January 2008 Archives

I'm headed out of town on a business trip starting tomorrow. I'll have very limited access to the internet. For that reason, I'm going to shut down comments this evening. You have to be ever no guard against spammers these days, and I won't be able to watch the place much. Things will be turned back on late next week.

When I was in grad school, I had one class that just about killed me. It was a class common to all humanities grad students. Regardless of discipline, everyone had to take it. It was not, strictly speaking, relevant to any particular major. It went under the elusively simple title of “Graduate Writing Seminar”, or something like that. It was divided into two parts. First was advanced English grammar and academic composition. The second part was something called “paleography”, the study of ancient writing. It was enough to drive a dead man mad.

I have violated the rules of that class eleven times in the first paragraph (and once in this sentence).

But that class often comes back to me when thinking about the Bible. The question that begs is this: How did the Bible come down to us?

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. It was translated into Greek in the first and second century BC. The Greek version was ultimately bound for the library in Alexandria, and was used by the Greek speaking Jews of the region. (This Greek translation is the Septuagint. Septuagint is “seventy” in Latin and reflects the 70 translators who worked on the original. It’s abbreviated LXX.) There will be a whole post on this subject later.

Matthew and the first two chapters of Luke were originally written in Aramaic. The rest of the New Testament was originally written in a dialect of Greek (called Koine). None of the original manuscripts of the New Testament has ever been found. Everything we have available to us today is a copy of the originals. Of the surviving documents, everything comes to us in fragments…there’s not a single complete source that’s survived intact.

I couldn’t find anything more recent than a 1976 survey of the surviving fragments. The breakdown of these fragments works out like this:

1. There were a total of 5366 surviving fragments as of 1976.
2. 88 of the fragments are on papyrus.
3. 274 of the surviving fragments were written in all capital letters without diacritical marks.
4. 2795 of the surviving texts are in all lower case letters with no capitals and no separation between words. Imagine reading the Bible without punctuation.
5. 2209 of the surviving texts are from lectionaries.
6. Between the death of Christ and 407 A.D., the New Testament was translated from Greek into Latin, Syraic, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Old Slav, Gothic and Arabic.

New fragments of the Bible are being found all the time. In 1911 there were about 3000 fragments. By 1963 there were 4689 different fragments. By 1976 the number of available manuscripts had grown to 5366. Archeologists and historians continue to add to the deposit of biblical scholarship.

With the exception of eight verses, it is possible to reconstruct the entire Bible based on quotations from early Christian writers. These quotations are originally written between 100 and 400 A.D. It is, therefore, possible to reconstruct passages from a variety of sources. For example, a piece of papyrus that is illegible in one or two words might be recreated by quotations from Eusebius or Clement of Rome. Alternatively, it might be possible to recreate a verse by comparing some of these ancient quotations with the papyrus AND one of the ancient lectionaries.

All very fascinating stuff, eh?

Now, add in the paleography element and you’ll see just how hard scriptural translation and study can be. Have a look at the link on the right that says Schoyen Collection, Bible. Scroll down to the one that says MS74, and you’ll see a pretty common example of very old writing. It ain’t always easy to read.

My point is this – if you approach the Bible as a strictly 21st century book, written in American English, you will likely miss some of the most important features. The heritage of the Bible is so rich that we American’s can’t always get our heads around it. We have to look at the Bible as a whole, and within the context of where and when it was written. We have to take it back to the Hebrew and Greek of the originals to really understand what the authors intended.

For the purposes of this blog, I use the word Protestant in a very general way.

Protestant will include, basically, any Christian that’s not Catholic or Orthodox. This is not intended as a slight toward anyone. I know some people may be ticked by this sweeping generalization.

I was involved in a discussion with a group of people once. They protested against the Church in much the same way (and with many of the same arguments) as the original reformers. The word Protestant fit them perfectly. However, as a group and to a man, they disliked the word Protestant when applied to them. They kept insisting that they were “Bible Christians” not Protestants per se. Well, as this blog will demonstrate, we Catholics are Bible Christians as well, so to use such a term for one group is inaccurate. With the vast quantity of non-Catholic or non-Orthodox denominations out there, it’s almost impossible to find a simple and easy word to fit everyone. Though sometimes imprecise, “Protestant” fits that bill.

The use of Protestant is, therefore, a convenient single word that covers a great deal of ground. By covering so much ground, it will potentially blur things a bit. It is not intended to offend or confuse. But we gotta start somewhere.

The fact is, you need no credentials to be an expert on something on the web. Because of this, I thought it might be wise to put up some info about why I’m here and why I feel qualified to write on this subject.

The simple fact is that I have no direct credentials to offer. Nope. No realistic qualifications at all. Zip. Zilch. Nothin’.

I’ve been blogging for about six years now (lacking credentials obviously didn’t slow me down any). It’s been an off-and-on adventure, with some joy and some heartache along the way. Sometimes it’s fun. Sometimes it’s not. Blogging is, in the words of Jeff Miller, more addictive than crack. There’s no point in arguing against that idea…it’s 100% true.

My degree is in history. I studied general stuff, but took as many medieval history classes as I could. In fact, it was in one such class that I first encountered the idea of becoming Catholic. I worked on my Masters for a short while, but ran out of money long before graduation and had to quit. So I don’t have any formal education in theology or eschatology or any other -ology. I did, however, learn to research a subject deeply and write a decent paper.

I do have a bit of background in adult education. I taught at the local community college for about four years. I am something of an expert in what I do for a living, so I was able to teach as an adjunct in the business program. It was loads of fun (and paid very nicely for a part time job). I learned a great deal from teaching. As the old saying goes, you never truly know a subject until you try to teach it.

I haven’t, in reality, been Catholic for all that long. I entered the Church at the Easter Vigil of the millennium – 2000. I have, however, spent a fair amount of the past eight years learning and attempting to teach the faith. Part of this is because I came out of RCIA knowing so little. I had to teach myself as best I could. Part of my learning curve is because of my kids. As they’ve grown older I’ve had to keep ahead of them so they can know what they need to. But most of the reason that I’ve learned as much as I have is the fact that the subject is fascinating.

For a while, I thought very seriously about going back to grad school for a degree in theology. But theology isn’t really what I’m into, so that didn’t make much sense. There are also financial and temporal commitments that I can’t even attempt. This kind of blog seems perfect for what I can do.

The research necessary is right in line with the kind of research I did in grad school. You dig through the same kind of resources and write the same kind of papers. Different topics, same methods. The teaching experience, I hope, gives me an ability to impart the information in a way that makes sense to the average reader. I could make it a lot more complicated, using lots of “$5 words” with Greek roots (eschatology, anyone?). But teaching adults in a business program taught me to avoid academic lecturing and writing. The only people that want to read that stuff are either insomniacs or experts in a field that use this level of discourse every day. My audience is neither academia nor insomniacs, so I try to write accordingly. Lastly, my love of linguistics seems to have an outlet at long last.

Blogging has run me through a gauntlet of sorts. It’s been the online world where I’ve encountered the most basic (and most hostile) assaults on my faith and my church. That’s fine. It comes with the territory. It has, in the words of one Protestant interlocutor, sharpened iron on iron. I’ve learned a great deal from these encounters. Little did they realize that their assaults on my church would have the opposite effect they had intended. Instead of making me hide under the desk, and eventually turning me away from the Church, they caused me to dig – and in some cases dig hard – to find answers to their challenges. To those that thought they’d get me to turn, I'd like to say – THANKS!

So, readers here are forewarned. I'm a self taught nincompoop suffering from blogish delusions of grandure. I think that makes me pretty much mainstream...

Ok…

Before anyone else sends me any more anonymous e-mails, decrying my newfound hatred for football, I’d like to point one thing out.

Have another look at the post in question, specifically at the time stamp at the bottom. That post was done just a few minutes after the NFC Championship ended. Can ya think of a reason why I might have been a wee bit miffed at the entire sport? Heck, if they’d won, I would have gone out of my way to find a Cheese Head. Now I’m faced with an obligatory Super Bowl party that Sunday evening, featuring….New York and New England.

Gah!

I hate football!

This is just a quick note to give some idea of what Bible translations are used here.

Most of the posts will switch back-and-fourth between the Douay-Rheims Bible (DRB) and the Revised Standard Version – Catholic Edition (RSV-CE). If I use any other version, I’ll note it in the text.

Quotations in Greek will come from the Greek New Testament, 4th Revised Edition, edited by Aland, Metzger, Martini and Karavidopoulos.

From the Vulgate, the text will come from the Biblia Sacra Vulgata, 4th Edition, by Weber/Gibson.

The RSV-CE is very good, but does have some imperfections. It has a couple of very handy elements that I’d like to point out. First off, it was written by a group of scholars from both Protestant and Catholic churches (there is a Protestant version too). Because of this, it has a certain ecumenical element that other versions don’t have. Another benefit is that it’s the version quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and all the English translations of Benedict XVI / Josef Cardinal Ratzinger.

My cousin was in the Army in the mid-80’s. For about eight months, his unit was stationed on the inner-German border – the border between West Germany and communist East Germany. He was close enough that he could, at times, see Russian and East German soldiers on the other side of the line. They were so close to the enemy that he described his unit as “the point of the spear”.

The Culture War is fought in a lot of different ways by a wide variety of people. Some feel that it’s enough to vote pro-life. Some people write and argue in favor of pro-life causes. But on Saturday morning, my two oldest daughters and I stood outside an abortion clinic and prayed the rosary with about 375 other people.

On that day we were the point of the spear.

Stalin once said, “One death is a tragedy, 20 million is a statistic”. Most of the time we see the culture wars from Stalin’s perspective. 50 million is a big number. 50 million is so big that it’s easy to let it slip into the abstract. The abstraction is a defense mechanism – it helps us deal with a number so large that we can’t truly wrap our heads around it. 50 million abortions is a statistic that we know intellectually to be a tragedy, but emotion is kept at a happy distance.

When you stand in front of an abortion mill, you see the culture wars from a different perspective. Two women walked in while we were there. Two. Suddenly, abortion is more tangible. The statistic evaporates, and you’re left with nothing but tragedy. You see the Sidewalk counselors approach someone that doesn’t want to listen, and it’s no longer a story on the news or something we talk about on the internet. Your heart pulls harder. From your lips comes, “…pray for us now and at the hour of our death,” while your head is saying in the background, “Please, oh please, Lord, let them hear.” But they walk on.

Sure, we have to fight the culture wars in the courts and legislatures. Both are vital to eventual success. But the point of the spear is just as important. We will not win the hearts and minds of our opponents in the courts or legislatures. We will win them on our knees in front of places like the Fairmont Women’s Clinic, begging God to let them hear.

Just a quick note. I’ll post some further thoughts on the March for Life either later today or tomorrow. I’m having some computer problems today.

It was great meeting up with Julie and Laura at the March on Saturday. (Though I was disappointed that they didn’t have their carnations clenched between their teeth.) Julie’s husband Tom was there, as was their fellow parishioner Heather.

My own parish was well represented. Our priest, Fr. Morris, was there. One of our lectors did the first reading. And I know I saw at least one person on the refreshments line. Unfortunately, I didn’t see anyone from our previous parish.

We rather informally decided to continue our First Friday Fast against Abortion. As the big day approached, I decided that it was the least I could do. It seems Julie was thinking along the same lines.

So…same time next year?

I'm just sayin'...

Once upon a time, RL asked a very pertinent question. Unfortunately, I completely missed it at the time. Therefore, in accordance with my glacial writing speed, here’s the extremely late answer.

Well, ok, perhaps I should post the question first…

“Where are the boundaries outside of which I must not stray, and what are the positive propositions which I must accept? That's the question, put more polemically than I could wish.”

In the comments below, RL asks:

“So here's the question: Granting that my upbringing had some significant lacunae from a Catholic perspective, how would I go about finding a Catholic parish with anything approaching that level of seriousness about studying and applying the Scriptures? The outsider's perspective is that Catholic parishes and Catholics in the main aren't very interested in catechesis, and when they are, they're more interested in what one might call "Catholic distinctives." Or is that perspective hopeless provincial as well as Protestant?”

The short answer is that I don’t have a good answer. Of course, I won’t let that slow me down.

Why do we need a whole section for definitions? After all, aren’t the terms used in religion pretty much the same for every Christian? I thought so…until about two years ago.

Protestants and Catholics often use the same words, but with radically different meanings. This was certainly no new revelation. It’s been happening a great deal since the dawn of the 20th century. In fact, it goes all the way back to the Reformation. In many cases, these differences in definitions keep us from understanding each other.

I don’t mean this as, strictly speaking, an ecumenical moment. Protestants need to understand the Catholic way of speaking if we’re going to engage in any faith discussion (either ecumenical or evangelical). The reverse of this is also true – we Catholics need to understand how Protestants use these terms in order to explain our side of many issues.

Anyone out there read 2 Timothy 2:14 lately?

Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.

There is more truth here than many people would like to admit (myself included, often enough). I hope that by posting a series of definitions, we can avoid the problem of disputing over words.

And don’t worry – I fully intend to give reasons for how the definitions are used here. That’s the point.

As has been mentioned a time or two, the Dallas March for Life is scheduled for next Saturday, January 19th, rain or shine.

Next Saturday, we hope that anyone reading these words will join us in praying the rosary at 9:00 in the morning Central Standard Time. (That's 7:00 on the west coast, 10:00 on the east coast, 4:00 in the afternoon in Europe, 2:00 in the morning in Auckland...you get the idea.)

Confirmed in attendance will be Julie Davis of Happy Catholic, Laura Hughey of ...and if not..., and me. We hope for an appearance by one or both of the Summa Mamas as well, but we've heard that they may have a schedule conflict.

If you're going to be in the Dallas area, feel free to join us. We plan to meet in front of the Meyerson Symphony Center at 8:00 (across the street from the Cathedral). We will be identifiable by the wearing of red carnations (though Julie and Laura have promised to have the carnations between clenched teeth). Let one of us know if you're going to be in town so we can keep an eye out for you.

If you can't come to Dallas, that's ok too. Just let one of us know your name and your location, and we'll march for you. Even if you're outside the US, feel free to join us and let us in prayer. When the time comes, we'll join you in prayer when your country tries to end abortion.

Don't be shy. By comments or e-mail, let one of us know and we'll include you in the March where abortion in America began.

Here's the link to the original statement.

Here's the official handout.

I think it might be fitting to have a set of rules posted for any comments that come up in the future. I’ve been involved in many discussions on the net that have fallen into unrelenting argument.

Keep in mind one very serious point. My objective with this blog is not to win arguments. My experience has been that few arguments are settled, especially on the internet. Instead, my point is to give a Catholic view of things. There may be points to argue at times, but I seriously want to avoid fights if possible. Disputing over words gains little ground for God. After all, we’re here for His glorification, not our own.

Here are the Rules (subject to change at a moments notice and at the whim of the blogger):

1. “Be watchful, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love” (1 Corinthians 16:13-14). No one is expected to back down from his or her beliefs, but this is not a place for verbal fistfights. If you wish to comment here, either let it be done in love or let it be done elsewhere.

2. “…he that refraineth his lips is most wise” (Proverbs 10:19). Please keep in mind that the terms “Romish”, “Roman”, “Roman Church”, “Popish”, “Papist”, “Recovering Catholic”, etc., are often used in derogatory ways. We are Catholic. The guy in charge is known as the Pope. It’s called the Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church (“RCC” will do for brevity). When in doubt, see Rule #1.

3. “For I know thy obstinacy, and thy most stiff neck” (Deuteronomy 31:27). If we disagree, that’s fine. However, don’t present the same argument over and over and over again. We don’t attempt to win an argument by wearing each other down. Eventually, you may have to come to terms with the fact that we aren’t going to agree on something. When that happens, see Rule #1.

4. “But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you” (John 14:26). Alas, the protection against error granted to the Church does not apply to me personally. I make mistakes. No apologist knows everything, and none are able to relate a concept perfectly on the first try 100% of the time. Please remember that we all make the occasional mistake, and deal with that in the spirit of Rule #1.

5. When in doubt, refer to Rule #1.

I strongly recommend that anyone wishing to comment here do so with after this short payer (I repeat a variation of this often):

Grant, O Lord, that no one love you less this day because of me.

A little more than a year ago, I got into a conversation with a Protestant blogger that used the word “anathema” quite often. She had left the Church in her teens (I think it was her teens), and felt that she was therefore placed under the anathema. She kept quoting elements of the Council of Trent and saying that she was anathema because of her belief in Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Sola Et Cetera.

I knew there was something wrong with the way she used the word “anathema.” Unfortunately, because of time constraints, I really didn’t have time to get into it then. I needed to do some research and, one thing and another, I completely forgot about it until recently. It’s taken a while, but I finally found the details.

Point blank: All the Protestants out there can stop worrying (er…if they were worrying). It’s no longer possible to be “anathema”.

Here’s why…

FINLAND!

The 2007 dot race is over. Finland wins by a healthy margin of hits, taking down Germany by more than 450 hits. (Are there many bots based in Finland?)

Interestingly, there were very few hits from Africa and South America. Brazil had 128 and I think all of South America was under 150. The hits from China early in the year dried up by summer and amounted to less than 120 total. In the grudge match category, Australia edged New Zealand by only 38 hits. (That’s only three hits per month, Kiwis!)

Here are the details (120 hits required to make the list):

3007 Finland
2544 Germany
1534 Canada
1253 Japan
633 UK
598 Australia
560 New Zealand
251 Czech Republic
231 Israel
230 Italy
221 Netherlands
128 Brazil
124 Poland
121 Sweden

This is, of course, all in senseless fun. The German hits may have been 50% bots, I’m not sure. Also, I can’t distinguish (easily) one country from another in the dot com department, so all those domains are left out of the calculations. That is, obviously, why the US is not included (though I did get a few hits from dot US and the dot mil domains).

This
is
a
test.

Ok, we’re in the final stretch!

Next Friday is the final First Friday before the Dallas March for Life. Join us in fasting and prayer for the end of abortion this Friday. To anyone reading these words – we need your prayerful support – even if you can’t be here in Dallas for the March.

The March itself is scheduled for the 19th of January, rain or shine. Here are the schedules and details.

I’ll be there. I know Laura and Julie will be there too. I haven’t heard from the Summa Mama’s yet. We’re still working out a meeting place, but we’ll all post it when we have the details.

IT BEGAN HERE, LET IT END HERE!

No, this won’t be the end of abortion in the US. We want to turn this into the beginning of the end. That won’t happen without a great deal of prayerful support. Let one of us know if you’re going to be in town. If you can’t come to Dallas, that’s ok too. Just let one of us know your name and your location, and we’ll march for you. If you can, try to say the rosary at the same time we do (regardless of the time zone differences).

Don’t be shy. By comments or e-mail, let one of us know and we’ll include you in the March where abortion in America began.

I’ve been especially impressed by the people from outside the US that have expressed support for this project. Please let us know where you are and whether you’ll be with us in prayer on the 19th. When the time comes, and your country is dealing with abortion in this way, we’ll be there for you as well.

Here’s the link to the original statement.

The oft heralded and much delayed relaunch of this blog is here!

I’m going to try to post something once every other week or so. I’ll make every effort to do that on Mondays, but it may be Sunday evenings (or any other day of the week really). These will be the substantive posts that take a lot of time to write, research, check, recheck, edit, and rewrite. Some are going to be 4 to 6 pages in length, so expect some sit-back-and-read-a-while posts. There will likely be fluffy stuff posted occasionally too.

You might notice a few new categories on the sidebar. These may be added too over time, but my first priority will be to get some specific definitions posted. More on this later.

Comments – I’m adding a set of rules for comments as well. Please read these before commenting. These rules will be enforced vigorously and without warning. I’ve seen a few blogs recently that let their comments get completely out of control. This isn’t good for a variety of reasons.

Questions – I’m always open for them, either by e-mail or by comments. However, please keep in mind that my answers may not be quick. I may have to do extra research or even write a completely new post to cover a question, so it may take me quite a while to get you an answer. If so, sorry, but I’d rather give a complete answer the first time round if possible. I’m also threatening myself with yet another e-mail change. I just don’t like hotmail all that much.

I don’t know how long I’ll be able to keep this up because of time constraints, but I’ll try as much as I can.

Happy reading, one and all…