By whom and when was scripture written?

[LittleLes]

Dear me. I seem to be addressing topics which aren't to be addressed. This one, I hope, doesn't prove too controversial, because I think it's fascinating.

By way of overview, I assert (and I'm open to challenge here), that a radical change in scriptural scholarship occurred within Catholicism starding about 1950. Pius XII (not my altogether favorite pope) rather remarkably allowed Catholic scriptural scholars to evaluate scripture using the same tools that their Protestant counterparts were using.

Unfortunately, while remarkable progress was made in Catholic scriptural scholarship, a lot of it still hasn't filtered down to the laity.

Any objections thus far??

Littleles

[Qoheleth]

Objections not really from me, but from a bit higher up, can be found [url="http://www.ewtn.org/library/theology/ratzbibl.htm"]here[/url].

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Qoheleth' date='Jun 20 2005, 09:39 PM']Objections not really from me, but from a bit higher up, can be found [url="http://www.ewtn.org/library/theology/ratzbibl.htm"]here[/url].
[right][snapback]617459[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

Please identify what you consider an objection in this Ratzinger writing.

[LittleLes]

In the early thirteenth century, Catholics were forbidden to read scripture.

Council of Toulouse (1229):” Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”


But this teaching was dropped in the early 18th century.

Unigentus. Pope Clement XI (1713): “80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.”

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 20 2005, 10:14 PM']In the early thirteenth century, Catholics were forbidden to read scripture.

Council of Toulouse (1229):” Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”
But this teaching was dropped in the early 18th century.

Unigentus. Pope Clement XI (1713): “80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.”
[right][snapback]617518[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And yet again, LittleLes applies a particular teaching to a regional synod. This was not for the whole of the Church, as you assume, but rather it is specifically for the jusrisdictions of the certain synods.....why, praytell?

Because those particular areas were fighting the Albigensian Heresy....oddly enough, something that flourished in France at the same time of the Council of Toulouse. This proclaimation was to limit the abuse of this heresy, through scripture. Once the heresy was put down, the limitation was lifted. Notice also that this was not a total ban on the use of scripture by the laity, but LittleLes glosses over that quickly.

But you don't get this history from brother LittleLes.

[Guest Eremite]

I was going to provide a long response, but....

This is a LittleLes thread. Why waste my time.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 20 2005, 10:30 PM']And yet again, LittleLes applies a particular teaching to a regional synod.  This was not for the whole of the Church, as you assume, but rather it is specifically for the jusrisdictions of the certain synods.....why, praytell?

Because those particular areas were fighting the Albigensian Heresy....oddly enough, something that flourished in France at the same time of the Council of Toulouse.  This proclaimation was to limit the abuse of this heresy, through scripture.  Once the heresy was put down, the limitation was lifted.  Notice also that this was not a total ban on the use of scripture by the laity, but LittleLes glosses over that quickly.

But you don't get this history from brother LittleLes.
[right][snapback]617549[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

If you are correct, only some Catholics were forbidden to read the bible.

But what about the Council of Trent's probibition on possessing and reading the Bible?

Did this only apply to some Catholics too?

"Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them. "

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 07:24 AM']I was going to provide a long response, but....

This is a LittleLes thread. Why waste my time.


[right][snapback]617742[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Agreed. Now, LittleLes is making up stuff. How does one properly respond to his fantasy-facts? Ho-hum.

Edited June 21, 2005 by Mateo el Feo

[jezic]

did you miss the "translations into the vernacular" part of that?

to answer the main question, by Divinely inspired prophets and others. They wrote it when they got tired of talking (actually whenever they did i guess. We can never really know exact dates)

Edited June 21, 2005 by jezic

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jun 21 2005, 06:24 AM']I was going to provide a long response, but....

This is a LittleLes thread. Why waste my time.


[right][snapback]617742[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Thank you. I prefer short to the point responses , not excessively long ones. If they are too long, I suspect the poster really doesn't have any clear ideas and is just rambling.

Ditto, the heavy cut and pasters or those who merely refer to long articles without stating their assertion

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 21 2005, 03:00 PM']Agreed.  Now, LittleLes is making up stuff.  How does one properly respond to his fantasy-facts?  Ho-hum.
[right][snapback]618355[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Please specifically state what you claim I am "making up." I will endeavor to give you a more complete reference.

On the other hand, if this is an assertion without evidence, please withdraw your assertion. :angry:

[LittleLes]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jun 21 2005, 03:01 PM']did you miss the "translations into the vernacular" part of that?

to answer the main question, by Divinely inspired prophets and others. They wrote it when they got tired of talking (actually whenever they did i guess. We can never really know exact dates)
[right][snapback]618357[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Translation into the venacular was absolutely essential if the laity, who rarely understood Latin, were to read scripture.

LittleLes

[Aloysius]

the council was clearly suppressing faulty or erroneous translations that were being made by the reformers

[LittleLes]

Before pursuing the "who, when, and what" issues of scripture, it is necessary to observe the state of scripture scholarship.

Two relatively modern papal writing, the latter the most important, underlie this understanding.

The first is "Providentissimus deus" (On the Stury of Holy Scripture) written by Pope Leo XIII in 1893. It is perhaps the final papal document claiming absolute inerrancy of scripture.

The second is "Divine Afflante Spiritu" (On the Most Opportune Way to promote Biblical Studies) by Pope Pius XII in 1947. This papal writing encourages scripture scholars to use textual criticism and scriptures written in the original languages rather than Latin. In short, it allowed Catholic scripture scholars to use the same methods as their Protestant counterparts.

Both are fairly long documents, 18 and 19 pages respectively. But if approached slowly, they are not too difficult to read and understand. They are available at a variety of web sites.

To avoid too long a post, I'll present the salient passages of each separately.

LittleLes

[Aloysius]

I like to play a game with my girlfriend called "which of these would have been burned back in the Age of Faith?" in the Barnes n Noble Bible section. I find it quite enjoyable.. however... it seems to get on her nerves! especially cause I pointed out the Bible that she owns! :rotfl:

she's Catholic, btw (what other girl could there be for me but a Catholic girl?, duh)

oh, and btw, scripture is inerrant and the Catholic Church still teaches that and the Vulgate is infallibly without doctrinal error and completely inspired by the Holy Spirit, though for history's sake the older texts are good for Catholic scholars to dabble in and translate. does that make St. Jerome into one of the human hands which guided by the Spirit penned the word of God? yep, just a bit and so there ya have it... if you believe in transcendent spiritual realities at work on earth, you're fine with the vulage.. if you think that it's somehow possible to figure out the original texts from the bits and peices of the oldest manuscripts we have... you're foolish. but it's good to translate and study them for history's sake, and it's still inspired scripture.