CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholicism > Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 4th June 2010, 08:52 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,244
Default Who determines the Canon of Scripture?

Council of Trent: "But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema."

At the Council of Trent, the Magisterium infallibly defined the Canon of Scripture, not only as all the books (73) of the Catholic Bible, but as all the parts of each book, as these books exist in the 'old Latin vulgate' and as they have been used and read in the Living Tradition. But the 'old Latin vulgate' at that time had no one standard edition, nor could any (at that time) recent edition of the Vulgate be considered 'old'. Therefore, the Council was referring to the Latin scriptural tradition, independent of any one edition, as this scriptural tradition has been used in the Church, by the Living Magisterium and the Living Tradition. For the Word of God in the Church is not primarily the written text of any edition or set of manuscripts, but is the Living Word of God alive among the faithful.

So the question as to which parts of each book are in the Canon, and are therefore inspired and inerrant, is determined by the Latin scriptural tradition.

But this approach has been utterly abandoned by most Catholic Biblical scholars, in favor of using a critical evaluation of various manuscripts in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. The Latin is utterly ignored, and is permitted by them neither to determine the Canon, as the Council taught, nor to even influence their scholarly decisions as to what should be in the Canon.

The teaching of Trent that the Canon is determined by the Latin scriptural tradition has been deliberately rejected by most modern Biblical scholars, and has been replaced with scholarship -- as if scholars determine the Canon, but the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition do not.

Worse still, the majority opinion of scholars, esp. concerning the NT, has coalesced around one particular text, the United Bible Societies text, with critical apparatus, of the Greek NT. This text is mostly the work of Protestant scholars, and their methodology seems to have a strong tendency to drop words, phrases, and verses from the Bible, on scholarly grounds. This is a relatively new approach, since older Greek texts (Textus Receptus, and Majority Text) as well as the Latin texts do not use this approach. They prefer to retain, so that nothing is lost. Whereas the newer approach seems to prefer to omit words, phrases, and verses.

One result is a transfer of practical control over the Canon from the Magisterium and the Living Tradition to a relatively small subset of scholars, mostly Protestants, at the United Bible Societies.

Another result is the erosion of the Canon of Scripture, so that hundreds of words and phrases, and more than a few entire verses, are relegated to footnotes or omitted altogether.

And very few persons are concerned about this problem.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 4th June 2010, 09:09 PM
debtarr debtarr is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 50
Default Your Bible

Any idea how your Bible is accepted by Bible scholars? You mention that few are concerned about demoting the Latin Vulgate (which most of us older Catholics were raised on). Are new Bible translations ever discussed in common by Magisterium?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 4th June 2010, 11:36 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by debtarr View Post
Any idea how your Bible is accepted by Bible scholars? You mention that few are concerned about demoting the Latin Vulgate (which most of us older Catholics were raised on). Are new Bible translations ever discussed in common by Magisterium?

The Magisterium teaches on faith and morals. So evaluating new Bible translations is not a function of the teaching authority, but of the temporal authority.

But the Latin Bible is still the norm that Bible translators are supposed to use and consult. This is clear from the norms for Bible translation promulgated in 1995 by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, and which are still in effect. It is too bad that so many scholars have no interest in the Latin Scriptures.

My translation (CPDV) is slowly attracting some interest and use. It takes many years for the sensus fidelium to consider and in a sense evaluate a Bible version. I would look more to the faithful for acceptance and use of my translation.

here's an online Catena that John Litteral is working on
http://catenas.wetpaint.com/page/Acts+Chapter+1
using the CPDV

it's available now for theWord Bible software program and for the Kindle, thanks to the kind efforts and interest of my fellow Catholics.

And I hope to have a one volume edition ready this month for publication.

I'm currently working on a critical analysis of the Gospels in the three Latin versions: Clementine, Neo-Vulgate, and Stuttgart. I hope to have the Gospel of Matthew done this month.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 6th June 2010, 01:21 AM
debtarr debtarr is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 50
Default Thanks

Ron,

It is interesting that, while some scholars have no interest in Latin scriptures, the new missal which comes into effect in 2011 is returning to much of the Latin translation.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 6th June 2010, 10:32 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by debtarr View Post
Ron,

It is interesting that, while some scholars have no interest in Latin scriptures, the new missal which comes into effect in 2011 is returning to much of the Latin translation.
good point

many Biblical scholars think that scholarship should decide questions independent of the Magisterium. They have no qualms about ignoring the Latin scriptural tradition, or the teachings of Popes and Councils on the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.

my critical analysis of the Nova Vulgata unfortunately shows that the NV Gospel of Matthew, and probably the rest of the New Testasment, is mainly based on the United Bible Societies Greek text, and not on the Clementine Vulgate or the Latin scriptural tradition, even though the NV is in Latin. The editors of the NV chose to alter the Latin text, in small details as well as important points, to conform to the UBS Greek text, which is mainly the work of Protestant scholars. That text omits many words and phrases from the Bible, and more than a few verses, on the grounds of scholarship, and so does the Nova Vulgata.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 6th June 2010, 06:55 PM
Climacus Areopagite Climacus Areopagite is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,600
Default

I hope and pray we get things back on the up and up. I wish I could do more.

I love Sacred Scripture. I truly love it. It is such a precious gift of God. It is food for the simple.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 13th July 2010, 01:40 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,244
Default

The Nova Vulgata, the official Latin Bible of the Church, allows a serious erosion of the Canon of Scripture in the New Testament.

Nova Vulgata New Testament
words: 124,795
letters: 663,054

Clementine Vulgate New Testament
words: 126,555
letters: 671,884

1,760 more words in the CV than in the NV
8,830 more letters in the CV than in the NV

The NV drops over 1700 words from the New Testament. What is the basis for omitting these words? The sole basis is that a select group of scholars from the Protestant 'United Bible Societies' (UBS) decided to omit those words from their critical text of the New Testament in Greek.

The NV ignores the Latin text of the Clementine Vulgate. The NV is basically the Fischer Stuttgart Latin text, prepared by the Protestant 'German Bible Society', adjusted to agree in almost every detail with the Greek UBS text.

In adopting the Nova Vulgata as the official Latin Bible, the Holy See has inadvertently given a large measure of control over the Canon to Protestant scholars.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 13th July 2010, 11:13 PM
Arax Arax is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 293
Default

I note your charitable use of the word inadvertently.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 14th July 2010, 12:29 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,244
Default

Some quotes from a recent document of the Congregation for Divine Worship:

"Determining which texts belong to the Church's canon and which texts are prescribed for the Sacred Liturgy, however, lies outside the area of competence of biblical scholars in general, or of textual critics in particular. It is the Church herself, on the basis of her tradition, that has established the canon, and it is the competent ecclesiastical authority that prescribes the use of specific texts for liturgical use."

Scholars have not been given authority to determine which words, phrases, and verses are Canonical. And yet they have taken it upon themselves to make that determination, and to delete or relegate to footnotes many words, phrases, and verses.

The NV New Testament incorporates the decisions of Protestant scholars on the canonicity of numerous words, phases, and verses into its text (that is to say, it omits them).

"While constantly defending the inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures as such, the Church has never claimed unalterable perfection for her own officially approved Latin edition of the Scriptures, and has sought to improve that version several times. It is not to be excluded, and indeed, it is to be expected, that such work continue in the future. To this end, biblical scholars have all due freedom to propose corrections or improvements in that text wherever they believe them to be necessary or desirable, keeping in mind, of course, that their criteria for the "best" text or even the most "original" text may not in every instance coincide with the Church's criteria for the canonical text. In responsibly proposing eventual revisions to the official edition of the Nova Vulgata or, with certain qualifications, the Ordo lectionum Missae, biblical scholars could at least be said to be working within their area of competence."

The approval of the NV by the Holy See does not imply that the NV is a better Latin text than the CV or other Latin texts. The NV is subject to legitimate scholarly criticism (which few scholars are interested in providing).
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.