Editing Encyclicals

2 Replies

In John Paul II’s encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, was originally published with this sentence addressed to women who have had abortions:

You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord. (Section 99; hosted at EWTN)

But if you check out the edition on the Vatican website it says:

To the same Father and his mercy you can with sure hope entrust your child. (Section 99; hosted at Vatican.va)

The official Latin text, which agrees with the edition on Vatican.va, says:

Infantem autem vestrum potestis Eidem Patri Eiusque misericordiae cum spe committere. (vatican.va)

It’s not the end of the world, but it’s interesting to see papal self-editing in action. The big issue here is the fate of aborted babies (and others) who die without baptism and therefore in a state of original sin. The International Theological Commission recently did a study on this question so I won’t try to solve it here. The point is that JPII seems to have originally over-stated his case by teaching that all aborted babies were in Heaven and then edited out this statement so that it would not pre-empt the doctrinal development that is on-going. I am very curious as to how this question will eventually be resolved or if it will be.

The Dish-Washing Saint Bonaventure

2 Replies

I love the Franciscans. Poverty, simplicity, humility and joy are a few things that we need a heck of a lot more of in our time. St. Bonaventure, one of my inspirations, was considered the “second founder” of the Franciscan order. He’s a doctor of the Church, referred to as the “Seraphic Doctor.” And interestingly, he and St. Thomas Aquinas got their degrees at the same ceremony.

saint_bonaventure

Thanks to the MyHopeBox blog for putting this photo online

Late in life, St. Bonaventure was appointed to be a cardinal by the pope. In those days, the message didn’t come in a phone call. Rather the pope would send out a delegation of Vatican officials to bring the red hat to the appointee. (The red hat, the galero, which back then looked more like a sombrero, was the most important symbol of the cardinal’s office. Since 1965, the galero is no longer in use.)

Anyway, when the delegation showed up at St. Bonaventure’s friary, they found him washing the dishes. He actually sent them outside to wait for him to finish the dishes. Legend has it, he asked them to leave the red hat on a tree outside. So the saint finished washing the dishes and then came to greet the papal delegation.

Doing dishes often feels more like an annoying necessity than the substance of holiness. I think most of us would be tempted to put the dishes down gratefully for someone else to do if a papal messenger were knocking on the door. But St. Bonaventure’s commitment to his task in the life of his community, even in the face of honors from the pope, shows something very simple and yet very deep: The path to sainthood does not lie in showy ostentation, in external honors and achievements, but in the mundane, humdrum tasks of daily living. It’s the way we do these things, the level of commitment to our personal missions, that changes us. No amount of external recognition can bring about that kind of holiness. St. Bonaventure was not disrespecting the papal messengers, but deeply respecting the calling God had placed on his life at that moment: Wash the dishes!

Maybe you could think of the Seraphic Doctor next time you wash the dishes and realize that doing the dishes can be your path to holiness!

(Oh, by the way, today, July 15, is St. Bonaventure’s feast day.)

Nine Biblical Metaphors for Sin

3 Replies

This topic has received magisterial treatment (in the scholarly sense) in Gary Anderson’s book, Sin: A History, but I wanted to offer a brief post on the biblical metaphors for sin. I find them fascinating and life-changing in terms of the way we conceive of ourselves and our moral mis-steps.

1. A Burden

Burdens

Anderson insists that the concept of sin as a burden in the OT is the most important, foundational metaphor. For example, we find “a people laden with iniquity” (Isa 1:4), the idea of “bearing sin” (Lev 20:20, 22:9, 24:15; Num 9:13, 18:22, 32), and iniquities “like a heavy burden” (Ps 38:4). But also Jesus says “Come to me all you who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt 11:28).  So sin is a burden to be borne.

2. A Stain

Anderson emphasizes this idea, which shows up in Jer 2:22 as “the stain of your guilt,” but also in Isaiah 1:18 “though your sins be like scarlet, they shall be white as snow.” There’s also the possibility of a “spot” clinging to Job’s hands (Job 31:7). The idea shows up elsewhere too (Sir 11:33, 44:19; 1 Tim 6:14). Sin is like a stain that is really hard to wash out. So redemption then is a “cleansing” or a “washing” (Ps 51:4; Eph 5:26; Titus 3:5).

3. A Debt

Sin is mentioned as a “record of debt” that was nailed to the cross by St. Paul (Col 2:14). Jesus uses the idea of debt to explain the forgiveness of sins in parables (Matt 18:21-35; Luke 7:41-50). It’s important to note that sometimes in the ancient world people would literally “sell themselves” into slavery in order to pay back debts, so these two metaphors for sin are connected. It gives a whole new meaning to the term “Master Card.”

4. A Lion

Lion

One of the first mentions of sin is in Genesis 4:7 where it is “crouching at the door” hoping to devour Cain. The posture of crouching is specifically linked with lions in the OT (Gen 49:9; Num 24:9; Deut 33:20; Job 38:40; Ezek 19:2). This idea re-appears in 1 Pet 5:8 as the devil “prowling around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” So sin is a lion: Look out!

5. Leprosy

Leprosy, a skin disease, made a person ritually unclean and unable to enter the Temple and in fact, had to live in exile separated from other people (see Lev 13-14). The connection between sin and leprosy is not as explicit in the Bible, but both of them make a person “unclean” and therefore unfit for God’s presence. Two famous lepers appear in the OT: Naaman the Syrian (2 Kgs 5:1), and King Azariah/Uzziah (2 Kgs 15:5; 2 Chr 26:21-23). Notably, one is delivered by God from leprosy and the other is afflicted by God with the disease. When Jesus cleanses lepers (Mark 1:41 || Matt 8:3, Luke 17:14, Matt 11:5 || Luke 7:22), he is not only healing them physically, but symbolically pointing to his power to forgive sins. Notably, the ten lepers cry out for him to “have mercy on us” (Luke 17:13). He does. So sin is like a debilitating skin disease which makes a person unclean, unable to enter the presence of the Lord.

6. Slavery

Slavery links sin to the Israelites’ plight in Egypt. This particular situation of slavery is the controlling one for biblical metaphor here (just search “house of slavery” in the OT), but slavery in general is linked to sin. This concept is mentioned in Heb 2:15, which mentions the “lifelong slavery” of sin by which we were enslaved to the devil. St. Paul mentions the “spirit of slavery” (Rom 8:15) and the “yoke of slavery” (Gal 5:1; see also Gal 2:4). In Galatians, he’s more specifically talking about slavery to the ceremonial precepts of the Mosaic law, but the main idea is that Christ has freed us from slavery to sin and some would have us go back into slavery.

7. Slavemaster

St. Paul tells us that it is possible to be “enslaved to sin” (Rom 6:6), portraying Sin as a slavemaster. I like to think of this very similar to the way drug addiction works–one can become enslaved to drugs or alcohol. Sin has the same allure, but induces a person into subservience, sacrificing their free will to feed their destructive desires.

8. KingNorweigen Crown

According to St. Paul, sin used to “reign through death” (Rom 5:21) and he urges us not to allow sin to “reign in your mortal body” (Rom 6:12). Also, much earlier, God urges Cain to “rule over” sin which “desires” him (Gen 4:7). Sin can be a king or we can be king over it.

9. Military Conscriptor

St. Paul talks about how one who succumbs to sin makes his body parts “weapons for unrighteousness” (Rom 6:13). Also, he describes how the “wages”–the Greek word ὀψώνια originally referred to a soldier’s pay–“of sin is death” (Rom 6:23). So, the army-pay of sin is death and the one who pays it is Sin, who makes our bodies into “weapons” for his evil designs.

There you have it. Sin, fundamentally a choice against God, an act of disobedience, is pictured many different ways throughout the Bible. The Bible portrays sin as a burden, a stain, a debt, a lion, leprosy, slavery, a slavemaster, a king and a military conscriptor. If you find any more metaphors for sin in the Bible, leave a comment.

Introductions to Books of the Bible, eCatholicHub.net and Roman Martyrology

8 Replies

I want to tie up some loose ends in this post.

Bible Book Introductions

From 2006-2008, I was writing for a website called eCatholicHub.net. I wrote introductions to the books of the Bible and Lectio Divina meditations on the Sunday readings. I also produced a database of saints based on the Roman Martyrology for the site. In 2009, eCatholicHub closed up shop and all the content I had produced was transferred to Catholic News Agency. Their Bible page still houses my introductions to biblical books.

Roman Martyrology

Old Book

CNA already had a saint database, so I’m not sure exactly how (or if) they used the Roman Martyrology data that I provided. I should explain that I did not translate the whole 2004 Martyrology. Rather, I used the Martyrology to piece together the most complete possible list of saints and blesseds. I referred to the Martyrology project in a few previous posts: here, and here, also here. A few years have passed, so quite a few new saints and blesseds would need to be added to a new edition. As far as I know, there is no current English translation of the Martyrology.

On that note, I also wanted to straighten out exactly what editions exist. The most important one is the 2004 editio typica (official) in Latin:

  • Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Martyrologium Romanum. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004. ISBN: 978-88-2097-210-3. 844 pp.

The Latin uses some very obscure abbreviations that took me a lot of toil to figure out. Some of that is took place in an interchange with Fr. Z and his readers.

The previous editio typica came out in 2001, but was quickly superseded by the 2004 edition. For the sake of completeness:

  • Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Martyrologium Romanum. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2001. 773 pp.

English translations of older editions:

  • O’Connell, J. B. The Roman Martyrology, in which are to be found the eulogies of the saints and blessed approved by the Sacred Congregation of Rites up to 1961. An English translation from the 4th ed. after the typical edition (1956) approved by Pope Benedict XV (1922). Westminster, MD: Newman, 1962. LCCN: 62-21497. 412 pp.
  • Collins, Raphael J. The Roman Martyrology: The 3d Turin ed., according to the original, complete with the proper eulogies of recent saints and offices. Westminster, MD: Newman, 1946. LCCN: 46-6139. 352 pp.
  • The Roman Martyrology, in accordance with the reforms of Pope Pius X; in which are to be found the eulogies of the saints and blessed approved by the Sacred Congregation of Rites up to the present time, with supplements for the Carmelite, Franciscan and Servite orders, and for the Society of Jesus. London: Burns, Oates and Washbourne, 1923. 516 pp.
  • The Roman Martyrology published by order of Gregory XIII, revised by the authority of Urban VIII, and Clement X. Afterwards, in the year 1749, augmented and corrected by Benedict XIV. Baltimore: John Murphy, 1916. (Based on the 1914 Latin text.) Online at archive.org.

While not everyone reads the Roman Martyrology on a regular basis, it seems like it might be time for a complete English translation. I’d be happy to help, but I’m sure I’d need to consult some serious Latin experts to bring it to completion.

Who is Melchizedek?

Leave a reply

Melchizedek, a figure so heavily emphasized in the letter to the Hebrews, is shrouded in mystery. Who is this character and why is he so important?

Melchizedek

In the Bible
Melchizedek shows up only three times in the Bible. At first, he is a priest to whom Abraham pays a tithe (Gen 14:20). Melchizedek is here called a “priest of God Most High”; he offers bread and wine and blesses Abraham (Gen 14:18-19). Second, he shows up in a royal coronation psalm, written to celebrate the Davidic king, wherein the Lord “swears” an oath that the king “is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4). Lastly, he shows up in Hebrews, which mentions him 8 times and emphasizes that Christ is a high priest in the line of Melchizedek, applying the line from Ps 110 to him (Heb 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:1, 10, 11, 15, 17).

In the Dead Sea Scrolls
Melchizedek appears in a document discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls called 11QMelchizedek or 11Q13. In this text, Melchizedek returns to inaugurate the jubilee year, the “year of Melchizedek’s favor”* according to the text of 11Q13, instead of the “year of the Lord’s favor” in Isa 61:2. The text describes Melchizedek as a “godlike being”* who judges and executes God’s vengence. It cites Ps 82:1 and Ps 7:7-8 to describe him.

In Apocryphal Literature
Melchizedek is mentioned in 2 Enoch 68-73 (“the Exaltation of Melchizedek”) as being conceived without a father, being born from his mother’s dead body as a 3-year-old and continuing the line of priests from Enoch and Seth. The Nag Hammadi text “Tractate Melchizedek” in Codex IX, identifies Melchizedek as Jesus Christ.

Philo
Philo explains Melchizedek as a just king and relates him to reason (logos). See Legum Allegoriarum 3.79-82.

In Early Jewish Literature
Some early Jewish writers equate Melchizedek with the archangel Michael, leader of the heavenly armies. Other early Jewish authorities identify Melchizedek with Shem, the son of Noah (Targumim Pseudo-Jonathan, Neofiti, V, P).

In Early Christianity
There was actually a group of Christian heretics called “Melchizedekians”, referred to by Epiphanius of Salamis in his Panarion, Book II, chapter 55 (Greek, English excerpts). They regarded Melchizedek as actually greater than Jesus. There is also an early Christian work called Historia de Melchizedek (PG 28:525) attributed to pseudo-Athanasius.

Conclusions
So what to make of all these different identities? Clearly, early Jewish and Christian writers were very interested in Melchizedek’s identity and often sought to explain him in a way that pulled together other concepts–priesthood, redemption, eschatology. The best source, of course, is the Bible. Melchizedek should mainly be seen as an Old Testament priest who serves as a “type” of Christ. He foreshadows Christ’s universal priesthood through which we can be redeemed. The letter to the Hebrews provides the definitive interpretation of Melchizedek–a man, yes, but a man who points to the God-man.

I am indebted to Harold Attridge’s commentary on Hebrews (Hermeneia series, [Fortress Press, 1989]192-95) for pointing me to the right sources. You can find an online reproduction of his essay here.

*See Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 456.

Missing Bible Verses

Leave a reply

P46You might be surprised when you’re reading the New Testament and a verse disappears into thin air. For example, if you are reading Acts 8:36, you would expect Acts 8:37 to follow, but oddly, 8:38 is the next verse. What happened to Acts 8:37?

Or try to look up Romans 16:24. Or Matthew 17:21.

In fact, there’s a whole list of Bible verses that have been, er, excised from modern editions. Why?

The versification system that we use in English is based on the King James Bible (and some precursors) that relied on the Greek “Textus Receptus” (relying for the NT mainly on Erasmus’ edition) while modern translations are based on more recent text-critical work. The Textus Receptus  represents a Byzantine text type, but the newer critical editions are based on an Alexandrian text type. The Alexandrian text is now generally regarded as more accurate.

So our versification system is based on the King James, which is based on the Byzantine text, but our translations are based on the Alexandrian text. This means we’re using a verse system that does not line up with our text and it creates, well, holes. Even the Nova Vulgata, the Catholic Church’s official edition omits the verses.

Then are these omitted verses Scripture? Well, not exactly, but they were regarded as Scripture by many Christians for ages. Fortunately, most of them are not crucial verses.

Just a little piece of Bible-reader knowledge that will prevent you from calling the publisher in outrage when you find that a verse is missing from your Bible!

A Catholic Theology of the Old Testament

5 Replies

One of my friends mentioned to me a couple weeks ago, “No one has written a Catholic theology of the Old Testament in over 40 years.” I took a look and well, he’s right. In fact, if you type “catholic old testament” into Amazon, almost nothing comes up. There have been lots of Old Testament theology books from Protestant scholars, famous ones too: Childs, Goldingay, Waltke/Yu, and of course, Brueggemann.

The exact goal of an Old Testament theology is a little hard to define, but it comes around to explaining how the Old Testament portrays God and man’s relationship with Him. Of course, Christian writers are interested in how the Old Testament prepares the stage for Jesus and the New Testament as well.

A specifically Catholic theology of the Old Testament should contribute all these things, but should add a lot on how to integrate Old Testament teachings with the official doctrine of the Church and her theology. This is not easy to do. Significant changes in Catholic theology have unfolded over the last 50 years, so the task has become even more complicated.

So, what old Catholic Old Testament theologies are there? Well, I just checked out one called Theology of the Old Testament by Paul Heinisch (originally written in German around 1940; published in English in 1965; Review here). Another one was Theology of the Old Testament by Paul van Imschoot (original in French? 1954; vol. 1 English translation in 1965)–three volumes were planned; two were published in French, only one in English.

Perhaps it is time for a new Catholic theology of the Old Testament.

UPDATE:

I found a couple more Catholic theologies of the Old Testament in Frederick Prussner’s book, Old Testament Theology: Its History and Development. Here they are:
Cordero, Garcia. Teologia de la Biblia: vol. 1, Antiguo Testamento. Madrid: Editorial Catolica, 1970.
McKenzie, John L. A Theology of the Old Testament. Garden City: Doubleday, 1974.

Cardinals who are Biblical Scholars

Leave a reply

Now that the cardinals have entered the conclave, there’s not much to be said about anything besides white and black smoke. So, I thought I’d add to the non-discussion discussion by listing the cardinal electors I can find who are biblical scholars in some respect.

Cardinal Giuseppe Betori, S.T.L. (Gregorian), S.S.D. (Biblicum)

Cardinal Thomas Christopher Collins, S.S.L. (Biblicum), S.T.D. (Gregorian)

Cardinal Dominik Duka, O.P., S.T.L. (Warsaw)

Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya, S.S.D. (Biblicum – Jerusalem)

Cardinal Patriarch Antonios Naguib, S.T.L., S.S.L (Biblicum)

Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith, S.S.L. (Biblicum)

Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, S.T.L (Milan), S.S.L (Biblicum)

Cardinal Robert Sarah, S.T.L. (Gregorian), S.S.L. (Franciscanum)

Cardinal Peter Turkson, S.S.L., S.S.D. (Biblicum)

Note that this is not a definitive list, so if you notice any cardinal electors who are biblical scholars not on this list, post a comment!

Did Mary Crush the Serpent’s Head?

9 Replies

If you go to any Catholic Church or bookstore, you’re likely to see a statue of the Virgin Mary standing on a snake. A statue of the Virgin makes sense, but why does she always have a serpent underfoot? Well, it’s a long story.

The story begins with Gen 3:15, some of the words that God speaks to the serpent after deceiving Adam and Eve, inducing their Fall, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (RSV). So, you’re probably thinking, “I don’t see the connection. It says ‘he shall bruise’ not ‘she’.” And you’re right, for the RSV. But if you look at the Douay-Rheims version, it says, “she shall crush thy head.” What’s going on?

Well, what we have here really is a text-critical problem.

Hebrew Masoretic Text: הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ֣ רֹ֔אשׁ  (hu’ yeshuphka rosh, “he will crush your head”)

Greek Septuagint: αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν (“he will watch your head”)

Latin Vulgate: ipsa conteret caput tuum (“she will crush your head”)

Nova Vulgata (1979): ipsum conteret caput tuum (“it will crush your head”)

In the Hebrew, the masculine pronoun hu’ is referring back to the noun zera‘, which is a masculine noun. The other thing to mention is that the verb form, yeshuphka, is third person masculine singular with a second person singular pronominal suffix.  And the vowel pointing could not change it to feminine—the feminine form would include one different letter, not just vowel points. It would be תָּשׁוּפְךָ* (tashuphka). The masculine is not just in the pronoun, but is embedded in the verb.

In Greek, the masculine pronoun autos is used even though the antecedent (spermatos, seed) is neuter. It seems that the masculine is preferred here by the translator because the seed/offspring of Eve would presumably be a person, not a thing.

The Nova Vulgata uses ipsum, a neuter pronoun referring to a neuter noun (seed, semen). But St. Jerome’s Vulgate is the outlier here, reading ipsa, which here is the feminine nominative singular (not the nom/acc neuter plural) and the Douay-Rheims version is based on the Vulgate. I should also add that the Nova Vulgata is the current official version of the Bible promulgated by the Vatican.

The old Catholic Encyclopedia defends the Vulgate text of this passage thusly:

The reading “she” (ipsa) is neither an intentional corruption of the original text, nor is it an accidental error; it is rather an explanatory version expressing explicitly the fact of Our Lady’s part in the victory over the serpent, which is contained implicitly in the Hebrew original. The strength of the Christian tradition as to Mary’s share in this victory may be inferred from the retention of “she” in St. Jerome’s version in spite of his acquaintance with the original text and with the reading “he” (ipse) in the old Latin version. (emphasis added)

This explanation is rather generous, but it’s more helpful than saying that we just don’t know why Jerome translated this way.

Interestingly, Jerome’s translation made it into a very important papal statement, the declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in Pope Pius IX’s Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus:

Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.

I like the idea of the Virgin Mary having an “immaculate foot,” but I still think this statement is based on a flaw in Jerome’s translation. Interestingly, when John Paul II took up the Protoevangelium in his audience on Dec 17, 1986 he regards Christ as the agent of “crushing” not Mary.

Now, of course, from a theological perspective, every Christian shares in Christ’s victory over sin and the devil. The New Testament substantiates this: But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. (1 Peter 4:13 RSV) “For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith.” (1 John 5:4 RSV) Mary, as the most Christian Christian, is as JPII teaches in the above-cited text, “the one who first shares in that victory over sin won by Christ.” So all Christians get to “crush the serpent’s head” through Christ’s victory on the cross and the Virgin Mary is the first to share in that victory. Are the statues based on a faulty translation? Yes. But are they still theologically correct? Yes.

Papal Election Rules for the Conclave

Leave a reply

The rules for electing a pope are, shall we say, a bit complex. Here’s just a few links to help you navigate the legal intricacies:

Universi Dominici Gregis, John Paul II, February 22, 1996
(This document lays out the official rules for the conclave completely.)

De aliquibus mutationibus in normis de electione Romani Pontificis, Benedict XVI, June 11, 2007 (Latin only, sorry! This document re-establishes the requirement for a 2/3 majority vote in all cases. In the 1996 document linked above, the requirement was for a simple majority only after a certain number of inconclusive votes.)

Motu Proprio Normas Nonullas, Benedict XVI, February 22, 2013 (I linked the English text at NCReporter, but you can get the Italian and Latin on the Vatican website. The main thrust of this short document is to allow the conclave to convene earlier than Universi Dominici Gregis requires.)

Code of Canon Law on the Cardinals might also be helpful.