Thanks for coming back for Mondays With Answers! This week’s question topically follows on heels of last week’s question, and I think it is a good progression given that the answer is closely related to some of the issues introduced last week. This week, we explore:
Why are there so many Christian denominations?
Much like last week had a deceptively simple answer that needed to be developed, this week also has an answer too simple to stand alone.
In short, at the heart of this question is a question of authority. The reason why there are so many Christian denominations is because at the heart of each new denomination that was started there was a reaction to a question of authority.
“Ahh, but wait…” you say, “What of Luther? Didn’t he break away from the Catholic Church because of the extra-biblical practices of the Catholic Church? You know, the whole ‘selling indulgences’ and clerical abuses bit?”
Indeed he did. However, what makes Luther different than, say, St. Benedict of the 5-6th Century, St. Gregory the Great of the 6-7th Century, or even St Gregory VII of the 11th Century, who each experienced their own forms of abuses of their own times? What is the difference between him and a whole host of “reformers” that preceded him; men such as Ximenes de Cisneros, John Colet, John Fisher, Gasparo Contarini and even Erasmus of Rotterdam. How about St. Ignatius of Loyola who’s work was in the heart of the Protestant revolt? We will explore that in a little bit.
If you haven’t in a while, read through Luther’s 95 Thesis. It is a relatively quick read.
Isn’t it interesting that the substance of Luther’s 95 Thesis actually presumes the authority of the Papacy and, by extension, the clergy while at the same time presupposes the validity of many of the Catholic practices not found in modern-day Protestantism? To those who say that Luther changed and later developed his views that are different than what the Catholic church teaches, again I say I agree. In fact, I agree to such an extent that the degree to which Luther’s views diverged so much from the church that he no longer recognized the validity of the Catholic Church or authority of the Pope is the point of which Luther ceased to be part of the ancient church and found himself part of a new, and in his view “restored,” church. Which takes us back to the heart of the issue: by what authority? Whatever answer to that question you have defines the rational for whatever group you may find yourself, and the question itself explains why – at least in that brief time with just Luther – there were two different ‘denominations’.
What of Henry VIII?… Need I explain? The question of authority seems self evident given Henry crowning himself the prince of the Church of England when he wouldn’t be issued a decree of divorce by the Church Universal.
And John Calvin? His Christianae Religionis Instituitio – better known as Institute, and to borrow from Hilaire Belloc’s words – produced a “church, a creed, a discipline, which could be set over against what had been for all these centuries (and what still is) the native church, creed, and discipline of Christian civilization.” In other words, Calvin created a framework from which the Protestant worldview can have recourse to authority. This is a framework that currently exists today even if tenets of Calvinist thoughts aren’t devoutly followed.
Each split ceased to recognize the authority of the parent group, and often the very justifications for such a split was used to justify further splinters still.
The issues leading to the Protestant revolt, and the circumstances during, are complicated. In fact, it can be argued that the conditions that allowed for a prolonged and persistent revolution was an inability of many of the church leadership to recognize their faults and with humility work to resolve the legitimate issues that were brought up. Hilaire Belloc (quoted above) gives an excellent cursory review of this period in his work How the Reformation Happened.
So, this brings us back to St. Ignatius et al. What sets them apart from Luther, Henry VIII, and John Calvin? Each one of them recognized something wrong with the Christian Church – from Ignatius to Calvin, and Gregory to Luther. Each one of them fought hard to reform and correct the injustices. What sets Ignatius et al. apart from Luther et al. is that St. Gregory’s reforms didn’t result in a new “church” or new “denomination.” St. Ignatius et al. worked within the Catholic church to accomplish the reforms that were needed – much like Luther originally set out to do. Ultimately what sets Luther et al apart from the former is that each ceased to recognize the authority of the parent church and set out on their own authority to “restore” what they thought should be the church.
Each succeeding denomination hinges its establishment on this question of authority.
I hope you find these Mondays with Answers worthwhile! Please, if you have any questions, feel free to post comments.
God Love You!
23 July 2012
"Monday's with Answers": Why Different Bible Versions?
Welcome to Mondays With Answers.
The concept of Mondays With Answers is to give me the opportunity to take a little more time during the week to do research and write an answer to questions about Christianity, more specifically Catholicism, that are substantial in nature. Not all topics will be uniquely Catholic, though, like case of this first edition:
This week’s question: Why are there so many different versions of the Bible and what makes one more accurate than the others?
This is a question I found perusing the internet. When I started thinking about it a little more, I think this is a common question that a lot of people don’t realize that they have. How many people have really stopped to think about why some bibles read differently than others? This is not to question anybody’s devotion to God or faithfulness to Sacred Scriptures. This is really just a question on the mechanics of what makes one version different than another.
The bottom-line answer: the differences have to do with translations.
This post won't go through all the different versions exhaustively. Instead, out of brevity, I will hit on the broad (general) differences. There will be principles brought up, though, that will more than likely be an explanation that applies to specific differences that may not be covered. If you have a question about a specific difference that wasn't covered feel free to ask. Please keep in mind that this isn't intended to be an academic dissertation so some liberty will be taken to try to keep this as brief as possible.
First, there is a general difference between a Catholic Bible and most Protestant Bibles. Catholic scriptures are the exact same in substance as what you will find in Protestant Scriptures. They are essentially of the same sources. That said, the Catholic Bible has a larger Old Testament with 7 more books called the Deuterocanonical books which Protestants know as “Apocryphal” books. I understand I may have introduced a few words that aren’t necessarily in everyday use, so here is a quick background:
The point of contention between the Catholic and Protestant listing of the Old Testament works has its roots with Luther early in the beginning of the Protestant revolt, and his relegating (among other New Testament books) the listed 7 books to an appendix in his translation of the bible.
Luther’s intent with his translation of the bible was to translate directly from Hebrew. At the time, the bible standard was what is known as the Latin Vulgate which was translated into Latin by St. Jerome. St. Jerome was a renown scripture scholar of his time (4th Century), and coined the following quote regarding Scripture: “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” Jerome was commissioned to do essentially what Luther set out to do: to create an accurate translation of scriptures as close to the source as possible.
Only, Jerome was dealing with a different problem. The issue that the Church was dealing with in the 4th century was that the Latin scriptures that they had were handwritten copies of copies of copies of...(well, you get my point). By the 4th century the Latin texts that they DID have varied from one another, and were to the point of being unreliable from possible additions and/or mistakes by copyists. Jerome had at his disposal Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the books of the Old Testament that were even considered ancient at HIS time. Jerome cross-referenced his work between these sources that he had available to him.
Notice that a new element entered this post: Greek? I thought we were dealing with Hebrew. How is a Greek translation even considered close to an “original” source?
Okay before we go there, a quick inventory of Scripture Translations that we have talked about: Hebrew OT, Greek NT, Latin Vulgate, Luther Bible (German).
Enter: Septuagint.
The Septuagint (LXX translation) is a Greek translation of OT scriptures that dates back to 300 B.C. Before Christ, the Septuagint was accepted and recognized as a legitimate text by Jews in all the Greek-speaking countries, and helped spread the idea/expectation of a Messias to the Gentiles.
Simplistically, Luther did not refer to the legitimacy of the Septuagint because, at the time, there were no ancient Hebrew manuscripts that could support the additional books that were included in the Greek version. And, because there were no Hebrew manuscripts, it couldn't be considered as "authoritative" as the protocanonical books. Since then, in the 1950's, the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery found manuscripts dating as early as 408 B.C. that have the Greek books in question in Hebrew.
Clearly, there is a lot of debate (that even continues to this day) as to whether the "extra" books should be included in the bible or not. The spirit of this post is not intended to advocate one over the other so much as it is to explain what those differences are and where they come from. That said, I will not try to hide which one I favor (and given the context of the Blog, I don't think it would take much to figure it out).
Beyond the major difference (7 "extra" books or not), there are still differences. You can even find differences between Bibles that number the same books. Some read relatively easily, some seem clunky... while others read like they are antiquated, in old English. The latter is pretty easy to explain, in that they are translations that hold true to the time they were originally translated (i.e. 1611 KJV, or Douay Rheims Bible).
But what about those that read "clunky" vs. those that ready colloquially? At the heart of that question is the philosophy that goes into the translation: "formal equivalence" vs. "dynamic equivalence." Formal equivalence translations try to give a translation that is as literal to the original text as possible. Dynamic equivalence translations give the translator more liberty in the translation to make a more readable translation -- so long as the meaning of the text is preserved.
Each has its disadvantages, and each has its uses.
Finally, to the last question: "what makes one version more accurate than the other?"
Ultimately, we have different versions of the Bible because of different translations... which means an evaluation of accuracy is contingent on interpretation. Personally, this answer is not satisfying enough. In other words, without an appeal to an outside authority, no one can subjectively and definitively say that "this" is the most accurate as opposed to "that" one. I don't say that the 7 "extra" books should be included in the bible because of the NT references, the history of translations, the closeness to Hebrew, etc. in and of itself. Those arguments help, but in the end... I think as such because God became man, gave man authority - guided by the Holy Spirit - to build His church, and His Church determined as much.
Call me simple-minded... ;) Maybe that will be a question for next week!
God Love You!
A good audio on the Bible:
EWTN's The Journey Home: The Canon of Scripture
The concept of Mondays With Answers is to give me the opportunity to take a little more time during the week to do research and write an answer to questions about Christianity, more specifically Catholicism, that are substantial in nature. Not all topics will be uniquely Catholic, though, like case of this first edition:
This week’s question: Why are there so many different versions of the Bible and what makes one more accurate than the others?
This is a question I found perusing the internet. When I started thinking about it a little more, I think this is a common question that a lot of people don’t realize that they have. How many people have really stopped to think about why some bibles read differently than others? This is not to question anybody’s devotion to God or faithfulness to Sacred Scriptures. This is really just a question on the mechanics of what makes one version different than another.
The bottom-line answer: the differences have to do with translations.
This post won't go through all the different versions exhaustively. Instead, out of brevity, I will hit on the broad (general) differences. There will be principles brought up, though, that will more than likely be an explanation that applies to specific differences that may not be covered. If you have a question about a specific difference that wasn't covered feel free to ask. Please keep in mind that this isn't intended to be an academic dissertation so some liberty will be taken to try to keep this as brief as possible.
First, there is a general difference between a Catholic Bible and most Protestant Bibles. Catholic scriptures are the exact same in substance as what you will find in Protestant Scriptures. They are essentially of the same sources. That said, the Catholic Bible has a larger Old Testament with 7 more books called the Deuterocanonical books which Protestants know as “Apocryphal” books. I understand I may have introduced a few words that aren’t necessarily in everyday use, so here is a quick background:
NewAdvent.org: The Greek kanon means primarily a reed, or measuring-rod: by a natural figure it was employed by ancient writers both profane and religious to denote a rule or standard.So the word canon refers to a “regulated and defined collection” typically used in the context of theological or official “church” writings. New Advent continues:
The terms protocanonical and deuterocanonical, of frequent usage among Catholic theologians and exegetes, require a word of caution. … It would be wrong to infer from them that the Church successively possessed two distinct Biblical Canons. Only in a partial and restricted way may we speak of a first and second Canon. Protocanonical (protos, "first") is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. The deuterocanonical (deuteros, "second") are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the "Apocrypha". These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel.The derivation of the word Apocrypha comes from the Greek word apokryphos, which means “hidden.” In this context Protestants use it to refer to “non-canonical” books. Catholics use a different term because “apocrypha” has a historical use of that term that goes back beyond the Protestant Reformation. To read more on this use of the word click here. This is another article from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and is a thorough albeit a little difficult read.
The point of contention between the Catholic and Protestant listing of the Old Testament works has its roots with Luther early in the beginning of the Protestant revolt, and his relegating (among other New Testament books) the listed 7 books to an appendix in his translation of the bible.
Luther’s intent with his translation of the bible was to translate directly from Hebrew. At the time, the bible standard was what is known as the Latin Vulgate which was translated into Latin by St. Jerome. St. Jerome was a renown scripture scholar of his time (4th Century), and coined the following quote regarding Scripture: “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” Jerome was commissioned to do essentially what Luther set out to do: to create an accurate translation of scriptures as close to the source as possible.
Only, Jerome was dealing with a different problem. The issue that the Church was dealing with in the 4th century was that the Latin scriptures that they had were handwritten copies of copies of copies of...(well, you get my point). By the 4th century the Latin texts that they DID have varied from one another, and were to the point of being unreliable from possible additions and/or mistakes by copyists. Jerome had at his disposal Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the books of the Old Testament that were even considered ancient at HIS time. Jerome cross-referenced his work between these sources that he had available to him.
Notice that a new element entered this post: Greek? I thought we were dealing with Hebrew. How is a Greek translation even considered close to an “original” source?
Okay before we go there, a quick inventory of Scripture Translations that we have talked about: Hebrew OT, Greek NT, Latin Vulgate, Luther Bible (German).
Enter: Septuagint.
NewAdvent.org: The Septuagint version was the Bible of the Greek-speaking, or Hellenist, Jews, whose intellectual and literary centre was Alexandria. The oldest extant copies date from the fourth and fifth centuries of our era, and were therefore made by Christian hands; nevertheless scholars generally admit that these faithfully represent the Old Testament as it was current among the Hellenist or Alexandrian Jews in the age immediately preceding Christ.
The Septuagint (LXX translation) is a Greek translation of OT scriptures that dates back to 300 B.C. Before Christ, the Septuagint was accepted and recognized as a legitimate text by Jews in all the Greek-speaking countries, and helped spread the idea/expectation of a Messias to the Gentiles.
Simplistically, Luther did not refer to the legitimacy of the Septuagint because, at the time, there were no ancient Hebrew manuscripts that could support the additional books that were included in the Greek version. And, because there were no Hebrew manuscripts, it couldn't be considered as "authoritative" as the protocanonical books. Since then, in the 1950's, the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery found manuscripts dating as early as 408 B.C. that have the Greek books in question in Hebrew.
Clearly, there is a lot of debate (that even continues to this day) as to whether the "extra" books should be included in the bible or not. The spirit of this post is not intended to advocate one over the other so much as it is to explain what those differences are and where they come from. That said, I will not try to hide which one I favor (and given the context of the Blog, I don't think it would take much to figure it out).
Beyond the major difference (7 "extra" books or not), there are still differences. You can even find differences between Bibles that number the same books. Some read relatively easily, some seem clunky... while others read like they are antiquated, in old English. The latter is pretty easy to explain, in that they are translations that hold true to the time they were originally translated (i.e. 1611 KJV, or Douay Rheims Bible).
But what about those that read "clunky" vs. those that ready colloquially? At the heart of that question is the philosophy that goes into the translation: "formal equivalence" vs. "dynamic equivalence." Formal equivalence translations try to give a translation that is as literal to the original text as possible. Dynamic equivalence translations give the translator more liberty in the translation to make a more readable translation -- so long as the meaning of the text is preserved.
Each has its disadvantages, and each has its uses.
Finally, to the last question: "what makes one version more accurate than the other?"
Ultimately, we have different versions of the Bible because of different translations... which means an evaluation of accuracy is contingent on interpretation. Personally, this answer is not satisfying enough. In other words, without an appeal to an outside authority, no one can subjectively and definitively say that "this" is the most accurate as opposed to "that" one. I don't say that the 7 "extra" books should be included in the bible because of the NT references, the history of translations, the closeness to Hebrew, etc. in and of itself. Those arguments help, but in the end... I think as such because God became man, gave man authority - guided by the Holy Spirit - to build His church, and His Church determined as much.
Call me simple-minded... ;) Maybe that will be a question for next week!
God Love You!
A good audio on the Bible:
EWTN's The Journey Home: The Canon of Scripture
Guest Blogger and Guest Blogging
Sorry I have not posted much on here lately. Life has been quit busy with three little ones all under the age of 5.
I have a post I have been working on that is a little more serious than my previous posts. I am hoping to get it up sooner rather than later. After that one is posted, I'm hoping to start on another post that has a "happier" tune to it. :)
Anyway, onward with the title of this post! :D
I believe every Monday, a guest blogger* will start to post a series called "Mondays with Answers." Throughout the week, at least with these first few posts, he will be actively seeking out questions with a focus on Catholic responses to the questions that arise. Once the series gets it's kick start he will then start to collect questions that he may hear/see throughout the week and will post the answers on Mondays, hence the title of the series. If this does not make sense, please feel free to ask and I will try my best to ask the guest blogger to explain in his own words. :) Oh! And if you have any questions of your own, do not hesitate to ask him! I am sure he will appreciate any questions that may come up, whether it is one you have from the post you read, or one that you are curious about.
Speaking of guest blogging. Every now and then, I will be guest blogging on his blog as well! As I have mentioned in a previous post at the beginning of my blog, I was once a Protestant before I converted to Catholicism so there may be a time when he would like a "Protestant" point of view with his posts.
I hope everyone has Happy Monday!
*pst! The guest blogger is my husband! :-P
I have a post I have been working on that is a little more serious than my previous posts. I am hoping to get it up sooner rather than later. After that one is posted, I'm hoping to start on another post that has a "happier" tune to it. :)
Anyway, onward with the title of this post! :D
I believe every Monday, a guest blogger* will start to post a series called "Mondays with Answers." Throughout the week, at least with these first few posts, he will be actively seeking out questions with a focus on Catholic responses to the questions that arise. Once the series gets it's kick start he will then start to collect questions that he may hear/see throughout the week and will post the answers on Mondays, hence the title of the series. If this does not make sense, please feel free to ask and I will try my best to ask the guest blogger to explain in his own words. :) Oh! And if you have any questions of your own, do not hesitate to ask him! I am sure he will appreciate any questions that may come up, whether it is one you have from the post you read, or one that you are curious about.
Speaking of guest blogging. Every now and then, I will be guest blogging on his blog as well! As I have mentioned in a previous post at the beginning of my blog, I was once a Protestant before I converted to Catholicism so there may be a time when he would like a "Protestant" point of view with his posts.
I hope everyone has Happy Monday!
*pst! The guest blogger is my husband! :-P
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)