading, etc. The way it’s worded doesn’t make it appear as if it is saying ‘we are worried about people reading and getting a wrong view so don’t read without proper preparation,’ but rather ‘we reject the idea of individual study of Scripture since Scripture is unclear.’ I’m a protestant (former missionary overseas) who is looking at the Catholic Church, and trying to wrestle with the hard questions. I read the article on the Catholic Encyclopedia, but can’t find anything that deals with it in an apologetic way.

I’m concerned with passages: 79-85.

If my reading is correct, those passages are all condemned as worded. I was hoping you could help me understand why they would be condemned. Thanks, Jimmy, I really do appreciate it!

No problem!

The propositions are all condemned as worded, but the question is: What is the nature of the condemnation they are receiving?

Before we get to that, though, let me give a bit of background for those who aren’t familiar with Unigenitus.

It was a papal bull issued by Pope Clement XI which condemned 101 propositions contained in the writings of a French author named Paschasius Quesnel. The work has a rather involved history.

YOU CAN READ THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLE ABOUT IT HERE.

YOU ALSO CAN READ THE RELEVANT PART OF UNIGENITUS HERE.

The history need not detain us, though. The important thing to understand is Unigenitus fits into a genre of papal documents that list and condemn various propositions proposed by a particular author or authors. This kind of document lists a bunch of propositions, typically drawn from the work of a single author, and then issues a condemnation of one type or another as a warning to the faithful.

So what happened in this case is that, because of problems reported with Quesnel’s works, Clement XI had a group of theological experts review them and report back about the problematic propositions that they found in them. These then served as the basis for Unigenitus.

But not all propositions are problematic in the same way, and so you have to look at the specific condemnations that are applied to them.

The thing is, documents of this type often do not match specific propositions with specific censures. The reasons for this are rather complex. Partly, it is driven by the nature of the genre. They aren’t coming up with these propositions themselves or rephrasing them. They’re lifting them straight from the work of another author, who was the person who chose how they were worded. That opens the door to different possible interpretations of the propositions, because an author may have phrased himself in a way that is open to more than one possible interpretation.

In some cases the specific censure that would apply to a proposition might depend on the sense in which the proposition is taken. If it is taken in one sense then one censure might apply. If it is taken in a different sense then another censure might apply. Rather than try to untangle all the possible ways in which a proposition might be taken and list the specific censures that would apply on that interpretation, documents of this nature are often content with listing the general kinds of censures that apply to the propositions in question. This is in keeping with their general pastoral mission, which is to warn the faithful, not provide a detailed analytical look that would satisfy the curiosity of experts.

It would be neat if they did the latter, but they tend not to for practical reasons (among them, it would sometimes require multi-volume works just to deal with all the possible senses that might be involved, it may be difficult to envision all the possible senses, and the stage of doctrinal development needed to address all possible interpretations may not have been reached).

With that as background, let us look at the condemnation that Unigenitus applies to the propositions it deals with. It says they are:

Declared and condemned as false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself, and, besides, favoring heretics and heresies, and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies respectively and most especially those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansen, and indeed accepted in that sense in which these have been condemned.

What that means is that each proposition condemned in Unigenitus falls under at least one of these censures. It may fall under more than one, but it falls under at least one. Some are false. Some are captious. Some are evil-sounding. Some are offensive to pious ears. Some may be false and captious. Etc.

But, except for previously condemned propositions regarding Jansenism, the document doesn’t attempt to say which censures apply to which propositions.

That is important for our purposes, because these censures are of very different nature. If something is false, blasphemous, or heretical, that means one thing, but if it is merely evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, or rash, that’s something quite different.

The latter censures do not even mean that the proposition is false. They merely mean that the proposition is at least suspect (evil-sounding), at least badly phrased (offensive to pious ears), or at least unproved and potentially dangerous (rash).

Without going through each individual censure in detail, it is clear that many of them are rather limited in their meaning and do not imply that a proposition is utterly false–just that there is something problematic with it. It may even express a partial truth, but do so in a way that is badly phrased or otherwise deserving of a warning to the faithful.

Since the propositions the reader is asking about aren’t connected with Jansenism, we can’t be certain which individual censures would be connected with individual propositions. The most we can say is that the pontiff saw something potentially problematic with them. So let us look at the propositions and see if we can identify things that might be problematic:

79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.

The most problematic word that Quesnel put in this proposition is “necessary.” Is it really necessary that at all times, in all places that every kind of person study the mysteries of Sacred Scripture?

I can easily see how this proposition would be judged at least rash–or flat-out false (or other things). What about all the people who are in no way prepared for individual Scripture study? Is it necessary that they do so? It would be paradoxical to say that it is necessary that someone unprepared for individual Scripture study go ahead and study anyway. To avoid this paradox one might say that there is no preparation needed to study Sacred Scripture on one’s own, but this seems manifestly false given the tendency demonstrated down through the centuries for people to go disastrously wrong in reading the Scriptures. To say that it is necessary for these people to study the Scriptures on their own (which is what we are talking about here, not studying them under proper guidance of the Church’s ministers) would seem to either entail throwing these people to the wind (i.e., saying that it’s necessary in spite of their lack of preparation) or that no preparation is needed (which seems manifestly false).

Similar problems replicate if we focus on the word useful. Is it really useful at all times, in all places, for every type of person? What about those not prepared?

It seems to me, thus, that the concern with this proposition is quite likely–as the reader puts it–“we are worried about people reading and getting a wrong view so don’t read without proper preparation.”

It does not seem to be “We reject the idea of individual study of Scripture since Scripture is unclear.” If a person has proper preparation (has a proper grounding in the faith, isn’t going to leap to heretical conclusions, is well informed about the methods of Scripture interpretation, etc.) then what would be wrong with him studying on his own? Certainly the rejection of the proposition as in some way problematic does not entail such a conclusion–a conclusion that the Church has never maintained.

80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.

This seems to be objectionable on the same grounds as the previous proposition. Again: What about those unprepared for individual study?

81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.

The rejection of this statement seems to be intended to protect the faithful from the having to shoulder the burden of studying the Scriptures on their own in spite of the obscurity that God wished the Scriptures to have. In other words, it’s okay for a person to say, “By God’s providence the Scriptures are not as clear as I would need them to be to study them on my own. I’m in the position of the Ethiopian eunuch, who can’t discern important points on his own, without guidance. The fact that the Scriptures contain this level of mystery is a reason for me not to do Bible study without guidance.”

Remember: A huge number of people were either illiterate or barely literate at this time (and a large number are today as well), and asking them to undertake the burden of unguided Scripture study would simply be preposterous. Even people who can read well need help, as the ability to read alone is not sufficient preparation for understanding the Scriptures. If it were then Christian communities (Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise) would not produce such an extensive range of Bible study helps and commentaries.

This proposition thus seems to be intended to protect the unprepared for shouldering a burden they were never meant to carry, and thus to converge again to the idea of proper preparation being needed for individual Scripture study.

82. The Lord’s Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading.

The rejection of this statement seems to have the same motive as the former. It seems to be intended to protect Christians from the idea it is “harmful” if they feel the need to say, “I am not prepared to do unguided Scripture study on Sundays; therefore, I wish to withdraw from doing so. I will stick with listening to the readings in Church and the explanations provided by the pastors of the Church and other qualified to expound them.”

83. It is an illusion to persuade oneself that knowledge of the mysteries of religion should not be communicated to women by the reading of Sacred Scriptures. Not from the simplicity of women, but from the proud knowledge of men has arisen the abuse of the Scriptures and have heresies been born.

This seems to be concerned to protect the rights of women to make the same objections discussed in the previous two propositions. It certainly is not the case that women should not have the mysteries of religion communicated to them through individual Scripture reading if they are properly prepared. But many women–like many men–were not (and–like many men–are not even today). If they aren’t properly prepared for individual Scripture study then they are not obligated to undertake it, just as men are not.

Quesnel’s assertion that heresies arise through the “proud knowledge of men,” and his apparent suggestion that this would not happen if women read the Scriptures on their own–because of their “simplicity”–is fatuous. Women who are unprepared for individual Scripture study can fall into error just as easily as men, and so they can be excused from undertaking this burden just as much as men.

84. To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.

Earlier we referenced a censure of some propositions as “captious.” This term means, roughly, uncharitably fault-finding. In other words, being unfair to those you are criticizing by a spiteful and fault-finding attitude. In other words, being hypercritical and hostile.

I could easily see this proposition as being captious.

It characterizes the Church as “snatch[ing] away from the hands of Christians the New Testament.”

Harsh!

Is that really a fair characterization? Or is it an uncharitable, biased one?

The Church makes a point of reading from the New Testament at every Mass and explaining its meaning. By “snatch[ing it] away” is apparently meant “not endorsing universal, unguided Scripture study.” But we have already seen that there are good reasons for the unprepared not to engage in unguided individual study.

I could easily see this proposition as being classified as captious–unduly critical. The prejudicial phrasing is obvious, and there are good reasons to be cautious about unguided Scripture study for those with very limited backgrounds in the subject.

85. To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication.

This one also seems to be captious.

Notice the drama terms (“forbid” [twice], “cause them to suffer,” “excommunication”) and other drama-juicers (“especially the Gospels,” “forbid the use of light to the sons of light”).

The overall phrasing is hostile and contentious and seems, again, to be casting the non-endorsement of universal, unguided Scripture study in the worst possible light.

Yet there are good reason for not endorsing universal, unguided Scripture study. Some people are simply not prepared for it.

I can thus see how this would be classified as captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, and other similar things.

It thus seems to me that there are, indeed, things that are problematic about propositions 79-85. And it seems to me that they can each fall under one or another of the censures indicated at the end of Unigenitus.

It also seems to me that they do not add up to a rejection of individual Scripture study for those who are properly prepared for this. They are merely rejecting the idea that unguided Scripture study should be universally engaged in by all Christians, regardless of their level of preparation, and Christians are not at fault if they do not feel themselves prepared to undertake this task and are content to learn the Scriptures under ecclesiastical guidance.

I hope this helps!

Herod the Baby-Killer

Today is the feast of the Holy Innocents—the baby boys that Matthew records were slain on the orders of Herod the Great in his attempt to kill the infant Jesus.

Did he really?

Sometimes we hear skeptics dismiss the idea by saying that we have no record of him doing so.

But it’s not exactly like we have the complete records of what Herod did in his reign. So much has been lost that this kind of argument from silence is the logical fallacy they teach it to be in beginning philosophy classes. Just because we don’t have a record of Herod doing something doesn’t mean he didn’t do it.

And, after all, don’t we have a record in this case? Matthew mentions him doing it. That’s a record, right? Only if Matthew were a systematically untrustworthy source would one be warranted in summarily dismissing what he says, and judged by the ordinary standards applied to evaluating other first century historical works—even apart from the perspective of faith—Matthew must surely be reckoned as far more trustworthy than that.

Further, what Matthew says fits with what we know about Herod’s character. The man was ruthless, from the beginning of his reign to the end. As he got closer to the end, he became intensely paranoid and cruel, and even if we don’t have a second record of the slaughter of the innocents, anyone who has studied Herod’s life recognizes how in keeping this is with what we know of him.

Consider these excerpts from his biography in the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary:

Herod’s conquest of Jerusalem in 37 did not bring his problems to an end. Inheriting a divided city, he moved swiftly and decisively to thwart all opposition. Forty-five leaders of the pro-Antigonus faction in the city were executed (Ant 15 §5) and others were forced into hiding (Ant 15 §264). The wealthy were despoiled, and the revenue gained was used to pay Herod’s debts to his Roman patrons and his army.

In the years following his ascension, Herod was almost obsessively concerned about the security of his rule.

Little time elapsed before he realized the extent of Aristobulus’ popularity and the potential danger he posed (Ant 15 §52). Herod ordered the young man drowned in a swimming pool at his Jericho palace (Ant 15 §54–56).

Herod’s moves to forestall any Jewish uprising are noted by Josephus on a number of occasions. It was for this reason that Antigonus was beheaded in Antioch (Ant 15 §8–9) and that the king kept the young Aristobulus homebound despite Antony’s request, at one point, for the lad to join him (Ant 15 §28–30). Even as late as the year 30, before leaving for a fateful rendezvous with Octavius, Herod executed Hyrcanus II and placed Alexandra in a fortress under guard. He feared that in his absence either of them might foment a rebellion or assert his right to leadership (Ant 15 §174–78, 183–86). Similarly, Herod justified the execution of his wife Mariamme two years later, claiming that a popular disturbance might have broken out had she lived (Ant 15 §231).

Having already eliminated Hyrcanus II just prior to his journey to Rhodes, Herod then executed Alexandra: the king had fallen ill, and Alexandra, finding this to be a propitious opportunity for insurrection, moved to capture the Jerusalem fortress. Apprised of the situation, and having recovered from his illness, Herod immediately ordered her execution (Ant 15 §247–51). A year or so later Herod’s sister Salome sought to divorce Costobar who, together with others, was plotting a revolt. She also told Herod that Costobar had provided refuge for his enemy, the Baba family, during the conquest of Jerusalem a decade earlier. Already aware of Costobar’s seditious proclivities, Herod now moved quickly to execute him and his companions (Ant 15 §253–66).

All this was but a prelude to the most tragic—and, in the long run, the most significant—execution of all. Despite the extraordinary love he felt for his wife, Mariamme, Herod’s relationship with her had seriously deteriorated. Precisely owing to his passionate attachment, and dreading the thought that his beloved might be wedded to another, Herod on two separate occasions had ordered her death should he fail to return from a fateful encounter. Mariamme, however, misjudged his intentions and was incensed at such plans. Salome’s machinations against her only added fuel to the fire, as did Mariamme’s own intemperate remarks and actions vis-à-vis the king. Imbued with a sense of familial superiority because of her Hasmonean lineage, she often treated her husband and sister-in-law with contempt and arrogance. In 29, under the incessant prodding of Salome, Herod finally ordered her execution (Ant 15 §222–39).

Herod exercised complete control over his realm by dominating all key institutions. No matter was beyond his scrutiny. The highest tribunal (Sanhedrin), whatever its composition and authority in the previous era, was now merely a rubber stamp for the king’s wishes.

However, the brothers [Herod’s sons Alexander and Aristobulus] carried a heavy burden of antagonism vis-à-vis their father. They left no doubt that they did not forgive those responsible for their mother’s death and that in due time they would seek revenge.

Matters degenerated in the following years, and the brothers’ fate was sealed by the discovery of a number of alleged plots to murder the king. Herod believed the evidence presented by Antipater, Salome, and Pheroras, and following a trial in Berytus with the participation of Roman officials, Alexander and Aristobulus were executed in 7 B.C.E.

Realizing his end was imminent, Herod ordered that upon his death the men whom he had locked up in the Jericho hippodrome should be executed, thus ensuring general mourning at the time of his death (Ant 17 §173–75). He ordered [another of his sons,] Antipater killed and once again altered his will by naming Archelaus, the older son of Malthace, successor to the throne, Antipas tetrarch of the Galilee and Perea, and Philip, son of Cleopatra, tetrarch of Gaulanitis, Trachonitis, Batanaea, and Panaeas (Ant 17 §188–90).

Got all that? And that’s just a fraction of the people who lost their lives to Herod.

Note in particular: Herod had his wife killed, more than one of his own sons killed, and (although circumstances prevented it from happening) he ordered the death of a bunch of dignitaries just so there would be wailing among Jewish families at the time of his own death.

Is there any reason to think that Herod would scruple at killing the baby boys in Bethlehem to try and eliminate another potential rival for power?

The people of Jerusalem, of course, knew Herod’s character, and it is small wonder that St. Matthew records:

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him.”

When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

It is also small wonder, given that Herod was an observant Jew (though his family had only converted to Judaism a generation or so earlier), and thus not someone supposed to eat pork, that Augustus Caesar is reputed to have quipped:

It is better to be Herod’s pig than to be his son.

Did Jesus Quote the Deuterocanonicals? Receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts. Should I Quit My Job at Hospital?

You often hear that Jesus and the apostles quoted from the deuterocanonical books of the Bible–those that aren’t in the Protestant Old Testament. Did they? If not, what does the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament tell us about the canonicity of those books?

In Acts 8 Luke describes a situation where a group of people have been baptized, but he says that the Holy Spirit hasn’t fallen on them yet. If we receive the Holy Spirit in baptism, how can we explain this?

What if you work in a hospital that performs In Vitro Fertilization or other immoral procedures. If your own work is doesn’t involve those, do you still have to quit your job?

These are among the questions we explore in this week’s episode of the Jimmy Akin Podcast!

Click Play to listen . . .

or you can . . .

CLICK HERE!

. . . or subscribe another way (one of many ways!) at JimmyAkinPodcast.Com.

SHOW NOTES:
JIMMY AKIN PODCAST EPISODE 022 (11/26/11)

* WHIT FROM FLORIDA ASKS ABOUT QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW

Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete SurveyBy Gleason Leonard, Jr. Archer and Gregory Chirichigno
http://astore.amazon.com/jimmyakincom-20/detail/1597520403

NOTE: “Septuagint” is abbreviated LXX

Categories:

A (straightforward LXX): 268
B (LXX where it slightly deviates from MT): 50
C (Masoretic Text): 33
D (LXX where it deviates more from the MT): 22
E (Other): 13
F (Allusions that aren’t quotations): 32

Total using LXX as primary text: 340
Total using MT as primary text: 33

Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm

* WESLEY FROM BROOKLYN ASKS RECEIVING THE HOLY SPIRIT IN ACTS

CCC 1288-1290

* “CONFLICTED” ASKS ABOUT QUITTING HER JOB AT A HOSPITAL THAT DOES IMMORAL PROCEDURES

WHAT’S YOUR QUESTION? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO ASK?

Call me at 512-222-3389!
jimmyakinpodcast@gmail.com
www.JimmyAkinPodcast.com

Join Jimmy’s Secret Information Club!
www.SecretInfoClub.com

Today’s Music: Groove It Now (JewelBeat.Com)
Copyright © 2011 by Jimmy Akin

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

How Can Bible Software Help YOU?

We live in an age in which computers are changing countless aspects of our lives. One of the things they are changing for people of faith is the way that we study the Bible.

Over the last few decades, I’ve watched how Bible study software has developed, and it’s reached a point at which it’s capable of doing truly amazing things—things that were practically impossible only a few years ago, even for people with extensive research libraries at their disposal.

Among these things is the ability of biblical scholars to do complex studies of the way words and grammar are used in the biblical texts. These have shed new light on how the authors of the sacred books wrote and what they meant.

But Bible software isn’t just helping high-level scholars. It has something to offer everyone. Whether you are a priest, a deacon, a DRE, a catechist, a student, or just an ordinary person, Bible study software has ways of helping you learn God’s word better and grow closer to him.

In this episode of my show, I interview an expert on Bible software for Catholics and explore the many ways it can be of benefit to you and enrich your faith life.

Click Play to listen . . .

or you can . . .

CLICK HERE!

. . . or subscribe another way (one of many ways!) at JimmyAkinPodcast.Com.

SHOW NOTES:

JIMMY AKIN PODCAST EPISODE 019 (11/04/11)

Bible Software Special: How Can Bible Software Help *You*?

Special Guest: Andrew Jones of Logos Bible Software.

Site: Logos.com/jimmy

Coupon Code to save 15%: jimmy

Also, Jimmy Akin Secret Info Club announced.

Site: SecretInfoClub.com

WHAT’S YOUR QUESTION? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO ASK?
Call me at 512-222-3389!
jimmyakinpodcast@gmail.com

www.JimmyAkinPodcast.com

Are Levites Needed to Validate Scripture?

A reader writes:

My father came to me about the Septuagint and how it is not proper. I know the history of it but he stated something I never heard. He said that the Levites were not there when it was put together and that null and voids it automatically since God had prescribed them as keepers of scripture. I can't find anything on this. Can you help?

I'm not sure what your father is thinking of. It may be Malachi 2:7, which says:

For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.

This is a reference to the general teaching function of the priests under the Old Covenant. It expresses what they should do–be good teachers of God's word–but not what they always did. In fact, Malachi's oracle from God then goes on to berate the priests of his day for not teaching properly.

If this is the passage your father is thinking of, it doesn't do the work he seems to think it does. It's a general statement about the teaching responsibilities of Old Testament priests and does not say that they are needed to validate particular Bible translations, like the Septuagint (which, for those who may not know, is a Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures that was very popular in the ancient world, particularly among Jews who lived outside of the Holy Land and who spoke Greek).

Also, who says that there weren't Levites involved when the Septuagint was put together? According to the traditional account of its origin, the Torah portion of it was translated by a group of seventy (or seventy-two) Jewish elders (which is why it's called the Septuagint, from the word for "seventy") who may well have included Levites.

And then there was Josephus, the Jewish historian who was himself a priest, who quoted from the Septuagint, implying some form of approval of it, at least personally.

Or your father may be thinking of a different verse, or he may not have any particular verse in mind and may simply be operating on the premise that because God gave the Levites a special religious role in Israel, and since the Scriptures are religious documents, the Levites must give their consent for a Scripture translation to be valid.

If Levites were needed to validate Scripture translations (and note that Malachi speaks not of Levites but of priests, who were just one extended family within the tribe of Levi) then all of us English-speakers are in trouble because, as far as I know, no English translations have been validated by Levites, so all of our Bibles must be "null and void."

I suspect, though, that your father isn't primarily concerned about a particular translation of Scripture (although he might be). Rather, I suspect that he's concerned about the canon that a particular Scripture tradition represents, and here we have a substantive disagreement between Protestant Christians and the rest of the Christian world, for the historically ancient branches of Christianity all recognize (with a few exceptions here and there) the canonicity of certain books that were commonly found in editions of the Septuagint but that are not found in the modern Protestant Old Testament.

The trouble is, what particular groups of non-Christian Jewish people thought regarding which books are canonical cannot be the definitive criterion of what belongs in the Christian Bible.

Why?

Well, for one thing, non-Christian Jews did not accept the canonicity of any of the New Testament books. Neither non-Christian Levites nor non-Christian Jewish priests accepted these. In fact, they rejected and condemned them. So if one is a Christian, one must be prepared to look to the Christian community for the final determination of what belongs in its Bible.

And the early Christians were quite clear in affirming the canonicity of the books found in the Septuagint but not in modern Protestant Bibles.

You can read more about that in my book The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to Early Christian Teaching.

Just how early did the Christian community accept the use of the Septuagint?

This early: It's the standard version of the Old Testament that the New Testament authors quote from. The vast majority of the time that the inspired authors of the New Testament quote from the Old Testament, it's the Septuagint they're quoting from.

And they do so without issuing any warnings about which books of the Septuagint can be used. In fact, they allude to some of these books (e.g., Hebrews 11:35 is a direct allusion to 2 Maccabees 7; you won't find anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament where people are tortured and refuse release in order to obtain a better resurrection, but that's exactly what you find in 2 Maccabees 7).

So, although I'm not sure exactly what your father's claim is, I hope this provides useful information for dialogue between viewpoints.

“It Seemed Good to the Holy Spirit and to Us”

A reader writes:

"For it has 'seemed' good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and froom blood and fromw what is strangled and froum unchastity" (Acts 15: 28-29).

This is taken from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, Second Edition.

An older Bible I have says, "It IS the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us…"

My question is why has it been modified from "is" to "seems?" When it is translated "seems," I think that adds ammunition to Protestants who would say, "See, the Church is not infallible when it makes doctrines because it only "seems" to be good to them."

Do you share my concern here? Could you address this and why on earth this current translation exists instead of the older, and I believe, more accurate one?

I understand the reader's concern, but I don't think it's necessary.

In particular, we (all of us, Catholics and Protestants alike) need to guard against preferring a particular translation because it's more useful. "More apologetically useful" does not equal "more accurate."

Our approach should be to try to figure out what the most accurate understanding of the text is and then assess what apologetic value it has. (And that's when we're trying to do biblical apologetics. If that's not our task at the moment then we may assess it in other terms–e.g., what it says about God [theology proper] or what moral lesson it carries [moral theology] or what we can learn for our own spriritual lives [spiritual theology].)

So what about Acts 15:28?

In Greek the phrase "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" is edoksen gar tO pneumati tO hagiO kai hEmin. Broken out word by word, that's edoksen (it seemed good) gar (for) tO pneumati tO hagiO ([to] the Holy Spirit) kai (and) hEmin ([to] us).

The key word is thus edoksen, which is a form of the verb dokeO. Like most verbs, this one has several related meanings, and it does indeed mean things like "think, seem, seem good, appear, appear good, suppose, be of the opinion, judge, etc."

For a variety of reasons, the most logical literal translation is "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." I won't go into all the technical minutiae, but there is no noun there corresponding to "judgment." Edoksen is a verb with the implied subject "it" (it's 3rd person singular), and in context things like "it judged" make no sense (e.g., "It judged to the Holy Spirit and to us"?).

The proper literal translation would thus be something along the lines of "For it seemed/appeared good to the Holy Spirit and to us."

This is the way the Latin Vulgate takes the passage, too (since we're talking about older translations). In the Vulgate the phrase reads visum est enim Spiritui Sancto et nobis. This is a very straightforward translation of the Greek: visum est (it seemed good) enim (for) Spiritui Sancto ([to] the Holy Spirit] et (and) nobis ([to] us).

Visum est is a perfect passive form of the verb video, which (as you might guess) means "see" or "look at," but in the passive voice (which this is) means things like "seen," "seem," "seem good," "appear," and "appear good." Again, it has an implied subject of "it," and "it seemed good" or "it appeared good" is the most natural literal English translation.

(By the way, "the Holy Spirit and us" cannot be the subject of the verb in either Greek or Latin because the corresponding nouns are in a grammatical form known as the dative case, which prevents them from being subjects of the main verb; also, we'd have a compound subject which would lead one to expect the plural, and both verbs are singular; thus the correct subject of the verb is an implied "it.")

You'll note I've been saying that "it appeared/seemed good" is the most natural literal English translation, but one can use nonliteral ("dynamic") translations, which is what the reader's older Bible apparently does. I don't know what translation it is, but the thought that the Jerusalem Council is sending to the churches is that the decision of the Holy Spirit and the Jerusalem elders is that only minimal requirements should be made of Gentile converts for the sake of Church harmony.

If one is doing a free translation rather than a literal one, "It is the decision of" would be okay. It's just not what the Greek literally says.

The Greek also doesn't indicate any uncertainty about the resulting ruling, despite what "seem" or "appear" commonly connote in English. Instead, as a way of politely giving an order to the affected churches, the Jerusalem Council is using a literary form known as meiosis, which you deliberately understate something as a way of emphasizing it (e.g., calling the Atlantic Ocean "the Pond" when it is clearly vastly larger than a pond).

And less anybody reading the letter miss the point, the Holy Spirit is mentioned first in who the ruling seemed good to. The Holy Spirit is God, and thus omniscient and all-perfect, and anything that "seems good" to him may be taken as most definitively good.

Rather than timidity about the judgment, the way the letter is written stresses its authority, while using meiosis as a way of giving the order diplomatically.

With this understanding of the text we can now ask about its value for apologetics.

I wouldn't worry about the weaker-appearing verb "seemed" because it is the better literal translation, and it does not take away from the authority the letter had for the first century Church.

Further, even if this passage did express tentativeness, that would not disprove the Church's infallibility. There are lots of things the Church is tentative about. Some things that the first century Church was tentative about are mentioned in the Bible (e.g., when Paul expresses a personal judgment that he acknowledges he doesn't have a command from the Lord on).

But this passage isn't a tentative one. It's an emphatic one, and what it actually shows is that the Holy Spirit superintends certain kinds of Church councils and his authority backs them up.

That's a message that points in the direction of at least certain kinds of magisterial functions being infallible.

This doesn't give us a full-orbed theology of ecclesiastical infallibility, but it does point in the direction of that reality, and thus the passage has apologetic value even on the "weaker" (but more literal) understanding of what the letter said.

And, not coincidentally, the Acts 15 council is the paradigm for the ecumenical councils that have been held throughout Church history, so there is apologetic value there as well, with the Acts 15 council serving as precedent and model for them.

Hope this helps!

Major Supernatural Event This Saturday!

Yes! It’s true! A major supernatural event will be occurring *this* Saturday, May 21, 2011!

I’m *not* kidding!

Harold Camping—president of the Protestant radio outreach known as Family Radio—has been predicting for some time that the long-awaited Rapture will occur on May 21st of this year.

Of course, he’s made similar predictions before. He famously got his followers worked up back in 1994 about that being the year the world would end (or something) and, well … y’know.

But this time is different!

There really *is* a major supernatural event occurring this Saturday!

That doesn’t necessarily mean that the reasoning Camping uses to arrive at his conclusion is sound. In fact, it’s not.

If you go to Family Radio’s page explaining why the Rapture is supposed to happen this Saturday, the reasoning used is astronishingly weak. Even incoherent. Dig it:

God declared in 2 Peter 3:8:

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

God had written in the Holy Bible in Genesis 7:4:

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

God added in Genesis 7:10-11:

And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the Flood were upon the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

The ark that Noah had built was the only place of safety from the destruction of the Flood. Likewise, God’s gracious mercy is the only place of safety from the destruction that is coming on the Day of Judgment.

In 2 Peter 3:8, which is quoted above, Holy God reminds us that one day is as 1,000 years. Therefore, with the correct understanding that the seven days referred to in Genesis 7:4 can be understood as 7,000 years, we learn that when God told Noah there were seven days to escape worldwide destruction, He was also telling the world there would be exactly 7,000 years (one day is as 1,000 years) to escape the wrath of God that would come when He destroys the world on Judgment Day. Because Holy Infinite God is all-knowing, He knows the end from the beginning. He knew how sinful the world would become.

Seven thousand years after 4990 B.C. (the year of the Flood) is the year 2011 A.D. (our calendar).

4990 + 2011 – 1 = 7,000
[One year must be subtracted in going from an Old Testament B.C. calendar date to a New Testament A.D. calendar date because the calendar does not have a year zero.]

Thus Holy God is showing us by the words of 2 Peter 3:8 that he wants us to know that exactly 7,000 years after he destroyed the world with water in Noah’s day, he plans to destroy the entire world forever. Because the year 2011 A.D. is exactly 7,000 years after 4990 B.C. when the flood began, the Bible has given us absolute proof that the year 2011 is the end of the world during the Day of Judgment, which will come on the last day of the Day of Judgment.

Got that?

Me neither.

So let’s employ a technique commonly used by philosophers when trying to analyze someone’s argument. Let’s try to put it in logical form. As near as I can tell, Camping’s argument has a form something like this:

1) Noah’s Flood occurred in 4990 B.C.
2) Noah was warned seven days before the Flood that it would occur, per Genesis 7.
3) A day with the Lord is like a thousand years, per 2 Peter 3.
4) Therefore, 7,000 years after Noah’s Flood some great, Flood-like judgment will occur.
5) 4990 B.C. + 7000 -1 = A.D. 2011.
6) Therefore, the end of the world will occur in 2011.

Camping has other arguments zeroing in on May 21st as the date for the Rapture and for October 21st for the final end of the world (if I understand correctly), but before messing with days, let’s first see if his argument concerning years holds water.

The first thing to be remarked about the argument as I’ve put it above is that it’s not in a logically valid form. The premises do not entail the conclusions. I could fix that by rephrasing and introducing some extra, hidden premises, but Camping’s logic is so obscure that I don’t want to go too far beyond what he explicitly says. So let’s simply look at the premises of the argument and see how likely they are to be true, remembering that if even one premise is false then the whole argument is unsound (and that’s if it had a valid form to begin).

Premise 1, that the Flood occurred in 4990 B.C. is an idiosyncratic claim on Camping’s part. You’ll note that this date is earlier than the conventional Protestant Ussher chronology, which had the world beginning in 4004 B.C. and had the Flood occurring around 2348 B.C. Camping rejects the Ussher dating, and I can’t fault him for that. I reject it myself, as do most Protestants these days, because it is based on unsound methodology and results in unlikely, unprovable, and over-precise dates.

Unfortunately, I have no more confidence in Camping’s dating, which also strikes me as unlikely, unprovable, and over-precise. I don’t know what house of cards he has supporting that date, but I view basing any argument regarding the end of the world on this date as extremely shaky.

Premise 2, that Genesis depicts Noah being told that the Flood was going to begin in seven days (this was after he’d been given an earlier warning and built the ark) is true.

Premise 3, that Peter states that a day with the Lord is like a thousand years is also true.

But can we infer from this that some Flood-like judgment would occur 7,000 years after the original Flood?

Not on your life.

For a start, why zero-in on the warning Noah got seven days before everything started happening? Why not focus instead on the earlier warning he got? Why not at some other time in this narrative? The proposed starting point is arbitrary.

For another thing, why suppose that there’s any kind of prophetic significance to this at all? There is nothing in the text telling us that these seven days, or any span of time mentioned in the narrative, is a scale-model prophecy of when the end of the world will take place relative to the Flood. This is sheer supposition.

What’s more, why should the scale be a thousand years to a day? This is a notorious bugaboo with predictions of the end of the world. Over and over different interpreters pick out some random mention of days in the Old Testament, multiply it by a thousand years, and then declare some prophesied even must occur on the corresponding date.

It’s true that 2 Peter says that a day is as a thousand years with the Lord, this doesn’t give us a license to take any mention of a day and interpret it as a thousand years. Quite the opposite! The exact same passage also says the reverse: That a thousand years is like a day with God (per Psalm 90:4). In other words, time is meaningless with God. He’s an eternal being who can find as much experience in a day as we would in a thousand years and who can encompass huge spans of time like a thousand years in what is only a moment for him. Rather than providing a license to multiply any reference to a day as code for a thousand year prophetic period, this verse is actually a warning against trying to determine God’s timetable for events. That timetable is unpredictable because we cannot know what temporal calculus God is applying to particular prophecies.

Camping’s use of this verse is thus not only over-precise but flatly contrary to the literal meaning of the verse!

And would be even if the seven days mentioned Genesis 7 were a prophetic scale model, which we have no reason to think.

And if those days were prophetic in some way, why treat them and only them in such a way? What God says is that in seven days he would start flooding for 40 days and 40 nights. Does that mean that once the judgment starts it will go on for 40,000 years?

Camping doesn’t think so. He’s got the final end coming in October. This only underscores the arbitrary nature of the figure he has picked out and multiplied. If the seven days mentioned must be literally multiplied by 1,000 years, why should the 40 days also mentioned in the same passage not be similarly multiplied?

Camping does, at least, avoid the trap of thinking that there’s a “year zero” on our timeline. There’s not. It jumps from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1, so he gets points for that. Not all end-time speculators have been so fortunate on that one.

But even if we were to grant all of the foregoing, even if there were some big Flood-like event scheduled to occur 7,000 years after a 4,990 B.C. Flood, why would it have to be the end of the world? Why not just Another Big Judgment?

Even that is giving him too much credit, however. The fact is that this whole prediction is a house of cards. It’s based on over-precise, unknowable dates, arbitrary starting points, arbitrary parallelisms, invalid logic, and a multiplication factor that is wrenched out of context and used in a way flatly contrary to the clear meaning of the text.

Given that his overall year calculation is so shot through with holes, we need not be detained by his more precise datings of the Rapture or the final end. (I should also note that Catholics do not typically use the term “Rapture,” though they do acknowledge the reality of the event St. Paul mentions in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, though it is seen as occurring at the Second Coming of Christ at the end of the world, not before an earthly millennium.)

The whole thing is comic—but it is also tragic, because many people have been misled by Camping, and some have been misled into spending vast sums of money in support of his advertising campaign, telling their friends and co-workers that the world is about to end, and generally bringing scorn on the cause of Christ.

As St. Paul wrote: “It is written, ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you’” (Rom. 2:24).

You have to admire the courage of people like this gentleman who spent his life savings promoting these speculations, but not their wisdom.

God help everyone who bought into this come Sunday morning.

Of course, that’s not to say Christ couldn’t come back on Saturday. I don’t see the signs being right for that, but who am I to say it couldn’t happen?

Harold Camping is right, though, that a major supernatural event will be happening this Saturday.

One of my godsons is being confirmed!

Congratulations, James!

So … what do you think?