|
HomeScriptureLiturgyProtestantismModernismJudaismMary, Saints, the Interior LifeMorals and CultureVerseSpeakingLinks
|
Questions and Answers27. Did Vatican I Erroneously Claim the Unanimous Support of the Church Fathers?26. Upon What Scriptural Basis Do You Say That Justification Is a Process? 25. By What Authority Do You Do Apologetics? 24. Does 1 Corinthians 3 Teach Purgatory? 23. How Does One Reconcile Paul and James on Justification? 22. What Are the Best Arguments to Use with Mormons? 21. How Can Catholics and Muslims Be Said to Worship the Same God? 20. What Does It Mean that Time Is a Metaphysical Accident? 19. What Distinguishes the Son from the Spirit in Eastern Orthodox Theology? 18. Why Does Daniel 9:25 Divide the Weeks? 17. Is It Superfluous to Cite 2 Thess 2:15 against Sola Scriptura? 16. Is Oversleeping Gravely Sinful? 15. Does Sirach 24 Teach a Primordial Torah? 14. Do Orthodox Jews Pray Daily for the Destruction of Christians? 13. Clarification on the Knowledge of Christ 12. Was Christ Omniscient while on Earth? 11. Can the Church Command Us to Celebrate Christmas? 10. Do Protestants Think that Justification and Righteousness are Synonyms? 9. Do Ancient Codices Support the Protestant View of the Canon? 8. Does the Epistle to the Hebrews Destroy the Mass? 7. Where Is the One True Church? 6. Is the Latin Church Schismatic? 5. How Can We Prove the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary? 4. Does Psalm 69:8 Refute the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? 3. Will the Jerusalem Temple Be Rebuilt in the Last Days? 2. Does Exodus Condone Abortion and Slavery? 1. Does Goyim Mean "Cattle"? 27. Did Vatican I Erroneously Claim the Unanimous Support of the Church Fathers?
Dear Eric, The author of the article you reference commits a fundamental logical fallacy. He reads that the Catholic Church cannot hold any interpretation of Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, and concludes that the Catholic Church needs the unanimous consent of the Fathers to proclaim an interpretation of Scripture. There's a tremendous difference between these two statements, yet this author leaps right from one to the other. The reality is that the unanimous consent of the Fathers on the interpretation of Scripture is binding wherever it exists. However, in the absence of patristic unanimity, if the Fathers are divided or even silent on an interpretive issue, the Catholic Church may still define the meaning of the text. The Catholic Church doesn't need or claim to have the support of the unanimous consent of the Fathers for every authoritative Scriptural interpretation in her magisterial documents. In other words, the Catholic Church is bound by the existence of patristic unanimity, but not bound by its non-existence, by its presence, but not by its absence. This is the distinction which the author of the article you reference fails to make. You won't get very far basing your interpretation of Scripture on the unanimous consent of the Fathers. As Pius XII acknowledged, "there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous" (Divino Afflante Spiritu, 47). In most instances you will have to be content with the majority of the more prominent Fathers, whose interpretations form the basis of the Catholic exegetical tradition which you can see coalesced in commentaries like Haydock and a Lapide. Fr. Adrian Fortescue, in The Early Papacy, builds a convincing patristic case for papal infallibility. It is available from Ignatius Press. Finally, it is an exaggeration to say that no Church Fathers interpreted Revelation 12 to refer to Mary. As far as we are able to document from the writings which have come down to us, at least three of them did within the first six centuries of Christianity: Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 78.11; Quodvultdeus, Sermones de Symbolo III, I.4-6; Oecumenius, Commentarius in Apocalypsin 6. I can understand how the writings of certain Protestant apologists might give one the impression that no Church Fathers interpreted Revelation 12 to refer to Mary. However, one must always evaluate the writings of Protestant apologists critically, or, if one is not capable of doing so adequately, avoid them altogether. JMJ, 26. Upon What Scriptural Basis Do You Say That Justification Is a Process?
Dear John, I grant your comments on Romans 5:1 up to a point. Initial justification is "a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God" (Trent). This transition occurs as a discrete point in time, which the Christian can look back on and say "that is when I was justified." As a result of this past transition, the justified Christian presently possesses peace with God. However, that this peace is real and deep does not necessarily make it indestructible. God made a covenant of peace with all the descendants of Phineas (Num 25:12-13). Yet the Jewish priesthood was not invariably at peace with God (cf. Mal 1:6ff). 2 Samuel 10:19 says the Arameans made peace with Israel, but subsequently hostilities broke out again (1 Kings 20). The justification which a Christian has received in the past can be increased, lost, and regained. This is what I referred to as the process of justification. I already provided some biblical evidence to justify this view in my previous letter. St. Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 as a description of an act of justification, even though Abraham had been justified much earlier. He can do this because Abraham's act of faith in Genesis 15:6 resulted in God further justifying him. St. Paul also quotes Psalm 32:1-2, David's restoration to God after his murder and adultery, as a description of an act of justification, even though David had been justified previously. Furthermore, the parable of the prodigal son describes a man as being in his father's good graces, becoming dead to him, then becoming alive to him once again. This is a metaphor for the believer's standing with God. A few years ago I wrote a study of five other verses which teach that salvation can be lost. So, there is a sense in which justification is accomplished in a discrete act, namely the transition from the fallen state to the state of grace, and a sense in which it is ongoing, namely the preservation, increase, and (if lost) restoration of that state. Pax, 25. By What Authority Do You Do Apologetics?
Dear Anthony, I'm glad to hear you are exploring the claims of the Catholic Church. It will be a fascinating journey. As to your questions: (1) As a layman, my only "authority" is the strength of my arguments. Everyone who reads or listens to me must evaluate my words for themselves: for their conformity to Catholic teaching, for their logical soundness, etc. No one is bound in conscience to accept anything I say unless they are personally convinced by it. If you mean where do I get permission to do what I do, my pastor at St. Veronica Church approved the Sola Scriptura debate. A Catholic doesn't need permission to create a website, but I have always let the priests over me know about mine, and would take it offline if one told me to. (2) You can get a digest of the Church's claims and teachings in the Catechism or its Compendium. Beyond that you could go to the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Denzinger, and Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. These are all readily accessible, and the Compendium alone will suffice to impart a solid beginner's knowledge of the faith. It would be nice, granted, if a single book existed which was completely comprehensive of Catholic doctrine and available at any bookstore. Things are unfortunately a bit more difficult. But arguments about whether God would make things so difficult can cut both ways: why are so many passages of the Bible so difficult to exegete? (3) The Canon of Scripture became a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church through the local councils of Hippo and Carthage, and through Popes Damasus, Innocent I, Adrian I, and Nicholas I. It was dogmatically defined at the Council of Trent. (4) No, the Church Fathers are not inspired. There are nevertheless several reasons to give them credence. First, the earliest of them such as Clement and Ignatius were personal students of the Apostles. Wouldn't you expect someone who had been privileged to receive years of personal instruction from the Apostles to have a solid grasp of apostolic doctrine? Wouldn't you expect him to understand the Apostolic writings better than you? If Timothy or Titus wrote something, wouldn't you be very interested in what they had to say? Similarly, we should give credence to the next generation of Fathers, since they were personally instructed by men who had been personally instructed by the Apostles. Although they are not quite as historically proximate to the Apostles as the first generation, they are still far more proximate than we. Second, the Greek Fathers, quite naturally, spoke ancient Greek as their native language. The non-Greeks could learn the language from native speakers. No one has that privilege today. Third, the Fathers are eminent for sanctity, as you may discover by studying their writings and their lives. Personal sanctity, I'm sure you will admit, is an invaluable aid to rightly dividing the word of truth. Fourth, since most of the Fathers were bishops, or at least priests, God gave them the special graces of their offices. You're very welcome. Ben Douglass 24. Does 1 Corinthians 3 Teach Purgatory?
Dear Dave, It is perfectly legitimate to use 1 Cor 3:10-15 in support of Purgatory, as the Catechism does (Par. 1031). I agree with the comments on this passage in the Haydock Bible. I'll add a few more points. St. Paul says that the Christian man is God's building (v. 9). He and other Christian ministers are the architects who build up his Christian life (v. 10). I think it is probable that the "every man" of v. 10 refers to every Christian, not merely every minister, since the layman and the minister both bear responsibility for how the layman lives. It is together that they build the superstructure of the layman's life, for good (gold, etc.) or ill (wood, etc.). Moreover, the fire of v. 15 burns and destroys part of the building, and if we recall from v. 9, the Christian man is the building. Hence the fire burns him. The last clause says that the man is saved houtws... hws dia puros. The man is saved thusly, by this means, as through fire. That is, the fire serves as the instrument of his salvation by burning him and destroying his sins so that he may enter heaven. The Protestant interpretation, by contrast, which understands this passage as referring to ministers only, cannot adequately account for how the burning of v. 15 could be the instrument of the minister's salvation, for all it does is destroy his work and determine that he should receive no special reward for his ministry. Hence some of them interpret dia ("through") not in an instrumental, but in a spatial sense: the minister who builds with hay and stubble is saved like one escaping through the flames of a burning house, i.e., barely. This interpretation is excluded since hws dia puros is explanatory of houtws, "by this means." JMJ, 23. How Does One Reconcile Paul and James on Justification?
Dear John, Dr. Sproul is wrong to insist that taking "justification" to mean "vindication" in James 2:24 is the only way to reconcile it with Romans 3:28. For St. Paul does not say that man is justified by faith apart from all works, but apart from "works of the law." While Catholic exegetes have more than one theory as to what precisely St. Paul mean by "works of the law," all agree that they are to be distinguished from works of grace, which operate on the principle of 1 Cor 15:10: "I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me." Such works proceed from God and are referred back to His glory. And they justify. Sproul's perplexity with St. Paul having Abraham justified at Genesis 15 and St. James having him justified at Genesis 22 is easy to resolve once one realizes that justification is a process. This is why St. Paul can quote Genesis 15:6 as a description of an act of justification, even though Abraham had been justified much earlier, and why he can quote Psalm 32:1-2, David's restoration to God after his murder and adultery, as a description of an act of justification, even though David had been justified previously. This is also why St. James can teach that Abraham was further justified at Genesis 22 when he offered his son Isaac on the altar. In order to establish precedent for justification meaning vindication, Sproul can only cite a single idiomatic usage, whereas in New Testament theological discourse the term consistently means salvation. And by asking "can faith save him?" in James 2:24, St. James indicates that he is speaking of the theology of salvation. Sproul uses the NASB's "can that faith save him," but the Greek has the definite article, not a demonstrative pronoun. St. James uses the same formula, lit. "the faith" in 2:17, 20, 22 (twice), 26, meaning the same thing in each instance, viz., "faith." Verse 22 proves that he is not referring to false faith. Rather, contra Sproul, St. James is asking whether true faith alone is sufficient for salvation, or whether works must be added to it to complete it (v. 22). His answer is the latter (v. 24). Pax, 22. What Are the Best Arguments to Use with Mormons?
Dear Ryan, My favorite places to go with Mormons are the nature of God, the lack of archeological evidence for the book of Mormon, and the book of Abraham which is a proven fabrication. Mormons believe that God is an exalted man who lived on a planet and was a good Mormon, and that if you're a good Mormon you'll be exalted to godhood too. The God of Scripture is eternal, immutable, and absolutely unique. Second, Mormons have historically believed that two Iron Age Semitic civilizations called the Nephites and Lamanites flourished and waged great wars across the American continent in ancient times. There is no archeological evidence of this. So, BYU professors are now arguing that the whole book of Mormon story happened in some place in Mexico which is so small we should never expect to find it. The church hierarchy initially rejected this proposal as modernism, but has come to accept it, even though Joseph Smith clearly believed the story took place all across America (read his vision of Zelph the White Lamanite). In the same vein, Mormons used to believe (and many still do) that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of Native Americans. But genetics has proven that Native Americans are a Mongoloid people related to the Inuit and the peoples of central Asia. No Semitic ancestry can be detected in them. So, in 2006 the Mormon Church changed the introduction to the book of Mormon. Now, instead of asserting that the Lamanites are the "principal" ancestors of Native Americans, it asserts merely that they are "among" the ancestors of Native Americans, as if we can't detect the Semitic blood because it's just a drop in the bucket. Third, in 1835 Joseph Smith acquired Egyptian papyri from a traveling mummy exhibition, which he claimed to translate, thus producing the book of Abraham. In 1966, ten of these papyri, which were believed lost, were discovered in the archives of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. Qualified Egyptologists have determined that they are just typical Egyptian funerary texts. JMJ, 21. How Can Catholics and Muslims Be Said to Worship the Same God?
Dear Eric, The proper way to respond is that Vatican II is not in error; the one true God is the object of Muslim worship. This question is logically distinct from the questions of (i) whether Muslim worship is pleasing and acceptable to God, and (ii) whether Muslims can be saved. Not all worship whose object is the true God is necessarily pleasing to Him. Cf. Lev 10:1-2; Isa 1:11; Jer 6:20; Amos 5:21; Mal 1:10. It is possible to grant that Muslim worship is directed to the true God while simultaneously maintaining that Muslim worship as such is offensive to God (although a Muslim in invincible ignorance could perform a good act of the natural virtue of religion) and that Muslims cannot be saved. The Catholic Church has never denied that Muslims worship the true God, so Vatican II is not contradicting anything in Tradition. In fact, Nostra Aetate cites a letter of Pope St. Gregory VII to a Muslim king in which he acknowledges that they worship the same God. Granted, historically many Catholics have believed that Muslims worship a false God, however this belief largely derived from their misunderstandings about what Muslims believed. In the Song of Roland, a medieval Catholic poem, for example, the Muslims are portrayed as worshipping three idols: Mahound, Apollyon, and Termangant. JMJ, 20. What Does It Mean that Time Is a Metaphysical Accident?
Dear Sir, In metaphysics, "accidents" refer to properties of a thing which are not essential or definitional to its nature. The nine accidents, which are discussed in Aristotle's Categories, are quantity, quality, relation, action, passion, time, place, disposition, and rainment. So, for example, I exist at a particular time and in a particular place, but these things are not definitional to my nature, since I will still be the same person when I am in a different place at some time in the future. God, on the contrary, possesses no properties which are not essential to His being. Hence, He does not exist at one time, then another time, then another. He is supratemporal; there is no succession of time in Him. JMJ, 19. What Distinguishes the Son from the Spirit in Eastern Orthodox Theology?
Dear Nick, Ludwig Ott notes that the argument which you use here has always been the standard Latin argument against the Greek position. The Persons of the Trinity are distinguished only by their different relationships to one another. If the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, what distinguishes the Spirit from the Son? Nothing, for they bear the same relationship to the Father. Furthermore, in the Greek position, the Son and Spirit have only an indirect relationship with each other through the Father. In the Latin position each Person has a unique relationship, and a direct relationship with both other Persons. JMJ, 18. Why Does Daniel 9:25 Divide the Weeks?
Dear Mr. Pinyan, Yes, "62 weeks" refers to the same period of time in Daniel 9:25, 26. The best hypothesis as to the reason the 69 weeks are divided into 7 and 62 is that the first 7 represent the time during which Jerusalem was rebuilt. JMJ, 17. Is It Superfluous to Cite 2 Thess 2:15 against Sola Scriptura?
Dear Eric, To answer your first question, only the first draft of the Council of Trent's Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures contained the statement that divine revelation is contained partim in libris scriptis partim in sine scripto traditionibus ("partly in written books and partly in unwritten traditions"). The Fathers edited that statement. The final draft reads simply in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus ("in written books and unwritten traditions"). As such, the Fathers declined to explicitly endorse the partim-partim view. Their formulation leaves the question of material sufficiency open, since the decree as promulgated admits of the interpretation that all of divine revelation is contained in Scripture and all of divine revelation is contained in Tradition. Scripture and Tradition, then, would merely be two different modes by which God communicates to us the same doctrinal content. Now, White says that the partim-partim view of Scripture and Tradition was the view of the majority of the Fathers at Trent. For the sake of argument, I'll grant that this was the case. It is irrelevant. If the majority of the Fathers at a Council, or even all the Fathers at a Council, hold to a specific theological view, but decline to affirm it in Council, this view does not become the official teaching of the Catholic Church. To answer your second question, no, it is not superfluous for Catholics to point out that Protestants violate the command of 2 Thess 2:15. This goes even for Catholics who hold to material sufficiency, in spite of White's objection, which he voices for instance in his Dividing Line program of September 16, 2008, starting at minute 27. He characterizes Catholic apologists' arguments as follows: Scripture of itself is insufficient as a rule of faith, so we need to add something else to it. That something else is Tradition (2 Thess 2:15). White objects (my paraphrase, which anyone can check against his original words): You material sufficiency Catholics admit that since we possess Scripture, we already possess the whole content of Tradition anyway, so how then can you turn around and tell us that we are indeed missing something which we need to add to Scripture? I reply (N.B., the argument which follows assumes that material sufficiency is true. I personally have not made up my mind on this issue; I simply wish to demonstrate that White's objection is without merit): that which is obscure in Scripture may be clear in Tradition. Even though Protestants, in possessing Scripture (or at least most of it), possess the material content of revelation, they need another principle to actualize that material content by making them understand it. To speak practically, in one lifetime of study and without the guidance of Tradition they are never going to derive from Scripture the whole Catholic faith which they need to save their souls. Hence, Scripture alone is an insufficient rule of faith, and Protestants need to add Tradition to it, not because Tradition contains additional material content which is not in Scripture, but because Tradition is necessary to make the material content of Scripture intelligible to the extent necessary for it to serve as the rule of faith for the Church. Concrete illustration of this point will follow below. White insists: "Go back to the Thessalonians passage (2 Thess 2:15). How does that work? Paul hasn't even finished writing his letters yet. How can the tradition that he delivers to the Thessalonians be some kind of tradition about how to interpret what hasn't yet been written?" I reply: Tradition is propositional first and interpretative second. The Tradition which St. Paul delivered to the Thessalonians consisted of some or all of the same data which he would later write in his epistles, yet in different words, perhaps expounded at greater length, with greater opportunity to unpack dense concepts and to explain the meaning of sayings which, when he wrote the epistles, he simply assumed his readers would understand on the basis of their previous conversations. Thus the oral apostolic preaching and the written Scriptures would have had a mutually reinforcing effect in the minds of the Thessalonians. They would be able to understand the Scriptures better on the basis of the context provided by their previous conversations with St. Paul, and the Scriptures in turn would clarify for them things which they did not adequately grasp in St. Paul's preaching. Daniel Wallace explains how St. Paul's letters to the churches presuppose a shared preunderstanding between author and readers:
This, then, is how the Tradition which St. Paul delivered to the Thessalonians could be interpretive of an epistle which he would not write until years later. The Tradition provided the Thessalonians with the matrix of preunderstanding with St. Paul which rendered them, so to speak, native Bostonians hearing sides of the phone conversation. The Tradition contextualized St. Paul's letter and allowed the Thessalonians to, to a great extent, decompress and decode that which is, from our modern perspective, compressed and cryptic. (Incidentally, I disagree with Wallace's assertion that the modern interpreter's lack of preunderstanding can be overcome simply with sufficient study.) Catholic Tradition functions similarly today. We do not possess all the particulars of the preunderstanding which the Thessalonians possessed, but we nevertheless possess Catholic faith and morality, and this is the most important preunderstanding we could possibly share when reading St. Paul. To answer your third question, the Catholic Church has in fact dogmatically defined the interpretation of seven verses of Scripture. Granted, this is not a great number, especially in comparison with the size of the Bible. However, the Church can give Catholics unity in doctrine and morals without defining the meaning of specific Bible verses. And if two Catholics share the same doctrine, the same faith, they may hold fraternal disagreements about the application of this or that particular biblical passage without in any way compromising Catholic unity. In concrete terms, two Catholics can disagree over who is the woman of Revelation 12, while both assent to the dogma of the Assumption. Two Catholics can disagree over whether Dives is in Hell or Purgatory in Luke 16, while both believe in both Hell and Purgatory. This is different from disagreement over doctrine and morals themselves. Disagreement over doctrine and morals is rampant and incurable within Protestantism. It concerns matters necessary to salvation. It has eventuated in Protestants having thousands of Churches whereas according to Jesus they should only have one. On the other hand, in the Catholic rule of faith, such disagreement can be carefully managed (i.e., the Church may allow a legitimate plurality of views within Catholic theological discourse on a given issue, such as predestination, while setting certain clear boundaries) such that all parties remain in the one sheepfold. Moreover, the disagreement can potentially be resolved for ever by means of a dogmatic definition. By means of this process, Catholic theology can then develop dogma after dogma in logical progression, as mathematics continually develops theorem after theorem. Meanwhile, Protestants like Ra McLaughlin are still stuck at square one. Operating under Sola Scriptrura, without natural law, he can't even figure out that it's a sin to self-induce sexual climax or to sodomize one's wife (perhaps he would at least agree with the Ayatollah that these things are makrooh). Similarly, Protestants will never be able to resolve questions concerning the efficacy of baptism for salvation, the propriety of baptizing infants, or the possibility of losing one's salvation. Anyway, while I'm on the subject of James White and Sola Scriptura, I'll take the opportunity to respond to his lexical arguments with respect to the presence of the concept of "sufficiency" in 2 Tim 3:17. In short, a Catholic can gladly admit that everything he quoted from various lexicons is correct, and that the concept of sufficiency is in fact present in the sentence. The question is, what role does the concept of sufficiency play in the sentence? Is sufficiency attributed to Scripture (for this is what White would need in order to prove his case)? The answer is no. St. Paul sets the sufficiency (or completion) of the man of God as the goal in view, and he recommends Scripture as a means toward achieving that goal. In other words, this sentence says that Scripture is a means which is profitable towards bringing the man of God to his sufficiency/completion. It does not say that Scripture is the only means or a sufficient means to bring the man of God to his completion. Some analogies are in order. Lifting weights is a profitable means towards making a man a complete, well rounded baseball player. Studying mathematics is a profitable means towards making a man a complete engineer, fully equipped for every design task. Spraying plant food in a garden is a profitable means which is efficacious towards achieving the garden's completion/perfection. Yet, lifting weights alone will not make one a great baseball player, studying mathematics alone will not make one a competent engineer, and spraying plant food alone will not make a perfect garden. In the same way, Scripture is a profitable means which is efficacious towards the goal of perfecting the man of God and fully equipping him for every good work. This does not equate to Scripture alone being sufficient to render the man of God fully equipped for every good work. While we're at it, we can draw two biblical analogies as well. I quote from David Palm:
White might object that these passages use different Greek words than 2 Tim 3:17. However, recall that we are not disputing any of White's lexical information. This is a logical, not a lexical argument. That X is efficacious towards completing Y does not necessarily imply that X is of itself sufficient to complete Y. Scripture, Church leadership, and endurance are all efficacious towards bringing about the completion of the Christian. None of them are sufficient of themselves. So, in spite of White's claims, 2 Tim 3:17 does not say that Scripture is able to fully equip a man of God for every good work. It says that Scripture is a profitable instrument in the process of fully equipping a man of God for every good work. JMJ, 16. Is Oversleeping Gravely Sinful?
Dear Chris, Glad to see you have taken a shine to Gaelic blessings. I just hope you don't pick up my affinity for Gaelic insults as well. Sloth is only a mortal sin if, because of it, we refuse to fulfill some grave obligation. If my friend is suicidal and I say, "talking him out of this will be agonizing, and I'm tired, so I'm going to go back to bed," I sin mortally. On the other hand, if I sleep in on a Saturday and lose a few hours I would otherwise have spent reading Evelyn Waugh's Scoop, I do not sin mortally. At most, my oversleeping might evince a lack of charity, since I know that every waking moment is an opportunity to love and serve God which must be pressed to the full advantage, and that by sleeping unnecessarily long I am forsaking many such opportunities. This being the case, what I am saying to God by oversleeping is, "instead of doing the most good I could possibly do today, I prefer to do less good, because it is more comfortable." This might not be the highway to hell, but neither is it the way of perfection. JMJ, 15. Does Sirach 24 Teach a Primordial Torah?
Dear Ronald, I am inclined to apply Sirach 24 to Christ. It seems to be talking about the same Wisdom as Proverbs 8, and Proverbs 8 is of course a Christological passage as well. There is indeed a difficulty in explaining how the Wisdom of Sirach 24 can be identified with Christ, given that Sirach describes this Wisdom as created. And, unfortunately, while we possess about 68% of Sirach in the original Hebrew, chapter 24 is one of the passages which we are missing. As such, it is impossible to evaluate the appropriateness of the Greek and Latin translations of Sirach 24:9 (ektise me, creata sum [v. 14 in the Vulgate]). But if, for example, the underlying Hebrew word were qanah, this would solve our dilemma, for qanah can mean both to create and to possess, and indeed in this latter sense is applied to Christ in Proverbs 8:22. The Lord did not create Christ, but He did possess Christ in the beginning, before His works of old. Anyway, regardless how we are to solve this particular dilemma, I see several things in the text of Sirach 24 which point to a Christological interpretation. The following quotes are from the RSV-CE: "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, the first-born before all creatures. I ordained that an unfailing light should arise in the heavens, and I covered the earth like a mist" (v. 3). Since Christ is the Logos or Word of God, it is appropriate to refer to Him as coming forth from the mouth of God. Next, Sirach's description of Wisdom as "the first-born before all creatures" closely parallels St. Paul's description of Christ as "the first-born of all creation" (Col 1:15). Again, Sirach teaches that Wisdom ordained the creation of the sun. This parallels other biblical passages which teach that Christ was active in creation (cf. Prov 8:27-30; Col 1:16). Finally, Sirach teaches that during the creation of heaven and earth, Wisdom covered the earth like a mist. This seems to refer to Genesis 1:3, in which the Spirit of God is said to hover over the void, formless, and watery earth. The text of Genesis 1:3 may refer to the Person of the Holy Spirit, but we know from theology that all three Persons of the Holy Trinity are one in their operations ad extra, hence Genesis 1:3 is a proper description of Jesus as well. Sirach continues, "I dwelt in high places, and my throne was in a pillar of cloud" (v. 4). This could refer to the pillar of cloud which guided the Jews through the desert, and in which the Lord took His throne: "And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud" (Ex 13:21). Sirach again: "Alone I have made the circuit of the vault of heaven and have walked in the depths of the abyss" (v. 5). In Job 38:16-24, God, by means of a series of rhetorical questions, implies that He has walked "in the recesses of the deep" and "the place where light is distributed." If, as Sirach teaches, Wisdom "alone" has traveled to these places, then Wisdom must be God. Sirach again: "In every people and nation I have gotten a possession" (v. 6). As the Greek text of this verse stands, it is difficult not to see a parallel to the description of Christ in Revelation 5:9: "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." Furthermore, the Christological meaning of this verse is even clearer in the Vulgate. "In omni gente primatum habui" (v. 10, corresponding to v. 6 in the Greek). "In every nation I have had preeminence." The Syriac of this verse agrees with the Vulgate against the Greek, so the Vulgate translation is probably the authentic representation of the Hebrew. In this case, it is quite probable that Sirach is St. Paul's source for his statement in Colossians 1:18, "[Christ] is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent." So argues T. Francis Glasson, "Colossians 1:18, 15 and Sirach 24," Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 86, No. 2 (June, 1967), pp. 214-216. There truly is a lot of Sirach 24 in Colossians 1! I could go on, but for the moment will offer only one last observation. Verse 25 in the Vulgate text calls Wisdom the way and the truth and the life, and we of course know Who that is (cf. John 14:6). The cumulative weight of this evidence seems conclusive that Christ is the Wisdom of Sirach 24. Now, regarding your question on the primordial Torah. I am reticent to identify "the book of the covenant of the Most High God" (Sir 24:23) with the Wisdom who has been described in vv. 1-18. Rather, I would identify "the book of the covenant" with the series of commands and counsels which Wisdom delivers in vv. 19-22: "Come to me, you who desire me, and eat your fill of my produce... Whoever obeys me will not be put to shame, and those who work with my help will not sin." These words which Wisdom speaks in vv. 19-22 could well serve as a summary which captures the essence of the Law of Moses. On the other hand, if Hebrew Catholics want to call Jesus the primordial Torah as a synonym for St. John's Logos, albeit with a more Jewish flavor, that is their prerogative. JMJ, 14. Do Orthodox Jews Pray Daily for the Destruction of Christians? Ben - Do you know if the accusation here is accurate? (That Orthodox male Jews must pray daily this prayer for the destruction of Christans?) And for Christians let there be no hope, and may all the evil in an instant be destroyed and all thy enemies be cut down swiftly; and the evil ones uproot and break and destroy and humble soon in our days. Blessed are you Lord who breaks enemies and humbles sinners. (Birkat HaMinim, "Benediction" #12 of the Shmone Esreh (18 Benedictions) mandated by halacha to be prayed by every Orthodox Judaic male three times daily). Dear Father, Jews do recite the Birkat HaMinim frequently, but that prayer exists in many recensions and only one manuscript (Cairo Geniza) has ever been discovered which specifically targets Nazarenes, i.e., Christians. As such, "Christians" is a dishonest translation. No Jews name Christians in the Birkat HaMinim today and few have over the past 2000 years. The prayer's original wording, which some Jews might retain today, targets minim, or heretics/sectarians. This would be inclusive of Jewish Gnostics, Sadducees, Reform Jews, and yes, Jewish, but not Gentile, Christians. Other versions of the prayer target apostates, Epicureans, slanderers, or all doers of iniquity. You would have to talk to someone more knowledgable than me to find out the relative popularity of the various versions of the prayer among Jews today. JMJ, 13. Clarification on the Knowledge of Christ
Dear Matthew, I should have been clearer. By "rational knowledge" I meant experimental knowledge. Nevertheless, it is correct to say that Christ had no rational knowledge at conception. This leaves room for beatific and infused knowledge, because Christ's beatific and infused knowledge are intuitive, not rational, i.e., they are not gained through discursive reasoning. JMJ, 12. Was Christ Omniscient while on Earth? Recently I was very troubled when a Catholic student claimed that Christ was not omniscient while on the Earth. Hasn't this been condemned by countless fathers of the Church and even marked as modernism? How can this fit with Christ being "fully God?" Can a Catholic believe this? Dear Sir, Yes, to deny the omniscience of Christ is modernism. The decree Lamentabili Sane of the Holy Office under Pope St. Pius X condemned two propositions held by the modernists who deny the omniscience of Christ:
With good reason did St. Pius X condemn these propositions. To posit that Christ does not know all things is, as you suggest, incompatible with His being fully God. In order to be both fully God and fully man Christ must possess, wholly, naturally, and intact, every faculty proper to both His human soul and His divine soul. Therefore He must possess a human will and a divine will, and human intellect and a divine intellect, human knowledge and divine knowledge. If one denies Christ any of His attributes or faculties as man, then He has a mangled human nature. This is why the Church condemns monotheletism. On the other hand, if one separates Christ from any of His faculties or attributes as God, one separates Him from his divinity, since God, being simple, IS His attributes. God's intellect, will, wisdom and knowledge are all identical with His essence. Denial of the omniscience of Christ therefore leads directly to Arianism or Nestorianism. The key to orthodox Christology is the principle of predication. Everything which can be truly said of Christ in one of His natures can be truly said of His Person. God knows all things. Christ, as God, knows all things. Therefore Christ knows all things. It works in the other direction too. Christ, as man, suffered and died. Christ suffered and died. Therefore God suffered and died. Keep this principle in mind and you will be safe from all Christological heresies on all sides of the spectrum. This student who claimed that Christ was not omniscient while on earth was probably confused by Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32, which state, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." The Church understands this passage in the sense that Christ did not know the day or hour of the end of the world by means of His human knowledge. While on earth Christ's human, rational knowledge grew the same way ours does: by abstraction from sense data. He would have started out with no rational knowledge at His conception and grown steadily throughout His life as he continued to observe things and think. Therefore it is understandable that He would not know the end of time by means of His human knowledge. For further treatment of these and other questions, see St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica and Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange's commentary. JMJ, 11. Can the Church Command Us to Celebrate Christmas? Romans 14 seems to contradict the idea that one must celebrate Christmas. What does the chapter say? Dear Sir, In Romans 14, St. Paul is only dealing with the question of whether Christians should observe the Mosaic dietary laws and the Jewish Sabbath and holy days. His answer is to leave the question up to the conscience of the individual Christian. It does not follow from this passage that the Church has no power to command Christians to observe certain fasts or holy days. We see in Acts 15:28-29 that the Church does have the power to command Christians to fast from certain foods. To command Christians to observe certain holy days is part of the same power, the power of binding and loosing confided to the Church by our Lord (Matt 16:19; 18:18). God bless, 10. Do Protestants Think that Justification and Righteousness are Synonyms?
Dear Fred, Protestants don't believe that justification and righteousness are synonyms. In the Protestant view of salvation, justification consists in God crediting you with a righteousness you do not ontologically possess. In justification God decides that He is going to judge you as if you were Christ, which God is able to do because He already judged Christ as if He were you. This alien righteousness of Christ is the grounds based on which you are admitted to heaven. Your first bit of personal righteousness comes concomitantly with justification, and then grows gradually throughout your Christian life. But that righteousness is in no way the basis of your salvation. In the Catholic view, on the other hand, justification and sanctification are synonyms, because our personal righteousness is the grounds for our justification. God judges us for who we are, not as if we were Christ. Thus, it is when God sanctifies us, when he makes us righteous by His sovereign and efficacious grace, that he justifies us, because that sanctity is the grounds on which we are saved. JMJ, 9. Do Ancient Codices Support the Protestant View of the Canon?
Dear Leon, If someone had actually found a complete codex of the New Testament dating to 100 A.D., the whole world would be blaring with the wonderful news. This would be the happiest find ever for Christian apologetics and textual criticism. I think what your Pastor meant is that, based on scholarly reconstructions of the fragmentary evidence available, we can conclude that the New Testament was first bound in one volume around 100-130 A.D. That may very well have been the case. However, I don't see what relevance this has to Catholic-Protestant debates on the canon. There may have been complete NT codices in existence in the 2nd century, but people who did not believe that Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation were Scripture would have had their own codices without them. Who was right? That is why you need a Church guided by the Holy Spirit to make that judgment. Your pastor is right that no body of men can cause Scripture to be Scripture. The Church does not "create" the canon when it defines the list of biblical books. Rather, God inspired a certain number of books, and no others. All the Church does is accurately relate to us the historical fact of which books God has inspired. It does so infallibly, but this in no way makes the Church the master of the canon. It can only canonize whatever books God has inspired and told her to canonize. Your pastor's appeal to the alleged dedication of the Pharisees to Scripture is laughable. He's read the Gospels, so he should know that these rabbis were not at all devoted to Scripture. They were devoted to their traditions of men, and they were not adverse to grossly abusing Sacred Scripture in order to make it conform. The Pharisees at Jamnia were the spiritual blood-brothers of those who killed the prophets and killed Christ. So, it should not surprise us that they unjustly excluded several prophets from their canon of the Bible. To base one's argument, as your pastor does, on this group of Jews supposedly being scrupulously devoted to faithfully preserving all the legitimate writings that had come down from approved prophets, is ludicrous. Jesus told this school of rabbis that their father was the devil. Thirty years later, they did not suddenly become the sort of godly men who would never, heaven forbid, suppress authentic divine revelation. Finally, your pastor makes a good observation that human learning and the strength of rational arguments can never give you anything more than a relative certainty as to the contents of the canon. It can never give you the certainty of faith, i.e., the certainty which accepts that such and such books are Scripture on the authority of God. He doesn't realize it, but this leaves him in an epistemological quandry. How can he have divine faith in the Bible, how can he believe everything it contains on the authority of God Himself, with the same faith wherewith he believes that God could never lie, if he cannot know, on the authority of God, which books are in the Bible? How can he read Jude and say he believes it as on the authority of God, if he doesn't know for certain if it is from God? If all he has is highly trustworthy human opinion, which could be wrong, that Jude was written by God and not by man alone, I submit that he cannot say, "I believe in the contents of Jude on the authority of God." He can only offer Jude a conditional submission, i.e., "if you are inspired, I believe everything you say, although I'm not certain whether you are inspired." The same would apply by extension to each book of the Bible. He cannot believe the contents of the Bible with divine faith, with the unqualified adhesion of intellect and will to the authority of God revealing, if all he has is a human authority to tell him which books are in the Bible. He is always going to profess his faith with a caveat, "if you're Scripture, I believe you, and I think you're Scripture, but I'm not sure." Therefore he cannot simply say to Ezra, Nehemiah, Jude, or Peter, "I believe what you have written on the authority of God." I'll pray for the day when he will be able to say this. God bless, 8. Does the Epistle to the Hebrews Destroy the Mass?
Dear Jonas, You seem to be offering two distinct arguments here: first, that it is impossible for one to be a sacrificial victim before one has died, and second, because the New Testament was not "in force" prior to the Cross, New Testament rites carried out before the Cross would have had "no force", or no strength, as you prefer to say. 1) Your first premise is false. The levitical priests were able to bear the iniquity of the congregation (Lev 10:17) without themselves dying. "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit" (Psalm 51:17; cf. Phil 2:17; 4:18; Heb 13:15-16; 1 Pet 2:5). Anyone who offers one's merits (e.g., patient bearing of physical or spiritual suffering) to God as a gift offers himself as a sacrificial victim, and this, incidentally, is precisely what Christ did. The merit of Christ's sacrifice is not in His death per se, but in His obedience unto death. From this perspective, it is easy to see why Catholic theology holds all of Christ's sufferings, from conception to death, to be an efficacious redemptive sacrifice. So long as He was offering His sufferings to God in love, He was acting as a sacrificial victim and redeeming humanity. 2) That the New Testament was not yet "in force" prior to Christ's death simply means that the New Testament had not yet been established as a complete juridical and sacramental system, had not yet replaced the Jewish Law. It does not mean that no New Covenant rites could be performed or have any efficacy before the Cross. The Catholic Church recognizes an interim period during the life of Christ, in which the Mosaic Law was still "in force", but Christian rites, for example baptism (cf. John 3:22), were being introduced in preparation for the transition. God bless, 7. Where Is the One True Church?
Dear Don, I don't mind hearing from you at all. Feel free to write as much as you like. You should be able to rule out one of your contingencies with respect to the One True Church immediately: the Church became corrupted beyond recognition until Martin Luther revived it. Christ promised that the Church He established would be indefectible, so this situation is clearly impossible. Furthermore, if you have been convinced by Sungenis' three books of contra-Protestant apologetics, you can already see that Luther's main allegations of corruption (e.g., denying the supposed biblical doctrines of sola Scriptura and sola fide) were baseless. As for the Orthodox, they cannot be the true Church because the gates of hell, exercised through human sexual passion, have prevailed against them. They have apostatized from traditional Christian sexual morality, in that they accept contraception and three-strikes-and-you're-out divorce and remarriage. The Orthodox Church also has a long history of toadying to Caesar, and the circumstances of their departure from Catholic Communion are simply indefensible. I highly recommend the article on Photius which Fr. Adrian Fortescue wrote for the Catholic Encyclopedia. You might also want to read the life of Pope St. Martin I. Lastly, the Church is a high mountain to which all nations converge (Isa 2:2ff; Mic 4:1ff). Mountains are visible things. That should exclude an invisible Church. As for your second issue, Purgatory, I don't see why it is necessary to refer 1 Cor 3 to the present life. St. Paul mentions the Day, and I think it is fairly non-controversial that the "Day" refers to judgment day. About purity, in both Catholic and Protestant theology, men have to become ontologically (not just legally) pure in order to enter heaven. The difference is that Protestant theology says that this final sanctification happens immediately, whereas in Catholic theology it is a painful process. I actually don't see a necessary logical connection between imputed righteousness and the denial of Purgatory, since imputed righteousness is a doctrine about justification, and doesn't speak to the process of sanctification. Imputed righteousness leaves room for sanctification by fire on this earth, so why not in a place after death? I think it would be possible to construct an internally consistent theology which accepted both imputed righteousness and Purgatory. About St. Dismas, he died right after being baptized. God bless, 6. Is the Latin Church Schismatic? Good Morning: Dear Mr. Danford, If your only argument against Catholicism is that Catholics have committed murder in the past, you're also refuting your own religion. Perhaps you may have heard of the Chmielnicki pogroms or St. Andrew Bobola. You might also note the shameful cooperation of the Orthodox Churches in the Soviet Union in the Soviet persecution of Catholics, and the Eastern Church's reprehensible treatment of Pope St. Martin I. The Orthodox Church has already been conquered. It was conquered by human sexual passion. Your Church has apostatized from basic Christian sexual morality in allowing contraception and 3-strikes-and-you're-out divorce and remarriage. That is madness. God bless, 5. How Can We Prove the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary? What about the Assumption? That is not written is Scripture, so how can we prove this? Dear Sir, Several arguments for the Assumption of the Virgin Mary can be drawn from Scripture. Let's start with Psalm 45. Verses 6-7 read: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of joy above Your fellows." Clearly, this Psalm is addressed to Christ, since it speaks to "God", and refers to Him as having a God (cf. John 20:17). There are only two Persons who both are God and have a God, and since this Psalm does not address the Holy Spirit, it must be addressing Christ. It is interpreted, "Your throne, O God [the Son] is forever and ever... therefore God [the Father], your God, has annointed you..." This having been established, let's move on to verse 9: "At Your right hand stands the queen in gold from Ophir." Given that the King in this Psalm is Christ, the Queen in this Psalm can justly be seen as Mary. Indeed, several of the greatest exegetes in Christian history have applied this Psalm to Mary; Edward Sri, in Queen Mother (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2005) p. 33, mentions Sts. Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Bonaventure, and Thomas Aquinas. Further, in addition to the authority of these Doctors, we may note the similarity between God's words in Psalm 45:17 and Mary's words in Luke 1:48: "I will cause Your name to be remembered in all generations; Therefore the peoples will give You thanks forever and ever" (Psalm 45:17). "For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed" (Luke 1:48). Mary seems to be alluding to Psalm 45 as being fulfilled in her, which is not surprising, since the Magnificat consists almost entirely in quotations and allusions to the Old Testament. Thus, we may with good reason see Mary as the Queen who stands at the right hand of Christ "in gold from Ophir." It is also helpful to examine the symbolism of "gold from Ophir." This gold was the finest known to the Jews, such that "gold from Ophir" became a proverb for "the finest gold" (cf. 1 Chron 29:4; Job 22:24; 28:16; Psalm 45:9; Isaiah 13:12). Similarly, today we might refer to Russian caviar, French wine, or a German car, when we wanted to evoke the image of the most excellent caviar, wine, or car. Anyway, in order to obtain this gold, one had to go to extraordinary lengths; one had to build large ships and travel great distances (cf. 1 Kings 9:28; 22:48). Thus, when we read (Psalm 45:9) that Christ has exalted Mary to His "right hand" and has clother her with "gold from Ophir", we know that Christ has gone to extraordinary lenghts to grant His mother the highest possible honors. This does not seem to be compatible with the supposition that Christ allowed Mary's body to rot in the ground. I'll try to publish an essay on this topic soon, which will lay out additional biblical arguments, and address the history of the Assumption tradition in the early Church. I have already translated an article by a Spanish Jesuit on historical evidence for ancient Christian faith in the Assumption, which is available here. God bless, 4. Does Psalm 69:8 Refute the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? Psalm 69:8 says "sons of my mother", suggesting that Mary was not ever-virgin. How does that come out? Dear Sir, The "mother" refers to Israel, and "my mother's sons" refers to Jesus' fellow Jews, children of the same nation, not of the same immediate biological mother. God bless, 3. Will the Jerusalem Temple Be Rebuilt in the Last Days? Ezekiel 40-47 talks about a temple. Will a temple really be built at the end of the days? Dear Sir, There seem to be two basic schools of thought in Christian interpretation of the vision of Ezekiel 40-47. The first is that it was fulfilled within the Old Testament, when the Jews rebuilt the Temple after returning from the Babylonian captivity. Furthermore, according to this school, the vision has an allegorical application to the Christian Church. The second school of thought is that the vision doesn't refer to a physical Temple at all, but is entirely an allegory of the Christian Church. I tend to favor the second interpretation, since the Temple in Ezekiel 40-47 is described as much larger than Zerubabel's Temple ever was. I commented on Ezekiel 47 in one of my articles, mostly just paraphrasing the commentary in the haydock Bible: The Temple is the body of Our Lord, and the waters represent the Sacraments of the Church, which flowed forth from His right side when he was pierced with a lance by St. Longinus while he hung dead on the Cross on Calvary. Ezekiel adds moreover that trees (that is, Christian virtues) will grow in abundance where they are watered by this river (v. 7), and that this river will be filled with fishes (that is, Christians). For these waters heal and vivify all things that they touch. The fishermen (v. 10) are the apostles, who catch the fish "according to their kinds"; they make Christians from every race and nation under heaven. But what is most germane to the present discourse is that the waters flow east, into the Dead Sea (v. 8), and make it live. This expresses the truth of which we are treating on two levels. (1) No fish can live in the Dead Sea, but no matter how noxious it may be, these waters can cure it. (2) This was the location of Sodom and Gomorrah; even those who have fallen into that detestable crime of Sodom may be saved. God is able to restore even a festering corpse, yet more, even bare bones, yet more, mere dust, to the supernatural life of grace and communion with the thrice holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to whom be all glory and honor through all ages of ages. Amen. I don't know whether the Jerusalem Temple will be rebuilt in the last days. However, if it is rebuilt, it will not be a good thing. God has fulfilled and completed all sacrifices in Jesus Christ, so it would be senseless and even offensive to God to return to animal sacrifice. The book of Hebrews is very clear on this point. God bless, 2. Does Exodus Condone Abortion and Slavery?
Dear GA, On the abortion issue let me recommend the excellent article by Dr. Gary Butner "Exodus 21:22-25: Translations & Mistranslations." I'll quote his main points. (1) "The Hebrew word translated child or fruit 'yeled' is plural, hence children. The woman might be pregnant with twins. This is the same word used for babies and young children throughout the OT (Gen. 21:8; Ex. 2:3)." Therefore the translation "fetus" is gratuitous. (2) "The Hebrew word mistranslated miscarriage in this verse is 'yatsa,' which actually means to 'come out' or 'give birth.' This word is regularly used for live birth in the OT. In fact, it is never used for miscarriage, though it is used once for still birth. In this passage, as in virtually all OT texts, it refers to a live, though premature birth." (3) "It is very important to note the same writer used the normal word Hebrew word for miscarriage 'shakal' just two chapters later in Exodus 23:26. This clearly indicates the writer had something besides miscarriage in mind for the Exodus 21:22-25 passage." (4) "The Hebrew doesn't indicate if the injuries in question are those sustained by the woman or the child(ren). A reading, just by glancing at the order of the words (not a strong argument for Hebrew) and by the force of the case of the pronouns (a stronger argument) would indicate that the possible injuries are relative to either. The great Hebrew scholar, Umberto Cassuto, wrote, 'But if any mischief happen, that is, if the woman dies or the children die, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, etc.'" (5) "A literal translation for the whole sentence really should read, 'And when men struggle together and strike a pregnant woman [or wife] and her children come forth, but there is no injury, he shall certainly be fined, as the husband of the woman shall impose on him, and he shall give [or pay] in [the presence of] the judges; but if there shall be an injury, then you shall pay eye for eye, life for life.'" So, clearly, when properly translated this verse says nothing which supports the idea that unborn lives are worth less than born ones. If a man accidentally strikes a woman and causes her to go into labor, but neither the children nor the woman are injured, he pays a fine. If he causes injury to either, he must pay an eye for an eye. Regarding slavery, let me quote the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the same:
Finally, Exodus does not condone the beating of slaves; it says that the master is not punished by the Law for it. There are many things which the Law does not approve of, yet for which it stipulates no punishment (cf. Exodus 21:18-19). JMJ,
Marija, Goyim in Hebrew means "the nations." It is used in the Old Testament to refer to non-Jewish peoples (i.e., Gentiles) collectively (cf. Num 23:9). In Isaiah 65:1, Israel itself is called "goy", i.e., nation. The Septuagint Greek Bible and the New Testament both translate goyim as ethnoi (cf. Matt 4:15, which translates Isaiah 9:1; Luke 2:32, which translates Isaiah 42:6; Romans 2:24, which alludes to Ezekiel 36:20-21). In so far as the Jews have developed racist prejudices against Gentiles, the word goyim has taken on a pejorative sense. This comes out very clearly in the Yiddish insult "goyishe kop", which literally translates as Gentile head, and means "stupid." The medieval Kabbalistic litterature probably represents the most racist the Jews ever got, as goyim are indeed called cattle, foreskin, and derivatives of the demonic realm in the Zohar (Be-Reshit I:47a). But I haven't found any clear statement in the Talmud which indicates that its sages thought the same way. I have even found some quite explicit affirmations of the humanity of Gentiles, such as Rabbi Meir's suggestion that a Gentile who studies to Torah is like a High Priest (Sanhedrin 59A). Of course it's possible that some of the Talmudic sages regarded Gentiles as sub-human, since the Talmud is not a monolith. But there is scholarly argument over this, and I'm not prepared to state any conclusions. See the articles I referenced in footnote 73 of my Talmud article. JMJ, |
|
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ora pro nobis.
St. John Chrysostom, Ora pro nobis.
St. Pius X, Ora pro nobis.
Leo XIII, Ora pro nobis.
Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Ora pro nobis.
Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, Ora pro nobis.
St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Ora pro nobis.
St. Dominic, Ora pro nobis.
St. Francis, Ora pro nobis.
St. Edith Stein, Ora pro nobis.
St. Maximilian Kolbe, Ora pro nobis.
Alphonse Ratisbonne, Ora pro nobis.