Posted on 04/18/2007 1:57:05 PM PDT by kawaii
I’m Byzantine rite Catholic, so if I lived in a place where there was a functioning Byzantine rite Catholic church, it would be no problem. Unfortunately, there aren’t many of them, and none around where I live now. So I’ve either got to move or hope the Orthodox and the Catholic churches hurry up and work out their differences before then...hmm, maybe I’ll just hang on until then, that should give me another couple hundred years...
No, I don’t mind a brief overview, either.
But I think there was also something to be said for the sort of “standardization” of funerals. When I grew up in New York, prior to Vatican II, it was normally the custom to bring the body into the church the night before, so it was usually present at the daily mass and in fact sometimes the daily mass was actually the funeral mass. This was often for somebody who had no family - one of hte many solitary old people who lived alone in single rooms in parts of Manhattan.
To me, there was always something dignified and solemn about this soul, whom none of us at the mass had probably known in life, being “sent forth upon his journey” at the mass, a solitary, somewhat marginal person being treated with the same respect that everybody else who had families and mourners got.
The coffin was usually open and I remember standing on line next to the it while I waited to go to Communion and looking at this person and saying a prayer for him. It was nice to think that we were all saying prayers for him and his face was being seen for one last time. Then they would close the coffin.
Don’t know if this makes any sense, but that was how I felt about it at the time and I wish some of this solemnity and dignity would come back.
Beautiful.
Thanks for sharing such memories.
***Textus Receptus, full of similar errors, metastasized to find home in the King James version and practically every western Bible — invariably leading to a faulty understanding of the scripture, ****
I just checked my translations.
Wycliff
Geneva
KJV
DOUAI RHEIMS
NASV
RSV
All say “burned”
The Confraternity Verion says “boasting”.
Others on line can be found below, all say “burned”.
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B46C013.htm
Also again, what of those burned by Nero?
Indeed.
The Vulgate replaced the Old Latin Bible and was expressly used only in the western Church.
The rest of the Bibles you quote are essentially based on Textus Receptus or TR, a 16th century collection of 12th century Greek texta and Staphanes' French Greek sources (all of which are latter-day copies).
This was done because no one but Wycliffe believed the Vulgate was a true translation of the Greek originals, so the English speaking community wanted an English-language translation based on Greek text. Trouble is, the quality of the Greek text was extremely poor, with plenty of copying errors, editions, deletions, and so on.
TR is an expressly unreliable source of Greek Text. Where needed verses were missing, they were supplemented by using Vulgate and retro-translating a Latin translation backwards into Greek again. Portions of the Revelation of John was done that way and other examples are plentiful.
Thus in Acts 9:6 the section reading "And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me do..." is not found in any Greek manuscripts but was added to TR from Vulgate.
There are also known forgeries such as (in)the famous Pericope Adulterae and Comma Johanenum that are incorporated into the TR, and from Tr ended up in just about any English bible afertwards.
Your own refreence lists Alexanbdrian text (4th century complete Greek bible) as having "boast" and so does latter-day Hort and Westcort, which are Alexandrian sources in English. The other two are TR versions.
Can you recommend an Orthodox bible in English?
Yes The Greek English Interlinear New Testament, Robert K. Brown, Phillip W. Comfort, Tyndale House Publishers, 1990. Or The Greek New Testament by United Bible Societies, 1993.
They represent the oldest available full biblical texts (4th century). The Greek Orthodox Church unfortunately suggests KJV, a very bad choice.
The GOC also uses a 5th century NT which is a heavily redacted and doctored source which makes it highly unreliable. It also mixed the the Byzantine and Alexandrian text-types (the Gospels and the Epistles of Paul being in different text-types).
The GOC's OT is likewise heavily influenced by the Hebrew rather than Septuagint OT. The Apostles almost exclusively used the Septuagint as OT reference.
For OT, I recommend C. L. Benton's Septuagint Old Testament.
It is actually available online in both Greek and English versions.
****The rest of the Bibles you quote are essentially based on Textus Receptus or TR, a 16th century collection of 12th century Greek texta and Staphanes’ French Greek sources (all of which are latter-day copies).****
Not quite. Those from the Revised Version onward use the Alexandrian, Vatacanus and Sinaiaticus texts of the 4th century and say “burnt” except for the Confraternity text.
Again, what of those burnt by Nero and those eaten by lions in the Arena.
***It is actually available online in both Greek and English versions.***
Links please. We will be grateful for it.
The (4th c) Aexandrian text-type (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, etc. as well as latter-day Nestle-Aland) in your own link shows the word kauchesomai (boast); the 5th cnetury Byzantine and the 16th century TR versions show kauthesomai (burned).
Subtle. Someone mistook a chi (χ) for a theta (θ)
The oldest Latin Vulgate is an 8th century copy, so we don't know if this, originally early 5th century, Latin Bible contained the word "burned" or "boast" but there is every reason to assume that +Jerome wanted to use the same Bible used by the Greek Church (since the Church was still united), which would be the 5th century Codex Alexandrinus.
Trouble is C. Alexandrinus is mix of Alexnadrian (older) and Byzantine text-types, it is highly redacted and made "smoother" than the complete (Alexandrian-type) bibles from the century prior.
Thus, +Jerome would have been using a more redacted source which contained errors of copying, additions and deletions (such as in 1 Cor 13:3 the first words kan in the 4th c. version and kai ean in the 5th c. copy). But +Jerome also ad-libed a bit too (i.e. Act 9:6), so the 5th century Vulgate is useless as comparative text. Besides, it's a translation.
And, we all know that we can't use translations, Latin or English, as evidence of what the original says. Yet, the fact is, Textus Receptus relied heavily on Vulgate for missing sections, and even on Tyndale's personal retro-translations from Latin into Greek and passing TR as a "genuine" Greek text source.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.