Posted on 05/12/2008 8:08:07 PM PDT by annalex
Interetingly, Ken Fortier must be on to something because the larger quote form chapter five, below, seems to also hint at the utter detruction of the wicked.
I've read the book of Wisdom and the other books of the Apocrypha, in addition to many books of the Pseudepigrapha. It is interesting that you mention this book. Edward Fudge, in his internationally acclaimed book, "The Fire That Consumes," examines all these inter-testimental writings and gives a realistic summary of them concerning the destiny of the unredeemed. It's 500 pages long, written in 1982, and is now being reprinted by "iUniverse.com publishers.
Yes, Ken has something to say about the final destiny of the unredeemed just as Edward Fudge does. Even though these two write about that, nothing beats reading the old writings to find out for one's self what they say.
Here is a collection of quotes that underline the Catholic outlook on wisdom and nature of man.
You quote the following.... we also being born, forthwith ceased to be: and have been able to show no mark of virtue: but are consumed in our wickedness. 14 Such things as these the sinners said in hell: 15 For the hope of the wicked is as dust, which is blown away with the wind, and as a thin froth which is dispersed by the storm: and a smoke that is scattered abroad by the wind: and as the remembrance of a guest of one day that passeth by. 16 But the just shall live for evermore: and their reward is with the Lord, and the care of them with the most High (Wis 5:13f)
Now let me quote from the same verses: from the Greek manuscripts translated into our English language.
"Becasue the hope of the ungodly is like chaff carried off by the wind,
And like a thin spider's web driven away by a tempest;
And like smoke which is scattered by the wind,
and passes away as the remembrance of a guest that tarried but a day.
But the righteous live for ever,
and the Lord is their reward,
And the care for them with the Most High."
(Wisdom of Solomon, 5:14-15)
Note: What I quoted above is very different from what you quoted, but still contains most of the thoughts put into those verses. Most of these inter-testamental books show their connection with a mixture of Egyptian and Greek philosophy. Plato's "immortal soul" imaginations are very pronounced in various insinuation in these books, of which there are around 80 or so.
The Apocrypha, often used by the ancient church and even the Jews, is sadly ignored by most Protestants. As Edward Fudge summarizes, the fate of the wicked in this literature overwhelmingly reflects the teaching of the OT. The wicked will not escape God's judgment - they will surely die. Worms will be their end, as their carcass is devoured. They will pass away like smoke or chaff, or burn up like tow. The righteous will receive a resurrection to life and be with God. On the other hand, the book of Judith is the only one of the Apocrypha that has an explicit reference to conscious everlasting pain.
While I like what those two individual write, I also write and teach on this topic. Millions and millions, I have found out, agree with our teachings on the final destiny of the wicked or unredeemed. And what is surprising is that multitudes of Catholics also accept it regardless of what their church teaches.
Maybe I will post a thread on the final destiny of the unredeemed and redeemed. It might be interesting to see what other say. Ken's book, "Church Doctrines: Right or Wrong? (You Decide)" has yet to receive any negative feed-back, or so he says.
I wouldn't say "very".
You put a bug in me, I'll reflect on this and also study what the Church has to say doctrinally. If you get around posting on this subject here, flag me, please.
I wouldn't say "very".
You put a bug in me, I'll reflect on this and also study what the Church has to say doctrinally. If you get around posting on this subject here, flag me, please.
Maybe my "very" wasn't the best way to describe the difference. Your version has verse 16 saying the same as what the Greek version I quoted from ends in verse 15. And your verse 14 is different than the verse 14 I quoted, for it doesn't say the same thing at all. In your version, it is apparent that it is an edior's addition, according to the scholars that translated from the Greek version I have. As to which is the correct, that will remain debatable.
Don't let the "bug" bite you too hard :-) And, please, when you find what your church teaches on this topic, let me know...who knows that it may seem more reasonable than what I now consider reasonable.
| # | Douay-Rheims | LXX |
|---|---|---|
| 14 | For the hope of the wicked is as dust, which is blown away with the wind, and as a thin froth which is dispersed by the storm: and a smoke that is scattered abroad by the wind: and as the remembrance of a guest of one day that passeth by. | oti elpis asebous os feromenos chnous ypo anemou kai os pachne ypo lailapos diochtheisa lepti kai os kapnos ypo anemou diechythe kai os mneia katalitou monoemerou parodeusen |
| 15 | But the just shall live for evermore: and their reward is with the Lord, and the care of them with the most High. | dikaioi de eis ton aiona zosin kai en kyrio o misthos auton kai e frontis auton para ypsisto |
| 16 | Therefore shall they receive a kingdom of glory, and a crown of beauty at the hand of the Lord: for with his right hand he will cover them, and with his holy arm he will defend them. | dia touto lempsontai to besileion tes euprepeias kai to diadema tou kallous ek cheiros kyriou oti te dexia skepasei autous kai to brachioni yperaspiei auton |
Thank you. It does read much better. I would say that this verifies what I said about that interpolation as seen in the Douay of the LXX: it shouldn't be there. That's what caused the verse variation. One could question WHY that verse was added. I did. So I would ask you, don't you think, in light of Plato's immortal soul theory, that it may have been added to reinforce the idea of "souls" being punished in "hell"?
I don’t know if that verse was added, or why it is there. Douay is a word-by-word St.Jerome’s Vulgate. It is possible, in fact, quite certain, that St. Jerome had access to codices now lost.
It is possible that Jerome had access to some codices that are no longer in existence, and it is absolutely not a certainty that he did, but that doesn't really prove anything. We have to go along with what is available. That sentence cannot be found in any manuscriptes that are accepted as reliable. And there are multitudes of them. Thusly, my statement asking "WHY" is a very valid one; and looks for a motive behind it - whatever that motive may be. Many have put forth reasons that are very believable, one of them being that it was an early addition to enforce the belief of eternal suffering in hell because of the theory of Plato on a person having an "immortal soul." It is a very reasonable explanation, one that seems to back up what else is stated in hundreds of places in the OT and other writings of the intertestamental period - i.e., from the fourth century BC to the first century AD. This is not me saying this, but scholars who have spent their lives examining these writings. I guess we will all have to wait until Jesus returns to resurrect us to find out, right?
Opps...I forgot to add this to my last post to you:
Wisdom of Solomon was one of the Apocrypha books that Jerome refused to translate in his Latin Version of the OT. It was added many decades after Jerome died. So, that verse I questioned was not from his pen; and thusly, it doesn't make any sense to say he "may" have had a codex that is now missing. I don't think I misrepresented what history records concerning Jerome's translation project that Bishop Damasus asked him to do. What say you?
Not so; he thought it shouldn't be canonical, but he did translate it.
Jerome in his prologues[5] describes a canon which excludes the deuterocanonical books, possibly excepting Baruch.[6] However, Jerome's Vulgate did include the deuterocanonical books as well as apocrypha. He referred to them as scriptural and quoted from them despite describing them as "not in the canon". In his prologue to Judith, without using the word canon, he mentioned that Judith was held to be scriptural by the First Council of Nicaea.[7] In his reply to Rufinus, he stoutly defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel even though the Jews of his day did not:
What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us. (Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]).Thus Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon was settled—the judgment of the Church, rather than his own judgment or the judgment of Jews.
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.