|
Post by dianaholberg on Jul 7, 2008 21:53:02 GMT -5
Mestemia, One would think that context is a given, and yet until reading Catholic explanations of the betrothal of the Blessed Virgin, no Jewish context was ever provided to explain why Mary would intend to marry without the expectation of conceiving a child. Have you heard some other explanation? This one starts out with an appeal to authority. There is a difference between the fallacious "appeal to authority" and the reference to the earliest Christians as evidence of orthodox Christian belief. It is simply a fact not only that the earliest Christians all held to a virgin birth, but even the leading Protestant Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.) held to this belief. And before you say this is an "appeal to numbers", it is not the numbers which should impress anyone. It is the fact that Christian belief has been corrupted so horribly by speculation based only on word-by-word translations such as those offered here. As I hope you are aware by now, Sacred Tradition is God's Word passed from Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and from them to us by means of the Holy Spirit and an unbroken succession of bishops from then to today. So forgive me if your comparison of Holy Tradition to logical fallacy falls on deaf ears. ;D Which part do you consider to be begging the question? Sure it does. There is discussion of the typical interpretation based on the word-by-word translation of estai and andra in v.34, as well as a discussion of the linguistics surrounding the use of meta spoudes in v.39, followed by an analysis of the use of tapeinosis in the Magnificat. Those are all Greek words, dontcha know. Oh, and the most convincing point in the article for me is this: A first question about the narrative logic of the annuncation to Mary is this: what is the meaning of Mary's question itself? What precisely is she saying in 1:34? My first point is that when the reader first confronts Mary's question and ponders its logic in the narrative, she or he is likely to conclude that Mary is objecting to the announcement of birth on the basis of her virginity (contra Schaberg). There are several reasons for this. First, when Mary's character is introduced in 1:27, the narrator tells us twice that she is a virgin (parthenos). This can be emphasized because it is intrusive commentary by the narrator. The fact that the narrator finds it important to give us this information, and especially to repeat this information, can only mean that it is important for understanding the story. Readers would remember it when trying to figure out the logic of 1:34. [30] Our friend Jerry conveniently ignores the fact that St. Luke twice tells us that the Blessed Mary was a virgin, not once but twice (both times in v.27 -- it's highly unusual to have the same word used twice in a single phrase unless emphasis is intended). Which translation are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jul 7, 2008 22:07:26 GMT -5
The early evidence is that Matthew was not written in Greek, a conclusion supported by the current Pope. If so, the Greek word did not appear in Matthew's original gospel anyway. To what evidence are you referring? Also, what is your support for the claim that Pope Benedict XVI supports your belief in an Aramaic or Hebrew original? Scholars are divided on this question precisely because there is no "early evidence" which is definitive.
|
|
|
Post by jerry on Jul 7, 2008 23:30:59 GMT -5
Pope Benedict's statement was reported in the Weekly Edition in English of L’Osservatore Romano, 6 September 2006. In part, this report reads: On Wednesday morning, 30 August, the Holy Father... continued his Catecheses on the Church's apostolic ministry, commenting this time on St Matthew, the tax collector. The following is a translation of the Holy Father's Catechesis, given in Italian... “The Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew or Aramaic is no longer extant… “ A more extensive extract from this article is quoted in - Important News www.wallsofjericho.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=section&id=1&Itemid=2#News%201Alternatively, you can seek out L’Osservatore Romano, 6 September 2006.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 8, 2008 1:15:04 GMT -5
Mestemia, One would think that context is a given, and yet until reading Catholic explanations of the betrothal of the Blessed Virgin, no Jewish context was ever provided to explain why Mary would intend to marry without the expectation of conceiving a child. Who claims that Mary married with no expectations of having children? I have to say that I have no idea what you are talking about here. This one starts out with an appeal to authority. There is a difference between the fallacious "appeal to authority" and the reference to the earliest Christians as evidence of orthodox Christian belief. Appeal to tradition is not better than appeal to authority. It is simply a fact not only that the earliest Christians all held to a virgin birth, but even the leading Protestant Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.) held to this belief. Not a good argument seeing as they also believed that the sun orbited the Earth... And before you say this is an "appeal to numbers", it is not the numbers which should impress anyone. It is the fact that Christian belief has been corrupted so horribly by speculation based only on word-by-word translations such as those offered here. It is a combo of both appeal to numbers and appeal to authority. Problem is that the numbers do not impress me because they also believed the Sun orbited the Earth and because of this I have serious doubts about their authority. Corruption is only one of the problems that I refuse to dismiss on faith. As I hope you are aware by now, Sacred Tradition is God's Word passed from Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and from them to us by means of the Holy Spirit and an unbroken succession of bishops from then to today. So forgive me if your comparison of Holy Tradition to logical fallacy falls on deaf ears. ;D I understand that you take your Holy Tradition at face value. That is not my problem. My problem is that the article is a whole bunch of circular reasoning that is best suited for the choir. Which part do you consider to be begging the question? Pretty much all of it, honesty. If you do not already believe then that article will do nothing to make you believe. Sure it does. There is discussion of the typical interpretation based on the word-by-word translation of estai and andra in v.34, as well as a discussion of the linguistics surrounding the use of meta spoudes in v.39, followed by an analysis of the use of tapeinosis in the Magnificat. Those are all Greek words, dontcha know. Yet it does not present the verses in question in the original language. Which is what I said. Oh, and the most convincing point in the article for me is this: A first question about the narrative logic of the annuncation to Mary is this: what is the meaning of Mary's question itself? What precisely is she saying in 1:34? My first point is that when the reader first confronts Mary's question and ponders its logic in the narrative, she or he is likely to conclude that Mary is objecting to the announcement of birth on the basis of her virginity (contra Schaberg). There are several reasons for this. First, when Mary's character is introduced in 1:27, the narrator tells us twice that she is a virgin (parthenos). This can be emphasized because it is intrusive commentary by the narrator. The fact that the narrator finds it important to give us this information, and especially to repeat this information, can only mean that it is important for understanding the story. Readers would remember it when trying to figure out the logic of 1:34. [30] Our friend Jerry conveniently ignores the fact that St. Luke twice tells us that the Blessed Mary was a virgin, not once but twice (both times in v.27 -- it's highly unusual to have the same word used twice in a single phrase unless emphasis is intended). Which translation are you talking about? ANY translation. To base ones argument on the words used in any translation instead of the original seems pointless and merely an exercise in guessing games.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jul 8, 2008 6:42:09 GMT -5
Pope Benedict's statement was reported in the Weekly Edition in English of L’Osservatore Romano, 6 September 2006. In part, this report reads: On Wednesday morning, 30 August, the Holy Father... continued his Catecheses on the Church's apostolic ministry, commenting this time on St Matthew, the tax collector. The following is a translation of the Holy Father's Catechesis, given in Italian... “The Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew or Aramaic is no longer extant… “ A more extensive extract from this article is quoted in - Important News www.wallsofjericho.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=section&id=1&Itemid=2#News%201Alternatively, you can seek out L’Osservatore Romano, 6 September 2006. Actually that quote comes from Pope Benedict XVI's General Audience of August 30, 2006 -- though possibly L'Osservatore Romano reported on the quote later. Here is the complete context of the quote: Eusebius, the historian, adds this piece of information: "When Matthew, who had first preached among the Jews, decided also to reach out to other peoples, he wrote down the Gospel he preached in his mother tongue; thus, he sought to put in writing, for those whom he was leaving, what they would be losing with his departure" (ibid., III, 24, 6).
The Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew or Aramaic is no longer extant, but in the Greek Gospel that we possess we still continue to hear, in a certain way, the persuasive voice of the publican Matthew, who, having become an Apostle, continues to proclaim God's saving mercy to us. And let us listen to St Matthew's message, meditating upon it ever anew also to learn to stand up and follow Jesus with determination. [/u][/blockquote] Clearly the Pope was not speaking out against the use of translations, nor did he claim a particular language for the original Gospel of St. Matthew. Rather he -- like many "internet scholars" -- refers to Eusebius of Caesarea's single reference to St. Matthew's "mother tongue". A single reference is not considered to be in any way conclusive among scholars. Greek primacy continues to be prevalent over Aramaic primacy theories.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jul 8, 2008 6:45:51 GMT -5
Mestemia, One would think that context is a given, and yet until reading Catholic explanations of the betrothal of the Blessed Virgin, no Jewish context was ever provided to explain why Mary would intend to marry without the expectation of conceiving a child. Who claims that Mary married with no expectations of having children? I have to say that I have no idea what you are talking about here. That's because you're so busy trying to discard my comments that you haven't read with comprehension the Bible passage we're discussing. When the angel Gabriel approaches Mary and tells her she will bear a child, she responds with surprise: "How can this be?" Most betrothed women would not respond in this way. Most would respond with something like, "Of course I'm going to bear children! That's the security of a Jewish woman -- particularly one whose husband is so much older."
|
|
|
Post by jerry on Jul 8, 2008 7:26:34 GMT -5
Pope Benedict said a bit more than is printed in Reply 19. Here is a fuller extract of the article in which the Pope's words were reported. Readers can make up their own minds as to whether the Pope was asserting that Matthew wrote his gospel in either Hebrew or Aramaic. Pope Benedict's statement was reported in the Weekly Edition in English of L’Osservatore Romano, 6 September 2006, an extract of which appears below.
On Wednesday morning, 30 August, the Holy Father arrived by helicopter from his Summer Residence at Castel Gandolfo for the General Audience in the Vatican's Paul VI Audience Hall. The Pope continued his Catecheses on the Church's apostolic ministry, commenting this time on St Matthew, the tax collector. The following is a translation of the Holy Father's Catechesis, given in Italian.”
“Lastly, let us remember that the tradition of the ancient Church agrees in attributing to Matthew the paternity of the First Gospel. This had already begun with Bishop Papias of Hierapolis in Frisia, in about the year 130.
“He writes: "Matthew set down the words (of the Lord) in the Hebrew tongue and everyone interpreted them as best he could" (in Eusebius of Cesarea, Hist. Eccl. III, 39, 16).
“Eusebius, the historian, adds this piece of information: "When Matthew, who had first preached among the Jews, decided also to reach out to other peoples, he wrote down the Gospel he preached in his mother tongue; thus, he sought to put in writing, for those whom he was leaving, what they would be losing with his departure" (ibid., III, 24, 6).
“The Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew or Aramaic is no longer extant… “
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 8, 2008 7:36:20 GMT -5
Who claims that Mary married with no expectations of having children? I have to say that I have no idea what you are talking about here. That's because you're so busy trying to discard my comments that you haven't read with comprehension the Bible passage we're discussing. When the angel Gabriel approaches Mary and tells her she will bear a child, she responds with surprise: "How can this be?" Most betrothed women would not respond in this way. Most would respond with something like, "Of course I'm going to bear children! That's the security of a Jewish woman -- particularly one whose husband is so much older." What I find the most interesting (and puzzling) is how you failed to answer the question in your reply. It also seems you are confusing "comprehension" with "agreement"
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jul 8, 2008 22:34:46 GMT -5
I believe I did answer your question. Why do you believe I did not?
Oh, and to Jerry, I was the one who posted the link for folks to check for themselves. Regardless, Aramaic primacy is held by a minority.
Also, as I expect you already know, a General Audience holds extremely limited authority with regard to the origins of Sacred Scripture.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 9, 2008 2:34:04 GMT -5
how, exactly, does: That's because you're so busy trying to discard my comments that you haven't read with comprehension the Bible passage we're discussing.
When the angel Gabriel approaches Mary and tells her she will bear a child, she responds with surprise: "How can this be?"
Most betrothed women would not respond in this way. Most would respond with something like, "Of course I'm going to bear children! That's the security of a Jewish woman -- particularly one whose husband is so much older." answer the question: Who claims that Mary married with no expectations of having children?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jul 9, 2008 7:12:30 GMT -5
Oh, all right, I can spell it out. Anyone who reads the text as written will conclude from Mary's reaction to St. Gabriel's news that she was marrying without the intent of bearing children.
(It is also the orthodox Christian view, and is still the prevalent view in modern Christianity. That means that it is the view held by most Christians. Additionally, the virgin birth is Catholic dogma since it is part of the testimony of the Church.)
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jul 9, 2008 7:27:48 GMT -5
St. Jerome was the man who was chosen to make the first official translation of the Bible. He was also the Church Father to best "defend the virginity of Blessed Mary" in his treatise against Helvidius (the first theologian to propose that Mary had children, in 383 A.D.). It is interesting reading: THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF BLESSED MARY: Against Helvidius by St. Jerome
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 9, 2008 8:55:47 GMT -5
Oh, all right, I can spell it out. Anyone who reads the text as written will conclude from Mary's reaction to St. Gabriel's news that she was marrying without the intent of bearing children. Huh? Where did you get this idea? I most certainly did not. Though I would say that unless one was already in knowledge of the virgin birth concept, there is no way one could get the idea of a virgin birth from what is written (It is also the orthodox Christian view, and is still the prevalent view in modern Christianity. That means that it is the view held by most Christians. Additionally, the virgin birth is Catholic dogma since it is part of the testimony of the Church.) More appeal to numbers.... I understand that you accept all the appeals you present, but I do not. I am honestly rather surprised at all of your "choir" arguments.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jul 9, 2008 19:29:38 GMT -5
I am not making arguments, I am answering your questions.
How do you interpret a betrothed woman responding to the claim that she will bear a child with "How can this be?" I mean, I can think of other possibilities, such as she thought she was barren, but that is not the response she gave. She said, "How can this be, since I know no man?"
|
|
|
Post by jerry on Jul 9, 2008 19:53:05 GMT -5
The Churches have been very imaginative in developing explanations of biblical passages to fit their virgin birth story. Their claims surrounding Mary's question is a good illustration of this. Here a few more points to consider. 1. The "virgin birth prophecy" does not come from the OT, but from a Greek translation made some 500 years after the book of Isaiah was written. The Greek translated Isaiah's "young woman" as "virgin". It is claimed this "translation" was divinely inspired.
2. It is claimed that Matthew quoted this mistranslation and not what Isaiah said in Hebrew, even though Matthew said it was the prophecy "which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet" that was fulfilled.
3. It is claimed the NT has 2 genealogies of Joseph, even though they are different.
4. It is claimed that the NT has 2 genealogies of Joseph, but none of Jesus!
5. It is claimed that Jesus' Davidic descent was established through his foster father Joseph, even though the NT tells us that Jesus was born of the seed of David "according to the flesh".
6. It is claimed that Mary had a pact of perpetual virginity with Joseph, and this was the reason for her question to the angel.
7. It is claimed that Mary remained a virgin, even though the NT names 4 brothers of Jesus and refers to sisters.
And so on. Of course there is more to the story of how the Church has presented Jesus of Nazareth than these few points. There is also selective translations, inconsistent interpretations, doctrines established by "Church fathers" with a Greek mind interpreting a Hebrew book, etc. Perhaps these could best be explored in new threads.
|
|