Replies

I don’t consider it poor quality. After all it’s coming from a Monsignor.

“I don’t consider it poor quality. After all it’s coming from a Monsignor.”

Sorry Salvation - and I truly wish salvation for you - it is very poor handling of the Greek text, regardless of his position.

I don’t consider it poor quality. After all it’s coming from a Monsignor.

So, is something coming from a monsignor supposed to be some kind of guarantee against it being poor quality.

Well yes, one would hope a Monsignor could come up with a less strained argument from the Greek, but this is in the category of a rookie error, the sort of thing you'd expect to see from maybe a first semester Greek student, and a poor one at that. It's known as the etymological fallacy. The raw fact that the root word συναλίζομαι (suvalitzomai) may have a connection with salt (and as others here have explained there are other legitimate possibilities) does not demonstrate that salt has any real connection with the semantic range of the word.

Don't believe me? Consider this example. If I say I'm paying you a salary, would it be legitimate for some distant future reader of these posts to suggest I paid you in literal salt? If all you consider is the etymology, then yes, absolutely, because that is the etymology of "salary." "Salary" is derived from the Latin "salarium," which means salt-money. At one point in the distant past, Roman soldiers were literally paid in salt. But no sane English-speaking thinks it means that now. That's because semantically it switched identification from the thing being paid to the fact of being paid.

This is why when you look at these terms in Greek, you absolutely cannot stop with etymology. It is a rookie error. You have to look at broader semantic usage. This term in Acts 1:4 goes back a long ways, to the classical period. It has had plenty of time to shift from being about literal salt (if it ever was about salt) to being about being together socially, which may pertain to eating, or may not. But nothing so involved may be derived from it as a specific meal, or even that there was a meal. We do know Jesus ate with the disciples after His resurrection, but the only such meal on record that I can recall involved eating fish, when Jesus was rehabilitating Peter from his dreadful failure.

But what this does demonstrate is what is sometimes called the "mystical hermeneutic" of the Roman denomination, which is eisogesis on steroids. Eisogesis is just a fancy word for reading things into the text without sufficient linguistic justification. It jumps from mere eisogesis to "mystical" because any gap in the linguistics can be papered over by sheer belief the interpretation is true, even when evidence of such truth is lacking. The "insight" is achieved "mystically." Hence the "mystical" hermeneutic. Such a hermeneutic makes rational debate over the meaning of a text nearly impossible.

But Catholics are not the only folks to use such an approach. It has much in common, for example, with the Bible Codes theory, which in turn is a variation on the explicitly mystical approach of Cabala. I have even seen such things done in evangelical circles, usually in passages about the end times. So no one is immune to the temptation. But it is an extremely undisciplined approach to interpretation of Scripture, and prone to lead one into all manner of error. Very common among the cults as well. Not recommended, and problematic for one titled a Monsignor to foist such tripe on those ill-equipped to defend themselves against it. Irresponsible.

And Salvation, I hope you understand that none of this is directed at you personally. I think very well of you, as I am sure the rest of us do. My beef is with those would be your shepherds, but do not seem to understand the most basic tools of their claimed profession. That is what upsets me. Not you. :)

Peace,

SR