Replies

I find it interesting that you found so many translations that give a more literal translation of the "ti emoi kai soi" passage in St. John.

I was surprised myself. But that is the reason we consult references and varying translations, a tradition that goes back to Jerome or earlier. I also found it interesting how the commentaries which supported the KJV reading reached their conclusions.

I like a variety of commentaries and perspectives. It's helps a person to see how various persons in varying circumstances in different eras read scripture, their approach to it, the focus of their exposition. While we are all creatures of our own times and circumstance, we should try to avoid using scripture in a bigoted or tendentious way. We should strive for neutrality, to let the text speak to us and not to use the text to impose our opinions on others for temporary goals, however worthy we consider them to be.

You mentioned the Douay's readings earlier. I was curious if you're familiar with the Jesuit Bible of 1582, generally considered the primary ancestor of the Douay. I've wondered about its readings before but I'm not sure if copies of it are available online. At least, I've never found it. Google does reveal some tidbits though, such as this page which compares KJV, Jesuit 1582, and American Revised 1901. There appears to be a revival of interest in the Jesuit version in the last ten years whereas it was previously virtually unknown to laymen. Apparently, it is KJVer's who are reviving the interest in it. ; ) I find that interesting. Here is an interesting sample from that page:

XIII. COLOSSIANS 1:14
(1) KING JAMES BIBLE. "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins."

(2) JESUIT VERSION. "In whom we have redemption the remission of sins."

(3) AMERICAN REVISED. "In whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins."

The phrase "through His blood" is not found in either the Jesuit or American Revised Versions; its omission can be traced to Origen (200 A.D.), who expressly denies that either the body or soul of our Lord was offered as the price of our redemption. Eusebius was a devoted follower of Origen; and Eusebius edited the Vatican Manuscript. The omission is in that MS and hence in the American Revised Version. Moreover, Jerome was a devoted follower of both Origen and Eusebius. The phrase "through His blood" is not in the Vulgate and hence not in the Jesuit Bible.

Here is the fatal parallel between the Jesuit Version and the American Revised Version. This omission of the atonement through blood is in full accord with modern liberalism, and strikes at the very heart of the gospel.

Your terminology isn't politically correct, but your basic point is dead-on.

You are kind because I was probably unintentionally offensive (not that Baptists worry over offending popes, not even this current one who is, as I've said, far more acceptable than his predecessors). But when the Protestants and others in the West turned against Rome, this term of popery used by Protestants and Baptists was not an objection to an orderly transfer of authority through a succession of leaders. It was to radical changes of doctrine and the use of superstitious tricks and mummery to fleece the flock of funds or to compel their obedience. It was Rome, not the Orthodox, who instituted practices like the sale of indulgences or the sale of high clerical office. And these practices were rooted directly in the authority of various popes. Hence, the term popery. The Orthodox appear to be far more conservative, to have institutional safeguards against unscrupulous or ignorant individuals. It's a pity that attempts in the West to reform Rome's abuses and arrogance failed for centuries prior to the Reformation. Although Rome eventually curbed some of the worst abuses, the institutional flaws remain and cause mischief up through the present era.

The phrase "through His blood" is not found in either the Jesuit or American Revised Versions; its omission can be traced to Origen (200 A.D.), who expressly denies that either the body or soul of our Lord was offered as the price of our redemption. Eusebius was a devoted follower of Origen; and Eusebius edited the Vatican Manuscript. The omission is in that MS and hence in the American Revised Version. Moreover, Jerome was a devoted follower of both Origen and Eusebius. The phrase "through His blood" is not in the Vulgate and hence not in the Jesuit Bible.

Here is the fatal parallel between the Jesuit Version and the American Revised Version. This omission of the atonement through blood is in full accord with modern liberalism, and strikes at the very heart of the gospel.

Fascinating find. It's that kind of "translation" that gives the game up and shows the true spirit behind most rewrites, whether they are contemporary or centuries old.

The Devil's in the details.

Jerome was a devoted follower of both Origen and Eusebius.

But wasn't that only for a limited period of time? Jerome pretty much accuses Origen of orchestrating a situation in which Origen purposely made himself needed and loved in the Church and then turned around and committed his 'heresy.' But heresy or not, he and Tertullian (the first Protestant, as Paul Johnson notes him to be), are still, however small in part, indispensable to understanding the early Faith, IMO.

It was Rome, not the Orthodox, who instituted practices like the sale of indulgences or the sale of high clerical office. And these practices were rooted directly in the authority of various popes. Hence, the term popery. The Orthodox appear to be far more conservative, to have institutional safeguards against unscrupulous or ignorant individuals. It's a pity that attempts in the West to reform Rome's abuses and arrogance failed for centuries prior to the Reformation.

It wasn't just the sale of indulgences, as offensive and seemingly absent of Christ as the whole affair seemed to be. It was the mortuaries too (talk about breaking a person's heart, when you read of them!), and perhaps most offensive of all was the murdering of people, however few or many, just because they were in possession of a Bible, and most especially when you take into account St. Jerome's declaration that to be ignorant of Scripture is to be ignorant of Christ. I mean it's really hard to look at that, and not have the sense that the Church's corruption went straight to the bone, and was not remediable (sp?;word?), at the time. Then you read of the early Church as regards substitution of penance by one man for another, and you see how the indulgences evolved. One thing I've never understood though, is how prayer became to be viewed as a penance. Why does saying an Our Father constitute as penance? It's anything but a penance, IMO. If I were a priest dispensing penance, I would suggest the person shovel his neighbors walk everyday for a week or so, or something similar, depending on the nature of the offense.

As far as the Papacy is concerned; first the Pope was the Vicar of St. Peter, then he became the Vicar of Christ, somewhere around the 9th or 10th century, IIRC, so if there is a price to pay for the Protestant schism, at the time of Judgement, the Catholic Church will likely pay the lion's share of that tab, because they'd had all the power and with all the power came all the responsibility. It could also be very much a part of God's plan to have this kind of ecclesial discord, and maybe there won't be any collective price to pay at all.

All that being said, the Catholic Church preserved the Faith for century, upon century, upon century, and that's no small and meaningless feat, amenable to any present or future ash heap.

Regarding Collosians 1:14, the original Greek text^a

en w ecomen thn apolutrwsin thn afesin twn amartiwn

does not have "through His blood", (dia tou aimatos autou), so I don't see how its absence in non-KJV versions can be construed as "liberal."

Textus Receptus and KJV being its offshoot, are based on "late Byzantine" copies of the NT which the scholars tended to favor "just because" over earlier ones.

^abased on earlier Alexandrian versions.

Surely these fine differences are not without an effect on how we understand Scriputre. With so many human additions and delitions of the copies of copies of the NT, we really don't read the same Scriputre.

The phrase "through His blood" is not found in either the Jesuit or American Revised Versions; its omission can be traced to Origen (200 A.D.), who expressly denies that either the body or soul of our Lord was offered as the price of our redemption. Eusebius was a devoted follower of Origen; and Eusebius edited the Vatican Manuscript

Didache (c. 70-100 AD) omits to mention that "breaking of the bread" and drinking wine during Eucharist is sacramental, or that it is Real Presence in Body and Blood of Christ. Perhaps that was just how some Christians "understood" it. Which is why 300 years later the Church had to convene the first Ecumenical Council to clear up some of the seirous misconceptions that evolved.

The phrase "through His blood" is not in the Vulgate and hence not in the Jesuit Bible.

I have it in my copy of the Vulgate, but it is not in the Jesuit Douey-Rheims.