Category: Bible

A reader writes:

My husband and I have a question about "The Lord’s Supper" and the apostles in attendance.  Our confusion arises from a very old print of "The Lord’s Supper" that we found many years ago at an antique shop in Florida.  It is in an old gray-colored frame under "bubble" glass, and I was drawn to it because it is exactly like one that my grandparents always had in their home.  On this print are the names of the apostles at the bottom edge of the tablecloth (altar cloth).

The names listed (in Hebrew? Latin?)  are as follows (from left to right):

Bartholomaeus Bartholomew
Jacobus II James II (meaning: James son of Alphaeus)
Andreas Andrew
Judas Judas (meaning Judas Iscariot)
Petrus Peter
Joannes John
Jesus Christus Jesus Christ
Thomas Thomas
Jacobus I James I (meaning: James son of Zebedee)
Philipus Philip
Matthaeus Matthew
Thaddaeus Thaddeus (a.k.a., Judas not Iscariot or Judas the son of James)
Simon Simon (a.k.a., Simon the Zealot, the Zealots being a political movement)

Therein lies our confusion.  After Judas betrayed Jesus and committed suicide, the apostles continued the Apostolic Succession by "voting" for Matthew to join the fold.  On our print, "Matthaeus" is listed as one of the apostles at the Passover.  Was there another Matthew who was already part of the original Twelve?  Or are the names incorrect or simply added as "artistic license?"  (We also know the English translations as most are obvious and that Jacobus is the Hebrew/Latin? name for James.)

I think I can clear up the confusion. Matthew was a disciple who was named an apostle during Jesus’ ministry (see Matthew 10:2-4). The guy who was elected an apostle after the suicide of Judas Iscariot was a different guy but had a similar name: Matthias. You can read about him in Acts 1:12-26 (you’ll note that Matthew is listed among the apostles before the election of Matthias in Acts 1:13).

Incidentally, the names above are Latinized forms of Aramaic names. The "bar-" in Bartholomew is a dead giveaway. "Bar" is Aramaic for "son of." If the name were Hebrew, that would be "ben." ("Bartholomew" = "son of Ptolemy," though Ptolemy isn’t an Aramaic name; it was popular around this time due to being the name of one of Alexander the Great’s generals who later ruled Egypt). What happened is the folks of olden times took the Aramaic names of Jesus and the apostles, passed them through Greek (where they got modified a little) and then made them sound Latin by adding Latin endings and such to them.

I’ve put the English equivalents along with some explanatory notes alongside the names above in red. Hope it’s useful.

We want to share this information with our church family at our Cathedral in Charleston, SC.  We have a fabulous stained glass window of the Lord’s Supper and were discussing the names of the Apostles with the head of the tour guides.  Many had never seen the names of the Apostles listed, so we wanted to share accurate information.  Any assistance that you may offer would be appreciated, or if you could direct us to another resource.  We were unable to find the exact names and the seating order in the Bible.  Our print is certainly not a "DaVinci," but it is quite beautiful and a prayerful part of our dining area.

Cool! Hope the above helps.

Incidentally, the seating order is something made up by the artist, so you should examine the stained glass version to see if it seems to have the apostles in the same places. Generally there are little visual signs to indicate which are which. For example, Peter is depicted as an old man, while John is depicted as a young man (and is always seated next to Christ in pictures of the Last Supper, typically with Peter next to him).
 

146 year ago today, Aleph was found.

Aleph is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet. It is also the symbol used to designate Codex Sinaiticus, which is the Aleph found in 1859.

Codes Sinaiticus is a fourth-century uncial manuscript of the entire Greek New Testament (as well as parts of the Old Testament and other works).

(An uncial manuscript is one written in all capital letters, which is basically what all manuscripts were before the invention of lower-case letters.)

Codex Sinaiticus is one of the two most important manuscripts in New Testament textual criticism (the study of which variants in New Testament manuscripts were most likely in the original–now lost–documents). The other most important manuscript is Codex Vaticanus.

Sinaiticus was found by Constantin von Tischendorf in a monastery (the Monastery of St. Catherine) at the ostensible site of Mt. Sinai (hence the name) in Egypt.

The text to the left is taken from Codex Sinaiticus.

(Incidentally, a codex is the modern form of a book that we use today, with pages attached to a spine, rather than the older form of book with pages dewn end-to-end, making a scroll. Christians popularized the codex or modern book.)

Codex Sinaiticus helped revolutionize the study of the textual history of the New Testament.

A reader writes:

Somebody’s been quoting this passage on a board I frequent often (www.bolt.com): Proverbs 6:16-19 "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: {17} A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, {18} An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, {19} A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."

Is it then proper to say that god Hates.

Also, What is youre take on the Hebrew notion of Hatred.  I am aware that it doesn’t have certain kinds of catagorically discriptive terms.  So if you have a first and a second choice, they may be discribed as "first and last" or if you like one option more than the other one may be "loved" and the other "hated".

Any thoughts.  Is it correct to say "God Hates,"?

Since Scripture uses the term in regard to God, it is possible to say that in some sense God hates. The question is: What sense? (Or senses.)

Since God is Love, and since he is very different from us, it is not to be expected that God hates in the same way we do. As Aquinas notes, God doesn’t have passions the way we do.

In an obvious sense, to say that God hates something (because it is evil, e.g., shedding innocent blood) may be taken to mean that it is inconsistent with his goodness.

In other cases, to say that God hates something (e.g., "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated") or that God wishes something to be hated (e.g., "If anyone comes to me but does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters, and yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple") then it may be understood that he prefers something to it (Jacob rather than Esau) or that something else is to be preferred to it (having one’s first loyalty to Jesus rather than to any other).

It may also be possible to find places where divine justice is said to be administered in terms of God’s hatred of sin. In these cases, Aquinas would tell us (though I don’t have the reference handy) that God is willing a non-moral evil (e.g., pain) for purposes of a greater good (upholding justice, correcting behavior).

What cannot be said is that God commits the sin of hatred, i.e., willing evil against someone for its own sake.

As far as the Hebrews’ conception of hatred (which at times may have been expressed in Aramaic or even Greek rather than Hebrew), it may have been broader than ours, at least in the sense that the term could be used in senses that we today would never use it in English (e.g., Jesus’ statement about hating your family, though this may have been as shocking to its original audience as it is to us, so a broader understanding is not clear from that verse alone).

I am dubious of our ability at this late date to come up with a refined, carefully nuanced understanding of the meaning of the relevant Hebrew vocabulary. When you don’t have speakers of the dialect alive to question about what terms do and do not include (and biblical Hebrew is not identical to modern Hebrew, so the Israelis don’t count) it is difficult to reconstruct the exact parameters of words.

I suspect that the ancient Hebrews had a largely anthropomorphic understanding of God’s hatred, and the distinctions we would now draw are based on the revelation Christ gave us, as meditated upon throughout the centuries of Christian reflection.

Down yonder, some reader write as follows:

READER A: Jesus also said he would return soon. Are you a preterist?

Yes, I tend to be a preterist when it comes to Revelation (meaning: a person who thinks that most of the book applies to the beginning of Church history). I explain the fact that Jesus said he was coming soon by one of two possibilities:

(a) Scripture often speaks of God "coming" in vengeance but without meaning that he will be physically coming. Perhaps (since Jesus is God) this applies to a non-physical "coming" of Jesus in vengeance that occurred early in Church history (e.g., the destruction of Jerusalem).

(b) The standard "A days is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day to God, so ‘soon’ is hard to interpret" reply.

I lean toward the former possibility. In any event, Revelation indicates that before there will be a big long period of time (the Millennium, which is not necessarily only a thousand years) before the end of the world and the Second Coming. Typically of Catholics, I think we are now living in that period, which corresponds to most of Church history. We are now in the period of Revelation 20:1-10, and I think the material before chapter 20 thus applies to the early part of Church history.

READER B: I think I read in one of Scott Hahn’s book that 666 could also refer to St. Solomon.

I would be surprised if Scott said that. Sometimes people link 666 with Solomon because it is once mentioned that he had 666 talents of gold a year (1 Kings 10:14 and 2 Chronicles 9:13). This seems to have no symbolic significance and is just a coincidence (like many things in Scripture). In any event, the beast of Revelation 13 clearly was an individual living in Church history (as he persecutes Christians) and not Solomon, who lived centuries earlier.

READER C: In an old Bible of an old parish priest, 666 is explained like this :
7 is the perfect number and  so 6 (7-1) is the number of what is unperfect…
3 is the nuber of God…
So 666 is the number of "what is unperfect" trying to be called God, to usupt his title…
Is it a correct interpretation ?

I’ve heard this suggested, but it seems rather speculative to me. Maybe it’s what’s happening in the text, but maybe not. The obvious alternative number to 666 (the name of the beast) is not 777 but 888 (the name of Jesus). This explanation sounds more like an attempt to reason based on broader number symbolism, while the real explanation may simply be that 666 and 888 simply were the numbers of Nero’s and Jesus’ names. (Though that in itself may be a matter of Providence.)

READER D: it seems the Nero interpretation has the strongest arguments in its
favor, even if I don’t really find it convincing. (One weakness is that
Revelation was written in Greek, not Aramaic, and there’s no hint that
St. John meant us to dig beneath the Greek language for an Aramaic
subsoil to solve the 666 puzzle.) I’m not even sure St. John expected
his first readers to recognise the number of the Beast’s name, though
that would seem to make sense too.

I agree that the connection is not a certainty, though I think it’s stronger than what you seem to think, at least given the remaining contents of the book. I also am not that disturbed by the fact that Aramaic issue. (a) It may not have been written in Greek, as the Greek of the book is notoriously barbarous. It may be an unpolished translation of an Aramaic original, as far as I know. (b) If you’re an Aramaic speaker and it’s hit you that "Caesar Nero" is 666 then you may want to use that fact because of the triple that is present in the number. The triple makes it seem more significant than 557, which is what "Caesar Nero" is in Greek. (c) John may have been such a poor Greek speaker that he might not have known how to calculate name numbers in Greek. He may have been relying on someone else to help him with the Greek for Revelation but did the number calculation in his native language. (d) John does warn the reader that it takes understanding to figure out the number. Perhaps the Aramaic issue is part of what he’s thinking of.

Also, by e-mail, a reader writes:

READER E: I was reading your inof on the net regarding false prophets and was very interested in what you had to say regarding "Nero Caesar", a couple of questions came to mind while I was reading. The first was that you made no mention of the mark (666) of the beast on the right hand or forehead as well as the mortal wound, I’m thinking that the mortal wound may not be a literal wound, however; I’m wondering about the mark, can you shed some light on this for me.  Thanks

In my opinion, the symbolism of having the number on the right hand or on the head is likely to be understood as either a symbol of loyalty to the Roman state or (more likely) participation in the cult of emperor worship.

As to the head wound, I suspect that this also may not be literal. Many have thought that it’s an expression of the myth that sprang up after Nero’s death that he wasn’t really dead and would one day return and take his revenge (much like there were rumors after World War II that Hitler wasn’t dead).

I don’t like that interpretation, though, and I think it may refer to a number of things.

An intriguing possibility is that it is meant to allude to the previous emperor Caligula, who was mad, vicious, and who demanded to be worshipped as a god–and who was assassinated by his own guards. It may be that the revival of the beast is symbolic of Nero’s rise after Caligula (with the reign of Claudius between them). In other words: The evil (symbolized as a beast) that everybody thought had died in Caligula came back in the form of Nero.

It’s a thought, anyway.

Yesterday I blogged about the fact that in Greek, Jesus’ name adds up to 888. In response, a reader asked:

All this brings to 666, the number of the beast. I’ve read somewhere
this backtranslates to Nero, though intentionally without determinism.
Is there a known spelling of Nero that makes the connection in Latin or
ancient Greek?

It is true, though the language isn’t Latin or Greek. It’s Hebrew or Aramaic. These two languages use the same alphabet, though the shapes of the letters are sometimes quite different, and as a result they used the same numbering system. Since first century Jews were Aramaic-speakers, Aramaic is really the more relevant language in this case, but because modern pastors tend to know more Hebrew than Aramaic (since most of the Old Testament is in Hebrew), you often hear that "Nero Caesar" adds up to 666 in Hebrew.

Here’s how it works:

Aramaic and Hebrew did not have vowels in the first century, so words were spelled with consonants. There were different ways one could spell words (in the absence of Webster’s dictionary), and one spelling of "Nero Caesar" (or "Caesar Nero") was NRWN QSR.

Nun = 50
Resh = 200
Waw = 6
Nun =  50

Qop = 100
Samekh = 60
Resh = 200

TOTAL = 666

Now, there’s lotsa folks who have names that add up to 666, so why should one be confident that the emperor Nero was who St. John/God had in mind in the book of Revelation?

Well, in Revelation the beast is described as a leader who demands to be worshipped as a god and who persecutes Christians? Any of St. John’s contemporaries fit that bill? Yep: Nero.

Any reason we should think that it would be one of St. John’s contemporaries? Yep, again: At its beginning and its end, the book stresses it deals with what will happen "soon" (Rev. 1:1, 22:6).

Anything else?

Yep the third: Another spelling of "Nero Caesar" in Aramaic(/Hebrew) is NRW QSR, which leaves off a nun (50), resulting in the total number 616 instead of 666.

It turns out that some early manuscripts of Revelation record the beast’s number as 616 rather than 666.

Somebody back then got it–and was used to a different spelling.

(Note: It’s interesting when you’re taking a class in Aramaic and are learning the numbering system–still in use among Aramaic-speakers today–and all this comes up. Startling confirmation of the solidity of all this.)

A reader writes:

Jimmy~

Thanks for all you do.

 

Two small easy ones:

1. I am partial to the NAB
because of the footnotes. Are the footnotes in the NAB
particularly bad, or just not particularly good?

 

2. I know you recommend the RSV:CE, which is
lacking in footnotes. Is this where the commentaries (Orchard’s, etc.) that
you recommend come into play?

In regard to the first question, there are three reasons I don’t like the NAB. First, there are the footnotes. In some editions these are likely worse than others, but even the better ones still have some bad notes (not all are bad, but some are). The notes, apparently, have been cleaned up somewhat since the 1970s, but there are still clunkers that will misinform, disturb, or even challenge the faith of readers. For example, consider this note on Matthew 16:21-23:

[21-23] This first prediction of the passion follows Mark 8:31-33 in the main and serves as a corrective to an understanding of Jesus’ messiahship as solely one of glory and triumph. By his addition of from that time on (Matthew 16:21) Matthew has emphasized that Jesus’ revelation of his coming suffering and death marks a new phase of the gospel. Neither this nor the two later passion predictions (Matthew 17:22-23; 20:17-19) can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself. However, it is probable that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death, but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God (see Matthew 26:29). [SOURCE]

HUH???

Jesus couldn’t actually predict the future? He wasn’t a true prophet? He didn’t know about his death and resurrection? He could only foresee that "his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death?"

Sorry, but this is flatly inconsistent with the Christian faith.

Second, the book introductions to the NAB rush willy-nilly to embrace modern higher critical theories that, while some may be tolerable or even correct, are by no means certain. These introductions present these higher critical theories as The Truth, when in fact many of these are speculative at best. (They also have a faith-undermining tendency for many who are not secure in their faith.)

The third problem is that I just think the NAB is a lousy translation. There was a period in which I would tense up at Mass every day, worried about what the NAB would get wrong today. There are so many squishy, tone-deaf, and way-beyond-the-text translations in the NAB that anyone with a knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew has to cringe when it’s read at Mass.

That’s not to say that it never gets it right. In fact, I’m using the NAB as the Bible translation I’m quoting in a booklet I’m writing for Catholic Answers right now. The reason is that, in this case, the NAB happens to better render the passages I most need to quote. But this is an exceptional situation. In general, I can’t recommend it.

Also, if you’re wanting to do Bible study (as opposed to simply Bible reading) then you don’t want a dynamic equivalence translation anyway. You want a formal equivalence or "literal" translation, as these preserve more of the data from the original text, even though they are a bit harder to read.

With regard to the second question, actually the RSV:CE does have notes, but they’re endnotes (at the end of each testament) rather than footnotes (at the foot of the page). But yes, commentaries like Orchard and others are a great supplement to it. Orchard will add far more data to your study of Scripture (good, orthodox data at that, even if some of it is a little out of date) than will be found in any edition with footnotes. That’s the way it always works: Commentaries add more data than can be fit into a Bible via footnotes.

Hope this helps!

HERE’S A STORY IN WHICH AN ARCHAEOLOGIST CLAIMS TO HAVE DISCOVERED "THE CAVE OF JOHN THE BAPTIST."

He hasn’t.

At least, there appears to be inadequate evidence to propose that he has.

The cave, which is located on the grounds

of Kibbutz Tsuba just outside Jerusalem, is "about an hour’s donkey

ride from Ein Kerem, the village where Christian tradition says John

was born," Gibson says.

It is also on the edge of the Judean desert, where John was known to hold spiritual retreats.

He decided to start excavating after

discovering a crudely-drawn picture of John the Baptist carved into the

limestone walls "dressed in camel hair robes" as described in the

Gospel of Matthew.

Several crosses and a rough drawing of a

severed head were also carved into the walls, illustrating John’s death

by beheading at the hands of Herod Antipas, ruler of the northern

Galilee region at the time.

Underneath the picture of John is a small niche "designed for a relic", Gibson explains.

"These drawings are the work of Byzantine

monks who used to gather in the cave to tell the history of John the

Baptist," he said, pointing out an area around the eyes where vandals,

or iconoclasts, had tried to destroy the pictures.

Excavations, which took place between

2000 and 2003 in conjunction with a team from the University of North

Carolina, revealed a space some 24 metres (yards) long, 4.5 metres wide

and four metres high, with 18 huge steps leading down to a large

rectangular pool.

"Its use for baptism rituals dates back to the Iron Age, the era of the kings of Judea," he said.

Okay.

So it’s a cave near Ein Karem. Lots of caves in the area. Doesn’t prove John the Baptist went to this one.

It’s got carvings from Byzantine monks who met there centuries after John’s time to talk about and presumably pray to John the Baptist. Again, doesn’t prove he was there.

Oh, and it’s got a mikvah in it. Big whoop. There are ancient mikvahs all over the place in Israel. Ritual immersions were a major ceremonial practice in ancient Judaism, and the fact you’ve turned up a mikvah–even a mikvah near Ein Karem–in no way proves the presence of John the Baptist. What were all the people in the area who weren’t John the Baptist supposed to do for their ritual immersions?

Further, though the way the story is worded is ambiguous, Gibson may be saying that this mikvah dates back to the Iron Age, in which case it predates John by centuries.

All of this hardly justifies the claims Gibson is apparently making for the place:

"The first concrete evidence of the existence of John the Baptist has been found on site," 46-year-old Shimon Gibson told AFP.

Gibson, who holds a degree from

University College London and has written several works on Biblical

archaeology, believes the discovery to be "the first archaeological

proof of the historical veracity of the Gospels".

This is nothing more than the archaeological snake oil that is regularly peddled to tourists in Israel, where a spot that has no verifiable connection with a biblical figure or figures will be pronounced to have such a connection for purposes of making it a tourist destination so the locals can make money off it. (E.g., "the field of the shepherds," which is just a field near Bethlehem that nobody can remotely prove is where the angel appeared to shepherds to tell them about Jesus’ birth).

Now, I don’t want to diss biblical archaeology at all. There are some sites where we know for a fact

that this is exactly where someone was or something happened. (These

are the sites that impress me most.) I just get frustrated with the

overinflated claims made for many of these places for purposes of

tourism.

John the Baptist’s cave, which has been restored by Kibbutz Tsuba, will be opened to the public early next year.

Big surprise.

HERE’S A STORY IN WHICH AN ARCHAEOLOGIST CLAIMS TO HAVE DISCOVERED "THE CAVE OF JOHN THE BAPTIST."

He hasn’t.

At least, there appears to be inadequate evidence to propose that he has.

The cave, which is located on the grounds
of Kibbutz Tsuba just outside Jerusalem, is "about an hour’s donkey
ride from Ein Kerem, the village where Christian tradition says John
was born," Gibson says.

It is also on the edge of the Judean desert, where John was known to hold spiritual retreats.

He decided to start excavating after
discovering a crudely-drawn picture of John the Baptist carved into the
limestone walls "dressed in camel hair robes" as described in the
Gospel of Matthew.

Several crosses and a rough drawing of a
severed head were also carved into the walls, illustrating John’s death
by beheading at the hands of Herod Antipas, ruler of the northern
Galilee region at the time.

Underneath the picture of John is a small niche "designed for a relic", Gibson explains.

"These drawings are the work of Byzantine
monks who used to gather in the cave to tell the history of John the
Baptist," he said, pointing out an area around the eyes where vandals,
or iconoclasts, had tried to destroy the pictures.

Excavations, which took place between
2000 and 2003 in conjunction with a team from the University of North
Carolina, revealed a space some 24 metres (yards) long, 4.5 metres wide
and four metres high, with 18 huge steps leading down to a large
rectangular pool.

"Its use for baptism rituals dates back to the Iron Age, the era of the kings of Judea," he said.

Okay.

So it’s a cave near Ein Karem. Lots of caves in the area. Doesn’t prove John the Baptist went to this one.

It’s got carvings from Byzantine monks who met there centuries after John’s time to talk about and presumably pray to John the Baptist. Again, doesn’t prove he was there.

Oh, and it’s got a mikvah in it. Big whoop. There are ancient mikvahs all over the place in Israel. Ritual immersions were a major ceremonial practice in ancient Judaism, and the fact you’ve turned up a mikvah–even a mikvah near Ein Karem–in no way proves the presence of John the Baptist. What were all the people in the area who weren’t John the Baptist supposed to do for their ritual immersions?

Further, though the way the story is worded is ambiguous, Gibson may be saying that this mikvah dates back to the Iron Age, in which case it predates John by centuries.

All of this hardly justifies the claims Gibson is apparently making for the place:

"The first concrete evidence of the existence of John the Baptist has been found on site," 46-year-old Shimon Gibson told AFP.

Gibson, who holds a degree from
University College London and has written several works on Biblical
archaeology, believes the discovery to be "the first archaeological
proof of the historical veracity of the Gospels".

This is nothing more than the archaeological snake oil that is regularly peddled to tourists in Israel, where a spot that has no verifiable connection with a biblical figure or figures will be pronounced to have such a connection for purposes of making it a tourist destination so the locals can make money off it. (E.g., "the field of the shepherds," which is just a field near Bethlehem that nobody can remotely prove is where the angel appeared to shepherds to tell them about Jesus’ birth).

Now, I don’t want to diss biblical archaeology at all. There are some sites where we know for a fact
that this is exactly where someone was or something happened. (These
are the sites that impress me most.) I just get frustrated with the
overinflated claims made for many of these places for purposes of
tourism.

John the Baptist’s cave, which has been restored by Kibbutz Tsuba, will be opened to the public early next year.

Big surprise.