Dear Professor:
have been in a dialogue with a Jehovah's Witness. He quoted you as saying that the Kingdom Interlinear Translation (KIT) is
"the best interlinear New Testament available
" (
The Watchtower, February 1998). I would be very interested in your comments since this translation is rejected by the vast majority of biblical scholars, who have an opposite opinion to your own. It seems to me from comparing a number of passages with a number of Protestant and Catholic Bibles, the KIT and associated New World Translation (NWT) are very poor and flawed. Would you care to comment?
Prof. Jason Beduhn replies:
Dear Mr. Pacheco:
Thank you for your
inquiry. My reason for favouring the KIT are quoted accurately in
the Watchtower article. The book is handy for classroom use and
provides a fresh, literal translation that avoids traditional
readings, which in my opinion, fall short of conveying the
meaning of the original Greek text.
You say that,
'from all scholarly accounts' the JW translations are 'very poor
and flawed'. And you refer to 'the vast majority of scholars
having an opinion opposite to my own'. I would be very interested
to know what 'scholarly accounts' you mean.
Since the
appearance of the watchtower article, I have been flooded with
phone calls, letters, and E-mails from people who have the same
understanding as yourself, and provide me with names and quotes
of those who have criticized the JW's Bible translation. I have
studied and checked these references carefully. I have to say
that most of the 'scholars' quoted are not 'scholars' at all, but
highly biased and ill-informed critics of the JWs as a 'cult',
whose sole purpose is to attack the JWs, warn people to stay away
from them, and try to win JWs from their community. I have no
interest at all in modern denominational conflicts in
Christianity. I am a historian and a linguist whose only interest
in this matter is to see the New Testament translated in a way
that accurately reflects the thinking and culture of its ancient
authors.
Only a couple
reputable scholars have ventured to give any opinion at all on
the JW's translation. The 'vast majority of scholars' have no
opinion on it, since they have never read it, and any way are not
involved in modern Bible wars, nor care to be. People like
Metzger and Mantey, who generally are thought well of in biblical
studies, have spoken out against the translation. But in my
opinion, they have mixed theological argument with linguistic
argument in their criticism, and this is not legitimate. I would
be willing to argue against these gentlemen on the issue of the
accuracy of the translation. Sure, it has some weaknesses and
faults, as any translation does, and I would like to see it
improved. But overall, it is fairly accurate and reliable. The
only basis on which it is legitimate to judge a New Testament
translation is to compare it to the Greek original, and see how
closely it follows the Greek text. The KIT Bible, of course,
includes a very accurate and consistent interlinear, but even the
NWT printed in the right hand margin should be given high marks
by this standard.
I want to thank
you for your last E-mail regarding your preference for the KIT. I
recognize that you are a busy person, so I will make this as
short as possible.
The reason I
ventured to query you is because the New World Translation (NWT)
differs substantially from all of the other Bible translations
that I have read (7 or 8) - either Protestant or Catholic. This
is especially true in its translation of passages dealing with
the traditional doctrines of Christianity such as the divinity of
Christ. One thing is therefore certain: the NWT and these other
translations cannot be BOTH correct. So when I said that the
'vast majority of biblical scholars' would reject the NWT, I was
making the assumption that they considered the existing
'traditional' translations valid. If they didn't, there would be,
I would think, many more translations which differed from the
'traditional' ones. Since there are not many of these
'alternative' translations (at least to my knowledge), then it
only follows that most biblical scholars agree with these
translations. That means, of course, that the NWT is way off.
All of these other
translations, whose biblical scholars (Protestant and Catholic)
have worked INDEPEDENTLY and OVER DIFFERENT DECADES AND
CENTURIES, are remarkably consistent in their treatment of the
central Christian doctrines, with little variance. This is not so
with the NWT as you are probably aware. Now, am I to believe that
all of these scholars including St. Jerome, who was 1500 years
closer to the original languages than any scholar today, making
him a much better judge of the exact meaning of any Greek or
Hebrew word in the Scriptures, are wrong and the translators of
the NWT, who remain ANONYMOUS, are correct?
I presume you are
speaking primarily of English translations when you compare
"all of these other translations" to the NWT. I think
you are oversimplifying when you stack all of the other
translations together against the NWT. There is a significant
amount of variance among English translations, and even when it
comes to some of the most controversial NWT translations, usually
some other English Bible can be found that agrees. But it is true
that many English Bibles sound alike, and somewhat different from
the NWT. The principal reason for this is that the English Bible
is dominated by the Standard Bible tradition, that is, the long
shadow of the King James Version which is very hard to break
with. You are actually playing the role of the perfect example
why it is so hard to depart from the Standard tradition -- people
object and fear that something is being "changed" or
"distorted". Bible translators frequently struggle
against the perception that the old way of translating is the
correct way and that any change is heresy. In fact we are
learning to read New Testament Greek better all of the time, as
we get our hands on more and more comparable literature from the
ancient world. So revision of English translations is essential
if we biblical scholars are to share with the larger public
closer access to the original meaning of the biblical text.
So, in short, you
have to take account of the influence of the older translations,
and the reluctance to depart radically from it, even when a new
understanding of the Greek urges you to translate differently.
The NWT sounds so different PRIMARILY because it didn't lean on
the Standard tradition at all, and only SECONDARILY because of
attention to doctrinal issues. As for Jerome, he was an educated
man and, you are right, closer to the time of the NT, but like
anyone he made mistakes and as a hermit had access to much fewer
resources and reference material to help him.
Very well then,
professor, perhaps we should look at some passages to see if we
can come to some kind of understanding or consensus on this
matter.
A)
In the NWT, every
time the Greek word "proskuneo" is used in reference to
God, it is translated as "worship" (Rev 5:14, 7:11,
11:16, 19:4, Jn 4:20, etc.). Every time "proskuneo" is
used in reference to Jesus, it is translated as
"obeisance" (Mt 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Lk 24:52, Heb 1:6,
etc.), even though it is the same word in the Greek. Especially
compare the Greek word "proskuneo" used with reference
to God in Rev. 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, and 19:4 and used with
reference to Christ in Mt 14:33, 28:9, and 28:17. What is the
reason for this inconsistency? If the NWT was consistent in
translating "proskuneo" as "worship", how
would the verses above referring to Christ read?
You are correct
that the NWT is inconsistent in how it translates forms of
'proskuneo'. This word literally means to prostrate oneself, to
bow down or to kiss the ground before someone. So, for example,
when one of the gospels says that the disciples
"worshipped" Jesus, it means that they knelt or bowed
down around him, as an act of deference and reverence. The old
English word "obeisance" means the same thing, and in
the time of the King James version "worship" also meant
that. King James' own subjects might be expected to
"worship" him, by bowing down before him. But in modern
English, we have forgotten this meaning of "worship"
and take the word to refer to an act of prayer or veneration to
God. The NWT tries to preserve the range of meaning of the Greek
by using obeisance when dealing with a physical act in the
presence of Jesus, and using worship when it refers to an
abstract concept of reverence to God who is not physically
present to the worshipper. I think the NWT would do better if it
picked one word that carries the full range of meaning and used
it consistently. Obviously what they have done raises questions
about the motivation for the choice.
I find your
response quite remarkable. You admit an inconsistency in the
translation, but you defend the NWT, claiming that it 'preserves
the range of meaning of the Greek.' First of all, you admit the
translation is NOT consistent in its translation of the word
'proskuneo'. This is simply because the JWs do not want to admit
that Jesus is God so they have changed the word in English. You
are not the only one which questions their motivation in doing so
- all other Christians do as well. Secondly, the word 'proskuneo'
is used in reference to God AND to Jesus. You claim that the word
can be used for 'reverence' instead of the traditional rendering
of 'worship'. If that is the case, then why would the New
Testament writers use that exact word when describing what we
should do to GOD (Cf. Rev. 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, Jn 4:20)? Are you
saying that the NT writers meant that we should pay only
'reverence' to God and not 'worship'? And if that were the case,
then the NWT must use 'obeisance' in both places to be
consistent, which it does not. Conversely, IF the NT writers
wanted to convey that we should 'worship' Jesus, then what word
would they use? It is clear that the intent of the translators of
the NWT is to separate the idea of Christ as God, and that is the
reason for their DECEPTIVE translation. The JWs begin with
presupposition that Jesus MUST not be God, therefore He must not
be worshipped - hence the 'inconsistency'.
I agreed with you
that the NWT should try to be more consistent in translating the
word. I also said that the English word "worship" is
misleading (can we say 'deceptive'?) in that, to a modern
audience, it implies a meaning exclusively reserved for action
towards a god. The Greek 'proskuneo' does not have that
restricted sense, and one can prostrate before any number of
superior people and beings. Now I for one cannot come up with a
single English word that conveys that range of meaning, so I am
not going to give the JWs too much grief for not being better
than I am when it comes to making perfect translations. The
authors of the New Testament used a common word for showing
reverence to a superior. It has a broad sense, not a restrictive
one. English readers have a right to know what the Greek means,
don't they? The JW solution is not the best one, but nor is it
proper to continue to mislead people into thinking that anytime a
writer uses 'proskuneo' he means an action restricted to a divine
being.
The problem with
taking such a strident attitude in this conversation is that, as
intelligent and educated as you are, you are working in this
particular subject with a lack of basic information about the
origins of the New Testament, and the linguistic and cultural
background that allows us to understand its meaning. Yes, you are
perfectly able to reason from the facts to a sound conclusion --
the trouble is, where are the facts? I have tried to provide some
of these, and will provide what more I can now. I do not have any
illusion that you will radically change your opinion. All that I
hope is that you will see that from a historical and linguistic
standpoint, the Bible is not always as simple and clear as we
would like to think.
You claim that
'proskuneo' CAN be used for reverence. So what!!! Just because
'proskuneo' CAN mean 'reverence', does that mean that it DOES, in
fact, mean 'reverence'? The question becomes how do we
OBJECTIVELY tell what the sacred writers MEANT when they wrote
this word? Regardless of the possible meaning of the word,
therefore, what must be determined is which interpretation (and
therefore translation) is the correct one. You assert that
"English readers have a right to know what the Greek MEANS,
don't they?" Yes, they most certainly do. In order for
readers to know what the Greek 'means' , they need someone to
INTERPRET the Scriptures for them and (through its logical
extension) translate it in appropriate language. In order to
interpret the Scriptures, they must convey the 'authentic and
true meaning' of what those Scriptures are trying to say. In your
opening remarks, you noted that I have a 'lack of basic
information about the origins of the New Testament, and the
linguistic and cultural background that allows us to understand
its meaning'. In your first E-mail, you stated that your
"only interest in this matter is to see the New Testament
translated in a way that accurately reflects the thinking and
culture of its ancient authors."
Let us therefore
turn our attention to your objective of addressing the underlying
question in this case: what did the sacred writers mean by
writing 'proskuneo'. Now, you are quite correct that translators
should not translate in a vacuum but consider the cultural and
historic background. Let us take as our premise, therefore, the
following rule proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas: the nearer a thing
is to a subject, the more likely it is to be correct. Hence, by
that maxim, the earliest Christians would be in a better position
to understand the correct interpretation of the Gospel writers
than anyone today since, by definition, the early Christians were
closer to the Gospel writers. Here are some of their beliefs:
The Didache (60-70
A.D.)
The Didache is a
short but important early Christian work, presenting a summary of
Christian moral and theological belief. Modern acquaintance with
the complete text dates from 1873 when a manuscript (from 1056)
was discovered in a monastery in Constantinople.
"After the
foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . .
If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Before baptism" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).
The Didache also
acknowledges Christ to be Lord and the God of David (10, 6)
Clement of Rome
(96 A.D)
"The Scepter
of majesty of God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, did not appear in pomp
and state, although He might have, but in humility." (16,2)
Ignatius of
Antioch (107 A.D.)
"[T]o the
Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by
the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to
the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).
"For our God,
Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God's plan: of
the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit"
(ibid., 18:2).
He also clearly
teaches about Jesus Christ's Godhead and Sonship of God. He
frequently calls Christ, 'God'. He taught that Jesus "spoke
and it is become" (Eph. 15,1,), and that "the Physician
is one, in flesh and spirit, generated and ungenerated, God
appearing in flesh, true life in flesh, from Mary as well as from
God, first capable of suffering and then incapable of suffer,
Jesus Christ our Lord."
Aristides of
Athens (140 A.D.)
"The
Christians derive their origin from Jesus Christ. The latter is
called the son of the Supreme God, and it is said of him that he
as God descended from heaven and took flesh of a Hebrew virgin,
and adopted it to himself and so the Son of God took up dwelling
in a daughter of men."
Letter to
Diognetus (150 A.D.)
"Their
tradition is not an earthly invention, nor is it a mortal thought
which they so carefully guard, nor a dispensation of human
mysteries which is committed to their charge; but God Himself,
the omnipotent and invisible Creator, has from heaven established
among men His Truth and His Word, and has deeply fixed the same
in their hearts; not, as might be expected, sending an angel or a
subordinate messenger to teach them, but the very Maker of the
Universe Himself..."
Justin Martyr
(110-165 A.D.)
"We will
prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he
is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place,
and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of
madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place
second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all
things; but they are ignorant of the Mystery which lies
therein" (First Apology 13:5-6 [A.D. 151]).
In his dialogue
with the Jew Tryphon (c.48-108) supplies a detailed proof of the
Godhead and Sonship of God of Jesus Christ from the writings of
the Old Testament. He says of Christ, that He, the Son of the
Creator of the World, pre-existed as God and that He was born as
a man of the maiden (Dial.48.) (Cf. Apol 1, 63).
"...nor to
know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being
the first-begotten Word of God, is even God." (First Apology
of Justin, Ch LXIII).
"...by now
you will permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish
to do in order to prove that Christ is called by God and the Lord
of hosts..." (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. XXXVI).
"...Therefore
these words testify explicitly that He is witnessed to by Him who
established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God
and as Christ. (Ibid. Ch. LXIII).
Clement of
Alexandria (153-217 A.D.)
"...For
'before the morning star was;' and 'in the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." and
"This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at
first (for He was in God) and of our well being, this very Word
ha now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and
man..." and "The Word", who in the beginning
bestowed on us life as Creator when He formed us, taught us to
live well when He appeared as our Teacher; that as God He might
afterwards conduct us to the life which never ends."
(Exhortation to the Heathen, Ch. 1)
Athenagoras (177
A.D.)
"The Son of
God is the Word of the Father in thought and actuality. By him
and through him all things were made, the Father and the Son
being one. Since the Son is in the Father and the Father is in
the Son by the unity and power of the Spirit, the Mind and Word
of the Father is the Son of God. And if, in your exceedingly
great wisdom, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by `the
Son,' I will tell you briefly: He is the first- begotten of the
Father, not as having been produced, for from the beginning God
had the Word in himself, God being eternal mind and eternally
rational, but as coming forth to be the model and energizing
force of all material things" (Plea for the Christians
10:2-4 [A.D. 177]).
Theophilus of
Antioch (181 A.D.)
"It is the
attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living
God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for
he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days
before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God,
his Word, and his Wisdom" (To Autolycus 2:15 A.D. 181]).
Irenaeus of Lyons
(120-202 A.D.)
"...and raise
up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to
Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King..."
(Against Heresies, Bk 1, Ch. 10)
"...But that
He is in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and
Lord, and King Eternal, the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the
prophets and apostles, and by the Holy Spirit Himself, may be
seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the
truth." (Against Heresies, Bk 3, Ch. 19)
St. Irenaeus
provided one of the most exact definitions of the Trinity in his
masterpiece, "Against the Heresies" (Adv. Haer. I 10,
I; IV, 20, I. Epideixis 6 et seq.; 47)
[St. Polycarp, the
aged bishop of Smyrna, had for THIRTY years been a disciple and
companion of the Apostle St. John. St. Irenaeus, who was a pupil
of Polycarp, gives a graphic account of their familiar
intercourse. He writes: " I remember the events of that time
more clearly than those of recent occurrence. The lessons of
childhood grow with the growth of the soul, and become one with
it. And so I can describe the very place in which the blessed
Polycarp used to sit as he discoursed, and his goings out and his
comings in, and his manner of life, and his personal appearance,
and the discourses which he made to the people, and how he would
describe his intercourse with John and the rest who had seen the
Lord, and how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things
he had heard from them about the Lord, and about His miracles,
and about His teaching, Polycarp, as having received them from
eyewitnesses of the life of the Word, would relate all in keeping
with the Scriptures..."]
Tertullian
(145-220 A.D.)
"We do indeed
believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under
this dispensation, or, as we say, 'oikonomia', there is also a
Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and
through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was
made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord
with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the
Sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and
the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . .this rule of faith has been
present since the beginning of the Gospel, before even the
earlier heretics" (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).
"And at the
same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the
unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the Three are
the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in
condition, but in degree; not in Being, but in form; not in
power, but in kind; of one Being, however, and one condition and
one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and
kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.).
"Keep always
in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear
witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are
inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is
meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other
[distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This
statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely
disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that
diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"
(ibid., 9).
"Thus the
connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the
Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct
One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person,
as it is said, 'I and my Father are One' [John 10:30], in respect
of unity of Being not singularity of number" (ibid., 25).
Hippolytus
(170-236 A.D.)
"The Word
alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is
God, being the Being of God. Now the world was made from nothing,
wherefore it is not God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:29
[A.D. 228]).
"For he
speaks to this effect: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God.' and 'Go ye and teach
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' And by this He showed, that
whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God
perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is
glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit
manifested. The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this
truth." (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Ch. 14).
"For Christ
is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from
human beings" (The Refutation of All Heresies).
Origen (184-254
A.D.)
"For we do
not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the
Being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was
procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is,
from a Being outside himself, so that there were a time when he
[the Son] did not exist" (Origen De Principiis 4:4:1 [A.D.
225]).
"No,
rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word
and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal
God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the
expression which we employ, however that there was never a time
when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance.
For these very words `when' and `never' are terms of temporal
significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time,
all ages, and all eternity" (ibid.)
"For it is
the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only
temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other
things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be
measured by time and ages" (ibid.)
"For it is
one and the same thing to have a share in the Holy Spirit, which
is (the Spirit) of the Father and the Son, since the nature of
the Trinity is one and incorporeal" (ibid. 4:1.32)
Novatian (235
A.D.)
"For
Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces
God Himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be
man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God.
Because it does not set forth Him to be the Son of God only, but
also the Son of man; nor does it only say, the Son of man, but it
has also been accustomed to speak of Him as the Son of God. So
that being of both, He is both, lest if He should be one only, He
could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that
he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature
prescribes also that He must be believed to be God who is of God
. . . Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the Son of
man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and
the Son of God" (Treatise on the Trinity 11 [A.D. 235]).
Pope Dionysius
(262 A.D.)
"Next, then,
I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy
the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it
[the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and
three godheads. . . . [Some heretics] proclaim that there are in
some way three gods, when they divide the sacred unity into three
substances foreign to each other and completely separate"
(Letter to Dionysius of Alexandria 1 [A.D. 262]).
"Therefore,
the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in
one, a summit, as it were, I mean the omnipotent God of the
universe. . . . It is blasphemy, then, and not a common one but
the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork
[creature]. . . . But if the Son came into being [was created],
there was a time when these attributes did not exist; and,
consequently, there was a time when God was without them, which
is utterly absurd" (ibid., 1-2)
Pope Dionysius
(265 A.D.)
"Neither,
then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine
unity . . . Rather, we must believe in God, the Father almighty;
and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that
the Word is united to the God of the Universe. `For,' he says,
'The Father and I are one,' and `I am in the Father, and the
Father in me'" (ibid., 3).
Gregory the
Wonderworker (265 A.D)
"There is one
God . . . There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and
sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is
nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor
anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was
non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And
thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the
Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the
same Trinity abides ever" (Declaration of Faith [A.D.265]).
Therefore,
Professor, based on the very logical rule established above, we
see that, at the very least, the early Christian leaders (most of
whom were Bishops) did believe in the Divinity of Christ, as
Tradition has long understood it in the Trinitarian formula. So I
come back to you, and say: In light of their understanding of
Jesus as God, how can 'proskuneo' NOT mean worship? I mean who
better to say what the word means then the people closest to the
people who wrote the Gospels themselves?
The creeds are a
couple hundred years later than the Gospel of John. By that time,
several attempts had been made to determine exactly what status
Jesus held for Christians. As Christianity spread among former
pagans, it was quite easy for them to accept the idea that God
was a god, and Jesus was a god too. But this was a crisis for the
older Jewish-Christians, who were prepared to consider Jesus as
Messiah, and as son of God in an adoptionist sense, and even as
God's creative word, but not as the same and one and only God.
Christians had a lot of work ahead of them resolving these
tensions, and it took several hundred years before a consensus
took hold.
You object that
Christianity did not have the 'consensus' until several hundred
years. You assert that "the creeds are a couple hundred
years later than the Gospel of John. By that time, several
attempts had been made to determine exactly what status Jesus
held for Christians. As Christianity spread among former pagans,
it was quite easy for them to accept the idea that God was a
god...Christians had a lot of work ahead of them resolving these
tensions, and it took several hundred years before a consensus
took hold." While it is true that Christ's divinity was
denied throughout its history, most notably by Cerithus, the
Ebionites, the dynamic or Adoptian Monarchists, the Arians and in
modern times by the rationalism of the Enlightenment and modern
liberal theology, your claim that there 'were several attempts to
determine exactly what status Jesus held for Christians' is
false. Christian Tradition has always believed in the Divinity of
Christ, and the Creeds were merely formal definitions against the
attacks of heretics who sought to dilute and distort EXISTING
CHRISTIAN doctrine as St. Peter had so rightly warned (Cf. 2
Peter 2:1, 3:16). The Nicean Creed which formally condemned
Arianism was not until 325 A.D. The above references are well
before this time. Incidentally, you are quite mistaken to link
the definition of a creed with the beginning of 'consensus'.
Christian doctrine is not a matter of 'consensus' although much
of Protestant Christianity seems to think it is. It is a matter
of passing down the ORAL and written traditions of the Apostles.
The inevitable question which this leads to is quite interesting.
Ultimately, we must ask: Who speaks for Christianity in deciding
what Christianity believes since the Bible apparently cannot be a
decisive instrument in doing so? This will lead to the question
of Authority and the concept of a revealed Truth which I will
explore briefly later on.
It is sufficient
for our purposes here, however, to recognize that the original
Apostles appointed certain men in their places (Cf. Acts 1:15-26)
to carry out the authority given to them by Christ to teach.
(This fact cannot be contested, at least from a historical point
of view.) Hence, these men passed down what they had learned to
the next generation and so on. These bishops have always believed
that Jesus was God, and their testimony and decrees prove it.
Hence, those bishops in the first, second, third, and fourth
centuries are better judges of what the original Apostles meant
when the sacred writers wrote 'proskuneo' than you or I or the
JWs are who come 15 to 19 CENTURIES AFTER THE FACT, don't you
think Professor? And if the early Christians believed Jesus was
God and would agree that 'proskuneo' should be translated
'worship', then why do you believe that it is possible to do
otherwise? Surely, you will recognize the indispensable CULTURAL,
RELIGIOUS, AND HISTORIC context that is required in order to give
an authentic interpretation of any literary piece, don't you?
The Professor's
response to my rebuttal on this section is incorporated in
Session 2.
[End of Discussion
on this passage]
B)
The NWT translates
the Greek word 'kyrios' ( Gr - lord) as 'Jehovah' more than 25
times in the New Testament (Mt 3:3, Lk 2:9, Jn 1:23, Acts 21:14,
Rom 12:19, Col 1:10, 1Thess 5:2, 1Pet 1:25, Rev 4:8, etc.). Why
is the word 'Jehovah' translated when it does not appear in the
Greek text? Why is the NWT not consistent in translating 'kyrios'
(kurion) as 'Jehovah' in Rom 10:9, 1Cor 12:3, Phil 2:11, 2Thess
2:1, and Rev 22:21?
Actually, the NWT
does not translate 'kyrios' as 'Jehovah,' it actually replaces it
by inserting the name of God into the text. The JWs spend a lot
of time explaining why they feel justified in doing this (for
example, in the appendix of the KIT). They rightly point out that
in many cases the New Testament is quoting an Old Testament
passage where the Hebrew does have God's name, not the word
'Lord'. Still, as a biblical scholar I object to intruding the
name Jehovah into the New Testament text. Although some the NT
writers show that they know this name of God, none of them makes
a point of introducing it, and not a single Greek manuscript
supports putting the name in. So this is a criticism I have of
the NWT. Ironically, the RSV and other Bibles in the Standard
Version tradition commit the opposite offense in the OT, they
replace Yahweh/Jehovah with 'Lord', which is not in the Hebrew
manuscripts on which the Bible is based.
The second
question is the more important one: "Why is the NWT not
consistent in translating 'kyrios' (kurion) as 'Jehovah' in Rom
10:9, 1Cor 12:3, Phil 2:11, 2Thess 2:1, and Rev 22:21".
Again, Professor this is another 'inconsistency'. It is strange
that all of the 'inconsistencies' of the NWT favour the JW view
of Jesus not being equal to God, don't you think? I mean, if they
were truly 'inconsistencies', as you claim , then you would
certainly think that, based on probabilities, they should err on
the other side as well. They do not, however, allow the law of
probabilities to influence them to this side do they? Strange,
don't you think?
Perhaps my
previous answer was not clear, because you persist in saying that
'Jehovah' is intended as a translation of the Greek 'kyrios', and
so you talk of inconsistency in translation. The Greek word
'kyrios' means 'Lord'. It was used in the time of the NT for
gods, kings, governors, masters, etc. It was also used by the
Jews as a euphemism for God's name, which Jewish tradition
forbids to be spoken aloud. That is why, in most English
translations of the Old Testament, the name of God YHWH is
replaced (not translated) with the word 'Lord'. In the New
Testament, the title 'Lord' is used of both God and of Jesus. The
exact referent depends on context and sometimes, frankly, we're
not sure which is meant. Jesus is the personal lord of Christians
in the NT, God the Father is the ultimate lord. The JWs have
sought to restore the name of God, particularly in those passages
of the New Testament where an Old Testament passage is quoted in
which the Hebrew has YHWH. In those passages where this is not
the case, and where they feel that the reference is to Jesus, not
God the Father, they have translated kyrios as 'Lord'. Because I
am an historian, I believe that the translation of the NT should
follow the manuscripts, not add elements based on modern wishes.
Therefore I think that 'kyrios' should always be retained, and
translated, not replaced with the name of God, regardless of what
the Old Testament does. But the JWs are not being deceptive, they
are perfectly open about their commitment to the name of God and
their motivations for inserting it into the NT text. I simply do
not share their sentiment in this matter.
So, in other
words, the JWs should have used 'Lord' to refer to both Jesus and
God, and therefore, their translation is a faulty one. What you
are saying is that, in effect, IF you begin with the
PRESUPPOSITION that Jesus was not God, THEN (and only then) is it
legitimate to translate 'kyrios' as 'Lord' for Jesus and
'Jehovah' for God. This is a classical CIRCULAR argument:
i) Jesus was not
God. ii) The NWT is translated with this theological
presupposition - hence the different translations of 'kyrios' -
where 'kyrios' speaks about Jesus, it is translated 'Lord'; where
'kyrios' speaks about God, it is translated 'Jehovah'. iii) Why
do Witnesses believe that Jesus was not God? Because the NWT
suggests that he wasn't!!!
Secondly, in the
Old Testament, you commented that the Standard Version tradition
'replaces Yahweh/Jehovah with 'Lord', which is not in the Hebrew
manuscripts on which the Bible is based.' So what?!? The Hebrew
canon might not use 'Lord' but the Alexandrian canon does so over
6000 times, and the writers of the Greek Septuagint seem to
equate 'Lord' with God so why don't you? Are you going to tell
them that that was not legitimate??? The Catholic Bible is based
on the Greek Septuagint which the Christian Church accepted for
the first fifteen centuries, but this is another issue...
Secondly, how can
Jesus NOT be equal to God, the Father, (and therefore 'kyrios'
refers to God) when these verses are considered:
"Have this
attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who,
although He existed in the form of God, DID NOT REGARD EQUALITY
WITH GOD a thing to be grasped..." (Philippians 2:6)
This is a
notoriously difficult passage. The Greek means that Jesus did not
snatch at equality with God, and the reference seems to be to a
contrast with Adam, who did snatch at it. Jesus as the second or
New Adam seems to be the image at work in this passage. Notice
how the rest of the passage goes on to say, after all of Jesus'
efforts and self-sacrifice, "THEREFORE, God has highly
exalted him..." -- in other words, as a reward or
consequence of what he has done. The same idea is found at the
beginning of Romans and throughout Hebrews. Jesus exaltation to
the right hand of God is a post-resurrection event. John
disagrees.
It COULD be a
contrast with Adam, but the passage does not suggest that this is
St. Paul's intent at all. The next verse talks of Jesus 'emptying
Himself' and 'becoming a servant'. In other words, although He
was God, he did not let this stop Him from assuming human form,
and becoming something that is below his EQUALITY with God.
Furthermore, you have made the observation that John 'disagrees'
with Paul because you recognize a 'tension' between John's
understanding of Jesus' resurrection and Paul's understanding of
it. This is a considerable difficulty for someone who thinks the
Bible is inerrant or infallible - after all, the Apostle's have
to agree with one another on who Jesus is, don't they? All of
this private interpretation of Scripture is meaningless, however.
Once you start saying 'the Greek means', then you are effectively
interpreting the text. It seem to me, therefore, that translation
cannot be separated from interpretation.
Remembering there
are no gods with God (Cf. Deuteronomy 32:39), "For in Him
all the fullness of DEITY dwells in bodily form, and in Him you
have been made complete, and He is the head over ALL RULE AND
AUTHORITY." (Colosians 2:9-10)
Yes, the full set
of divine qualities. This is a point of agreement with John:
Jesus shows to us what God is like, he manifests the divine
character, and in that sense is one with God, because his thought
and behavior is perfectly conformed to God's will.
Is that what the
passages says - 'the full set of divine qualities'? Doesn't it
say 'the fullness of deity'? Which view is closer to this passage
- the Trinitarian view or the subordinationist one? For instance,
would an Arian say that Jesus possessed the 'fullness of deity'?
"...and one
Lord, Jesus Christ, BY WHOM ARE ALL THINGS, and we exist through
Him." (1 Corinthians 8:6).
Paul in Colossians
and Hebrews seems to agree that Jesus is the agent of creation,
that he actually is the creator, following the will of God (or as
the actual will of God itself -- so John)
But remember
professor, Genesis 1:1 says, "God created heaven and
earth" not "God created heaven and earth by His agent,
who was a creature."
[End of discussion
on these passages.]
C)
The NWT translates
the Greek words 'ego eimi' as 'I am' every time it appears (Jn
6:34, 6:41, 8:24, 13:19, 15:5, etc.), except in Jn 8:58 where it
is translated as 'I have been'. What is the reason for the
inconsistency in this translation? If 'ego eimi' was translated
in Jn 8:58 the same way it is translated in every other verse in
which it appears, how would Jn 8:58 read?
John 8:58 is best
translated 'I am before Abraham'. The awkwardness of the passage
is due to the fact that Jesus uses an idiomatic way of speaking
that doesn't translate easily into English. He refers to Abraham
in the past tense, and himself in the present, literally 'I am
before Abraham was'. Now your and my elementary English teacher
would mark that wrong on something we wrote; it is not proper to
mix tenses in English. The NWT tries to solve this by
constructing a close tense agreement. But I have to say it really
doesn't work very well.
The significance
of Jesus saying 'I am' is certainly not lost on the JWs. They
know that 'I am' is what God calls Himself (Cf. Exodus 3:14). So
in order to break this connection, they replace 'I am' with 'I
have been'. Not only is 'I am' what God calls Himself, it also
indicates HOW He exists i.e. past, present, future. To replace
this phrase with 'I have been' completely changes the
significance of Jesus' words as the JWs know. This is nothing
less than CLEAR and OUTRIGHT distortion and deception, don't you
think?
This is another
example of the common English translation being misleading. It is
merely a fluke of the King James version that the subject and
verb of this sentence are displaced to the end of the sentence.
It is a Shakespearean, poetic kind of flourish which sounds
really good. But it has absolutely no religious significance. In
this verse, as in over half-a-dozen others in John, Jesus says 'I
am x', 'I am y'. It is an ordinary be-verb sentence with an
object. It is misleading to isolate the 'I am' as if it stands
alone. Jesus does not say 'I am I AM', he says 'I am (a being who
has been in existence since) before Abraham was.' The JWs try to
solve this, but because they were trying to stick so literally to
the Greek, their hands were tied and they ended up producing an
awkward sounding sentence that only draws undue attention to
itself.
Firstly, am I to
believe there is no Greek rendering 'I have been'? If there is
such a rendering, then why was it not used here? 'I have been'
denotes the past tense, 'I am' is a very strange way of speaking
indeed which calls our attention to who Jesus is. For you to say
that 'I AM' 'has absolutely no religious significance' is a
personal judgement outside the bounds of your expertise, don't
you think Professor? I mean, after all, it is YOU who say that it
has 'no religious significance'. Most biblical scholars and
billions of Christians would beg to differ with you on this
point. Secondly, it is really beside the point whether 'I AM' is
placed at the end of the sentence or before. The key is that 'I
am' appears as the Greek renders it. Once you start taking such
liberty with Holy Writ, then you create a meaning which may
restrict a reader's interpretation of a passage as this one
clearly does. At least, 'I am before Abraham was' allows for both
the traditional and JW interpretation. The same cannot be said
for the JW translation, 'I have been before Abraham was.' Indeed,
the religious significance of 'I AM' is lost in this translation,
your dismissal of its 'religious insignificance' notwithstanding.
Sorry that I
wasn't clearer about what I meant by 'no religious significance.'
I meant that even the JW translation conveys the pre-existence of
Jesus, that is that he is basically immortal. You don't lose
anything that the passage truly conveys with the JW translation.
What you do lose is the false impression that the 'I AM' is to be
isolated as a divine title or name. It is not so intended in the
Gospel of John, not based on my own religious interpretation, but
on how 'ego eimi' functions in this clause and in other clauses
in John. It is simply the first person pronoun with the present
tense be-verb, and here and elsewhere it actually has an object
(the dependent clause 'before Abraham came to be'), and is not to
be isolated. The fact that the Greek can mix tenses is something
we must accept, and cannot insist that the Greek obey English
rules. What looks startling in English is not startling in Greek.
I hardly think that 'most Biblical scholars' would disagree with
me about this and, by the way, there are only 1 billion
Christians, most of whom, of course, have never even thought
about these issues, so the hyperbole really doesn't help your
case. What you are doing is introducing a particular significance
(Jesus' 'I am' = God's OT declaration 'I am') that the Greek of
the Gospel of John does not carry. I could go back to Abraham's
often repeated declaration 'Here I am!' and argue that Abraham is
God if I were to follow your example.
You have put your
finger on this whole question in general and the passage in
particular: "It is not so intended in the Gospel of John,
not based on MY OWN RELIGIOUS INTERPRETATION..." Exactly,
professor. This is a significant difficulty for me. Based on your
interpretation of the passage, you restrict the meaning of the
passage, excluding an interpretation which you do not agree with.
Yet, your first statement on this passage was that it is
"best translated 'I am before Abraham'". In my opinion,
you should have considered this when assessing the NWT, which has
a second rate translation for this passage.
[End of discussion
on this passage.]
D)
The NWT translates
Jn 1:1 as '... and the Word was WITH God as the Word was a god'.
How can the Word (Jesus) be 'a god' if God says in Deut 32:39,
"See now that I-I am he, and there are NO gods together WITH
me...."?
I don't know, you
would have to ask John. He no doubt faced similar objections from
Jews and Jewish-Christians in his own time when he made the bold
step of declaring even that "The word was divine"
(which is how I would translate John 1:1). The NWT translation is
an improvement over the traditional one, but it only raises more
problems than it solves for a modern audience. In any case, for
John to say "the word was with God and the word was
God" would be a real stretch in comprehension for a 1st
Century audience. First of all, it's a non sequiter. Second, the
Greek construct he uses would mean that only exceptionally. John
is putting the Word into the divine class of things (as opposed
to the human, or animal, or vegetable, or what have you). That's
a bold enough step beyond what the other gospels do, and I don't
think we should ask more of John 1:1 than the Greek allows.
You state
"for John to say 'the word was with God and the word was
God' would be a real stretch in comprehension for a 1st Century
audience." Oh really? Why is that? We KNOW that the early
Christians worshipped Jesus as God as evidenced by their creeds
so why would this be a 'real stretch in comprehension.' Later you
state "it's a non sequiter". It is no such thing. It
would be a non sequiter if you start with the PRESUPPOSTION that
Jesus was NOT God. Actually Professor, your claim of a 'non
sequiter' is actually a circular argument. You are beginning with
the premise that Jesus was not God in order to prove that the
phrase 'the Word was with God and the Word was God' is a non
sequiter. In fact, the phrase actually points to the Trinity,
does it not? Jesus, the Son, was God and He was 'WITH' God, the
Father.
Apparently you
mistook my remark about a non sequiter. It is a non sequiter
simply because John has just said the Word was with God (using
the correct form so that we know that he was with THE GOD).
Something is not "with" itself. So its a lapse in
linguistic sense to say x with y, x=y. Instead, John says the
Word was with the God, and so (because the Word was alone in the
divine realm with God) was itself divine, or belonged to the
divine class of things. Both mainstream Christianity and the JWs
can derive their different Christologies from this statement. It
allows both interpretations. If you don't like that, you can't
blame the JWs or me, you have to blame John (or God himself if
you believe in word-for-word divine inspiration of Scriptures)
Let's back up a
bit professor. You claim that I 'misunderstood your remark about
the non sequitur'. I must disagree. A non sequitur, by
definition, is an argument that tries to support a proposition on
the basis of irrelevant premises. In order for you to prove it is
a non-sequitur, you must first show that the doctrine of the
Trinity is an impossibility. If the Trinity is possible, then St.
John's statement makes perfect sense. So for you to claim it is a
non sequitur is really a circular argument. It can only be a non
sequitur if the Trinity is rejected as a possibility in the first
place. This is really beside the issue I wish to pursue in this
passage, however.
I meant a
linguistic non sequiter, not a philosophical one. In this case,
the careful distinction John makes by dropping the article avoids
the non sequiter, which is introduced only in the English
translation.
Your original
point was that the passage was a 'non sequitur'. There is no such
thing as a 'non sequitur' in language, but only in philosophy
since the term is used to describe a fallacious conclusion drawn
on irrelevant premises. You conveniently try to side step the
issue by insisting that John's comment is a 'linguistic non
sequiter', thereby allowing yourself to deny one of the
foundations of the Trinity. You beg the question.
Earlier, I
suggested using the historical context of the early Christians as
one instrument in translating from one language to another. In
fact, I think it's quite an objective and legitimate way of
determining which translation is the best one. I also happen to
believe that other biblical passages can certainly suggest if not
decide the true meaning of other passages.
Again, it is our
basic difference in premises that makes it impossible for us to
see eye to eye on these issues. I agree that historical evidence
is important for establishing the correct interpretation of
biblical passages, but you have to take account of the interests
of the other sources, as well as of the full range of sources,
and not a selection of only those that agree with the
interpretation you favor. As far as using other biblical passages
as a source of interpretation -- again, I understand your
commitments that make that a viable method. But what we have in
the Bible is a diversity of voices, and John does not control
what Paul meant, nor does Paul control what Matthew meant, and so
forth. God could have dictated the whole thing to one person if
he thought that was important, couldn't he?
It seems to me,
professor, that the question that you must address is: who speaks
for Christianity?
By the way, in
your previous response, you did not answer the original question
regarding Deuteronomy 32:39. If there are no other gods WITH God,
how can Jesus be 'a god' as the NWT translates it. This is a
direct contradiction. Compare:
"...there are
NO gods together WITH me...." with "the Word was a
god."
It seems to me
that the only way one can maintain that there are no
contradictions in the Bible and still make sense out of John 1:1
is to understand this passage in the traditional Trinitarian
formula, no?
More to the point,
Mr. Pacheco, how can John have the audacity to say "WITH
God" in the face of Deuteronomy. 32:39? The answer is that
John's thought world is not the world of Deuteronomy. The kind of
radical monotheistic commitment of Deuteronomy was not the
primary concern of John. The traditional Trinitarian formula is
not the only solution of the tensions in the Bible. Obviously the
Arians and other Christians worked out alternative solutions to
those tensions.
Exactly,
professor, St. John could not have said WITH God unless Jesus WAS
God. Again, while the Arians and other 'Christians' have 'worked
out' certain 'tensions', our concern should be to find out WHO
speaks for Christianity because, after all, we want the truth not
people who can 'work out tensions'.
In Genesis, God
says, "Let US make men according to our image" (Genesis
1:26; See 'US' in Genesis 3:22; 11:7). Why would God allude to
Himself in the plural sense?
Well, the Jewish
tradition says that he is talking to the angels. Another
explanation would be that the plural reflects the original sense
of 'Elohim', always translated as singular "God," but
in fact a plural form ("the gods").
As far as I know,
the angels neither helped God make man, nor were they made,
strictly speaking, in the 'image of God'.
Then there is the
prophesy from Isaiah: "The government is upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counselor, GOD THE
MIGHTY, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of
Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). If Jesus is referred to as 'Mighty God'
in this passage and 'Jehovah' is referred to 'Mighty God' in
Isaiah 10:20-21, how does this square with the JW translation of
John 1:1?
The term 'god' is
used of several different beings in the OT; Moses for example.
Professor, you
have missed my point. Jesus is the undisputed reference in Isaiah
9:6 and the Father is referred to in Isaiah 10:20-21. They are
both described as 'Mighty God', not 'god'. So my question still
stands...
What about
"GOD HIMSELF will come and will save you" (Isaiah
35:4)? How else could this be interpreted other than through the
Trinitarian view?
Well, for one,
look at the end of the Book of Revelation, where God himself
comes down to earth and lives in the New Jerusalem, along with
his Lamb. I think it is also interesting that you keep bringing
up the Trinity when the poor spirit is nowhere in evidence in any
of this. Maybe we should be talking of a Duity.
First, are you so
sure that God is coming down to an earthly Jerusalem? Secondly,
the passage I cited says that God will come and save us - a
direct allusion to the redemption of Christ on the Cross. The
passage you have cited does not bear directly on the question of
Christ's atonement on the cross, but rather deals with the
Apocalypse.
In John 1:3, St.
John writes that Jesus created 'all things', but in Isaiah 44:24,
God says that he made 'all things' and that there is 'none with'
Him. How can this be if Jesus was created by God?
In Proverbs, God
creates by means of his Wisdom. In Genesis God creates by his
spoken word. John is precisely appealing to these traditions to
explain that Jesus occupies the place second only to God, that he
is God's word and wisdom, and that the world is therefore his.
Doesn't Paul say that in the end Jesus will hand all things over
to God? Doesn't Jesus say that what he does he does for God's
glory? Doesn't Jesus constantly distinguish between himself and
God the Father? God knows things Jesus does not. Jesus
acknowledges that events will unfold according to God's will, not
his own. etc. etc.
Where, in the
passages that I cite, can the idea of 'Jesus occupying a second
place only to God' be inferred? And the answer to your next three
question is yes, but how does that detract from the Trinitarian
formula? Where do you get the idea that God knows things Jesus
does not, especially in light of John 14:7: "If you had
known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you
know Him, and have seen Him."
What about these
doozies?
"God...hath
spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all
things, by whom also he made the world. Who being the brightness
of his glory, and the figure of his SUBSTANCE, and upholding all
things by the word of his power..." (Hebrews 1:1-3). The
'figure of the substance of God' indicates the similitude of
essence of Christ with God.
"I and the
Father are One" (John 10:30). ?????
Speaking to St.
John, Jesus says, "Fear not. I am the First and the
Last" in Revelation 1:17-18. But God also refers to Himself
as the 'First and the Last' in Isaiah 44:6 and Isaiah 48:12. How
is this possible?
In Colosians 1:16,
St. Paul teaches that all things were created for Jesus. How is
that possible if God declares that "everyone that call upon
my name, I have created him for my glory..." (Isaiah 43:7).
In John 20:28,
Thomas refers to Jesus in Greek as "Ho kyrios moy kai ho
theos moy." I believe this translates as "the Lord of
me and the GOD of me." If Jesus was not God, then why does
he affirm Thomas' comment in the very next verse, or not correct
him if Thomas was wrong?
These Old and New
Testament verses are only a sample of the overwhelming biblical
support for the traditional view of Christ's 'con-substantiality'
with the Father. The passages hold together remarkably well, do
they not? And if they do, then John 1:1 translated in the
Traditional sense is anything but a non sequitur!!!
So, you see that I
am not trying to de-legitimize your right to interpret all this
according to an explanation that you have accepted and committed
to. I am not trying to tell you are wrong. I am saying that all
these verses display certain tensions and problems and can be
resolved according to several different systems of belief. You
can cite your favorite passages, someone else can cite theirs and
come to vastly different conclusions. So let's not forget where
our whole conversation started. I am not saying the JWs are right
and you are wrong. I am not taking any theological stand. I am
only saying let's have a well-translated Bible, close to the
original, that is not unfairly biased towards one theological
position. And I do not mean let's create a Bible that is
carefully neutral, or politically correct. I mean let's be
honest. Some views cannot be supported by the New Testament,
after all. You are perfectly capable of combining your chosen
verses into a set that speaks to your beliefs. You do this by
using a Bible that does not itself put these verses together in
your way, but is amenable to your interpretation. You are
perfectly capable of doing this interpretive work without asking
for special assistance and privileges. I am saying, extend the
same right to your brothers and sisters. You wouldn't want to win
your argument by cheating or dishonesty, would you? That is what
you accuse the JWs themselves of doing. I am telling you as an
expert that they are not guilty. The biases of their NWT are not
greater than the biases of your Bible. Instead we have an
ambiguous original text, translated in both cases more or less
within the range of possible meaning, but with some choices among
those possible meanings made on the basis of theological
commitments. Let them stand together, side by side, and let us
compare them and move, if possible, towards an ever more accurate
translation.
I can only say
again that the 'con-substantiality' of Christ with God the Father
is a later Church doctrine, which 90% of Christian biblical
scholars would concede is not in the NT. I would add again,
though here many Christian biblical scholars would disagree with
me, that "The Word was God" is the least likely
translation of John 1:1.
What about John
20:28 and Revelation 1:17-18?
[End of discussion
on these passages.]
E)
The NWT translates
the Greek word 'esti' ( estin) as 'is' in almost every instance
in the New Testament (Mt 26:18, 38, Mk 14:44, Lk 22:38, etc.).
See Greek-English Interlinear. Why does the NWT translate this
Greek word as 'means' in Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, and Lk 22:19?
Why the inconsistency in the translation of the word 'esti'? If
the NWT was consistent and translated the Greek word 'esti' as
'is' in these verses, what would these verses say?
Obviously, the NWT
is trying to answer the problem everyone must answer when reading
these passages. In what sense does Jesus mean that the bread 'is'
his body. Christian denominations vary widely in their opinion on
this question, and many of them, perhaps even your own
denomination, say that the connection is symbolic, not literal.
Obviously, Jesus was sitting right there, so in what sense was
the bread his body? Most people who heard such a thing would
presume that Jesus (or anyone else saying such a thing) was
speaking metaphorically or symbolically. So the NWT takes that
approach.
Jesus did say,
'This is my body' and that is what the bread became. There are
many BIBLICAL arguments to support this. This is beside the
point, however, since, if Jesus wanted to say 'means' or
'represents', He would have had 15 other words to choose from,
but He did not. But then again, it is becoming very apparent that
the NWT takes its liberty with Holy Writ. 'Esti' should be
translated as 'is' NOT 'means' as the word is translated
elsewhere in the NT. This is INDISPUTABLE. Furthermore, while
Catholics and Orthodox believe that Jesus was speaking literally,
Protestants generally do not. IF Jesus meant His words to be
taken literally, how could the JW who is reading the NWT come to
this conclusion? The answer is that he could not since that
avenue of interpretation has been effectively cut off with the
replacement of 'is' with 'means'. Why not just let the 'chips
fall where they may' as other Protestant translations do, and
argue the INTERPRETATION of Jesus' words INSTEAD of DECEIVING
readers by forcing their interpretation on the passage by
changing the words?
We agree that the
principle a translation should follow is to make available to
English readers what is available to Greek readers as much as
possible, let the chips fall where they may. Most of the time,
the NWT does this very well, sometimes it falls short. The other
translations commonly used today also have strong and weak
moments, but no one ever bothers to cry foul and talk about
DECEPTION. What is deceptive about the NWT translation of this
verse? What do the translators achieve in fooling their audience
about this verse? It is this attitude that they must be devious
perverts that really gets to me. You have no idea how many highly
interpretative translations you are reading every day in the KJ
or RSV or NRSV or NIV or what have you. You go on blissfully
unaware of them. What if it is in precisely these verses, the
ones you see the JWs 'twisting' because they impact on the
central dogmas of the Christians faith, that the theological
biases of the major Christian denominations have been at work?
Making Jesus THE GOD in defiance of the Greek of John 1:1, making
him the I AM rather than allowing the Greek to have its normal
function in John 8:58. And here, where Jesus says the bread 'is'
his body, we have the typical way of expressing metaphor in
Greek, or communicating a connection, a participation, a link of
meaning. Now, do we tell our English readers that, maybe even in
a footnote? Do we try to find an English translation that gives
the full range of meaning? Or do we continue to let them think
that Jesus meant the bread was made of human cells and that if we
take his words symbolically we are making some major
interpretative leap?
You ask 'what is
deceptive about the NWT translation of this verse?' Perhaps in
this case, my choice of words is not entirely appropriate, but I
will not withdraw my original point. You may not acknowledge that
Jesus was speaking LITERALLY, but that is irrelevant to the
question at hand. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches do
believe this. By translating the verse in question, 'This means
my body', the JW translators have effectively translated out the
literal interpretation as a possibility. There is therefore no
way of a JW coming to the literal conclusion. The translators,
therefore, achieve, consciously or not, the exclusion of this
interpretation of the passage. That is not their job, is it? Is
that an example of 'letting the chips fall where they may?' Not
for me it isn't.
I may be hasty in
my assessment, but based on your response, you don't think this
is a 'big deal' since you have effectively shut out a even a
possible literal interpretation of the passage. Now you can
choose to prefer the symbolic interpretation of the passage.
That's your business. But keeping the possibility open and seeing
that others 'play by the rules' is my business. Your position is
neither the predominant one today (at least statistically
speaking), and certainly not the historical one AT ALL for the
first 1500 years.
Pre-Nicene Fathers
St. Ignatius,
Bishop of Antioch (107 A.D.) - St. Ignatius, refuting the
teachings of the Docetists who denied the humanity of Christ and
ascribed to Him a phantom body, wrote "They [the Docetists]
keep away from the Eucharist and from the prayer, because they do
not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Redeemer Jesus
Christ, who suffered for our sin, and whom the Father in His
goodness raised from the dead." (Smyrn. 7,1) and "Be ye
resolved, to celebrate one Eucharist only; for there is only one
flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and only one chalice for
unification with His blood." (Philad. 4) - [FCD p.376]. He
also called the Eucharist 'the bread of angels, bread from
heaven, and medicine of immortality' (Ad. Eph. 20, 2:SCh 10, 76).
St. Justin,
Apologist (165 A.D.) "We receive this not as ordinary bread
and ordinary drink; but as our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, was
incarnated by the Word of God, and assumed flesh and blood for
the sake of our salvation, so, as we have been taught, the food
over which thanksgiving has been made by the prayer of the Word
which came from Him (by which (food) our blood and flesh are
nourished by transmutation) is both flesh and blood of that same
incarnate Jesus." (First Apologia 65-67).
St. Irenaeus,
Bishop of Lyons (202 A.D.) attests that "the bread over
which thanksgiving is pronounced is the body of the Lord and the
chalice of His blood." (Adv. Haer. IV 18:4) and "How
can they [the Gnostics] feel assured that bread over which
thanksgiving has been made is the body of their Lord, and the
chalice of His blood, if they do not declare Him the Son of the
world's Creator?" (Adv. Haer. IV 18:5)
Tertullian,
Apologist (220 A.D.) expresses his faith in the real presence in
these realistic words: "The flesh is refreshed with the body
and blood of Christ so that the soul also may be nourished by
God. (De carnis resurr. 8). Of those Christians who make idols,
he says: "The Jews laid hands on Christ once only, these
violate His body daily. Such hands should be cut off." (De
idololatria, 7) The parallelism with the crime of the crucifixion
demands that the body of Christ, against whom such Christians sin
in the reception of the Eucharist, be conceived as the real
presence.
St. Cyprian,
Bishop of Carthage (258 A.D.) comments on those who receive
communion sacrilegiously, teaching, "they do violence to His
Blood and body and they sin more now with hand and mouth against
the Lord than they did when they denied Him." (De lapsis,
16)
Post Nicene
Fathers & Luther
Among the
post-Nicene Fathers, the outstanding witnesses for the Church
belief in the Real Presence are St. Cyril of Jerusalem (362 A.D.)
(4th and 5th mystag. Cat.), St. John Chrysostom (386 A.D.), St.
Cyril of Alexandria (431 A.D.) and St. John of Damascus (726
A.D.) (De fide orth. IV 13). Among the Latin Fathers, St. Hilary
of Poitiers (355 A.D.) (De Trin. VIII 14) and St. Ambrose (374
A.D.) (De sacr. IV 4-7; De Myst. 8 et seq.), and St. Augustine
(370 A.D.) (Sermo 227, Enarr. In Ps. 33 Sermo 1:10). - [FCD
p.377]
St. Cyril, Bishop
of Jerusalem - "As a life-giving sacrament we possess the
sacred Flesh of Christ and His Precious Blood under the
appearance of bread and wine. What seems to be bread is not
bread, but Christ's body; what seems to be wine is not wine, but
Christ's Blood."
St. Augustine
admirably summed up this doctrine that moves us to an ever more
complete participation in our Redeemer's sacrifice which we
celebrate in the Eucharist: "This wholly redeemed city, the
assembly and society of the saints, is offered to God as a
universal sacrifice by the High Priest who, in the form of a
slave, went so far as to offer Himself for us in His Passion, to
make us the Body of so great a head... Such is the sacrifice of
Christians: 'we who are many are one Body in Christ.' The Church
continues to reproduce this sacrifice in the sacrament of the
altar so well-known to believers wherein it is evident to them
that in what she offers she herself is offered." (St.
Augustine, De civ. Dei, 10, 6: PL 41, 283; Cf. Romans 12:5)
St. Thomas
Aquinas, Doctor of the Church (1261 A.D.), whilst examining the
questions of the Blessed Sacrament in his Summa Theologica, was
far from suggesting a blind belief when he proposes and solves
over 280 possible difficulties which might occur to the human
mind on the Real Presence.
Information about
the early Eucharistic beliefs of the early church can also be
found in secular sources. In his Annals, the first century Roman
Historian Tacitus (50 A.D.) makes mention of the Christian faith.
He states that the death of Christ at the hands of Pontius Pilate
'checked the abominable superstition for a while', noting that
belief in Christ broke out in Rome itself, 'the great reservoir
and collecting ground of every kind of filth and depravity.' As
historian Donald Dudley notes, 'the depravity and filth
specifically associated with early Christianity were charges of
cannibalism, infanticide, and incest brought against it by a
misunderstanding of the nature of Eucharist.' Both the apologist
Tertullian and Minuncius Felix corroborate Dudley's assertion,
since both give considerable attention in their second century
writings to the charge of cannibalism being leveled against the
Church.
Even Martin Luther
held that on the altar are real bread and real wine...and that in
them are the "real flesh and real blood of Christ".
Although he rejected 'transubstantiation', the act in which the
bread and wine are completely turned into the flesh and blood of
Christ, He did believe in the real presence.
I have taken the
liberty to produce a little biblical defense of the 'real
presence of Jesus' in the bread just so you can consider the
other side.
ARGUMENT:
Referring to John 6:54 - "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks
my blood has eternal life...", the opponent of the 'real
presence' contends that "the figurative interpretation is
reasonable...The disciples were accustomed to the Lord using
figurative language in His teaching' (Cf. John 6:48, 8:12, 10:9,
11:25, 14:6, 15:1) [p.136]
RESPONSE: The
words themselves do not point to a figurative interpretation.
Indeed, bread and wine are neither of their nature, nor by
universal speech usage, symbols of body and blood, whereas the
literal interpretation involves no intrinsic opposition to the
divinity of Christ. Furthermore, while the 'body' may be taken
symbolically,'flesh' and 'blood' cannot be. This is especially
true of the words 'eat' and 'drink', which are used numerous
times by Jesus in the Eucharistic discourse. In the language of
the Bible, to eat a person's flesh and drink his blood in a
metaphorical sense means to persecute him in a bloody fashion and
destroy him. (Cf. Psalms. 26:2; Isaiah 9:20, 49:26; Micah 3:3;
Zechariah 11:9; Jeremiah 46:10). This presupposition does not
apply in the case of John 6 since it is clear that Our Lord did
not intend to say 'He that reviles Me has eternal life.' (Cf.
John 6:54) Thus, this symbolic and consequently destructive
interpretation does not communicate Our Lord's meaning in this
passage. Moreover, it is hard to symbolize the very physical and
graphic words of Christ when He says, "the one who FEEDS on
me will have life because of me." (John 6:57) Moreover, in
the original Greek in which St. John wrote his gospel, the Greek
word which in verse 55 which is translated as 'eat' is really
closer, in its original meaning, to the English words 'crunch' or
'munch', which further dilutes the symbolic interpretation.
The metaphorical
or symbolic interpretation attributed to the passage is not
consistent with the other passages in Scripture where the verb
'is' has the meaning of 'designates' or 'symbolizes'. In these
other passages, the figurative sense is quite apparent at once
from the nature of the matter discussed (Cf. Matthew 13:37-39;
Matthew 16:6-12; John 2:19-21; John 10:7; John 15:1; 1
Corinthians 10:4) - it is unmistakable that the speaker is using
allegory or speaking in a parable. For instance, Jesus said
"I am the door" (John 10:9), which is clearly a
metaphorical expression since Christ is like a door, and one goes
to Heaven through Him. Likewise, Christ is like a vine (Cf. John
15:1) because all the sap of one's spiritual life comes through
Him. But the bread is in no way like his body or His flesh, so if
it is not like His Body or His flesh, it must BE His Body and His
flesh.
At the very least,
the literal interpretation is a possibility. If this possibility
is admitted, then those who hold to the symbolic interpretation
must ask the critical question: IF Our Lord meant the Eucharistic
discourse literally, then what OTHER words could He have used to
convince us of a literal interpretation, other than the ones He
did? Christ taught the doctrine of the Blessed Sacrament as
clearly as it possibly could have been stated. For instance, the
double expletive "Amen, Amen" in John 6:53 indicates
the great and unique importance Our Lord is placing on this
teaching. It would be tantamount to Christ saying 'Pay attention
to what I am about to say to you'. Jesus tells His disciples
numerous times that He is the "Bread come down from Heaven'
(John 6:41), and in four consecutive sentences Jesus uses the
phrase 'to eat my flesh and drink my blood' in order to drive
home His point and to avoid misunderstanding. This is quite
revealing because rarely does Our Lord repeat Himself in a
specific teaching. Indeed, the fact that He does so here, only
shows His thorough and complete knowledge of our pride and
stubbornness to accept His very literal words, which many could
still not do (Cf. John 6:66). Nor did He correct their literal
interpretation.
With all due
respect to you, Professor, for a biblical scholar, I find your
attitude and approach to this question of the Eucharist much too
cavalier.
Agreed, it is
possible to argue different understandings of Jesus' statement,
let me just make a few counterpoints: You certainly do not mean
to deny Jesus the right to coin a new metaphor, do you? Secondly,
I do not see how there is any presumption in the divinity of
Christ in the Eucharistic statement. The primary image would seem
to be the sacrificial lamb. Also, I would suggest that you
compare the different versions of this scene, including Paul's
and the Didache. There was definitely a strand of Christian
thought which saw this as a memorial meal. However, there is no
qualitative difference between Jesus saying he is a door or a
vine, and his saying that he is bread. You say that Jesus is
'like' a door and a vine because of certain things he does. Well,
he is certainly like the bread in that his flesh is 'broken' in
his passion, just as the bread is broken to be eaten; likewise
wine and blood have an obvious visual connection that was a very
common metaphor in the ancient world. My opinion is that it is
exactly as a prefiguration of what is about to happen to him that
Jesus says these things at the last supper.
Yes, I agree that
the literal interpretation is possible. There were such mystic
beliefs of 'participation' between beings and substances,
especially food, in the ancient world. So Jesus could have
successfully conveyed this idea to his audience.
So, in other
words, the NWT falls again...
F)
In Phil 2:9, the
NWT inserts the word "other", even though it doesn't
appear in the original Greek. What is the reason for inserting
this word?
It is a simple
mistake. The editors of the NWT have misunderstood the meaning of
the passage. [Other] should not be printed there.
C'mon Professor, a
simple mistake or GROSS MISREPRESENTATION? You are very lenient
indeed in your assessment of the NWT.
You see, it is
this tone of judgement I find particularly troublesome and naive.
You have been handed a creed, a set of beliefs, interpretative
codes for the Bible, which you accept whole cloth in an attitude
of perfect trust, and then you turn all of this suspicion and
paranoia loose on a small sect which poses no threat to you, who
for all their faults, are trying to live a life fully dedicated
to what they believe, whatever we may think of these beliefs. And
it never occurs to you that you are participating in a huge
effort to enforce conformity. They have produced a Bible that,
without an inordinate number of mistakes or questionable
decisions, is consistent with their faith. Whatever Bible you
hold in your hands, you have exactly the same thing, perhaps with
more mistakes and bad translation decisions. You just don't know
it because no one is going at you and your Bible the way you and
your associates are at the JWs. And the reason for this
difference is that you are with the majority. It's that simple.
As for this particular passage, I think they were influenced by
the next one you mention and a few others into making the same
sort of distinction, but they have done it here only because they
did not understand that the name Jesus has which is above all
names is God's name: Jesus = Yah-shu "Yahweh saves."
Certainly, if they understood the passage correctly, they would
absolutely love it as a reference to God's name, and would drop
the[other] in an instant.
Professor, you
should never presume that you are speaking to someone has been
'handed a creed, a set of beliefs, interpretative codes for the
Bible, which [I] accept whole cloth in an attitude of perfect
trust'. I do not accept being handed ANYTHING without first
checking it against Scripture, HISTORY, NATURAL LAW, AND REASON,
which to me is a pretty well-rounded check, don't you think? You
are not speaking to a naïve 'Bible thumper' who turns his
'paranoia loose on a small sect'. Do my responses to you suggest
that I am paranoid? Aren't you being a little harsh in your
pre-conceived judgement of my reasons for questioning the NWT
(and the JWs) without knowing any of the circumstances
surrounding my queries?
Based on your
comments above and earlier observations on the JWs, you have
portrayed them as being unfairly attacked. Professor, you may or
may not know this, but the JWs are one of the most ferocious
critics of much of the rest of Christianity. Through their
publications and various representations, they make false
historical claims, present forgeries as fact, aggressively push
their doctrines through their 'trick-or-treating' on, to use your
words, the 'naïve' and ignorant, and have the most extensive
'dirt library' on other religions (especially the Catholic
Church) that you can possibly imagine. I know this first hand
since I have been in an E-Mail debate with a JW for several
months now, and I am certainly in a position to make an informed
judgement on this matter. So before you go around thinking they
have been unfairly attacked, I suggest that you do a little
research into their methods of proselytization before criticizing
those who have every right to defend themselves and their faiths
from the spurious claims that Witnesses make. You make it sound
like these guys are easy-going, tolerant, and harmless. My
experience has been somewhat different. As for your comment that
"it never occurs to you that you are participating in a huge
effort to enforce conformity," it all depends on how you
look at my efforts. I do not enforce conformity. I seek unity in
Christianity by dialoguing with people of good will, and
explaining to them what I believe to be the truth. If they should
propose something to be contrary to my beliefs, I investigate it
for myself and determine its validity. And should I find
inconsistencies in the other person's beliefs, I will certainly
not let that fact go unmentioned or unargued. If you think this
means 'enforcing conformity', then so be it.
Most Christian
denominations have a pretty poor history when it comes to dealing
with their fellow Christians. I acknowledge that the JWs are no
exception. As far as having a "dirt library" on other
denominations, it is not a particularly novel or difficult thing
to do. There is plenty of dirt to go around. Every Christian
group which has got its hands on power has used that power to
coerce others into conformity. I apologize if I offended you. My
only point was that there is this silent, tacit agreement in
America today that a certain body of belief represents 'true'
Christianity, and that certain groups are outside the limits of
acceptability AND TOLERANCE. Of course people are entitled to
think that others are wrong, but when they try to silence those
others, when they work to label those others as a 'cult' and
propose that those people are not entitled to the acceptance that
the rest enjoy, I have to raise a protest. After all,
Christianity was itself originally such a "cult',"
unacceptable to those around it, with beliefs at odds with the
majority. We mourn the tragedies of its persecution and
suffering. Let's bear that in mind when we are going after our
opponents. Let us retain a civil, open and honest level of
discussion. I think based upon what you have said about your own
investigations that you would agree with me.
[End of discussion
on this passage]
G)
In Col 1:15-17,
the NWT inserts the word 'other' 4 times even though it is not in
the original Greek. Why is the word "other" inserted?
How would these verses read if the word 'other' had not been
inserted?
The NWT adds
'other' to Col 1:15-17 to draw attention to the view made quite
clear in Col 1:15: Jesus is the firstborn of creation. This
phrase makes Jesus a part of creation -- the first, top, best
part, but still a part. So when the passage goes on to talk of
his mediating role in making the rest of creation, 'other' is
implied. It is because so many readers miss the meaning of
'firstborn of creation' that the editors of the NWT felt it
worthwhile to emphasize this point by adding 'other'.
Wait, wait,
wait... First of all, translation is a matter of translating
words in their contextually meaning. It is not concerned with
ADDING words which can completely change the meaning of a
passage. You justify their addition of the word 'other' by first
assuming that Jesus was created from your reading of Colosians
1:15. What if your understanding of Colosians 1:15 were
incorrect; that is, what if the verse did not mean that Jesus was
created, could you THEN defend the NWT adding the word 'other'?
The answer is obviously NO.
In fact, the
phrase 'first-born of all creation' does NOT mean that Jesus was
created. It refers to the fact that Jesus is the first one risen
from the dead as verse 18 clearly indicates. Jesus was the first
to be risen from the dead and to experience the Resurrection.
Jesus' physical body was created, but that does not mean His
Spirit was as well. The phrase 'first-born of all creation'
cannot be taken out of its context in the passage, and if the
word 'other' had not been so imaginatively introduced, this view
would be the inescapable one ESPECIALLY in light of other
Scripture which points to His divine nature.
Secondly, you
further justify their addition because "so many readers miss
the meaning of 'firstborn of creation' that the editors of the
NWT felt it worthwhile to emphasize this point by adding
[other]." Surely, you must be kidding. Isn't it enough to
simply translate what the Greek says instead of 'emphasizing'
(read 'adding words') JW doctrines that would be impossible to
prove otherwise?
This is not the
central point in this question, however. Professor, you are
justifying adding a word based on your interpretation of a
preceding verse. HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY JUSTIFY THIS? EVEN IF YOU
ARE RIGHT IN THAT INTERPRETATION (WHICH YOU ARE NOT), WHAT GIVES
THE NWT TRANSLATORS THE RIGHT TO ADD A WORD WHICH IS NOT IN THE
ORIGINAL GREEK AND COMPLETELY CHANGES THE MEANING OF THE PASSAGE?
IS THIS WHAT YOU THINK IS 'THE BEST INTERLINEAR GREEK
TRANSLATION'?
If you want more
or less one English word for one Greek word, look over at the
interlinear, that's its function. Even there you will find many
cases where more than one English word is required. A running
translation, of course, has to convey meaning in a way that works
in English, and so more often than not adds words to make the
meaning clear. Really, any given page of an English Bible 'adds'
literally dozens of words. You don't seem to know or understand
that. Try reading the English under the Greek in the interlinear
and see what sense you make that way...
Traditionally,
normally, the phrase 'firstborn of all creation' is taken to
refer to Jesus at the dawn of time, and the clause in v.18 is
taken to refer to the resurrection. In other words, as Jesus was
first before, so he is first now. Now that's universally embraced
by your mainstream Christian churches. Here's your choice: accept
that interpretation, or go with your own, in which case Paul has
absolutely no pre-existent Christ. This is the only verse in Paul
that can possibly refer to Jesus as existing at the beginning of
creation. Everywhere else, Paul has an adoptionist Christology:
he started as man and became son of God through the resurrection.
If you want to go that route, that's fine with me. IN EITHER
CASE, Jesus is part of creation, as even the English says
perfectly clearly: FIRST OF CREATION. By the way, be careful with
that human body, divine spirit understanding of Jesus. That was
declared heretical about 1500 years ago. Jesus is not split this
way, according to the creeds.
... adding words
happens all the time in translation. It is impossible to create a
readable translation without adding words. The simple fact is:
Greek is not English. Its grammar and syntax do not match. You
cannot even translate French into English without adding words.
The problem is you are unaware of the fact that all English
Bibles have thousands of added words and, get this, THEY don't
mark the addition with brackets so that you can catch it the way
the JWs do (old King James can be given credit for at least
identifying these with italics).
Really, Professor.
I think I deserve a little more credit than you give me. While I
am not bilingual, I am reasonably familiar with two other
languages (French and Portuguese), having been educated in French
from primary school to the University level. I am well aware that
translation is not a 'word for word' game. (My former high school
teacher certainly hammered that into our heads quite
satisfactorily!!!) If you had read my original objection, it was
not with merely adding words, but adding or changing words that
effectively cut off a possible interpretation or completely
change the meaning of a passage. That's my beef.
[By the way, when
you said "be careful with that human body, divine spirit
understanding of Jesus. That was declared heretical about 1500
years ago. Jesus is not split this way, according to the
creeds," what exactly do you mean? What I said was, 'Jesus'
physical body was created, but that does not mean His Spirit was
as well'. The orthodox position is that Jesus became man at the
Incarnation so His physical body was created - it did not
pre-exist with Him in heaven. The Scriptures corroborate that
Christ became man in that Christ was 'made'; that is, was
conceived and born out of the human race (Cf. Romans 1:3). At the
Incarnation, Christ's human nature was added to his pre-existing
divine nature, whose union is called the 'Hypostatic Union' in
theology. THIS IS THE ORTHODOX POSITION. When you say to 'be
careful with that human body, divine spirit understanding of
Jesus', you seem to be suggesting that Christ's human soul
(and/or body?) pre-existed, and already before the Incarnation
was united with the Divine Logos. If this is what you are
suggesting, this is actually the HERETICAL 'Origenistic'
doctrine.]
In two previous
instances, I have proven that it is very dangerous indeed to
change a word's meaning (i.e. 'This means my body' vs. 'This is
my body' and 'I have been before Abraham was' vs. I am before
Abraham was') precisely because a possible interpretation has
been TRANSLATED OUT. Apart from your rather bizarre claim that
"Paul has an adoptionist Christology: he started as man and
became son of God through the resurrection" (where do you
get this doctrine from?), the same basic flaw to your approach to
translation still exists. You begin with the assumption that
'first born of creation' must mean, to the exclusion of any other
interpretation, that Jesus was created. Having cut off any other
interpretation that might exists, and which may not have occurred
to you, you then proceed to justify why the word 'other' can be
inserted. If another interpretation of 'first born of creation'
is possible, THEN YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT FOR ALLOWING THE INSERTION
OF THE WORD 'OTHER' COMPLETELY FALLS. The question comes down
essentially to this: should the translator add the word 'other'
throughout the passage because he thinks Jesus was created, or
should he be faithful to the Greek, avoid adding 'other', and
understand first-born of creation the only way possible. And what
way is that - the way the other passages in Scripture and the
early Church had understood it: Jesus' human nature was created
but not His divine nature.
Now if this is a
possible interpretation, and this turns out in the end to be the
correct interpretation, what have you just done professor? You
have hidden the truth by allowing YOUR own subjective
interpretation (however strong you might think it is) to
excessively influence you into massaging the translation to suit
your own flawed interpretation.
[End of discussion
on this passage.]
It seems to me
that you have admitted my original point: there are 'mistakes'
and 'inconsistencies' in the NWT translation. I am not, however,
as forgiving as you seem to be since I believe that they are
calculated distortions. It is abundantly clear from the above
(and many other passages which I would be happy to provide to
you) that the NWT translators not only DISTORT the original Greek
and add words (and commas!), but they do so in order to support
their doctrines. Surely, this cannot escape your notice,
Professor. Whatever the motives of the NWT translators is besides
the point, however. I am more interested in why you still think
the NWT is still "the best interlinear Greek
translation". I freely admit that I am no Greek Scholar, but
I can hold my own in philosophy and logic, and to me, you have
fallen well short in justifying your assertion on the 'quality'
of the NWT.
"Philosophy
and logic are of little worth if you don't have the facts. But
these abilities should allow you to see that you have approached
this whole conversation from a remarkably biased standpoint,
unprepared to accept any new information that impacts on your
preconception that the JWs are some sort of boogey man out to
fool the world. When it comes to the Greek New Testament, you
simply have never read or heard about how it came to be and what
the process is of making it into an English Bible. Ancient Greek
had NO commas, nor punctuation of any kind. It did not even use a
space between words:
THEMANUSCRIPTSFROMWHICHWEGETTHENEWTESTAMENTREADLIKETHIS. So there
are probably a dozen steps of interpretation involved in making
an English Bible. These steps are required for your own personal
favourite Bible just as much as they are for the JW's Bible.
Whenever you look at an English Bible, you are looking at words,
punctuation, structuring added to help make it readable to
someone who does not read Greek. Take an interlinear and compare
it to any English translation, and you will see exactly what you
see in the JW's Bible. That is the reality of the Bible. Unless
you read ancient Greek, you are at the mercy of translators. Do
you know who these people are, what their personal beliefs and
commitments are, what their own agenda is, what they do when they
are at home? I would think for a suspicious person like you,
that's going to be a big problem.
Exactly,
Professor. You have made an excellent point about the biases and
prejudices of the translators of various Bible translations. I do
agree that I have my bias as you do yours and as the JWs,
Mormons, Fundamentalists, Seventh Day Adventists and remaining
30,000+ other Christian denominations. (At least, I am honest
about it. So for you to claim that I have a 'remarkably biased
standpoint' is rather tendacious in itself.) I am not closed to
learning new things - in fact, I welcome them, but I am hardly
going to abandon my position for what I think are poor and, yes,
deceptive translations based on pre-existing, closed theological
presuppositions that you have posited. In fact, in your first
E-mail you stated that those biblical scholars who have spoken
out against the NWT "mix theological argument with
linguistic argument in their criticism, and this is not
legitimate." I think this approach is not only legitimate,
inevitable, and inescapable, but you, yourself, have managed to
do it very nicely indeed, albeit subtlety.
At the end of your
response, you have provided an excellent question: "Do you
know who these people are, what their personal beliefs and
commitments are, what their own agenda is, what they do when they
are at home? I would think for a suspicious person like you,
that's going to be a big problem." In fact, Professor that's
not the problem for me - IT'S THE SOLUTION TO THIS RIDICULOUS
DILEMNA TO THE CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONAL ANARCHY WHICH CURRENTLY
EXISTS. As I have said and which you have admitted, it's not so
much 'what the Greek says' but 'what the Greek means'. It's
really the interpretation that is the primary problem, while
translation is only the secondary one. First, you derive the
MEANING of the Greek or Hebrew, THEN you translate it. So, we
arrive at the inevitable conclusion, as you have rightly pointed
out, 'that we are at the MERCY of the translators.'
For Christians,
the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God so it would be
rather a contradiction for God to allow all translations to be
his Word. So the question boils down to not 'which translations'
but 'which translators' should we believe? And if you really
think about it, it REALLY boils down to the 'Church' which you
believe to give the infallible word of God, since there exists
many differences in the INTERPRETATION of the SAME Bible. So if
we find the 'true' church with a teaching body which would have
to exist (unless God does not want us to know the Truth), we will
know which interpretation to give the Greek, AND THEREFORE, WE
WILL KNOW WHICH TRANSLATION IS CORRECT AND WHICH TRANSLATION IS
NOT!!! So the key is to find the 'true teachers' who have the
'true interpretation' to make the 'true translation'. After all,
what good is an 'infallible Bible' with fallible teachers?
Wouldn't you agree???
You and I start
from different premises, and come therefore to different
conclusions. I don't think we can expect to get past this
impasse. But I don't want to appear dismissive of your research
and opinions. Obviously, you take 'the facts' just as seriously
from your side as I do from mine. So let me make just a few
remarks in response to the points you raise in order not to
persuade you, but to make clear how different our approach to the
Bible is.
Your main point,
as I understand it, is that we need an interpreter to tell us
what the Bible means. Now who will this be? From my point of
view, your position is an endless circularity. Let us say that
you regard the Bible as the ultimate authority for Christian
truth. But in order to correctly understand it, you say we need
an interpreter. So now that interpreter becomes a more ultimate
authority than the Bible itself. How then do we judge the
interpreter to be reliable? By the Bible? Or is there some other
yet more ultimate authority that we turn to? So then, the
question is: By what criteria or standards do we decide what the
New Testament says? For many people, the answer to that question
is a sectarian one; that is, what MY denomination says is the
correct interpretation (which of course puts the human authority
of the denomination above the Bible itself). For others,
including historians and linguists, but also people of faith who
give highest authority to the Bible, it means taking the Greek in
its own terms. Whether you are a secular historian interested in
Paul's exact views, or someone who believes in the divine
inspiration of Scripture and who must know what God communicated
there, you don't want to make the mistake of ignoring the
linguistic evidence, in a sense, telling God what he can or
cannot mean by the Greek he dictated to his scribes.
The Bible is being
translated and re-translated all the time. God has not seen fit
to control that process by direct inspiration. He has left it up
to our wits. Part of those wits is the recognition that the NT
was written in Greek language, which obeys Greek rules of grammar
and syntax, communicating to an audience with Greek mental
categories and a Greek world view. So when I say that such a
person, reading the books of the NT when they were first written,
would hear in the word 'proskuneo' a reference to an act of
reverent respect, not restricted to a religious act of worship,
that goes to the heart of what the NT means and can be dismissed
by a 'So what!!!' only if we take the attitude that we are going
to tell the Bible what it can and cannot say, and only if we
assume that the Bible was not to be understood by those who wrote
it and those for whom it was originally written.
Now I understand
that your response to this point is to call upon those closer in
date to the original writing, those who spoke Greek and lived in
that culture, to see how they understood the passages in
question. Your instincts are good. That move makes sense. But
please bear in mind that your witnesses represent only a part of
early Christianity, who directly disagreed with other parts who
interpreted the passages differently, and who were already
separated from the authors of the NT by major theological
developments, and who themselves were interested in imposing
their interpretation upon the NT. These factors must be
considered.
I don't see the
relevance of all of the passages you cite. Clearly they are
collected with the intention of proving that Jesus is considered
to be God and part of a Trinity. Obviously, the type of
Christianity that came to dominate holds such a belief, and many
of these authors you cite are part of that tradition. But this
belief about Jesus is a development of thinking in early
Christianity, a deeper and fuller understanding, if that is your
view, of how exactly Jesus relates to God the Father. It is
legitimate to say that the seeds of this idea, the material on
which it was developed, can be found in the NT. But the NT itself
has no Trinity concept in the sense of a three-part Godhead.
Furthermore, with the exception of the Gospel of John, no book in
the NT is willing to use the word 'god' to refer to Jesus. John's
usage is novel, and pushes the envelope beyond where his
co-authors were willing to go. In this way, John points towards
the future of Christian thinking about Jesus. But you cannot then
go back and introduce the more fully developed theological and
christological concepts into the text of the NT, either into the
Greek text (which some tried to do), nor at the stage of
translation (which many translation do).
You seem to
recognize that there were 'other' kinds of Christians from the
beginning, yet you persist in speaking of THE Christian tradition
as if there was only one true one. I understand that the kind of
commitment you hold really dictates that there be one true
tradition stretching from Jesus to the present, and all others be
dismissed as false. Yet several of the sources you quote do not
in fact hold the orthodox view of the Trinity, but a
subordinationist one similar to Arianism. I think it is ironic
that you quote them in your argument, then, since they espouse a
position closer to that of the JWs than to your own. These
ancient authors need to be read in their own cultural context
just as much as the NT must be, and by pulling out these isolated
quotes and capitalizing God an inevitable distortion occurs in
the overall world view expressed by these writers. I must also
disagree with you about the Nicene Creed being a kind of final
formalization of a view long established. The Nicene creed was a
big problem when it was made, because many Christians strongly
objected to its language (for example the introduction of the
term homoousios, which had never been used before to describe the
relationship of God and Jesus), and many other bishops frankly
admitted that they did not understand it. Shortly after Nicaea,
the official church rejected the creed and went over to Arianism,
only returning to the Nicene statement under Theodosius at the
end of the 4th century. Even then, the church was unable to
enforce universal agreement, and Arianism persisted in many areas
for more than 100 years. So these were live debates, not foregone
conclusions, as much as four to five hundred years after Jesus.
I understand that
you take the Catholic line that tradition supplements and
interprets Scripture, and that the apostles selected successor
bishops to transmit this tradition from one generation to the
next. As a historian, I agree that the NT does not contain the
full picture of early Christianity, and that tradition is an
important source of information about what Christians thought and
did. The idea of Episcopal succession, however, is historically
indefensible, and no serious historian can embrace it in the
terms you have given it. There were no bishops at all in the
first generations of Christians. The office begins basically as a
club presidency, with prominent local church members being more
or less elected to it. In fact, bishops were elected by church
membership throughout the ancient period. Some of them were not
even Christians before being elected bishop (e.g., Ambrose,
Sinesius), and their training in the Church varied tremendously.
In the earliest period there was a wide diversity of leadership,
not only rival Episcopal lines, but also alternative forms of
leadership such as prophets, teachers, etc. (look again at the
Didache, and at Hippolytus), and it was these prophets and
teachers who actually were the most well-versed in the religion
--unfortunately, the bishops used their political power to crush
these alternative leadership traditions.
So our views of
history are quite different, and so the conclusions we draw are
equally at odds.
Thank you for your
last response. Perhaps it is worthwhile for our discussion to
change our direction somewhat in order to arrive at a solution,
which I believe is still possible. You have taken the time from
your busy schedule to express your opinions on the Bible and you
have been honest to admit some of the limitation of the NWT. I
really appreciate your time and candour in this endeavour. While
I cannot agree with you on some of the reasons you give in
defense of the NWT (especially Revelation 1:17-18 and John
20:28), I will concede to you that some of the interpretations
you have posed are POSSIBILITIES. But in the quest for an
absolute, transcendent Truth (with a capital 'T'), I believe you
will agree with me that we should not be concerned with
possibilities but certainties. In our discussions about the
divinity of Christ, Jesus is either God or He is not; He cannot
be both, nor can God want people to accept either and be totally
content with such a situation. This would betray the whole notion
of what the Truth is, namely, 'what is' not 'what can be'.
Your position
really boils down to this: since neither my position nor the JWs
are definitively wrong and that both 'systems of belief' 'solve'
certain 'tensions' in the NT, that's okay as long as 'the range
of possibilities' is maintained. In my opinion, however, this is
NOT an acceptable 'solution' at all since to hold to it, you
necessarily concede that the idea of Truth as an exclusive and
absolute idea does not exist, or more to the point, that God does
not want us to know that Truth and really couldn't care less what
we believe about His Son. We can believe that He was 'a god' or
'God'. This 'solution' is nothing of the kind. It is nonsense to
say that Jesus 'can be' God, or that we can believe in error as
long as it fits a 'system of belief'. What good is that? It is as
useful as saying, 'I might be the President of the United
States', and trying to convince your fellow citizens that it
doesn't matter whether you are or not as long as my 'system of
belief' says that I could be!
Sola Scriptura
- A Contradiction
Your whole
theological position begins with the first of Reformation
principles known as 'sola scriptura', the Bible alone: "Let
us say that you regard the Bible as the ultimate authority for
Christian truth." Oh really? Why should I do that,
professor? What is your basis for restricting Christian truth and
divine revelation to God's written word alone or regarding it as
the ultimate authority? Let me tell you why I do not do so.
Before the NT
Scriptures
Christ died in 33
A.D. The New Testament Scriptures were written over the next
50-60 years, with the first of the NT books being written in 45
A.D. So what did the early Christians rely on for an 'ultimate
authority' on what Christ taught during this time? The answer to
that, of course, is the Apostles, who, not only wrote, but also
spoke (Cf. 1 John 3:2), and their oral word was just as binding
as their written word (Cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15). Individual
churches in Corinth, Ephesus, or Rome might have the letters
addressed to them by St. Paul, for instance, but they would
hardly have all of the New Testament Scriptures. Now, why would I
make the unjustified PRESUMPTION that ALL of the Apostle's
teachings were committed to writing?
Which brings me to
the next point: after the Scriptures were completed, there was no
definite agreement on what constituted an authentic Apostolic
letter because there were many spurious fabrications claiming to
be Apostolic (i.e. the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Thomas, the
Acts of Pilate, Acts of Paul and Thecla and 50 other 'Acts' as
well as a small number of Epistles and Apocalypses.) There were
also the Apocrypha or contested books which were considered by
many to be inspired and apostolic as much as the current canon.
These included the 'Shepherd' of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, the
Didache, the Gospel According to the Hebrews, St. Paul's Epistle
to the Laodiceans, and the Epistle of St. Clement. AND NOT ONLY
THAT!!! There were a number of books which were not originally
widely received as 'authentic' until the Church finally decided
the question , including the Epistle of St. James, Epistle of St.
Jude, 2nd Epistle of St. Peter, 2nd and 3rd of St. John, Hebrews,
and Revelation. (Source: Graham's "Where We Got the
Bible"}
The Canon: By
whose authority?
So what about
these 'apocrypha' books and originally contested books? Who is
going to decide what is 'apocrypha' and what is 'canonical'? I
then discover that the NT canon , which excluded these
'apocrypha' books, was not even determined until the end of the
fourth century at the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage
(397A.D.). So I ask myself: on what authority did the early
Christians rely to communicate the Gospel message (or for that
matter, to determine what was canonical in the first place) AFTER
the original Apostles had died? And, not only that, if the
successors of the Apostles, the bishops, did not have the
authority to decide the question of canonicity, then why was
their decision accepted i.e. to exclude the apocrypha books and
accept the more controversial ones? And if they were not the ones
to have the authority to make this decision, then WHO was? And if
there was another group, how come there is no historical evidence
of them? And why, may I ask, do Protestants consider the NT canon
'infallible' when an allegedly 'fallible' body of bishops
determined its collection? So, you can clearly see, professor,
the idea of the 'Bible' as the sole rule of faith or sole source
of truth is not only rather absurd as a doctrine, it was an
IMPOSSIBILITY before the fifth century.
Practical
impossibilities
Then I examine the
intervening so-called 'dark ages' before the invention of the
printing press and proliferation of literacy. 'Sola scriptura' as
a SOLE guide to the truth assumes three things: that everyone has
a Bible, everyone can afford one, and everyone can read - none of
which was the case in this period. So I ask: 'Why would God wait
for the printing press and the literacy of the masses before He
would communicate His guide as the 'ultimate truth' FIFTEEN
CENTURIES after the fact? Not only would that belief be
unhistorical, it is ridiculous.
I then study the
last five unhappy centuries that Christianity has suffered as a
result of the so-called 'Reformation' and the fruits of that
schism - 30,000 denominations with an average of 5 new ones being
created every week, and most of them relying solely on the Bible
for their 'ultimate' authority. Never mind that this is a
practical impossibility even within Protestantism itself, since,
as we all know, if you don't follow a particular INTERPRETATION
of Scripture given by the particular denomination, you would be
morally bound to leave it - unless of course you belong to one of
those leftist sects which let you believe in ANYTHING you want.
Never mind that none of them will use the word 'infallible' per
se, but most will claim to have the truth because all teach
according to the Bible - no one else, especially our friends at
the Watchtower. And if we take this proliferation of division in
Protestantism to its logical and inevitable conclusion, we reach
the zenith of human pride and folly - each individual decides
what the Bible means, and never you mind if they all disagree
with one another as long as their 'belief systems' massage
Scripture enough to be 'true' for themselves. Incidentally,
professor, even the JWs won't accept your idea of a 'range of
possible beliefs', but rather insist that Jesus was NOT God. They
are not, I would suggest, 'tolerant' of other viewpoints. So much
for an objective, transcendent Truth which demonstrates the
qualities inherent to it - universality, immutability, infinity,
and unity. So much for Christ's prayer that 'all may be one' (Cf.
John 17:22-23).
The Purpose of
the New Testament
As I stated
earlier, you are coming from a theological stance which demands
that only the Bible provides the source of divine revelation. As
I have shown, not only is this unhistorical, impractical, and
impossible for all Christians throughout the ages, but it is also
UNBIBLICAL. First, no where in the Bible does it say that the
Scriptures themselves were the sole rule of faith or truth. Jesus
and the Apostles also quoted from Jewish oral tradition (Cf.
Matthew 23:2, 2 Timothy 3:8, Titus 1:9), and St. Paul appeals to
both the written and the oral tradition of the Apostles (2
Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6).
Even the New
Testament itself hints at the Scriptures not being the sole
source of Truth.
"But I urge
you, brethren, bear with this word of exhortation, for I have
WRITTEN TO YOU BRIEFLY." (Hebrews 13:22).
"Having many
things to write to you, I DO NOT WANT TO DO SO WITH PAPER AND
INK, BUT I HOPE TO COME TO YOU AND SPEAK FACE TO FACE, that your
joy may be made full" (2 John 1:12).
"I had many
things to write to you, but I AM NOT WILLING TO WRITE THEM TO YOU
WITH PEN AND INK; BUT I HOPE TO SEE YOU SHORTLY, AND WE SHALL
SPEAK FACE TO FACE." (3 John 1:13)
And this is not
all. Indeed, the tone of the NT letters suggest that they were
never meant to be a complete and exhaustive discourse on the
Christian Faith, but rather written to address a particular
controversy in a particular church. For instance, St. Paul's
letters to the Roman and Galatians deals a lot with Gentile
circumcision. The books of the NT were produced and called forth
by special circumstances that arose, and were therefore written
to meet particular demands and emergencies. Indeed, if we were to
take this idea of the Bible, and the NT in particular, as the
sole source of revelation, we would think that God had a big
problem with circumcision given the amount of time St. Paul
addresses the issue, but that is hardly an issue in today's
Christian Church, is it?
And what about the
Gospels? So long as the Apostles were still living, the necessity
for written records of the words and actions of Christ were not
so necessary. However, as time passed and they would soon be
gone, it was necessary to have some correct, authoritative, and
reliable account by those who had known him personally or known
the Apostles personally. THIS WAS NECESSARY SINCE THERE WERE MANY
SPURIOUS GOSPELS (see above) BEING SPREAD ABROAD which were
written to discredit Christianity and destroy it. This situation
may have been hinted at by St. Luke, "since MANY have
undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been
fulfilled among US..." (Luke 1:1). Who are the 'many', and
who are the 'us'? In the time of the Apostles, it was the CHURCH
which was the dispenser of the Gospel truth, why do you believe
that arrangement has changed today?
Which Bible?
How do you know
that you have an authentic copy of the NT in the original
languages? After all, you do not have access to the originals
since they have all perished. Skeptics often taunt Christians
because of this fact. They claim that the Bible is an invention
of a later age - all manuscripts being subsequent to the fourth
century. 'But', say devout Protestants, 'the Bible is God's word,
and there are no mistakes in it.' Quite true, IF IT IS GOD'S OWN
Bible in the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS from the hands of the Apostles,
Prophets and Evangelists. Only they were inspired. God never
promised every individual scribe who took in hand the copying of
the NT would be infallibly protected from committing errors
whether intentionally or unintentionally. Errors did creep in
since there are about 200,000 variations in the text of the Bible
as written in various MSS. The original Scripture is free from
error because it has God for its author; but that does not alter
the fact that there are thousands of copies of the Bible, saying
significantly different things (as the NWT clearly testifies).
(The preceding
information was sourced from Where We Got the Bible,
Rev. Henry Graham, Tan Books & Publishers).
So if the Bible is
an all-sufficient guide for authoritative truth, which Bible
should be selected? A Protestant one (66 books) or a Catholic one
(73 books); a translation in the standard tradition (the Catholic
Douay Rheims or Protestant NIV) or a modernist concoction (NWT)?
As soon as the believer chooses one version over another, he
immediately places himself ABOVE the Bible, and therefore chooses
the authority he wishes to submit to (with his own private
interpretation of course!!!). If the Bible is infallible, it is
not because we are relying on the original Scripture, but because
we are relying SOMEONE who says it is, and SOMEONE who translates
it.
The Argument
from Design
I am sure you are
well familiar with the Argument from Design as a philosophical
proof to establish the existence of God, but I think it would be
beneficial to quickly restate here. The world and the universe
exhibits incredible order and purpose. There has never been an
instance where order has resulted from disorder. The inherent
nature of order, however, necessarily admits of an 'orderer' or
designer. The designer is God. God, therefore, is a designer -
indeed THE designer. What would you think of a designer who,
according to you, 'has left [the translation] up to our wits' -
however susceptible to error those wits may be WITHOUT
guaranteeing that the TRUE meaning of Scripture must also be
revealed? You maintain that "God has not seen to control
that process [translation] by direct inspiration". OK, but
why can He not, and it seems to me the most logical course of
action, PROTECT his DIVINELY INSPIRED WORD FROM 'a range of
possibilities' which are opposed to one another?
If all humans are
fallible in their interpretation of the Bible's teaching on faith
and morals, then how can anyone be SURE of their beliefs? The
inevitable answer that you must give is that no one can be. No
one can be sure at all. And if that is the case, then what good
is an infallible Bible when no one can say, definitively, what
the infallible books say? In essence therefore, the inevitable
conclusion to the belief in an infallible Bible but fallible
teachers is that God is pulling our leg: He has not provided the
means of knowing the truth DEFINITIVELY since no one can say what
the truth is (except for you with your idea of a range of
possible meanings that would allow for diametrically opposite
creeds). Is that what you believe? That's pretty sad, not to
mention anarchical and absurd. Under that scenario, God would be
either be a contradiction or a sadist, neither of which is
possible.
These are the
reasons why I believe the Bible to be neither the sole nor
ultimate authority in Christian Truth or Revelation. Now, you
probably know where I am going with this little exercise, namely,
Apostolic succession which you have rejected, stating, "The
idea of Episcopal succession, however, is historically
indefensible, and no serious historian can embrace it in the
terms you have given it. There were no bishops at all in the
first generations of Christians." Now, I find this to be a
remarkable assertion and I will return to it later since it
certainly bears some discussion, especially your remark about the
'serious' historian; that is, your opinion that one cannot be a
'serious' historian and still believe in Apostolic succession.
What I have demonstrated, on the other hand, is that no one can
be a 'serious' historian and still think the Bible can be the
sole source of ultimate authority. But first let me put forward
the case for the necessity of an infallible church.
Truth
All Christians
understand and agree in principle with the concept of an absolute
Truth because it represents something that exists outside of our
own dangerous subjectivism. Without Truth, not only is there is
no right or wrong, there is no God either. After all, if one
takes away the source (God), how can the consequent (Truth) still
exist? But, while all Christians can agree on the concept of the
Truth, the instrument of learning that truth is quite another
matter. It is this very issue of 'instrumentality' that has
divided the Christian Church for the past five hundred years.
Hence, the central question for all of Christianity, and to a
lesser extent everyone else, is: How does God communicate His
truth to us?
In order to learn
the Truth, there are two things which are necessary: a belief in
God and a belief that God wants to communicate to His creatures.
Since God has not chosen to infuse his incorruptible Truth into
each individual human, the only and inevitable conclusion which
can be inferred, while holding to God's will to communicate, is
that He has chosen to communicate to us through certain human
intermediaries. The Bible provides ample proof of this assertion
when one recalls the authority given to the prophets of the Old
Testament. God spoke His Holy Word through them. These prophets
not only wrote God's word, they spoke it as well. Hence, there
were two means of communication opened to these prophets, namely,
the written word and the oral word.
In the Old
Testament times, the oral word of a prophet was just as binding
as his written word. For instance, the prophet Obadiah has 21
short verses attributed to him, yet this is surely not the extent
of his teaching office. His listeners would surely not reject his
oral teaching because they were not yet on 'papyrus'. It is
evident, therefore, that the relationship between the
intermediaries and the instruments is an important one in that
any manipulation of one leads to a distortion of Truth in varying
degrees. Those who rely on the written word alone have cut off
the Truth for themselves since God has chosen to use both
instruments in communicating His Truth. After all, He chose
people and not methods of communications for speaking His word.
He never restricted the means by which they would give His word
to Scripture only. Jesus never told the Apostles to write
anything down. Only 5 of the 12 did. He commanded them to preach
not to write. In fact, Jesus and His Apostles never restricted
their teachings to the Scriptures, but relied on Jewish oral
tradition as well (Cf. Matthew 23:2, 2 Timothy 3:8, Titus 1:9).
The inevitable
consequence to 'sola scriptura' is a loss of truth since there
are diametrically opposing positions on what individual
Christians think the Bible says. Picture this fascinating
scenario: A Seventh Day Adventist, a Jehovah Witness, a
Fundamentalist, and everyone else who thinks the Bible is their
sole source of truth are all in a room. All will claim that the
Bible is the SOLE authority for their positions, but each group
teaches different doctrines. Now, all groups will point to the
others and say that the others teach false doctrines, and are
'clearly' UNBIBLICAL. After an hour of endless and useless
haggling over the interpretation of biblical passages, one of
these people will surely come to the inevitable and inescapable
solution to this absurd mess. One of these people will surely
realize that the Bible alone cannot be the sole authority by
itself since no one can definitely say what the truth is UNLESS
there is one group or one person who has the authority to decide
which interpretation is the correct one. After all, what good is
an infallible Bible if there is no infallible group to say what
the infallible Word of God is? This question of truth is
therefore really one of authority. The singular quality of
authority is, however, that some people have it and others do
not. Indeed, if everyone had authority, then the logical
consequence is that NO ONE has authority. Yet, SOMEONE (or some
group speaking in unity) must have authority in order for
humanity to know what the Truth of the Gospel is.
Apostolic
Authority
It follows, then,
that since 'sola scriptura' cannot be the objective avenue to the
Truth - the question must change from what the Bible says to who
should interpret it. Jesus Christ appointed twelve apostles to
teach His doctrines and exercise His authority once He ascended
into heaven (Cf. Matthew 28:16-20). He gave them specific
authority to speak and teach what He taught (Cf. Ephesians
2:19-20, 1 Thessalonians 4:2, 2 Peter 3:2), and He warned all of
His followers of the consequences of private teaching OUTSIDE of
the Church (Cf. Matthew 18:16-17, 1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Timothy
2:20, 2 Peter 1:20-21). Most importantly, however, Jesus promised
the Holy Spirit to guide the Apostles in truth (Cf. John
14:16-17), which would distinguish them from the false prophets
who would later introduce false doctrines and heresies (Cf. 2
Peter 2:1). This is the reason why St. Paul described the Church
as the 'pillar and foundation of truth' (Cf. 1 Timothy 3:15), and
not the Bible which can be twisted by the untaught and unstable
(Cf. 2 Peter 3:16). It is not unlike a secular court interpreting
what the laws of society mean. Without lawful justice to
interpret the laws, there would be anarchy in society. Professor,
what is the ultimate authority in the United States - the
Constitution or the Supreme Court? And EVEN if you were to
maintain that the Constitution was, can you have one without the
other? Likewise, in trying to determine what the sacred writers
and apostles meant, there must be a group who has the authority
from God to make such interpretations and binding pronouncements.
The alternative is duplicity and error which is personified in
the 30,000 Protestant denominations.
Jesus established
His Church, and conferred His authority to the Apostolic
community to 'bind and loose' (Cf. Matthew 16:17-19, 18:16-17).
The power of 'binding and loosing' had been a well established
Jewish formula used by the rabbinical body of each age to 'open
and shut' (Cf. Isaiah 15:22) religious doctrines and moral
teachings. Throughout the New Testament, the Apostles, and the
Apostles ONLY, exercise this authority. This is the only way that
any group can claim to have the truth - they teach what the
Apostles taught, either written or oral (Cf. 2 Thessalonians
2:15). When there is a doctrinal dispute in the Church, as was
the case at the Council of Jerusalem (Cf. Acts 15), it is not any
or every disciple who vote on the question, it is the Apostles,
and Peter in particular, who decide the question. In fact, after
their decision, they carefully guard their authority when they
warn the early Church in Antioch about those 'whom they gave no
instruction' (Cf. Acts 15:24) to promulgate doctrine.
Again and again,
this theme of sovereign apostolic authority is reinforced
throughout the New Testament. For instance, St. Paul rejects
'another Jesus' that heretics preach, and he warns against being
deceived by them (Cf. 2 Corinthians 11:3-4). When the Apostles do
encourage people to teach, however, they are to teach what the
Apostles teach, and not their own ideas. St. Paul wrote to
Timothy: "And the things which you heard from ME in the
presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who
will be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2). St. Paul
encourages other disciples to teach, but not outside of the
Church. In fact, the Apostles condemn rebellion against hierarchy
(Cf. Jude 1:11, Numbers 16:8-10,19-21), and require obedience to
the Church (Cf. Acts 20:28, Titus 3:1, 1 Peter 5:5).
Remarkably, there
are still those who disregard the requirement for obedience to
the Church, and presume they can find salvation without Her. The
opponent of the Catholic Church would say that while Hebrews
13:17, for instance, "does require us to be obedient to
those taking the lead, Christians do not have to follow any
'edicts' or 'rulings' rendered by the Church that do not conform
to God's word, the Bible." This is not only an unscriptural
assertion, but it is also rather senseless. In the first part of
this statement, the individual acknowledges the requirement to be
obedient, yet the obedience is essentially 'optional obedience'
because, should he not agree with a teaching, he declares it be
'unbiblical' and therefore exempts himself from the obedience
which he claims to have. Of course, the ultimate foundation of
this idea is based on the belief in himself rather than TRUTH
existing apart from himself, which is manifested in the one
Church Jesus established, being founded on the Apostles.
Moreover, while he may reject Apostolic authority, he still
agrees that one should 'be obedient to those taking the lead'.
The problem with this idea is that there may be certain people
'taking the lead' that have no authority to do so.
Succession
But this begs the
question which must come: what happens after the original
Apostles die? Is the Church not to continue the way Jesus
established it in its hierarchical structure? It has been
established that Jesus gave His Apostles the right to teach. Is
it to be proposed that this structure should be radically altered
from the Church of the New Testament once the Apostles have died?
Is it the will of Christ to discard this Church for an anarchical
'democratic' church where the Truth is subject to the prejudices
and slants of popularism as exists today in the Protestant
churches? No. This is not the will of Christ. The will of Christ
has been manifested in the ONE church He established, the visible
Church of the New Testament. This is the same Church which
continues to exist today - not because of human construct but
because of Her divine founder who promised that the gates of hell
would never prevail against Her (Cf. Matthew 16:18).
If Jesus' words
were not meant eternally and were to be understood simply in His
time, then the authority of the Apostles which Christ instituted
would have died with the last Apostle. This would leave the
Church without leadership and in total confusion when serious
doctrinal questions and problems occurred, which, inevitably,
they did. (There would be no point in relying on Scripture since
many of the heretics used, or rather twisted, Scripture to
buttress their positions.) The other option, the much more likely
and divinely consistent one, is that the Apostles would choose
successors, passing on to them what they learned from the Lord,
and in turn giving them not only the authority to teach but also
the divine promise to correctly interpret God's written and
inspired word. This is what the Scriptures prophesized (Cf.
Matthew 16:17-19, 18:17-18), and this is, in fact, what the early
church did and has continued to do ever since Her beginning.
Even in Scripture
itself there are a number of examples which testify to Apostolic
succession. When the time had come to replace Judas Iscariot,
Peter asks God to fill the place left vacant due to Judas'
betrayal. If Christ had not intended the Apostolic Community to
be maintained, then why did He choose Matthias to replace Judas
(Cf. Acts 1:20-26)? The position that Matthias assumed is an
office with all the authority and responsibility of that office
(Cf. Hebrews 13:17). Moreover, the authority passed on is given
to specific people; it is not conferred indiscriminately (Cf.
Titus 2:15, Acts 6:1-6, Acts 13:3, 1 Timothy 5:22).
From early church
history, there is a wealth of evidence supporting the INESCAPABLE
logic to Apostolic Authority which is understood through
Apostolic or Episcopal succession:
Argument: From the
earliest times and even in its initial spread, the Church showed
that it was a single unified body.
Proofs:
1."Love makes
no schism; love does not quarrel; love does everything in
unity" (St. Clement, Letter to the Corinthians, A.D. 96,
[49,2]).
2."It becomes
you not to presume on the youth of the bishop, but to show him
all reverence in consideration of the authority of God the
Father: just as even the holy presbyters, so I have heard, do not
take advantage of his outwardly youthful appearance, but yield to
him in their godly prudence" (St. Ignatius of Antioch,
Letter to the Magnesians, A.D.110, [3,1]).
3."Be subject
to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ was subject to
the Father, and the Apostles were subject to Christ and to the
Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit"
(St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians, A.D.110,
[13,1]).
4."...so by
means of His resurrection He might raise aloft a banner for His
saints and believers in every age, whether among the Jews or
among the Gentiles, united in a single body in His Church (St.
Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaens, A.D. 110, [1,1].
5."The Church
of God which sojourns in Smyrna, to the Church of God which
sojourns in Philomelium, and to all the dioceses of the holy and
Catholic Church in every place..." (The Martyrdom of St.
Polycarp, A.D. 155, [Address]).
6."When,
therefore, they received the seal, they had one understanding and
one mind; and their faith became one, and one their love"
(The Shepherd of Hermas, Hermas, A.D 140, [9,17,4]).
7."As I said
before, the Church having received this preaching and this faith,
although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet
guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise
believes these things just as if she had but one soul and the
same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them
and hands them down, as if she possessed one mouth. For, while
the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the
authority of the tradition is one and the same. Neither do the
Churches among the Germans believe otherwise or have another
tradition, nor do those among the Iberians, nor among the Celts,
nor away in the East, nor in Egypt, nor in Libya, nor those which
have been established in the central regions of the whole world.
But just as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same
throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth
shines everywhere and enlightens all men who desire to come to a
knowledge of truth." (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies A.D.
180, [1,10,2]).
8."Now I
myself will explain the practices of Christian society...We are a
body joined together by religious conviction, unity of
discipline, and by hope...In the same place there are
exhortations, corrections and divine censure. Judgement is passed
with the greatest of gravity, as among men who are certain of the
presence of God; and it is the greatest foretaste of the future
judgement, when anyone has sinned so grievously that he is cut
off from communication in prayer and assembly and from every holy
transaction." (Tertullian, Apology, A.D. 197, [39,1-4]).
Argument: From the
earliest of times, the Church was hierarchically constituted and
showed itself as such.
1."He has,
moreover, by His supreme will, determined where and by whom He
wants them to be carried out, so that all may be done in a holy
manner, according to His good pleasure and acceptable to His
will...To the high priest, indeed, proper ministrations are
allotted, to the priests a proper place is appointed, and upon
the Levites their proper services are imposed. The layman is
bound by the ordinances of the laity" (St. Clement, Letter
to the Corinthians, A.D. 96, [40,1]).
2."Shameful,
beloved, extremely shameful, and unworthy of your training in
Christ, is the report that on account of one or two persons the
well-established and ancient Church of the Corinthians is in
revolt against the presbyters" (St. Clement, Letter to the
Corinthians, A.D. 96, [47,6]).
3. "Take care
to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishops presiding
in the place of God and with the presbyters in the place of the
council of the Apostles..." (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter
to the Magnesians, A.D. 110, [6,1]).
4."In other
words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and
the deacons does not have a clean conscience" (St. Ignatius
of Antioch, Letter to the Traillians, A.D. 110, [7,2]).
5."Those,
indeed, who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the
bishop...Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic;
he will not inherit the kingdom of God" " (St. Ignatius
of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, A.D. 110, [3,2]).
6."It was the
Spirit who kept preaching these words: 'Do nothing without the
bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee
from divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, as He was imitator
of the Father'" (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the
Philadelphians, A.D. 110, [7,1]).
7."You must
all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the
presbytery as you would the Apostles...Let no one do anything of
concern to the Church without the bishop...Wherever the bishop
appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ
is, there is the Catholic Church..." (St. Ignatius of
Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 110, [8,1]).
8."Let us be
careful, then, if we should be submissive to God, not to oppose
the bishop." (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180,
[5,3]).
Argument: Bishops
are the legitimate successors to the Apostles.
1."Indeed,
when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is
clear to me that you are living in the manner not in the manner
of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith
in His death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore,
- and such is your practice, - that you do nothing without the
bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the
Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope..." (St. Ignatius of
Antioch, Letter to the Traillians, A.D. 110, [2,1]).
2."And to the
Church of the Corinthians has continued in the correct doctrine
to the time of Primus, who has become Bishop of Corinth, and with
whom I conversed at length on my way to Rome, when I spent some
days with the Corinthians, during which time we were mutually
refreshed in the correct doctrine. When I had come to Rome, I
made a succession up to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus.
And after Anicetus, Soter succeeded,; and after him Eleutherus.
In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of
that which is proclaimed by the Law, the Prophets, and the
Lord" (St. Hegesippus, Memoirs, A.D. 180, [4,22,1].
3."And we are
in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by
the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who
neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about
(St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [3,3,1]).
4."The
blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up
the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the
episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the
Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him,
in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the
episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted
with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the
preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his
eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who
had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no
small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the
Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians,
exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith...To this
Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus.
Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him,
Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus;
after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded
Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the
lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order,
and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church,
the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (St.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [3,3,3]).
5."Polycarp,
however, was instructed not only by the Apostles, and conversed
with many who had seen Christ, but was also appointed bishop of
the Church in Smyrna, by the Apostles in Asia. I saw him in my
early youth; for he tarried a long time, and when quite old he
departed this life in a glorious and most noble martyrdom. He
always taught those things which he had learned from the
Apostles, and which the Church had handed down, and which are
true" (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [3,3,4]).
6."It is
necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church,
those who as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles;
those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate,
the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the
Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive
succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in
suspicion." (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180,
[4,26,2]).
7."For all
these [heretics] are of much later date than are the bishops to
whom the Apostles handed over the Churches; and this fact I
pointed out most carefully in the third book. It is of necessity,
then, that these aforementioned heretics, because they are blind
to the truth, walk in various devious paths; and on this account
the vestiges of their doctrine are scattered about without
agreement or connection. The path of these, however, who belong
to the Church, goes around the whole world; for it has the firm
tradition of the Apostles, enabling us to see that the faith of
all is one and the same" (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies,
A.D. 180, [5,20,1]).
8."Moreover,
if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the
midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been
handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of
the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origins of
their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops,
running down in succession from the beginning, so that their
first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some of one of
the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with
the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches
transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which
records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church
of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just the
same way the other Churches display those whom they have as
sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the
episcopate by the Apostles" (Tertullian, The Demurrer
Against the Heretics, A.D. 200, [32,1]).
9."In short,
if it is evident that that is the truer which is earlier, if that
is the earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from
the beginning which was authored by the Apostles, then it will
likewise be evident that that has been handed down by the
Apostles, which has been held sacrosant in the Churches of the
Apostles...We have, too, the Churches founded by John. And even
if Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, still, the order of their
bishops, when reckoned up, will depend upon John as their author.
The excellence of other Churches is recognized in like manner. I
say, therefore, that in these Churches - and not only these
Churches - and not only in those founded by Apostles but in the
Churches throughout the world which are united with them in their
fellowship of the sacrament - the Gospel of Luke, which we defend
with all our strength, has stood from the beginning of its
publication. That of Marcion, however, is unknown to most; and
there are none who know it who do not condemn it. It has, of
course, its churches also, but they are its own, as late as they
are spurious. And should you want to know their origin, you will
more easily find them apostate than apostolic, with Marcion, of
course, their founder, or someone of Marcion's swarm. Even wasps
make honey-combs, and the Marcionites make churches. The same
authority of the apostolic Churches will defend the other
Gospels, which we possess through them and because of their using
them. I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew, while that issued
by Mark may be affirmed to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark
was. And the digest by Luke men are accustomed to ascribe to
Paul" (Tertullian, Against Marcion, A.D. 207, [4,5,1]).
10."After the
death of the tyrant, the [Apostle John] came back again to
Ephesus from the Island of Patmos; and, upon being invited, he
went even to the neighbouring cities of the pagans, here to
appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, and there
to ordain to the clerical state such as were designated by the
Spirit" (St. Clement of Alexandria, Who is the rich man that
is saved?, 190 A.D. [42,2]).
11."Our Lord,
whose commands we ought to fear and observe, says in the Gospel,
by way of assigning the Episcopal dignity and settling the plan
of His Church...From that time the ordination of bishops and the
plan of the Church flows on through the changes of the times and
successions; for the Church is founded upon the bishops, and
every act of the Church is controlled by these same
rulers..." (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter without heading,
of Cyprian to the Lapsed, A.D. 250, [33,27,1]).
12."Therefore,
the power of forgiving sins was given to the Apostles and to the
Churches which these men, sent by Christ, established; and to the
bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place"
(Firmilian of Caesarea, Letter to Cyprian, A.D. 268, [602]).
Now I should like
to return to your startling remark, "The idea of Episcopal
succession, however, is historically indefensible, and no serious
historian can embrace it in the terms you have given it. There
were no bishops at all in the first generations of
Christians." I should like to know, then, two things. In
light of the above HISTORICAL FACTS, from which little inference
is needed since the messages there are no less than crystal
clear, on what basis are you claiming that Episcopal succession
is 'historically indefensible'? I am particularly interested in
what you mean by your rather brusque reference to the 'serious'
historian. In addition, I would like to know how you can
reconcile the idea of the NT Church and the Apostolic Authority
therein with no subsequent succession - irrespective of the
historical evidence for it. In other words, what kind of Church
do you see coming from the Apostles?
But, you have
said, there were other 'Christians' with other traditions who
opposed these bishops, and did not recognize the bishops'
authority. This option, however, poses many problems for those
outside of the Church: Whose authority, other than their own, do
they recognize? Why then do they accept the Bible as determined
by this same Church? How do they reconcile the biblical teaching
of obedience to the church (Matthew 18:17, Luke 10:16 Hebrews
13:17, Jude 1:11) with their philosophy of 'lone rangerism'? How
do they know they are preaching the SAME Jesus that St. Paul
preached, and not 'another' Jesus (Cf. 2 Corinthians 11:3)? But
the question remains for the inquisitive person: who should I
listen to - those in the Church or outside or against it? What
does the Bible say about the church and truth (Cf. 1 Timothy
3:15), professor?
You claim that the
Apostolic office began "basically as a club presidency, with
prominent local church members being more or less elected to it.
In fact, bishops were elected by church membership throughout the
ancient period. Some of them were not even Christians before
being elected bishop (e.g. Ambrose, Sinesius), and their training
in the Church varied tremendously. In the earliest period there
was a wide diversity of leadership, not only rival Episcopal
lines, but also alternative forms of leadership such as prophets,
teachers, etc., and it was prophets and teachers who actually
were the most well versed in the religion - unfortunately, the
bishops used their political power to crush these alternative
leadership traditions."
First, this office
of the 'club presidency', as you put it, actually began with the
Apostles themselves (Cf. Acts 1:21-26). The 'club' represented
the Apostles and their successors, and yes, it was exclusive.
That's the will of God - I guess that's just too bad for our
twentieth century idea of truth being democratically voted on.
Secondly, the fact that bishops were elected or their training
varied means very little. Does the truth depend on man's
abilities or prejudices? An elected, poorly trained bishop does
not mean that he cannot communicate the truth - especially when
it is not any individual bishop (except one in particular) who
can proclaim the truth, but bishops who speak in unison. Thirdly,
the fact that some bishops used their political power for selfish
gain is essentially an argument from impeccability, which is
neither biblical nor practical (Cf. 1 Samuel 26:8-11, 2 Samuel
11:27, Matthew 13:24-30, 23:2-3, Luke 2:51). (By the way, while
it is true that Ambrose was a catechumen before his calling to
the Episcopacy, which, incidentally, he tried to avoid, he
received all the necessary Sacraments for entrance into the
Church BEFORE receiving his Bishopric. He turned out to be one of
the greatest Western Fathers. So your attempt to suggest some
kind of duplicity on the part of the early church is rather
baseless.)
Finally, the claim
that there were 'alternative forms of leadership' which the
bishops tried to 'crush' is rather problematic, depending on your
view of early church history. While your argument that some of
the greatest teachers of the church were not bishops is most
certainly true, that fact is irrelevant to the question of
authority. (The President of the United States may not be the
most adept at running the country, but no one questions his
authority to do so.) The issue arises when some of these
'teachers' start playing THEIR OWN TUNE according to THEIR OWN
VIEWS APART from the body of Christ which is the Church. It is
then that these bishops have EVERY right, nay, the utmost
RESPONSIBILITY to correct the situation by the authority given to
them by Christ, and treat them as the heathen if they do not
recant (Cf. Matthew 18:17). What do you propose that should
happen when disagreement occurs in the Church? Would you suggest
an absurd notion of 'tolerance' which would destroy the unity of
the Church and truth of the Gospel where everyone can believe or
teach what they want while STILL remaining in the Church? It
would be tantamount to demanding that Hillary Clinton be
permitted to join 'Americans For Life'!!!
Some interesting
comments you made...
I would now like
to return to some of the comments you made in the first few pages
of your response....
A Linear
Proposition
"Your main
point, as I understand it, is that we need an interpreter to tell
us what the Bible means. Now who will this be? From my point of
view, your position is an endless circularity. Let us say that
you regard the Bible as the ultimate authority for Christian
truth. But in order to correctly understand it, you say we need
an interpreter. So now the interpreter becomes a more ultimate
authority than the Bible itself. Now then do we judge the
interpreter to be reliable? By the Bible? Or is there some other
yet more ultimate authority that we turn to?"
As I have already
demonstrated, the Bible CANNOT be the ultimate authority for
Christian truth, but rather the Church (Cf. 1 Timothy 3:15) who
decided on the COMPOSITION of the Bible in the first place.
Therefore, because I do not regard the Bible as the ultimate
authority, then my argument is NOT circular but rather quite
LINEAR. I believe that Christ existed and I believe what the
Apostles said about Him. I take the Gospels as an historical
record of what Christ said simply BECAUSE the Church says that
the Gospels contain what Christ said, but I do not base my faith
on ONLY what the Bible says - I base my faith on the Apostles and
their successors. I believe that He established a Church so the
"manifold wisdom of God might now be made known THROUGH the
CHURCH..." (Ephesians 3:10) NOT the Bible ALONE. I believe
that he commanded obedience to the Church (Cf. Matthew 18:17)
because to obey the Church was to obey Him (Cf. Luke 10:16). When
that same Church declared certain books 'inspired' and other
'apocrypha', I believe them because I believe the Holy Spirit
speaks through them (Cf. John 14:26), but I have no reason to
believe, either in Jewish or Christian tradition, that God's
truth is restricted to writing only. The Church existed centuries
before the Bible. The Church MADE the Bible. The Bible did not
make the Church So, professor, my position is a linear
proposition. It begins with Christ ORALLY teaching the Gospel
message and appointing Apostles to continue that mission.
Likewise, the Apostles performed the same function and appointed
successors in their place in order to continue the oral tradition
of the Church (Cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15) , teaching orally FIRST
and later by letter WHEN THE NEED AROSE. (Can you imagine the
early Christians telling St. Timothy (Bishop of Ephesus) who was
the addressee of St. Paul's letters or St. Polycarp who knew St.
John personally, 'sorry guys, you are not the Apostles - we do
not recognize your authority"?)
Now, it is clear
that my position is not the endless circularity as you first
proposed. So, professor, BEFORE you even ask "by what
criteria do we decide what the New Testament says", you
should first ask yourself why you consider the Bible 'infallible'
or even complete IN THE FIRST PLACE; that is, why do you accept
the Bible as it stands now with its current composition of books
(66 or 73?)? On what AUTHORITY are you relying? Is it not man's
decision which decides what is canonical and what is not -
whether that is Martin Luther and the reformers or the Catholic
Church or Jewish rabbis? The question is, then, which group do we
listen to? And which group has the Holy Spirit and the authority
to make such a decision?
[I also find it
quite amusing that you remarked that the answer to interpretation
"is a sectarian one; that is, what MY denomination says is
the correct interpretation (which of course puts the human
authority of the denomination above the Bible itself.)" I
find this amusing not because this is the only logical outcome to
the mess which is 'sola scriptura', but because you seem to
impute it to Protestant 'denominations' who, at least
historically and theologically speaking, would NEVER put their
CHURCH over the Bible - that's a little too Catholic.]
One Tradition
or Many Contradicting Ones
In respect of the
early Church Fathers I cited which overwhelmingly support the
doctrine of Jesus as God, your response is essentially that this
position was not unanimous, representing only 'a part of
Christianity', and there were others who had opposing views.
Therefore, the question we come to is: WHO SPEAKS for
Christianity? And it is quite unsatisfactory to say that no one
can or no one has the authority to do so since that would
contradict Christ's own words, not to mention it being a
ridiculous proposition in and of itself. There are instances in
the Bible itself of the Apostles PUTTING DOWN AND SILENCING
dissent, signifying their authority to do so (Galatians 1:6-10, 1
Corinthians 4:21, 5:4-5, 5:12-13). Jesus, Himself, gave them
authority to do so (Cf. Matthew 18:17). Can you imagine if one of
the players on a hockey team wanted to do his own thing, and
decided to try and score on his own net? Do you not think that
the coach has every right to bench the player for his action, and
even kick him off the team if he continues in his obstinacy? Or
would you rather suggest a more 'tolerant' approach to
disciplining the player all the while watching him score on his
own net and losing the game for the rest of the team? So when the
Apostles leave this earth, does their authority disappear with
them, leaving the Church in utter confusion when false teachers
would introduce error, or as you put it 'various systems of
belief' irrespective of the Truth? Is that what you think God's
master plan is like?
[The idea of
tolerance prevailing in our day is one of the most abused and
butchered ideas. It is been sold as an absolute principle when in
fact it cannot be so. One does not 'tolerate' racism, yet one
scarcely hears any intelligent person 'tolerating' this ideology.
Hence, 'toleration' is by no means an absolute, universal
principle, and therefore should not be spoken of as such. Jesus
did not 'tolerate' sin. St. Paul was not 'tolerant' of those who
sought to dilute the Truth of the Gospel, nor were, for that
matter, many of the early Church Fathers 'tolerant' of those who
distorted the Gospel. It is rather irrational, therefore, to say
we should BLINDLY 'tolerate' one another's beliefs. It is the
same as saying we should tolerate and accept error in the
Christian Church - which is absurd (because there is, by
definition, only ONE Truth and many errors). I don't think that
the JWs should 'tolerate' Catholic doctrine if they believe it to
be false. I am not saying that people do not have a right to
choose or a right to believe. Indeed, we should be respectful of
that right. But, and it is a HUGE BUT, it is quite another matter
to say we should accept or tolerate something that is CONTRARY to
our own beliefs. Truth can never be found with such false
compassion and intellectual dwarfism. If I am wrong, I want you
to tell me that I am wrong, and then provide to me your reasons
for believing that I am wrong. In this politically correct world,
people have forgotten that there IS a right and there IS a wrong;
there IS Truth (with a capital 'T') and there is Error (with a
capital 'E').]
Yet, you seem
disturbed that I "persist in speaking of THE Christian
tradition as if there was only one true one." Read your
statement carefully professor (7th paragraph, 2nd line of your
last response). Read it again. Is it not rather strange? Let us
look at your assertion from an analytical point of view.
Premise 1: There
are many Christian traditions. Premise 2: These Christian
traditions teach opposing doctrines. Premise 3: God assents to
these traditions or 'systems of beliefs', and wants them to
continue to exist.
What is wrong with
these three premises which is implicit in your assertion? How do
you reconcile Premise 2 with Premise 3? Isn't it more likely that
God chose ONE tradition to communicate His truth definitively,
while other traditions are only true when they approach the ONE
tradition He established? I mean, your understanding can also be
used with other RELIGIONS as well - why restrict it to
Christianity? Why not say that Buddhism is as 'true' as
Christianity?
Trinity
I would also like
to address some of your comment concerning the Trinity.
You remarked,
"with the exception of the Gospel of John, no book in the NT
is willing to use the word 'god' to refer to Jesus." So what
are you trying to say? That we should take John's Gospel with a
grain of salt because it favours the Trinitarian formula?
In respect of the
Arian heresy, you claim that the Nicene Creed was a 'big problem'
when it was made, partly because of the 'homoousios' definition
which had never been used before. You go on to explain that the
'official church' rejected the creed and went over to Arianism.
Firstly, I do not deny that there was a 'big problem' in the
church. What I said was that Christian Tradition had always
believed in the divinity of Christ, and the Nicene Creed was a
formal definition of that belief. Just because we slap on a word
to better define and exclude other interpretations means very
little when that definition only seeks to re-affirm what
Christian Tradition had already held. 'Homoousios' ('of the same
substance') is the INESCAPABLE CONSEQUENCE of believing Jesus was
equal to God. I mean, it would be tantamount to saying that
chocolate cake is made of chocolate.
I realize that
there was fierce and a century long debate over the question, but
that does not affect my claim that much of Christian Tradition
had believed in the divinity of Christ beforehand. Jesus never
said that the gates of hell would not CHALLENGE His Church, but
He did promise that it would not PREVAIL against her (Cf. Matthew
16:18-19), which, by the way, it has never. Again, professor, the
question comes down to: who speaks for Christianity? Which brings
me to your point about the 'official church rejecting the creed
and going over to Arianism.' I would be very much interested to
know what you think comprises this 'official church', and what
makes you think that this 'official church' rejected the creed.
Who makes up this 'official church' and who and what must be
present in order for this 'official' church to 'officially' make
a doctrinal pronouncement against its original creed?
Incidentally, I find it rather ironic that you use the term
'official' as suggesting some kind of authority in the first
place.
In your response,
you noted that "several of the sources [I] quote do not in
fact hold the Orthodox view of the Trinity, but a
subordinationist one similar to Arianism." As an example, I
would presume that included in your assessment is St. Justin
Martyr who seemed to support a subordinationist view when he
wrote that Christ "holds a second place...we attribute to a
crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal
God..." (First Apology, 13). In my opinion, this is much
more ambiguous than other passages, which suggest that this
passage, being more ambiguous, should be reconsidered:
- His frequent
reference to 'worshipping' Jesus (First Apology, 6, 13; Second
Apology, 13)
- "They who
assert that the Son is the Father are proved to know neither the
Father, nor that the Father of all has a Son, who is the
first-born Word of God and is God." (First Apology, 63)
-"His Son,
who alone is properly called Son, who was both with Him and was
begotten by Him before anything was created, when in the
beginning the Father created and put everything in order through
Him. (Second Apology, 6)
-"It is
inescapable that this is the Christ of God, even if I be unable
to prove that He pre-existed as the Son of the Creator of all
things, being God..." (Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, 48)
But it is no great
revelation to admit that the Fathers of the early church do not
agree with each other with a precise mathematical unanimity, nor
could it be expected that they would. In any case, a particular
patristic text is not considered by the Church as 'proof' of a
particular doctrine in and of itself. They remain as propositions
to the Christian faith which must yet be answered, but answered
(with an affirmative or a negative) they must be! Christian truth
is proved by the Infallible Church Christ established. The
inherent value of the early Fathers is that they provide not only
propositions for the Christian faith, but in aggregate, they
demonstrate what the Church believes and teaches; and again, in
the aggregate, they provide a witness to the content of
Tradition, that Tradition which is itself a vehicle of
revelation, although not revelation itself.
So there you have
it, professor. I should be very interested in your rebuttals to
my views. I eagerly await your response....
Dear Mr. Pacheco,
Thank you for your
latest treatise. Of course I am teasing you, but seriously, I
appreciate your effort to put our discussion on another level and
to put forward your basic stance. Let me say that we are much
closer on several points than probably either of us initially
imagined. Specifically, I agree with you almost totally about the
untenability of the Protestant attitude towards the Bible. You
are quite correct about the history of the Bible's formation,
which is a long and complicated history. I can add to that the
historian's doubts about the authorship of several books of the
NT, as well as the notice of many other early Christian writings,
not found in the Bible, which are just as representative of early
Christian views as are the canonical books. The Catholic/Orthodox
position which insists that apostolic tradition plays a key role
in completing the total picture of the faith is a historically
valid claim which I take seriously.
The way in which I
couched our previous exchanges about the Bible were meant to
cover a number of positions, and I stated things rhetorically,
not necessarily in line with my own historical interpretation. I
do not presume divine inspiration of the Scriptures, since such a
thing is outside of academic research (as well as beyond human
ability to determine in any case), nor do i embrace the motto
sola scriptura. I was simply talking through a number of
reasoning points and raising questions. So we can accept that we
see eye to eye on much of this set of points.
As to the specific
question of apostolic succession, I still have a number of
problems with your thesis. Here are some examples: If we grant
the historicity of Jesus appointing a group of 12 primary
disciples (which I think has pretty good odds of being accurate),
we must ask why this college of twelve was not sustained, as it
apparently was meant to be in the first few chapters of Acts? Why
is the Catholic position that there is only one head of the
church rather than twelve? The power to bind and loose, seemingly
bestowed upon Peter alone, is in fact bestowed upon all of the
disciples later in Matthew (and, incidentally, the view of Peter
and the 12 is decidedly more negative in the Gospel of Mark).
Secondly, there is
the lack of historically reliable evidence for a succession of
bishops from the apostles. The sources for such a succession are
problematic historically, and often appear to be artificial
constructs with several contradictions among them. You also
neglect the point that for several hundred years bishops were not
appointed at all, but elected by their congregations. Often,
detailed transmission of teachings were not possible because the
previous bishop was dead. And there are several notorious
examples of pagans being elected directly to the position of
bishop without any prior Christian education at all (Ambrose of
Milan, Synesius of Cyrene, etc.). Thirdly, what emerges
historically in the 3rd and 4th centuries is a very diverse
Christinaity, with bishops (supposedly all in direct lines of
apostolic succession) with widely diverse views about such basic
things as the divinity of Christ, not to mention the many
"other" Christians, such as Gnostics, who also claim
apostolic succession for their leadership and teaching. Your
selective view of historical data has allowed you do find a
single line of passing authority when there were in fact many at
odds with each other. May I also point out that those
"pseudo-apostles" and false Christians Paul is fighting
so hard against in his letters are none other than James and
Peter, a fact which seems almost totally lost on modern
Christians. Paul accuses Peter of hypocrisy and of embracing
wrong views about the Christian message and community. Paul
himself was under suspicion by James of being the first Christian
heretic. The diversity of early Christianity goes all the way
back to the first generation. Many of these factions ultimately
reconciled with each other (the book of Acts is an early attempt
to achieve this), but other factions were simply wiped out by
force.
So, as a
historian, I must continue to question the simple picture of a
carefully maintained and orderly succession of leadership and
teaching in the early Church. But I agree with you completely
that the history of the development and transmission of ideas and
practices around and beyond the Bible itself is an essential part
of the story of Christianity. it is a shame that so few
Christians are even aware of it. I wish you well in your
researches. I hope you will excuse any of my earlier presumptions
that you needed to be educated on the basic facts of the Bible's
history, and put it down to the fact that I have been inundated
with exchanges with persons much less informed than yourself.
Best wishes, Jason
BeDuhn
[The Professor
continues...]
Dear Mr. Pacheco,
You may find that
in my last message i simply repeated or restated remarks made
before, which you have already challenged anew. nevertheless,
these points stand, even if you do not find them worthwhile. It
seems to me that you believe in a divine guidance of the
apostolic succession, such that an Ambrose, for example,
miraculously receives his gifts by guidance even though he had
not been taught by his predecessor (his receptions of the
sacraments and passing through all of the lower offices of the
Church before being seated as bishop was simply a quickly
executed pro forma exercise to legitimate his election -- but by
these acts, I think, you see him invested with the spiritual
guidance necessary to be a true bishop). Correct me if I'm wrong
in my interpretation. But divine guidance of the succession seems
important to you in the sense that the teachings passed on by
those succeeding bishops gives us the complete truth. If, on the
other hand, you admit that many of these bishops were unsavory
characters (including, of course, many popes), and that that does
not make their teaching illegitimate, you seem caught in an
impossible contradiction: that the spirit was guiding their words
but not their deeds. That's a pretty poor guardian of the truth.
i know full well the catholic position on the sacraments -- that
they work automatically without regard for the character of the
person who administers them. This naturally leads to the
developed doctrine about the pope acting ex cathedra as having
infallible authority regardless of other things the pope may do
or say. But of course many bishops and many popes have made very
formal declarations which have been later rejected or been the
source of embarassment. Where is the guidance in this? It seems
very selective. You refer to all the bishops speaking as one, as
a check on the abberations of any one. This has never happened...
never. The "unanimous" voice of the bishops has always
only been achieved by throwing some out (sometimes a few,
sometimes the majority!).
This convoluted
history of the church, I think, makes your confidence in
apostolic succession overly optimistic. Not that I expect that to
matter. I also think that your insistence on the selection of a
few to be rightly guided, and the necessity of mediators to
govern and interpret truth, flies in the face of the whole
message of Jesus concerning a direct individual relationship to
God the Father, and particularly his criticism of the Pharisees
precisely for setting themselves up as such mediators. Let me
also respond to your repeated snearing at what you take to be my
overly tolerant position towards diversity in Christianity. I can
only be disturbed by your enthusiasm for a policy of excising
from the chosen community those who differ in the smallest
fraction in their belief from THE TRUTH which, conveniently,
corresponds to your own views. And I must add that the
differences among modern Christians are very, very small compared
to what they have been in history. Certainly you must recognize
how attitudes such as yours have played a role in emboldening the
Church to act throughout history in the most abhorrent and
inexcusable manner towards supposed heretics. Even if you
yourself do not condone such acts, your stance supports their
intent. And this attitude, may i add, opposes that clearly
enunciated by Paul in the Letter to the Romans to accept
differences in the Church.
As always, best
wishes,
Jason BeDuhn
This is really
great. I'm having a great time talking to you. I hope you are
getting 1% of what I am getting out of it.
Let me try and
answer some of your questions regarding Apostolic Succession.
First, generally speaking, I believe in Apostolic succession for
essentially three reasons. The first reason is simply that it is
scriptural, as evidenced by Matthias' succession of Judas (Cf.
Acts 1:20-26). There is also a compelling case to be made with a
host of other passages BOTH in the Old and New Testaments.
(Consider, for instance, 1 Kings 19:15-16).
The second reason
is predicated on the first. I believe in an hierarchical Church
as the Bible clearly demonstrates (Cf. Matthew 18:16-18, Jude
1:11, Numbers 16:8-10,19-2, Acts 20:28, Titus 3:1, 1 Peter 5:5,
Hebrews 13:17, etc. [and I mean 'etc.']. It seems that the Church
Christ established should continue in the manner in which He
established it once the original Apostles died. The question
arises: who should I listen to if not the successors to the
Apostles, who knew the divinely inspired Apostles personally, and
therefore would be in a better position to judge what the Gospel
'is' not just what it 'can be'? These successors' weak personal
judgement would be preserved from error as Christ promised in
Matthew 18:18. Now, you may say that these words were directed at
the original Apostles only. I would find this objection rather
superficial since Christ words were surely meant not only for the
immediate generations of Christians, but all subsequent ones. And
if that promise was not directed to the successors of the
Apostles, then Christianity could NEVER be assured of the truth
when the 'gates of hell' would surely challenge it (Cf. Matthew
16:18). In essence, therefore, this is an argument from reason.
Thirdly, although
you do not recognize the historical reliability of Apostolic
Succession, I look to the early Church Fathers who, of course,
subscribed to this biblical arrangement. I have given you some of
their writings. By the way, what exactly do you mean when you say
there is a 'lack of historically reliable evidence for
succession'? Are you denying that the citings I have given you
are authentic? What measurable criteria are you asking for in
order for you to be convicted of this proposition?
Now for your
specific questions.
Your first
question concerns the number of Apostles, and why they weren't
maintained at twelve. First, depending on your interpretation, an
argument could be made that there were thirteen Apostles, the
original eleven, Matthias 'who was numbered with the eleven', and
St. Paul. Notwithstanding this, however, Jesus probably picked
twelve Apostles as a symbol of what the number represents,
namely, the entirety of the Church. It is understandable that
when Judas had gone to his place, the Apostles would want to
select someone else to replace him. Incidentally, an argument
could be made that the succession of Judas or the appointment by
God of St. Paul really demonstrates the principle of necessity
within the Church: as the need arises, more Apostles or
successors might be needed to fulfill God's design. As
Christianity grew, it would not be practical for the number '12'
to be literally adhered to for obvious reasons. A bishop is
responsible for his flock, and for practical management and
pastoring purposes, it naturally became necessary to increase the
number of successors as Christianity spread throughout the world.
The Bible no where restricts the number of bishops in the future,
nor does it even hint at doing so even in the Apostolic
community. I really believe this is a rather secondary issue to
the question, though, don't you professor? The 'number game' is
generally, in my experience, not a contention that poses serious
difficulty for people who are looking at the validity of
Apostolic succession. Even hard-core Fundamentalists usually do
not have a problem with this idea, which says a great deal.
And there is, of
course, the idea of the 'body of Christ', the Church, which is
found throughout St. Paul's letters, especially to the
Corinthians. Now, if the Church is truly a body in a symbolic
sense, we can expect it to grow from its infancy, holding true to
its original substance, but allowing for growth and development
in the definition of its doctrines. It is not unlike an infant or
a young child. No one would say that when this person attains
adulthood that it is not the SAME person. Sure, he may have grown
more hair (more Christians, more Bishops), his muscles might have
developed (Trinity, Original Sin, etc.) and he may know more
about himself. But his substance is the same - the same DNA, the
same soul, the same dimple...
Your second remark
that "for the first several hundred years, bishops were not
appointed at all, but elected by their congregations." Allow
me to clear up some misunderstandings. First of all, the Catholic
position holds to Apostolic Succession, not necessarily Apostolic
Appointment or Apostolic Election. The distinction between
election and appointment for a non-Catholic is significant, but
for Catholics the difference is insignificant. Why? Because a
bishop BECOMES a bishop through the consecration of another
bishop, not because he was 'appointed' or 'elected' by this
person or group of people. If the population want to 'elect' a
bishop, he does not become a bishop until and only until he is
validly consecrated. When he is consecrated, then he does not
succeed a particular Apostle or even a former successor, but
rather the college of Bishops succeeds the college of Apostles.
Now, you may see this as some kind of insignificant formality
which does not affect the 'politics' of a situation. I do not
discount that there are 'politics' involved, in fact, I eagerly
concede them (I'll tell you why later). The point I am trying to
make, however, is that lay people DO NOT and have not 'elected' a
bishop without a formal succession taking place. I should add
that today in dioceses around the world, while a new bishop of
the Catholic Church must be approved by Rome, it is usually
'made' on the RECOMMENDATION of the many parties, including
priests and interested lay people of that diocese.
I wish to address
some of the more secondary comments you made before returning to
the more substantial ones:
1) You assert that
there were 'bishops...with widely diverse views about such basic
things as the divinity of Christ.' Yes, you are correct when you
mentioned the Arian heresy in the Church swayed many bishops -
even most of them, but that does not affect my claim that the
Truth has always been preserved. Let me repeat my earlier
question for you: "Again, professor, the question comes down
to: who speaks for Christianity? Which brings me to your point
about the 'official church rejecting the creed and going over to
Arianism.' I would be very much interested to know what you think
comprises this 'official church', and what makes you think that
this 'official church' rejected the creed. Who makes up this
'official church' and who and what must be present in order for
this 'official' church to 'officially' make a doctrinal
pronouncement against its original creed?"
2) You claim that
the "Gnostics claimed Apostolic succession for their
leadership and teaching..." Now, I find this is a remarkable
claim since the Gnostics are OBJECTIVELY and DEFINITIVELY
anti-Christian in the first place. The Gnostics believed in
cosmological dualism where the body and matter are diametrically
opposed to each other. Spirit is morally good and matter is
morally evil. St. Paul EXPLICITY condemns this teaching (one of
his 'intolerant' tirades, I'm afraid) in 1 Timothy 4:3. Or what
about 'secret gnosis' which held that the written words of Jesus
in the New Testament are for the commoners and virtually
worthless for 'true salvation'. Now, far from wanting to claim
Apostolic Succession, I would think these guys would want to get
as far away from the Apostles as possible. But, you say, they
claimed Apostolic Succession. Let's see some proof.
3) You keep saying
that my historical data is 'selective', and that there are other
'authority structures'. Give me some evidence which shows another
group with such close ties with the original Apostles and their
teachings.
4) "Paul
accuses Peter of hypocrisy and of embracing wrong views about the
Christian message and community." Your first charge
indicates that you do not understand the Catholic conception of
infallibility. I presume you are referring to Galatians 2:11-14.
The subject here is, of course, the question of Gentile
circumcision which had ALREADY been decided at the Council of
Jerusalem in Acts 15 in favour of 'loosing' this requirement for
the Gentiles. Peter taught nothing in his action, and certainly
did not bind the Church to his action. Now, admittedly, he showed
PERSONAL weakness by not following the Church's teaching, but
this does not bear on the question of an infallible Church as I
will soon conclusively demonstrate.
5) "Paul
himself was under suspicion by James of being the first Christian
heretic." Now, this is a good one. Where did you come up
with this? The only thing that comes to mind is the Protestant
view that St. Paul and St. James were on the opposite sides of
the necessity of 'works' for justification. The Catholic
interpretation, of course, is the correct one since St. Paul's
'works' are the works of the Jewish ceremonial law while St.
James' 'works' are moral works, as clearly shown by the CONTEXTS
of the Book of Romans and Epistle of St. James.
6) "Many
bishops and popes have made very formal declarations which have
been later rejected or been the source of embarrassment."
Give me your justification for this where the declaration deals
with issues concerning faith or morals - this is the only sphere
of infallibility for the Church.
7) "You refer
to all the bishops speaking as one, as a check against the
aberration of any one. This has never happened...never. The
'unanimous' voice of the bishops has always been achieved by
throwing some out..." Professor, what I said was,
"...when it is not any individual bishop (except one in
particular) who can proclaim the truth, but bishops who speak in
unison." I thought I could get away with not speaking about
papal authority, but whose kidding whom? We both knew St. Peter's
successor would have to come into our discussion sooner or later.
I will give you my views on this shortly...
8) "...the
necessity of mediators to govern and interpret truth flies in the
face of the whole message of Jesus concerning a direct individual
relationship to God the Father, and particularly his criticism of
the Pharisees precisely for setting themselves up as
mediators." Is that so? While you may reject 'sola
scriptura', professor, you still are unduly influenced by the 'me
and Jesus' (or for you, 'me and God, the Father') theology of
Protestantism. The message of Jesus that you are reading is
starkly different to mine. Let me first say that I do not reject
a personal relationship with God, the Father or Jesus. I believe
that the Bible speaks of this and encourages it. In fact, I have
a personal relationship with Jesus myself, and I think it is very
important for people to have one. WHAT I DO REJECT AND WHAT THE
Bible REJECTS, IS THE IDEA OF 'ME AND JESUS' ALONE. If it were
really me and Jesus ALONE without any intermediary like the
Church, then how can you possibly reconcile the MULTITUDE of
passages which OUTRIGHTLY refute this thinking. Consider some of
these:
"And if he
refuses to listen to the them, tell it to the church; and if he
refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as the
Gentile and a tax-gatherer." (Matthew 18:18) Why should I
have to listen to the church if it's just me and Jesus?
"Receive the
Holy Spirit, 'If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have
been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any they have been
retained.'" Why would Jesus have the audacity to grant the
Apostles the power to retain sins i.e. not absolving someone of
sins? How does this reconcile with the 'me and Jesus' theology?
"Is anyone
among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and
let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the
Lord." (James 5:14). It seems to me that the church is in
the business of some kind of mediatorship services in this
passage, don't you think?
"Be on guard
for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit
has made you overseers [bishops], to shepherd the church of
God..." (Acts 20:28). Why should St. Paul care about
instructing the bishops about their flocks if he believed in the
'me and Jesus' ideal? Wouldn't that be meaningless if they had no
AUTHORITY over their flocks?
"I write so
that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the
household of God, which is the church of the living God, the
pillar and support of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:15). If the
church is the 'pillar of truth' and I am not with the church,
then where am I in the 'me and Jesus' relationship?
"Obey your
leaders, and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls
as those who will give an account." (Hebrews 13:17). Why
should a bishop be responsible for MY personal relationship with
Jesus Christ?
Good luck trying
to reconcile 1 Corinthians 12:12-31, where St. Paul develops the
'body of Christ', with the Protestant 'lone rangerism' you are
trying to defend.
But let's back up,
professor. You said, "Jesus' whole message concerning a
direct personal relationship..." Whose message? Jesus' or
yours? Are you claiming to know what Jesus' message is
DEFINITIVELY to the exclusion of other people or groups? If you
are, then how do I distinguish the validity of your message about
the Gospel from the 30,000 Protestant denominations that are out
there who have STILL SUBSTANTIALLY different Gospel messages? (We
didn't get to 30,000 denominations over minor squabbles over
peripheral issues.) What happens when your 'personal relationship
with God' and an Evangelical's 'personal relationship with God'
don't solve the question of Christ's divinity? Should I assume
that your personal relationship is more 'personal'? The question,
then, is: BY WHOSE AUTHORITY DO YOU SPEAK?
On the other hand,
if you deny that you are speaking DEFINITIVELY and you are only
giving your opinion and can be wrong, then why should I base my
salvation on someone who can be wrong and therefore lead me down
the garden path...
9) You noted that
"If... you admit that many of these bishops were unsavory
characters...and that that does not make their teaching
illegitimate, you seem to be caught in an impossible
contradiction: that the Spirit was guiding their words by not
their deeds. That's a poor guardian of the truth." Your
argument falls on not just one but SIX fronts, professor.
First, your are
employing the classical 'ad hominem' fallacious argument. The
fallacy uses the negative trait of a speaker as evidence that his
statement is false or his argument weak. (Does the fact that Bill
Clinton says that marriage is a sacred trust detract from the
TRUTH of his statement, regardless of his extramarital
activities?)
Secondly, Jesus
doesn't seem to agree with you either: "The scribes and the
Pharisees have seated themselves in the Chair of Moses;
therefore, ALL THAT THEY TELL YOU, DO AND OBSERVE, but do not do
according to their deeds for they say things and do not do
them" (Matthew 23:2). So, in other words, professor, the
fact that Pope Leo X intended to 'enjoy his pontificate' has no
bearing on the truth of his teaching. There is little doubt that
some Bishops and some Popes were, admittedly, not the holiest of
men, but the real question is: Does this give individuals within
the Church the right to usurp the authority which Christ had
established in His Church? It must be remembered that Jesus
picked Peter not because of his human failings, but despite them,
which goes to show how Divine wisdom can so transcend human
faults. In fact, despite Peter's betrayal of Jesus, Christ still
affirms his position as the shepherd of the Christian flock AFTER
his betrayal (Cf. John 21:15-17). If impeccability would be a
criteria for leadership then NO APOSTLE or disciple could claim
the leadership role, least of all Judas who was still an Apostle
with authority, and who Christ knew would betray Him.
There are also
instances from the Old Testament. For example, there is the case
of King Saul and David. "Then Abishai said to David, 'Today
God has delivered your enemy into your hand; now therefore,
please let me strike him with the spear to the ground with one
stroke, and I will not strike him the second time.' But David
said to Abishai, 'Do not destroy him, for who can stretch out his
hand against the Lord's anointed and be without guilt?...The Lord
forbid that I should stretch out my hand against the Lord's
anointed..." (1 Samuel 26:8-11). Saul did not live up to his
vocation to be King, but even David did not reject Saul's
authority to lead because Saul, for all of his faults, was God's
anointed. And what about King David and Bathsheba? Did King David
forfeit his right to rule or write the Psalms because he was
guilty of conspiracy to murder and adultery? God did not seem to
think so when He used King David to communicate His inspired,
inerrant Word.
The most
compelling evidence, however, is found in the Holy Family itself.
In the Holy Family, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God Himself and
the maker of the universe, was trying to teach a very important
lesson for those who want to link impeccability with authority in
an indiscriminate manner. Becoming a mere infant, Christ
submitted to the authority and in complete obedience to Mary and
Joseph (Cf. Luke 2:51). Did Jesus say to His parents, 'I am
perfect, therefore, I do not recognize your authority over me?'
No, He did not. He obeyed His Father's will, and subjected
Himself to a finite, imperfect creature and SINNER - St. Joseph.
The case is clear,
is it not? Nowhere is impeccability a requirement for authority.
It is no more true in the Bible than it is in everyday life.
Thirdly, examine
your argument analytically.
Premise 1: There
is a truth. Premise 2: Only those who are impeccable can give it.
Premise 3: No one is impeccable. Conclusion: No one can know the
truth.
Which premise do
you reject? I can reject Premise 2, and therefore reject the
conclusion. What are you going to do?
Fourthly, the
evidence of bad Popes actually supports the Catholic position
more than it detracts from it. In fact, I would rather be arguing
from the stance that ALL Popes were rogues rather than just a
small number of them. (But alas, the great majority were holy and
Godly men.) Why do I say this? Because DESPITE weak and corrupt
Popes, error was not promulgated. What is the likelihood that
rogue Popes would NOT change doctrine or teach error if they were
not protected by divine intervention? Wouldn't it be easier, for
instance, for one of the more opulent Popes of the Renaissance to
teach against suffering or poverty. Did they? No, they did no
such thing. Is this a coincidence? It is NO coincidence. It is
the Holy Spirit preserving the truth through sinful and decadent
men of the time, and allowing the truth to survive man's fallen
nature.
Fifthly, the
argument you have posited as a universal maxim is thoroughly
impoverished. To link eternal, transcendent Truth to the failings
of individual human beings is absurd. Even secular society does
not accept that idea. Can you imagine if a convicted thief when
asked to justify his action to a judge said, 'Gee, your honour I
couldn't help myself.' Does the judge say, 'You poor man, the law
is so oppressive, let's change it!!!'
Finally, for the
sake of this argument, I am going to disregard the above
arguments and take the general maxim you have proposed: merit =
the right to teach. Now, you have accused me of being 'selective'
in my citings of early Christian tradition, a fact which you must
still establish. But let's put the proverbial shoe on the other
foot, professor. If you say that only those who are impeccable
can speak definitively or that only the closest group to this
standard are to be heard, then who should this person or group
be? You SELECTIVELY bring up the Church's sins, but how
CONVENIENTLY you ignore the INFINITE good that the Church has
done in this world. In fact, the good the Church has done
throughout history DWARFS not only its sins, but ALL other
religious organizations.
So not only then
does your argument not hold up on the outside (first five
refutations), but it falls badly inside as well (last
refutation).
10) "I can
only be disturbed by your enthusiasm for a policy of excising
from the chosen community those who differ in the smallest
fraction in their belief from THE TRUTH..." I guess you
didn't look up the references that I cited when you asked
essentially the same question in your last E-mail. Professor,
your argument is really not with me but with St. Paul (Cf.
Galatians 1:6-10, 1 Corinthians 4:21, 5:4-5, 5:12-13), and Jesus,
Himself (Cf. Matthew 18:17).
11)
"Certainly you must recognize how attitudes such as yours
have played a role in emboldening the Church to act throughout
history in the most abhorrent and inexcusable manner towards
supposed heretics. Even if you yourself do not condone such acts,
your stance supports their intent." This is an absurd and
offensive suggestion. What does Timothy McVeigh, who wants
'smaller government', have to do with the millions of other law
abiding Americans who want the same thing? You guessed it -
McVeigh used immoral means, the others did not!!! Just because I
might believe in the same thing an overzealous person does is
IRRELEVANT to my alleged support of his actions. Anyway, what has
this got to do with the Truth? Are you trying to convince me
through another 'ad hominem' argument?
12) "And this
attitude, may I add, opposes that clearly enunciated by Paul in
the Letter to the Romans to accept differences in the
Church." Is that, right? Funny...I've spent the last year
doing an indepth study of the Book of Romans, and I don't seem to
get that message. How about a reference from Romans, professor.
While you're looking it up, consider this one from St. Paul's
letter to the Corinthians: "Now I exhort you, brethren, by
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree, and there
be no divisions among you, but you may be complete in the same
mind and in the same judgement" (1 Corinthians 1:10).
My final comments
are addressed to your inquiry regarding the Pope: "Why is
the Catholic position that there is only one head of the church
rather than twelve? The power to bind and loose, seemingly
bestowed upon Peter alone, is in fact bestowed upon all of the
disciples in Matthew?"
Matthew 16:17-19 -
"Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did
not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven. And I also say
to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My
church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I will
give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you
shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you
shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Matthew 18:19 -
"Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall
be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven."
The Catholic view
of theses passages is this: When the Pope alone, or with the
Bishops of the world united with him speak in matters of faith
and morals as public declarations of what the Church teaches,
then no error can occur. Papal infallibility is essentially a
'negative' charism, working as a check against error, while the
Bible is a 'positive' charism since it is the inspired word of
God. Let me give you some biblical reasons for the papacy:
Mark 14:37 - When
Jesus returned from praying and found the three Apostles
sleeping, Jesus asks Peter why he could not keep awake. The
relevant fact here is that all three Apostles were sleeping, but
Jesus specifically admonishes Peter only. This strongly suggests
that Peter was responsible for keeping the other two Apostles
awake.
Luke 22:31-32 -
Jesus tells Peter that during the height of the tribulation, he
'must strengthen your brothers'. This statement implicitly
recognizes that Peter is the head of the Apostles. It is the
leader of any group that strengthens the other members during the
tough times. This is precisely what happened as recounted in the
Acts of the Apostles.
John 21:15-19 -
Jesus asks Peter three times if he loves Him to counter Peter's
three-time denial during the Passion. Jesus asks Peter to watch
over the flock. The allusion to Peter being appointed the
shepherd of the flock is quite obvious. The shepherd, of course,
is the leader. The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep
(Cf. John 10:14-15). As Christ, the Good Shepherd, laid down His
life for His sheep, so did Peter and his immediate successors die
in martyrdom, literally fulfilling Christ's words. At the end of
this passage, Jesus predicts Peter's martyrdom.
Matthew 16:17-19 -
"Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did
not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven. And I also say
to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My
church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I will
give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you
shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you
shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
There are a number
of significant facts about this passage. First, realize that
Jesus frequently chose a location for teaching a significant
doctrine or making a serious revelation. Recall the Sermon on the
Mount, Jacob's Well in Samaria, Mt. Horeb for the
Transfiguration, and Jerusalem. Therefore, when Jesus spoke to
Peter and called him the rock on which He would build His church,
it is not surprising that He revealed this in Caesarea Philippi
(Cf. Matthew 16:13). The neighbourhood of Caesarea Philippi was
in the midst of a massive wall of rock rising over the source of
the Jordan. Here was the sacred river taking its origin through
an opening in a massive wall of rock, an opening which could
evoke the wide-open jaws of death. Against this backdrop, Jesus
spoke these words to Peter.
The significance
of Jesus changing Peter's name is also revealing. God only
changed someone's name twice before this occasion. In Genesis
17:5, God changed Abram's name to Abraham. By changing Abram's
name, there was a change in function and mission from shepherd to
founder of the Jewish nation. In Hebrew, Abram means 'exalted
father', and Abraham is rendered as 'chief of the multitude.'
Likewise, Jacob's name was changed to Israel in Genesis 32:28 in
order to change his function to be the founder of the twelve
tribes of Israel. So the fact that Jesus changes Peter's name
from Simon to 'Kepha' (Cf. John 1:42), and does not do so with
anyone else is significant in itself since it designates a
function of leadership not given to the others.
Jesus says: 'I
will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you
shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you
shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' The first
question to ask is: Who is the 'you' that Jesus is talking to or
about? Christ certainly would not be talking about Himself or
else He would have replaced 'you' with 'I'. He is clearly
speaking to Peter and giving him authority that no other Apostle,
much less disciple, has. Secondly, the language of 'binding and
loosing' is well-established rabbinic terminology for having the
authority to interpret the Torah and apply it to particular
cases, declaring what is permitted and what is not permitted (Cf.
Genesis 49:24; Isaiah 22:22).
"The power of
binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under
Queen Alexandra the Pharisees, says Josephus (War of the Jews
1:5:2), 'became the administrators of all public affairs so as to
be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as
to loose and bind.' The various schools had the power to 'bind
and loose'; that is, to forbid and to permit (Talmud: Ta'anit
12a). This power and authority vested in the rabbinical body of
each age or in the Sanhedrin, received its ratification and final
sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifna, Emor, ix;
Talmud: Makkot 23b).' In this sense Jesus, when appointing his
successors, he used the familiar formula (Matt. 16:19, 18:18). By
these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as
that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who
'bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but will not
move them with one of their fingers'; that is, 'loose them,' as
they have the power to do (Matthew 23:2-4)" - David H.
Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, (Clarksville, MD: Jewish
New Testament Publications, 1992), p.56-57.
The significance
of the keys expresses the meaning of authority and power
especially in Isaiah 22:15-25 (Cf. Matthew 23:13, Revelation
1:18, Revelation 3:7, Revelation 20:1). The prophet draws a
comparison between Shebna and Eliakim. Shebna shall be deprived
of his office, and Eliakim shall succeed him. The office is
symbolized by the possession of the keys which empower its
holders to 'open' and 'shut': "Then I will set the key of
the house of David on his shoulder, when he opens no one will
shut, when he shuts no one will open" (Isaiah 22:22). The
keeper of the keys was one of the most important roles a
household servant could hold (Cf. Mark 13:32-34). In David's
kingdom, 'the House of David', was established in the 11th
century B.C. The first thirty-nine chapters of Isaiah was written
in the 8th century B.C. Hence, the keys had been passed down in
succession for approximately three centuries. The descendants of
the house of Judah include King David (Cf. Genesis 49:10, Micah
5:2), and his lineage which includes King Hezekiah (Cf. Isaiah
22) and the Messiah (Cf. Matthew 1). In Isaiah 22, Shebna acted
as overseer for King Hezekiah as Joseph did for the Pharaoh over
his house in Genesis 41. (The preceding information was sourced
from Jesus, Peter, and the Keys, Queenship Publishing,
1997).
Another revealing
fact is that the Prophet records that Shebna shall be 'hurled
out' and 'cast into a vast country to die', and he shall be
'deposed from his office' and be 'pulled down from his station'
(Cf. Isaiah 22:17-19). If Eliakim was the prototype of Peter,
then there should be a parallel of Shebna in the New Testament as
well. In fact, there is a remarkable parallel between Shebna and
the Scribes and the Pharisees, and in particular, the High Priest
of the Sanhedrin: 'The scribes and the Pharisees have seated
themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore, all that they tell
you, do and observe. But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from men'
(Matthew 23:2-3,13).
Far from
encouraging rebellion, however, Jesus commands his followers to
heed the 'seat of Moses' and implicitly recognizes the authority
that they have by using Old Testament rabbinic language such as
the power to 'shut off'. Until the New Covenant has been
established by Christ's death on the cross, therefore, the power
rested with them. After the redemption, however, the High
Priest's authority (Shebna) is passed on to Peter (Eliakim) who
receives the power of the keys from Jesus (King Hezekiah). In the
Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the master of the house, and has the
keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. In the Old Testament, God lays the
keys to the House of David on the Eliakim's shoulders with
authority and stewardship over that house. In the New Testament,
Jesus does the same with Peter: He entrusts him with the
authority to administer the House of God, the Church, until He
returns. This is not to say that the keys now belong to Peter.
Christ still holds the keys as a Master holds the ultimate
authority over his House, but holding authority certainly does
not preclude the Master from delegating it as He wishes. Hence,
Peter's successors would shoulder the responsibilities and
authority throughout the duration of the Church until Jesus
returns just as Ahishar, the first recorded palace administrator
(Cf. 1 Kings 4:6) who is given the identical title as Eliakim,
had successors flowing through the history of Israel.
"So we stand
there and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other
keys. Yet, Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will
give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys,
but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has and no others. It
is as if He were saying: 'Why are you staring heavenward in
search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter?
They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in
heaven. I left them on earth. Don't look for them in heaven or
anywhere else except in Peter's mouth where I have placed them.
Peter's mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His
office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and
loosing.'" And who do you suppose espoused this very
CATHOLIC view? A Pope? A Priest? A Catholic theologian? No - but
Luther himself!!! (Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff,
ed., trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergedoff, Luther's Works, vol.
40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p 365-366)
An interesting
comparison can be made between Joseph, one of the Patriarchs and
a son of Jacob in the Old Testament, and Peter, the Apostle in
the New Testament. Each was a member of a preferred community of
twelve men who were favourable to God - Joseph as a Patriarch in
the Old Israel (Cf. Exodus 1:1-5) and Peter as an Apostle of the
Lord. Both also had leadership positions in their communities. A
striking parallel can also be drawn from Genesis 49:24 -
"His bow rested upon the strong, and the bands of his arms
were loosed, by the hands of the mighty one of Jacob: thence he
came forth a pastor, the stone of Israel." When comparing
this passage with Matthew 16:18-19, it cannot be denied that the
passages are remarkably similar. Peter is allowed to 'loosen',
being given the authority from 'the mighty one of Jacob', Jesus.
Furthermore, he is the pastor of the New Israel, being given the
authority to 'loose and bind', and he is the 'stone' on which
Christ builds His Church. Finally, Peter's distinguished position
among his brothers is most forcefully prophesized later in the
same chapter of Genesis: "The blessings of your father have
surpassed the blessings of my ancestors up to the utmost bound of
the everlasting hills; May they be on the head of Joseph, and on
the crown of the head of the one distinguished among his
brothers." (Genesis 49:26, Cf. Deuteronomy 33:16)
Jesus asks the
Apostles who they think He is. When Peter affirms the divinity of
Christ, Jesus calls him "blessed" because the Eternal
Father has revealed Jesus' true identity to Peter only. Moreover,
Jesus then says "you are Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my church, and the gates of the hell shall not prevail
against it". The Catholic position understands that Jesus
was referring to Peter as "the rock" while the
Protestant position holds the "rock" to mean Jesus or
perhaps the Faith itself. Through a careful analysis, however, it
is clear that the "rock" does indeed refer to Peter.
First of all, it is Peter who identifies Jesus as the Messiah,
and it is Jesus, as to confirm Peter's pre-eminence among his
brothers, who says to Peter, "you are Peter" and then
refers to the "rock". If Jesus was talking about
Himself and not Peter, then why did he preface this conversation
by identifying Peter immediately before alluding to the
"rock"; that is, what would be the significance of
saying "you are Peter"? The passage would not make any
sense.
Catholic opponents
then appeal to the Greek to make their point. They note the
Simon's name was changed to 'Petros', which is a masculine noun
while the rock is understood as 'petra', a feminine noun. Thus
the passage would read: "You are Petros, and upon this petra
I will build my church." The alleged problem, therefore,
with the Catholic interpretation is that Petros is a small stone
while petra is a large rock. Hence, Jesus was not referring to
Peter when He said, "upon this rock [petra not Petros], I
will build my church."
There are a number
of striking difficulties with this objection. First of all,
"petros" and "petra" are not necessarily
incompatible, and if the Gospel writer wanted to make the
distinction more forcefully, he could have used the more common
Greek word 'lithos', meaning a stone of any size. Secondly,
Christ did not speak Greek but Aramaic, whose word for 'rock' is
'kepha'. So when Jesus changed Peter's name in John 1:42, it was
rendered 'Kepha'. Hence, there would be no confusion in
understanding Jesus' teaching in Matthew 16:18: "You are
Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church." The
problem in Greek, as it is in other languages, is that one cannot
conjugate a linguistically feminine name "rock", into a
personal male name for rock. In Aramaic, there is no need to do
this, and Aramaic was the original language of the Gospel. (And
in Aramaic, the kepha is rock not 'evna' which means 'a little
stone')
Conjugation
required:
Greek: "You
are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church."
Spanish: "You are Pedro, and upon this piedra I will build
my church." Italian: "You are Pietro, and upon this
pietra I will build my church."
No conjugation
required:
Aramaic: "You
are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church."
French: "You are Pierre, and upon this pierre I will build
my church." English: "You are Rock (Peter which means
rock), and upon this rock I will build my church."
While the
"rock" is principally rendered to God (Cf. Psalm 18:2,
31, 46), it also signifies a solid foundation on which Christians
can rely to secure their faith. This interpretation is supported
by Isaiah 51:1-2, which refers to Abraham. The role of this
foundation is further described as being built upon the
foundation of the Apostles and prophets with Jesus as the
cornerstone (Cf. Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14).
In response to the
Catholic rebuttal, opponents say "in his expression 'on this
rock', Jesus used a feminine demonstrative pronoun, translated
'this', which he would not have done had he meant that Peter is
the rock on which his congregation was to be built. It was no
doubt, because this feminine demonstrative pronoun made it
apparent that Jesus intended to distinguish between Peter and the
rock on which his congregation was to be built that Matthew when
translating into Greek used two different nouns, 'Petros' and
'petra.' Even in the Aramaic (Syriac) version the distinction is
apparent from a difference in the gender of the particle
preceeding the word ki'pha', used for both 'Peter' and 'rock'.
The masculine verbal pronoun ('hu') precedes 'Peter', but 'rock'
is preceded by the feminine demonstrative adjective
('hade')".
The old Syriac
translation of the New Testament renders the passage like this:
"Anather-her Kipha, v'all hode Kipha." The Arabic
translation has 'alsachra' ('rock') in both cases as well. The
proper translation, therefore, is clear: "You are Rock, and
upon this Rock I will build my Church." Now, since the word
'rock' is used in both places so the Petros-Petra argument, as
far as the word 'rock' is concerned, falls.
Now, the opponent
will turn to a more precise grammatical argument, noting that the
demonstrative adjective 'this' is feminine, while the masculine
pronoun, 'you', used for Peter is masculin. BECAUSE of this
feminine-masculine grammatical difference, the opponent tries to
refute the Catholic understanding stating, "It was no doubt,
because this feminine demonstrative pronoun made it apparent that
Jesus intended to distinguish between Peter and the rock."
THIS IS FALSE.. The word 'rock' is a FEMININE NOUN in both Greek
AND Aramaic, and therefore a feminine demonstrative pronoun
'this' MUST be used in the Greek as well as in the Aramaic (there
is no choice in the matter).
So, there you have
it, professor. I await your response...
Yours truly,
John Pacheco
John Pacheco
May 13, 1998
