How the Catholic Church Saved Hanukkah

ChurchPOP ^ | 2014 | Joe Heschmeyer

[millegan]

"And so we encounter another oddity of Hanukkah: Jews know the fuller history of the holiday because Christians preserved the books that the Jews themselves lost. In a further twist, Jews in the Middle Ages encountered the story of the martyred mother and her seven sons anew in Christian literature and once again placed it in the time of the Maccabees."

[PeterPrinciple]

Let me ask a question.

Has the church ever needed to repent? Has it ever been wrong?

Now, before you answer, read Revelation Chapter 1 and 2.

[roamer_1]

What it shows is there are different Hebrew translation traditions. The Masoretic text more closely agrees with one of the Hebrew textual traditions, which most think comes from Babylon. There were 2 other textual traditions of Hebrew, the Alexandrian Hebrew textual translation was the one the LXX was based on.

The family of 'translation' which you failed to mention is the Jerusalem tradition - The native text - The Temple texts. Considering geography, which is the most likely for the DSS to represent? Couple that with the admission within their texts that the residents of Qumran were Jerusalem traditionalists, opposed to the Pharisees, and the Hellenization occurring in Jerusalem further strengthens that opinion.

So yes, I agree the Masoretic text was in line with the Dead Sea Scrolls and reflects one of the textual traditions of the Hebrew that came down from the Pharisees and Rabbinical tradition.

Incorrect - As I said above, Qumran was against the Pharisees, and against the priesthood, which at that time, was co-opted by Edom (Idumeans) via Roman appointment. Their endeavor was to preserve what was from before... However well they did exactly that is an aside. Read their works and you will find that much to be true. One might suggest their writings were apocalyptic and crazy (Though they obviously saw what was coming down around them), but their attempt was undeniably toward purity.

The Hellenists OTOH, the promoters of your Alexandrian family of texts, were not purists, and were the equivalent comparison of liberal communism as it infects the United States - They were contextual liberals, and endeavored to make change - The large body of OT psuedepigrapha, the lion's share of which comes from Greek sources, stands as stark evidence of that fact. The Greek influence is generally very easy to point out, due to Greek romanticizing and inclusions more in line with Greek ritual concepts.

Using such as these for a base mark for Hebrew Scripture, or their inclusion therein, is not just a tragedy, but an offense.

My point is that this shows the LXX was directly translated from a Hebrew sources, not loosely translated as its more fundamentalist Protestant critics once claimed [some still do despite the evidence].

No, it does not. There is not enough of Tobit present to say what it contained. Sirach, I believe, is fairly complete, but it's Hebrew origin was never in question. Neither Baruch. Just because it is Hebrew in origin does not make it correct, especially wrt canon, which is a concept foreign to Hebrews. Canon is Torah to the Hebrews... period. It is the touchstone. the standard by which ALL other documents are more-or-less canon is their compliance with Torah, and as had been said upthread, to a degree, antiquity (which Ben Sira, as an instance, and indeed, most of the Apocryphal books, cannot afford).

It is more the Hellenization of Ben Sira that is it's downfall... Like in kind to most of the Deuterocanonical books... Whether that is by inclusion or intent is an open question not worth pondering.

And the fact that a 2nd century Christian Theologian was defending the LXX translation vs. the standard Hebrew is I think important

Not 400 years separated from the fact - No doubt Justin Martyr believed what he said, but that is no evidence as to origin, any better than the Jews...

The fact that he showed a strong preference for the LXX version of the OT shows that 2nd century Church did, which is the point.

A point I need not accept - There are great differences between Rome and Alexandria and Antioch - Perhaps what you mean is that Rome did, but that does not mean the whole of the churches did. In fact, I would lean more toward Antioch for credence, if any... After the fall, the Jerusalem Church, and all she had, wound up closer to there than to either other.

And again you keep saying translated in only Greek? Well at least 2 of those debated books, we now know there were in fact Hebrew translations (Sirach and Tobit). Baruch was found in the Qumran discovery in Greek form. Saint Jerome in is prologue on Judith alludes to a Hebrew version of it, although we don’t have it today. Both Origen and Saint Jerome state there was a Hebrew version of 1 Macabees, although again, only the Greek versions have come down to us.

No, I said written (composed) in Greek - Much of the pseudepigraphal collection around the OT (a greater body than the Apocrypha, which may be what you thought I meant) has a solidly Greek origin, and come from the Hellenist camps. However, ALL of the Apocryphal books have been Hellenized, regardless of authorship. Even those which may have been Hebrew in origin are not true to their original state. That is why I hold them of a low quality. And I am probably more forgiving than most, having no need of cannon as y'all have it defined it.

You can choose to go with the Hebrews.

I know that, and I have, because the Masoretic, as proven by the DSS, is the more honest, and that which is closest to it's origin.

But what you are in fact doing is going with 1 segment of Judiaism as there was no universal agreement among the Jews as to what was the canon.

That is not surprising, as canon is a foreign concept in Hebrew thought. Canon to them would be Torah.

The only thing they agreed on was the first 5 books [Torah].

No, the Tanakh is universally recognized, and has been since before this era. Some sects may have added to that, but even so, Christians criticizing Jews for variation is completely laughable... Hilarious, even. Most of what you consider alternate came out of Alexandria, and was not endorsed at all. The fight against the Hellenists is well documented. As far as Babylon is concerned, Her damages, whatever they may be, were consolidated long before.

Now if you are Jewish, then I can understand doing with the Rabbinical tradition from which the MT comes from. The early Church, Christian, did not take the approach you have taken, which is what Protestantism took in the 16th century.

On that I will flatly disagree. The 'Early Church' is not what y'all have made it out to be.

Greek was a common culture and language that united the entire Roman empire. It was the OT used in both the West, as evidenced by the fact that it in essence became the Catholic OT canon and the LXX is in fact viewed as the official OT of the Greek Eastern ORthodox Church. And yes, I am aware there are some minor differences in the OT canons of Rome and the Orthodox given they include 3 and 4 Macabees in their OT, Rome does not.

Not to the Hebrews - Josephus Himself complained about learning a different language, and how difficult it was to do, as his people are not given to doing so. And I care little for Roman or EO fathers - What they share together just shows that the apostasy came before they split the sheets.

[CTrent1564]

roamer_1:

Well if you reject all of the Church Fathers, then you are left with a Christianity fashioned to your own making. We are at a impasse.

As for the divergent source traditions, the DSS do reflect a Palestinian one, and the MS tends to reflect one from outside of Jerusalem as there were a group of Masorites from Bablyon, which is one possible source from the MS. In addition, the MT does not always agree with the DSS, and when id does disagree, the LXX is tends to agree with it.

This Orthodox Site does a good job with the notion of the superiority of the MT. It is just 1 translation and while it reflects stability in the translation, it also omits verses that appear to be to close to Christianity, reflecting a Jewish anti-Christian translation bias that likely appeared in the 2nd century, as documented by Saint Justin Martyr’s debate with Trypho, and continued down thru the centuries.

And again, Josephus is a Jew who rejected Christ, Saint Justin Martyr died at the hands of the Romans not rejecting Christ.

http://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/

[Mrs. Don-o]

First of all, the Masoretic texts were copied, edited and distributed by the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries AD.-- AD. They're not exactly the oldest sources, nor even based on the oldest sources!!

Second, you logically have find an authenticating authority on the texts (since the texts are not self- authenticating.) On the one hand, you have a group of Jews from a 7-10 century continuous tradition of rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, which I (as a Christian) would say is a 7 - 10 century tradition of misunderstanding their own Scriptures. (Sorry, That's how I see it.) They didn't just reject the 7 books of the Deutercanonicals. They rejected the whole 27 books of the New Testament.

On the other hand, you have a group of Christians with a 7-10 century continuous tradition of accepting Jesus as the Messiah. And you reject the Scripture specialists who say "Christ, Yes" and go with the ones who say "Christ, NO"?

????

Oy gevalt!

[Mrs. Don-o]

You are quite right that there is "tradition" and there is "Tradition", and even more distinctions need to be made between different kids and levels of t/Tradition. I get that.

There's a sense in which every single word of the Tanakh is dependent upon Oral Tradition, because each and every word needs spoken vowels which do not occur in the written text. The text is incomprehensible without the vowels, and the vowels are supplied by Oral Tradition. Thus the intelligibility of each word of the Bible is entirely interwoven with Oral Tradition.

I think this is beautiful, and deeply significant. It causes me to praise God even more for the way He has caused His truth to be manifest.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The Catholic preservation of Jewish Scriptures and worship traditions (such as cantillation) occurred ~1,000 years before the time period you reference.

[xone]

These guys dispute your conclusion: Spanish expulsion Inquisition

[daniel1212]

I think we're left with one of two positions, if I am understanding this correctly. Either: the vowels of the Torah, though not written, are Divinely inspired, or the Torah does not contain a single readable word. It is not comprehensible.

I am not trying to spring a "gotcha" with this statement. I am just at the point of marveling over it myself, not polemicizing it.

It is a "gotcha" statement if the premise that of one believes that the Masoretic vowels are not trustworthy, then they impugn the Masoretic Text (MT) and thus the integrity of Scripture, while if they believe that the Masoretic vowels are wholly correct, then they must uphold that the Jews successfully preserved the vowels of Scripture for thousands of years, through oral tradition alone, and which thus sanctions Roman claims for her oral tradition.

However, both are false dilemmas, as it is not necessary that the vowel points (VP) be perfectly correct under one view of Divine inspiration (DI), nor does the integrity of the VPs in the MT less sanction all else that falls under oral tradition (OT), including quite obviously that of Catholicism.

The second false dilemma is shown as being so by the fact that, rather than the TORAH not containing a single readable word without DI OT, even without vowels many English sentences are comprehensible, for the place of vowels (A, E, I, O, U, and sometimes Y) usually is determined by knowing language, including grammatical structure and or context. For example, "TH PRSN THT CNNT RD THS SNTNC KNWS LTTL GRMMR." Sometimes it is harder to make out what a poster (like me) is saying on FR!

Code crackers can even break down encrypted messages in a foreign language given enough time and resources. But it is true that without vowel points much Hebrew would be unintelligible now.

And tradition, as meaning inherited knowledge, how a term, words or teaching was understood by the natives certainly is overall needful for correct understanding of communication of any length and depth. And in this case re VPs, understanding how the words of a song are sung enables the notes.

However, a brain, the ability to reason and write, etc., are also all necessary, but that does not mean that everything else was that came via this means was/is DI, nor does OT supplying VP sanction OT as being DI in all else.

But are the VP Divinely inspired? This is a point of contention within evangelicalism itself, some of whom hold that "both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds provide evidence for the existence of both the Hebrew vowels and accent mar ks at the time of their composition." And further that "Even theological modernists such as "Hupfeld and Riehm . . . advance [the view that] the Old Testament books were divided into verses even before the time [on the TMT theory] of the Masoretes . . . the verse bounded by 'soph pasuk,' the placing of which harmonizes with the accentuation .. . [is mentioned] in the post - Talmudic tractate Sofrim..." - http://faithsaves.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Evidences4TheInspirationOfTheHebrewVowels.pdf

I would say that if the 10 Commandments which God wrote with His own "finger," (the Holy Spirit) did not contain them then they are not DI, and there are those who hold that there are errors in the MT, (as well as then non-uniform LXX mss).

Yet apparently even the dead sea scrolls have no VPs, and rather then VPs being DI, i lean toward seeing these as being akin to copying and translating and even preaching of Scripture, and in which, the human instrument of conveyance works to provide the sense as he understands it.

So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. (Nehemiah 8:8)

But it is the word as originally written (or at least copied mss of it) that is wholly inspired and the supreme standard by which translation and preaching is examined by.

As with the transmission of God's word, I see man as being a steward of the manifold grace of God," (1Pt. 4:10) and so that while God gave a perfect word, man is responsible and accountable to both discern, believe and preserve it, all by God's grace and under His Divine superintendence.

And that it has been well preserved, as well as exposing errors. Including the DI NT writers eclectically using correct texts from both the LXX and the MT, and in which the Holy Spirit sometimes recasts His own words (as in rendering Is. 6:9,10 in Jn. 12:40).

And thus rather than OT being the standard as being DI, instead it is examined in the light of what is wholly inspired, that being the word of God as closest we can see to what was originally written, and how it was.

See here on alleged errors of the VP in the MT and a learned debate btwn both sides.

Finally, the unique depth and scope of human language is one of the things that sets man apart from animals, who often excel in smell, but do not write poetry and or us similes, metaphors, anthropomorphic terms, engage in tact and abstract concepts, etc., But perhaps context or bodily position or or grammatical structure can determine a meaning, and like us, the very tone or perhaps volume of a sound. In everyday communication we take all such for granted.

Likewise a translator working to provide Scripture in the native tongue or a foreign people must understand their culture and traditions to correctly do so. One translator, struggling to find a word for "faith" which did not exist in the native's tongue, found his answer when a native rushed into his hut and plopped down in a chair, and said, "how good it is to rest in this chair." But another found a native trying to eat the pages of his translation because he read the word of God had to be in him!

Thus the need for teachers, yet despite great authority being given to such, (Dt. 17:8-13) God nowhere provided or needed a perpetual infallible magisterial office, outside Himself, but instead sometimes raised up men from without it in order to reprove it and preserved faith, and sometimes to provide more Truth.

And thus the the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)

And instead souls followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

For the fact is that it is abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

Thanks be to God.

[daniel1212]

Just a channel. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

[CTrent1564]

xone:

That doesn’t make them correct. And again, I said the Jews were deported, if they chose to stay, they could convert of Christianity. It is interesting that one of the countries that was listed that the expelled Jews left for was Italy, which would have been under the Pope Himself at that time.

Again, what that site is argueing is that the Conversos were secretly Jews, as some in fact were, and as the Catholic Authorities in Spain argued, many were in fact collaborators with the Muslims during the war of reconquest, not all of them, but some of them.

The Jews who were openly and publicly Jewish were not brought to the Tribunals, anyone making that claim is incorrect or a liar.

The best authority on the Inquisition is PRofessor Henry Kamen, who I think taught at Oxford, and is Jewish himself. He is a true academic scholar and is interested in accurate scholarship, not internet polemics.

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/henry-kamen/the-spanish-inquisition/

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/henry-kamen/the-spanish-inquisition/

[daniel1212]

By what authority did Luther reject what Christ instituted?

A very good question, in the light of your argument by assertion . So your premise is that a perpetual assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of who/what (men, writings etc.) is of God;

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who knowingly dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God?

[JPX2011]

[RetiredArmy]

Wrong. They either converted or died. I’ve read enough regarding it to know. I am not accepting your opinion of it. You do your thing and I will read and understand for myself.

[RetiredArmy]

Sure they did. You can accept the cover up version and I will go with the version of the history books I have read. Either accept conversion to Christianity, leave, or die. Have their property taken away. Sure. You go with the cover up version, and I will go with the version I read. End of conversation.

[daniel1212]

Inquisition did not physically harm Jews,

Absolutely in-credible! An example of pure RC propaganda, while the fact the Inquisitions (plural) certainly did harm both Jews and others, and popes sanctioned torture (even of suspected witnesses) and the death of false converts and heretics, and required rulers to exterminate all heretics.

Portuguese Inquisition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Inquisition)...was formally established in Portugal in 1536 at the request of the King of Portugal, João III. Manuel I had asked for the installation of the Inquisition in 1515 to fulfill the commitment of marriage with Maria of Aragon, but it was only after his death that Pope Paul III acquiesced. In the period after the Medieval Inquisition, it was one of three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Spanish Inquisition and Roman Inquisition.

The major target of the Portuguese Inquisition were those who had converted from Judaism to Catholicism, the Conversos, also known as New Christians or Marranos, who were suspected of secretly practising Judaism. Many of these were originally Spanish Jews, who had left Spain for Portugal. The number of victims is estimated around 40000.[1]

As in Spain, the Inquisition was subject to the authority of the King. It was headed by a Grand Inquisitor, or General Inquisitor, named by the Pope but selected by the king, always from within the royal family. The Grand Inquisitor would later nominate other inquisitors. In Portugal, the first Grand Inquisitor was Cardinal Henry, who would later become king. There were Courts of the Inquisition in Lisbon, Coimbra, and Évora, and for a short time (1541 until c. 1547) also in Porto, Tomar and Lamego.

It held its first auto-da-fé in Portugal in 1540. Like the Spanish Inquisition, it concentrated its efforts on rooting out those who had converted from other faiths (overwhelmingly Judaism) but did not adhere to the strictures of Catholic orthodoxy.

The Portuguese Inquisition expanded its scope of operations from Portugal to Portugal's colonial possessions, including Brazil, Cape Verde, and Goa, where it continued investigating and trying cases based on supposed breaches of orthodox Roman Catholicism until 1821.

Executions in persona: 1183...

29611 (94.13%) [not all Jewish in either case]

These statistics, although extensive, are not wholly complete, particularly in the case of Goa.

Spanish Inquisition

On November 1, 1478, Pope Sixtus IV published the Papal bull, Exigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus, through which he gave the monarchs exclusive authority to name the inquisitors in their kingdoms...In 1482 the pope was still trying to maintain control over the Inquisition and to gain acceptance for his own attitude towards the New Christians, which was generally more moderate than that of the Inquisition and the local rulers.

In 1483, Jews were expelled from all of Andalusia. Though the pope wanted to crack down on abuses, Ferdinand pressured him to promulgate a new bull, threatening that he would otherwise separate the Inquisition from Church authority.[21][22] Sixtus did so on October 17, 1483, naming Tomás de Torquemada Inquisidor General of Aragón, Valencia and Catalonia.

Torquemada quickly established procedures for the Inquisition. A new court would be announced with a thirty-day grace period for confessions and the gathering of accusations by neighbors. Evidence that was used to identify a crypto-Jew included the absence of chimney smoke on Saturdays (a sign the family might secretly be honoring the Sabbath) or the buying of many vegetables before Passover or the purchase of meat from a converted butcher. The court employed physical torture to extract confessions. Crypto-Jews were allowed to confess and do penance, although those who relapsed were burned at the stake.[23]

In 1484 Pope Innocent VIII attempted to allow appeals to Rome against the Inquisition, but Ferdinand in December 1484 and again in 1509 decreed death and confiscation for anyone trying to make use of such procedures without royal permission...

Henry Kamen estimates that, of a population of approximately 80,000 Jews, about one half or 40,000 chose emigration.[27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada: The Pope went on to appoint a number of inquisitors for the Spanish Kingdoms in early 1482, including Torquemada. A year later he was named Grand Inquisitor of Spain, which he remained until his death in 1498. In the fifteen years under his direction, the Spanish Inquisition grew from the single tribunal at Seville to a network of two dozen 'Holy Offices'.[12] As Grand Inquisitor, Torquemada reorganized the Spanish Inquisition (originally based in Castile in 1478), establishing tribunals in Sevilla, Jaén, Córdoba, Ciudad Real and (later) Saragossa. His quest was to rid Spain of all heresy. The Spanish chronicler Sebastián de Olmedo called him "the hammer of heretics, the light of Spain, the savior of his country, the honor of his order".

Under the edict of March 31, 1492, known as the Alhambra Decree, approximately 200,000 Jews left Spain. Following the Alhambra decree of 1492, approximately 50,000 Jews took baptism so as to remain in Spain; however, many of these—known as "Marranos" from Corinthians II, a contraction of anathema—were "crypto-jews" and secretly kept some of their Jewish traditions.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition) In some parts of Spain towards the end of the 14th century, there was a wave of violent anti-Judaism, encouraged by the preaching of Ferrand Martinez, Archdeacon of Ecija. In the pogroms of June 1391 in Seville, hundreds of Jews were killed, and the synagogue was completely destroyed. The number of people killed was also high in other cities, such as Córdoba, Valencia and Barcelona.[32]

One of the consequences of these pogroms was the mass conversion of thousands of surviving Jews. Forced baptism was contrary to the law of the Catholic Church, and theoretically anybody who had been forcibly baptized could legally return to Judaism. However, this was very narrowly interpreted. Legal definitions of the time theoretically acknowledged that a forced baptism was not a valid sacrament, but confined this to cases where it was literally administered by physical force. A person who had consented to baptism under threat of death or serious injury was still regarded as a voluntary convert, and accordingly forbidden to revert to Judaism.[33] After the public violence, many of the converted "felt it safer to remain in their new religion."[34] Thus, after 1391, a new social group appeared and were referred to as conversos or New Christians.

King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile established the Spanish Inquisition in 1478. In contrast to the previous inquisitions, it operated completely under royal Christian authority, though staffed by clergy and orders, and independently of the Holy See. It operated in Spain and in all Spanish colonies and territories, which included the Canary Islands, the Spanish Netherlands, the Kingdom of Naples, and all Spanish possessions in North, Central, and South America. It primarily targeted forced converts from Islam (Moriscos, Conversos and secret Moors) and from Judaism (Conversos, Crypto-Jews and Marranos) — both groups still resided in Spain after the end of the Islamic control of Spain — who came under suspicion of either continuing to adhere to their old religion or of having fallen back into it.

In 1492 all Jews who had not converted were expelled from Spain, and those who remained became subject to the Inquisition

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html: While many people associate the Inquisition with Spain and Portugal, it was actually instituted by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in Rome. A later pope, Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition, in 1233, to combat the heresy of the Abilgenses, a religious sect in France.

In the beginning, the Inquisition dealt only with Christian heretics and did not interfere with the affairs of Jews. However, disputes about Maimonides’ books (which addressed the synthesis of Judaism and other cultures) provided a pretext for harassing Jews and, in 1242, the Inquisition condemned the Talmud and burned thousands of volumes. In 1288, the first mass burning of Jews on the stake took place in France.

In 1481 the Inquisition started in Spain and ultimately surpassed the medieval Inquisition, in both scope and intensity. Conversos (Secret Jews) and New Christians were targeted because of their close relations to the Jewish community, many of whom were Jews in all but their name. Fear of Jewish influence led Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand to write a petition to the Pope asking permission to start an Inquisition in Spain. In 1483 Tomas de Torquemada became the inquisitor-general for most of Spain, he set tribunals in many cities. Also heading the Inquisition in Spain were two Dominican monks, Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martin.

First, they arrested Conversos and notable figures in Seville; in Seville more than 700 Conversos were burned at the stake and 5,000 repented. Tribunals were also opened in Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia. An Inquisition Tribunal was set up in Ciudad Real, where 100 Conversos were condemned, and it was moved to Toledo in 1485. Between 1486-1492, 25 auto de fes were held in Toledo, 467 people were burned at the stake and others were imprisoned. The Inquisition finally made its way to Barcelona, where it was resisted at first because of the important place of Spanish Conversos in the economy and society.

More than 13,000 Conversos were put on trial during the first 12 years of the Spanish Inquisition. Hoping to eliminate ties between the Jewish community and Conversos, the Jews of Spain were expelled in 1492..

The next phase of the Inquisition began in Portugal in 1536: King Manuel I had initially asked Pope Leo X to begin an inquisition in 1515, but only after Leo's death in 1521 did Pope Paul III agree to Manuel's request. Thousands of Jews came to Portugal after the 1492 expulsion. A Spanish style Inquisition was constituted and tribunals were set up in Lisbon and other cities. Among the Jews who died at the hands of the Inquisition were well-known figures of the period such as Isaac de Castro Tartas, Antonio Serrao de Castro and Antonio Jose da Silva. The Inquisition never stopped in Spain and continued until the late 18th century.

By the second half of the 18th century, the Inquisition abated, due to the spread of enlightened ideas and lack of resources. The last auto de fe in Portugal took place on October 27, 1765. Not until 1808, during the brief reign of Joseph Bonaparte, was the Inquisition abolished in Spain. An estimated 31,912 heretics were burned at the stake, 17,659 were burned in effigy and 291,450 made reconciliations in the Spanish Inquisition. In Portugal, about 40,000 cases were tried, although only 1,800 were burned, the rest made penance.

The Inquisition was not limited to Europe; it also spread to Spanish and Portugese colonies in the New World and Asia. Many Jews and Conversos fled from Portugal and Spain to the New World seeking greater security and economic opportunities. Branches of the Portugese Inquisition were set up in Goa and Brazil. Spanish tribunals and auto de fes were set up in Mexico, the Philippine Islands, Guatemala, Peru, New Granada and the Canary Islands. By the late 18th century, most of these were dissolved.

Goa Inquisition From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition)

The Goa Inquisition was the office of the Portuguese Inquisition acting in Portuguese India, and in the rest of the Portuguese Empire in Asia. It was established in 1560, briefly suppressed from 1774–1778, and finally abolished in 1812.[1] Based on the records that survive, H. P. Salomon and I. S. D. Sassoon state that between the Inquisition's beginning in 1561 and its temporary abolition in 1774, some 16,202 persons were brought to trial by the Inquisition. Of this number, it is known that 57 were sentenced to death and executed; another 64 were burned in effigy. Others were subjected to lesser punishments or penance, but the fate of many of those tried by the Inquisition is unknown.[2]

The Inquisition was established to punish apostate New Christians—Jews and Muslims who converted to Catholicism, as well as their descendants—who were now suspected of practising their ancestral religion in secret.[2]

In Goa, the Inquisition also turned its attention to Indian converts from Hinduism or Islam who were thought to have returned to their original ways. In addition, the Inquisition prosecuted non-converts who broke prohibitions against the observance of Hindu or Muslim rites or interfered with Portuguese attempts to convert non-Christians to Catholicism.[2]

While its ostensible aim was to preserve the Catholic faith, the Inquisition was used against Indian Catholics and Hindus and also against Portuguese settlers from Europe (mostly New Christians and Jews but also Old Christians) as an instrument of social control, as well as a method of confiscating property and enriching the Inquisitors.[3]

Most of the Goa Inquisition's records were destroyed after its abolition in 1812, and it is thus impossible to know the exact number of those put on trial and the punishments they were prescribed.[2]

What helped set the stage for torture was the

Pope Innocent IV, Ad extirpanda, papal bull, promulgated on May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, which explicitly authorized (and defined the appropriate circumstances for) the use of torture by the Inquisition for eliciting confessions from heretics.

The following parameters were placed on the use of torture:[1]

• that it did not cause loss of life or limb (citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum)

• that it was used only once

• that the Inquisitor deemed the evidence against the accused to be virtually certain.

The requirement that torture only be used once was effectively meaningless in practice as it was interpreted as authorizing torture with each new piece of evidence that was produced and by considering most practices to be a continuation (rather than repetition) of the torture session (non ad modum iterationis sed continuationis).[1]

Pope Innocent IV, Ad extirpanda:

(25) Those convicted of heresy by the aforesaid Diocesan Bishop,surrogate or inquisitors, shall be taken in shackles to the head of state or ruler or his special representative, instantly, or at least within five days, and the latter shall apply the regulations promulgated against such persons.{7}

(26)The head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody,{8} provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs, as actual robbers and murderers of souls and thieves of the sacraments of God and Christian faith, to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know, and specify their motives, {9} and those whom they have seduced, and those who have lodged them and defended them, as thieves and robbers of material goods are made to accuse their accomplices and confess the crimes they have committed. - http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/01p/1252-05-15,_SS_Innocentius_IV,_Bulla_%27Ad_Extirpanda%27,_EN.pdf

Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215:

Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.

But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks and good discussion, daniel1212, really --- although you're taking off after positions that I didn't adopt:

It is a "gotcha" statement if the premise that of one believes that the Masoretic vowels are not trustworthy, then they impugn the Masoretic Text (MT) and thus the integrity of Scripture, while if they believe that the Masoretic vowels are wholly correct, then they must uphold that the Jews successfully preserved the vowels of Scripture for thousands of years, through oral tradition alone, and which thus sanctions Roman claims for her oral tradition.

However, both are false dilemmas,...

(OK, fair enough, but I don't take either of those positions.)

Your point about grammar determining much of meaning even without vowels is on target, but it loses much of its force when you consider that Biblical Hebrew didn't have spaces between words, either. You an see that reading your sample sentence without spaces OR vowels would be quite a puzzler:

THPRSNTHTCNNTRDTHSSNTNCKNWSLTTLGRMMR

As you say, "without vowel points much Hebrew would be unintelligible now."

The info from the various Talmud sources is interesting,and something I will have to look into a great deal more, since I am very ignorant of Talmud.

The purpoe of my remarks was NOT that the MT is shot through with errors. Far from it. I am not of the Bart Ehrman skeptical or modernist school at all.

" Yet apparently even the dead sea scrolls have no VPs, and rather then VPs being DI, i lean toward seeing these as being akin to copying and translating and even preaching of Scripture, and in which, the human instrument of conveyance works to provide the sense as he understands it."...

"As with the transmission of God's word, I see man as being a steward of the manifold grace of God," (1 Pt. 4:10) and so that while God gave a perfect word, man is responsible and accountable to both discern, believe and preserve it, all by God's grace and under His Divine superintendence."

Yes, indeed. But rather than just saying "man," (as if it might be any random man, or each man, or the whole race of man) you might be more exact and say "the Church':

1 Corinthians 12:28-30
And God has appointed these in the Church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?

I like the learned discussion you linked to.

If the Messiah established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation, He established them upon a written tradition which derived from oral tradition, AND an oral tradition which derived from written tradition. Yes, that's a vice-versa and a do-si-do.

They were continually in interplay, since everything (with the possible exception of the Ten Commandments) was spoken before it was written; AND after it was written, it had to be re-spoken according to the norms of that previous oral tradition. This is true especially with respect the Hebrew system of writing, which was largely a mnemonic device, since the reader had to actually know what it said before he could read it accurately!

All these are big pluses for me. I think it shows the genius of the way God conveys His Word. For the Bible doesn't say "For God so loved the world that He sent a Book." It says "For God so loved the world, that He sent His only-begotten Son." And the Son is the Word.

That's why the Muslims are wrong when they say we are "People of the Book". Not exactly. We are People of the Word.

[Springfield Reformer]

I've studied Hebrew in full pressure academic settings (Moody Bible Institute and Mid-America Reformed Seminary). I can read it, haltingly. And with aids.  But I can tell you the vowel pointing is not absolutely necessary, though it is very helpful in some cases of ambiguity. And there are some such ambiguities.  I remember encountering one of these in Isaiah,  Note the following two verses for comparison:

(NKJV) Isaiah 66:5  Hear the word of the LORD, You who tremble at His word: "Your brethren who hated you, Who cast you out for My name's sake, said, 'Let the LORD be glorified, That we may see your joy.' But they shall be ashamed."

(KJV) Isaiah 66:5  Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.

The bolded text is radically different, though it contains many of the same terms.  But the sense is different.  If you look at the pointing, it does seem the modern translation, the NKJV, is correct, but what on earth does it mean?  Whereas if you remove the pointing, an alternate becomes apparent, and using it the KJV translation works perfectly well, and in fact runs better as a flow of ideas.  I believe the KJV translators had access to the pointed text, so they must at this point have either intentionally or accidentally ignored the turn it gave to the sense.  I'm not a KJV Onlyist, but this seems to be something they got right against all odds.

The point is (and didn't we see this pun coming?), the text is in fact largely readable without the pointing. If I can stumble through it, native speakers and writers must have had very little trouble indeed. The very act of learning a language to that level of fluency is a manner of passing on a tradition. But one would hardly consider it a sacred tradition, for example, to learn English.  It is simply a tool prerequisite to literate study, and for that I am unaware of any Scripture that guarantees you or I will learn either English or Hebrew good.  Yes, I did that on purpose. :)

So here's why with the points you want to be very careful about considering them inspired.  The Massoretes were not believers in Jesus.  They, by the standard account, implemented this pointing some 600 years after Christ, in an environment that was hostile to the idea of Jesus as the Messiah.  God could have supernaturally intervened to make the pointing come out right, despite this hostility.  But the reality is, the points were not there when God inspired the original text.  They are a running commentary on what the Jewish faith community, biased against Jesus, thought the words meant.  And that is valuable data, not to be ignored.  But neither should it be elevated to a level that we would be allowing those who have rejected Christ to determine Christian doctrine.

Peace,

SR

[af_vet_1981]

The bolded text is radically different, though it contains many of the same terms. But the sense is different. If you look at the pointing, it does seem the modern translation, the NKJV, is correct, but what on earth does it mean?

nir'e or נראה
literally means "we shall see." I find it significant that the KJV differs from every other translation and that the NKJV reversed the KJV to agree with all the others.

[af_vet_1981]

If the translators judged it was a niphal form of to see, I would have expected them to choose “he appeared to your joy” as it seems to me they needed to trade the nun for a yod to get “he shall appear” in niphal. I’m sure they must have a reason. The Biblical Hebrew has its own rules.

[xone]

Arguing with the wrong guy. To pretend that no Jew was killed in the various Inquistions defies belief. Whether they killed them on purpose, whether they died as a result of their expulsion, it isn’t credible considering the medical capabilities of the time to claim that after torture that none died.