The history of belief in Peterine primacy

[LittleLes]

Hi Kenny,

You can find the passage in Greek on the Web. Since I don't read Greek, I used the English translation.

Do you challenge the accuracy of the translation I used? Precisely what?

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]Do you challenge the accuracy of the translation I used?[/quote]

Quite simply put, [b]I challenge everything that you put forth to this point.[/b] I have given support to the Catholic position, as have others.

You don't cite the translation, you don't even quote the verse. How about a smidge of scholarly action. It would be nice since you berated me for not doing the same.

Cam

[LittleLes]

Since Kenny aka Thirsty-For-Orthodoxy, has expressed concern about the accuracy of the translations I'm using, I'm deviating from my aversion to URL's and providing a URL for theGreek text from which the translation is made that I'll be using for Irenaeus. I'll also start giving some background material on the history of the period in which the document was written (and the reference in which it can be found).

Since I assume most of us don't read Greek, English translation can be found on the "Christian Hospitality" website or at other websites. I'll be using this in my post. (Be careful to note that some translations are modified slightly to match the belief system of the translators).

[url="http://www.christianhospitality.org/pages_20items/irenaeus-gospels.htm"]http://www.christianhospitality.org/pages_...eus-gospels.htm[/url]

Littleles

P.S. If this doesn't work, I'll try posting it again or the serach terms.

[Cam42]

[quote](Be careful to note that some translations are modified slightly to match the belief system of the translators).[/quote]

Yes, let's make sure that we use the proper translation....how about the Vulgate, it is the earliest complete translation of the Canon, available.

I also paroused your wesite that is listed....we cannot possibly take it seriously. The Textus Receptus only dates to 1550. It is entirely to new. We need more ancient documentation from you. Sorry.

Cam

Edited March 12, 2005 by Cam42

[LittleLes]

The translations I am presenting in Greek of Irenaeus and others has absolutely nothing to do with the Latin Vulgate or any other bible. These are writings of the Church Fathers, not scripture.

Little Les

[Cam42]

Rather than providing a link that simply states a partial writing of Irenaeus in Greek, which I agree, most won't be able to read, why don't you provide a link of some use. What you have provided is an image and not quotable. I tracked back to the main website and it is nothing more than an organ for Brother Branham Ministries.

It is basically a compliation of Wesleyan (Methodist) and Lutheran theology. Both hold no weight and have no scholarly value when dealing with the situation at hand.

So, if we are going to discuss the Greek, let's get at it, I happen to read ecclesiastical Greek, (had to learn it for my degree) as well as some Hebrew, and as you have surmised (I hope) I am conversant in Latin. So, let's have the conversation. Where do you want to start with the Greek? Shall we break it down word for word?

I have not done this in a while, it will be good to knock off some of the dust from my Greek.

Cam

Edited March 13, 2005 by Cam42

[LittleLes]

A little history before we continue analyzing putative claims that Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

Toward the end of the second century, we begin to see the rise of the monarchial bishops (there's no "pope" yet). Naturally, they try to find reasons for claiming authority and even preeminence. It's natural that the bishop of Rome, the captial of the Roman empire, would try to claim the greatest authority, and eventually extend this claim over other bishops and even princes and kings.

"A Concise History of the Catholic Church" Fr. Thomas Bokenkotter, SS, Doubleday, NY, 1990

"The authority of the monarchial bishops as a guarantor of the oral tradition was based on the claim that he stood in legitimate succession in a line reaching back to the apostles themselves."

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

The next "evidence" that apologists present to prove their claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome is that of Irenaeus of Lyons, A.D. 180 in his Against Heresies, III i I. Unfortunately, only an old Latin copy survives.

This writing, principally created to refute the growing Gnostic influence in the church, describes the writing of the four principle gospels.

"Matthew also produced amongst the Hebrews, in their own dialect, a written account of the Gospel of Peter and Paul, in Rome, while they were (still) evangelizing and laying the foundation of the Church."

"After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter."

"And Luke, for his part, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him."

"Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish the Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."

The accuracy of these statements regarding the composition of the Gospels written several generations after the events, has been challenged, but there is no claim here that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome.

LittleLes

Edited March 14, 2005 by LittleLes

[thirsty-for-orthodoxy]

[quote]Since Kenny aka Thirsty-For-Orthodoxy, has expressed concern about the accuracy of the translations I'm using, I'm deviating from my aversion to URL's and providing a URL for theGreek text from which the translation is made that I'll be using for Irenaeus[/quote]

So now Irrenaeus is a valid reference. At least that is what it sounds like you are saying.

God bless you all,
Kenny

[Cam42]

[quote]So now Irrenaeus is a valid reference. At least that is what it sounds like you are saying.[/quote]

That is exactly what he is saying. However, he is contradicting himself, because Irenaeus is too young....he's a whipper-snapper in Littleles' mind, don'tcha know.

Next thing you know, he'll be calling a cassarole a hotdish!!!! Sheesh

Cam

[Cam42]

[quote]Yes, let's make sure that we use the proper translation....how about the Vulgate, it is the earliest complete translation of the Canon, available.[/quote]

The Codex Vaticanus and the Vulgate are synonomous.....

Codex Vaticanus, a Greek manuscript, the most important of all the manuscripts of Holy Scripture. It is so called because it belongs to the Vatican Library (Codex Vaticanus, 1209). [b]This codex is a quarto volume written in uncial letters of the fourth century[/b], on folios of fine parchment bound in quinterns. Each page is divided into three columns of forty lines each, with from sixteen to eighteen letters to a line, except in the poetical books, where, owing to the stichometric division of the lines, there are but two columns to a page.

The Vulgate:
[quote]A second period extends from his sojourn in Rome to the beginning of the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew (382-390). During this period the exegetical vocation of St. Jerome asserted itself under the influence of Pope Damasus, and took definite shape when the opposition of the ecclesiastics of Rome compelled the caustic Dalmatian to renounce ecclesiastical advancement and retire to Bethlehem. In 384 we have the correction of the Latin version of the Four Gospels; in 385, the Epistles of St. Paul; in 384, a first revision of the Latin Psalms according to the accepted text of the Septuagint (Roman Psalter); in 384, the revision of the Latin version of the Book of Job, after the accepted version of the Septuagint; between 386 and 391 a second revision of the Latin Psalter, this time according to the text of the "Hexapla" of Origen (Gallican Psalter, embodied in the Vulgate). It is doubtful whether he revised the entire version of the Old Testament according to the Greek of the Septuagint. In 382-383 "Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi" and "De perpetua Virginitate B. Mariae; adversus Helvidium". In 387-388, commentaries on the Epistles to Philemon, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to Titus; and in 389-390, on Ecclesiastes.

Between 390 and 405, St. Jerome gave all his attention to the translation of the Old Testament according to the Hebrew, but this work alternated with many others. Between 390-394 he translated the Books of Samuel and of Kings, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Esdras, and Paralipomena......[b]in 398[/b], revision of the remainder of the Latin version of the New Testament, and about that time commentaries on chapters xiii-xxiii of Isaias (Catholic Encyclopedia)[/quote]

Notice the dates....4th century. The Codex Vaticanus, 4th century & The Vulgate 4th century. Synonomous.

So, now that I have proven that the Codex Vaticanus is of the same timeframe as the Vulgate....as far as the Codex Sinaticus, it is commonly accepted that it dates to the 5th century, so that is way off base.

However, this question needs answering....Aren't these translations all too new for you? You consider the Codex Vaticanus to be authoritative, you have said so on other threads. It is 400 years after the death of Christ. A website that you list as authoratative uses the Textus Receptus. That dates to the 1550's. A mere child in your eyes. I would think that you have no legs to stand on at this point. What course of scripture are you using as baisis? KJV, Vulgate, Luther, Seagond? The Vulgate is the authoratative version....you cannot argue against that.

Deal with this here, not anywhere else.

Stay within each thread, don't cross over.

Cam

[LittleLes]

No, CAM. The Codex Vaticanus and Vulgate are not synonomus. For example, the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaticus do not contain the account of the woman taken in adultery, John 8. You tell us that the Vulgate does.

Neither codexies change the Apostles' and brothers of Jesus' wives into Christian sisters. Neither has Tobias wait those three nights to consumate his marriage to prove the exclusively procreative reason for sex, as Jerome does.

If you demand evidence, compare these passages in the Douay Rheims and NAB on line.

And, of course, none of the three contain the writing of the early church fathers.

LittleLes

Edited March 15, 2005 by LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]The Codex Vaticanus and Vulgate are not synonomus.[/quote]

But they do date from the same timeframe, so using your skewed methodology, they are. They are from the same time. One is not earlier than the other. Proven.

Again, how can you accept either, they are too new. We need writings from the day after Christ died, in order for you to accept them.

Aren't these translations all too new for you?

Cam

[Cam42]

BTW, the Codex Vaticanus is not complete, it is lacking some very important books of the Bible.

the Old Testament text lacks the following passages: Gen., i-xlvi,28; II Kings, ii,5-7,10-13; Pss. cv,27-cxxxvii, 6.

The order of the books of the Old Testament is as follows: Genesis to Second Paralipomenon, First and second Esdras, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles, Job, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the Minor Prophets from Osee to Malachi, Isaias, Jeremias, Baruch, Lamentations and Epistle of Jeremias, Ezechiel, Daniel.

The order of the New Testament books is as follows: Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Catholic Epistles, St. Paul to the Romans, Corinthians (I-II), Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalonians (I-II), Hebrews.

This would hardly constitute a full canon. It is not. No one regards the Codex Vaticanus to be that, except of course, you. (Hint, notice the missing books.....there are bunch.)

My assertion still stands, the Vulgate, of the same time period, is the Vulgate.

[quote]....the Vulgate, it is the earliest [b]complete translation of the Canon[/b], available.[/quote]

Cam

[LittleLes]

The Vulgate is a flawed translation. See my post (today) quoting Metzger, under Did Jesus found a church.

LittleLes