Tag Archives: manuscripts

What About That Dog in Tobit?

Leave a reply

For anyone who cares to look, the textual history of Tobit is more than a little confusing. For a long time we only had two Greek texts (ok, and a middle-way third Greek), but then we found significant fragments of Tobit in the Dead Sea Scrolls and now we have three languages of record: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Fortunately, scholars have delved deep into all the material and come up with significant results. (I have covered it a bit before.) Oh yeah, and then there’s that dog—he’s part of the story too!

 

First Things First: A Chart

How many texts of Tobit are there? What are we really looking at?

Greek I Shorter recension
Greek II Longer recension; 1700 lines longer; text in Sinaiticus
Greek III Only Tobit 6:8–13:6; mediates between Greek I and Greek II
Aramaic 4Q196 Tob 1:17, 1:19–2:2, 3:9–15, 6:14–17, 6:19–7:3, 13:6–12, 13:12–14:3
Aramaic 4Q197 Tob 4:21–5:1, 5:12–14, 5:19–6:12, 6:12–19, 6:19–7:10, 8:21–9:4
Aramaic 4Q198 Tob 14:2–6, 14:10
Aramaic 4Q199 Tob 7:12
Hebrew 4Q200 Tob 3:6, 3:10–11, 4:3–9, 10:7–9, 11:10–12, 12:20–13:4, 13:13–14, 13:18–14:2

OK, But Tell Me About the Dog

The dog appears in Tobit twice, at 6:1–2 and 11:4. Here I’m quoting the NRSV-CE of Tobit:

  • So she stopped weeping. The young man went out and the angel went with him; and the dog came out with him and went along with them. So they both journeyed along, and when the first night overtook them they camped by the Tigris river. (Tob 6:1–2 NRSVCE)
  • As they went on together Raphael said to him, “Have the gall ready.” And the dog went along behind them. (Tob 11:4 NRSVCE)

Now, go flip open your Bible. If you have the NABRE, you can find the dog in 6:2, but if you have the RSVCE, there’s no dog there. Why not?

 

Dogs Tell No Tales (About the Text of Tobit)

The dog is the key! Well, not quite, but the dog is a great indicator that our text of Tobit is inherited in multiple forms. Greek I is shorter, so most scholars thought it was better, according to the text-critical principle, lectio brevior potior, “shorter reading is better.” They were wrong. The longer Greek II is more original, as confirmed by those Dead Sea Scroll fragements. As I have explained before when considering the differences between the RSV-2CE and the ESV-CE, Tobit is crucial:

The RSV-2CE of Tobit relies on the 1957 RSV Apocrypha translation, which was based on the shorter Greek text of Tobit (Greek I represented in Vaticanus and Alexandrinus), while all modern translations of Tobit, like the ESV-CE, rely on the longer Greek text (Greek II represented by Sinaiticus). Greek II is about 1700 words longer than Greek I and it serves as the basis for the Nova Vulgata rendition of Tobit in Latin. Greek II is also confirmed as the best text of Tobit by the 1995 publication of long fragments of Tobit from the Dead Sea Scrolls in Hebrew and Aramaic by Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer, SJ.

Why does 1957 matter to us? Up until the early 1960s, scholars maintained preference for Greek I. However, scholarly opinion changed and it became clear from careful study that Greek II was more original. This opinion was confirmed by the 1995 publication by Fitzmyer of the Dead Sea fragments. All contemporary translations are based on Greek II with the help of the fragments.

 

But Where Is the Dog?

The dog appears only once in the shorter Greek I recension—hence, why it shows up only once in the RSV (11:4). But the dog appears two times in the Greek II, so it shows up two times in more contemporary translations (6:2 and 11:4 in NRSV, ESV-CE, NABRE). But does the dog appear in Hebrew or Aramaic? If you carefully comb through all those references in my chart, you’ll notice that 11:4 does not appear in any of the five fragments, but since the Greek texts agree on the dog there, everyone finds the dog at 11:4—the fragments are simply incomplete. But one of the fragments, 4Q197 does include 6:2—so does it have the dog? More on that in a second, but first, the often-overlooked NABRE Textual Notes also include this tidbit:

6:2: The dog . . . with them: so GII; VL: et canis secutus est eos; similarly Vg. GI and P omit.

So that means, Greek II and the Old Latin (VL=Vetus Latina) include the dog at 6:2, but the Vulgate, Greek I and Peshitta (Syriac edition) omit the dog at 6:2.

Well, Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer did the hard work of reconstructing the text of Tobit 6:2 from a fragment riddled with holes and gives us this:

[2 and] the [ange]l (was) with him, and [the dog wen]t [along, and] together [they traveled.] And there followed for them (quoted by Carey Moore, Tobit, Anchor Bible 40A [Doubleday, 1996] p. 210).

Does the dog appear in the Aramaic? So, yes and no. The Aramaic word for dog, kelev, does not appear, but from the spacing of the letters and losses in the fragment, it seems that there is just enough space for it as reconstructed. So the 4Q197 fragment included the dog originally, but the actually word on the page has been lost to the ravages of time.

It might take a lot of scholarly headaches to arrive at a solution, but the story of the dog in Tobit helps us see the value of textual criticism. If it weren’t for the dog, we might not have bothered to notice that there are two different versions of the Greek, that the longer one is better and that the original Aramaic text included two appearances for the dog. So, for dog-lovers everywhere, Tobit is the book for you!

Shoutout to one of my professors, Dr. Edward Cook, for collecting references in literature to Tobit’s Dog: https://ralphriver.blogspot.com/2005/04/tobits-dog.html

Have You Been Reading the Wrong Version of Jeremiah?

Leave a reply

Here’s a mind-bending thought about Jeremiah from Michael B. Shepherd: What if the Masoretic Text version of Jeremiah is not in agreement with the canon’s own interpretation of Jeremiah as represented by Ezekiel and Daniel?

Greek, Hebrew and Divine Inspiration

In his new commentary, where he backtranslates from the Greek Septuagint text of Jeremiah to Hebrew, he struggles with the problem of divine inspiration. He says,

“A biblical doctrine of inspiration, not to mention the exigencies of making a translation and commentary, requires a careful text-critical decision about which edition of Jeremiah is God-breathed and superintended by the Spirit” (p. 18).

The version of Jeremiah in our modern Bibles is based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text. It’s the gold standard for the Old Testament in general. However, we have always had an alternate Greek version of Jeremiah that comes in a different order, has certain “pluses” and “minuses” versus the Hebrew text and generally reads differently. The Greek text is about one seventh shorter than the Hebrew text, according to computerized analyses.

Hebraica Veritas

Now normally, you’d be thinking: “Why does this matter? The ancient Israelites spoke Hebrew, not Greek, so the Hebrew text must be better.” Often this is the case and goes with St. Jerome’s dictum, Hebraica veritas. But in this case, things get really dicey. While the Dead Sea Scrolls contained a small handful of fragmentary Jeremiah manuscripts, two fragments are of great interest here: 4QJerb (9:22–10:18) and 4QJerd (43:3–9). These two fragments, dated to about 200 BC, agree with the Septuagint version against the Hebrew Masoretic text!

Two Significant Changes in Jeremiah’s Message

Again, normally you’d think: “Ah, no big deal. It’s probably just minor spelling variations and a few pronouns.” But again, not correct. If these two fragments are definitive, they show that the “proto-Masoretic” Hebrew Vorlage of Septuagint Jeremiah is more ancient than the Hebrew. And remember that the earlier edition of Jeremiah is substantially shorter—one seventh shorter than MT Jeremiah. Beyond that, Shepherd argues, that the “theological message” of the book changes dramatically from the original version to the MT version in two ways:

  1. He says, “In the first edition, the mysterious enemy from the north (Jer. 1:13–15; LXX 25:1–13; et al.) is never identified with a historical enemy. This leaves open the possibility of an eschatological enemy, which is the way Ezekiel reads the prophecy (Ezek. 38:14–17; cf. LXX Num 24:7; Rev 20:8). In the section edition [MT], the enemy from the north is identified with Babylon (e.g. MT Jer. 25:1–13).” (pp. 16-17)
  2. The second difference is more subtle—that the first edition of Jeremiah leaves the interpretation of the prophecy of the seventy years (25:11; 29:10) open-ended, so that it could be about a literal historical fulfillment (as Daniel 9:1–19 understands it) or “symbolic of a complete indefinite period (cf. Gen 4:24; Matt. 18:22)” as in Daniel 9:24–27 (p. 17). But the second edition of Jeremiah 25:11, presented in the MT, “limits the prophecy to a historical fulfillment” because it identifies the enemy as Babylon.

What Shepherd is arguing is profound, though the details are subtle. He is saying that the earlier edition of Jeremiah, the proto-Masoretic Hebrew represented by the Septuagint Greek translation, is the “earlier, shorter edition…the open-ended, potentially eschatological edition read by Ezekiel and Daniel” (p. 17). He is saying that the books of Ezekiel and Daniel show familiarity with the first edition of Jeremiah and interpret it in an eschatological way that is closed off by the Masoretic second edition. If he is right about this, then this is a marvelous example of Scripture interpreting Scripture to correct the tradition. We’ve been reading the wrong version of Jeremiah for centuries!

Comparing MT and LXX Passages in Jeremiah

You can see the difference he’s talking about pretty clearly in Jeremiah 25:9

MT

LXX
…behold, I will send for all the tribes of the north, declares the Lord, and for Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants, and against all these surrounding nations. I will devote them to destruction, and make them a horror, a hissing, and an everlasting desolation. (Jer 25:9 ESV-CE) …behold, I am sending for and I will take a paternal family from the north, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all nations around it, and I will utterly devastate them and render them into an annihilation and into a hissing and into an everlasting disgrace. (Jer 25:9 NETS (Primary Texts))

The prophecy of the seventy years is likewise quite distinct:

MT

LXX
This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. (Jer 25:11 ESV-CE) And the whole land shall become an annihilation, and they shall be slaves amongst the nations seventy years. (Jer 25:11 NETS (Primary Texts))

Why Write a Commentary on a Text that Does Not Exist?

It’s easy to see why Shepherd felt compelled to write such a seemingly strange commentary—backtranslating the Greek to the Hebrew, then commenting on this theoretical text that does not exist in any manuscript. Why would he do it? He’s recovering the text of Jeremiah that we should be reading, the text that corresponds with the most ancient fragments of the book that we have discovered, the text that is closest to the life of the prophet himself, the text that other biblical prophets were reading and interpreting, the text that stands behind the Greek version that we do have.

Do I think that we’ll see new Bible translations coming out that work from Shepherd’s backtranslation to present the text of Jeremiah? No, the MT is firmly entrenched as the standard biblical text for the Hebrew Bible, but text criticism sure does uncover some thorny problems that take a lot of work to sort out! Shepherd demonstrates the importance of this kind of work, the perennial value of the Septuagint witness and how careful textual study can lead to amazing results.

New Interview on Bible Translation

Leave a reply

I was just interviewed by Paloma Lopez Campos for Omnes Magazine, a Catholic outfit based in Spain. She asked me a lot about Bible translation and I did my best to answer. We talked about inclusive language, Liturgiam authenticam, dynamic equivalence, biblical vocabulary, the Septuagint, the text of the New Testament, the ancient manuscripts and how they were compiled, biblical ministries and how beginners can get started reading the Bible. Note that this interview was transcribed from an audio conversation. It tested the limits of my ability to speak in coherent paragraphs without grammatical errors! (You’ll notice a few.)

Here’s an excerpt:

What is the biggest challenge now facing Bible translators?

– In my book on Bible translation I talk about the challenge of inclusive language, which has been a very important topic of discussion over the last fifty years. There has been a real shift in the way we think about men and women, about roles, and language has a lot to do with it.

In Bible translation, some translators have gone in the direction of trying to make the Bible as inclusive as possible. And others have taken a different, more conservative approach. They say we should make as many things as we can as inclusive as possible, but if the biblical text is gendered, then we should translate it as it is.

This becomes a kind of dialogue about the right way to translate. And I think as the conversation around genre continues to change, Bible translators will continue to have to reflect on the right approach.

On the one hand, there is a kind of tendency to yield to whatever the culture is doing at the time. On the other, there is a tendency to resist the culture. I think the right way to go is somewhere in between. Christian translators should resist the idea that contemporary culture can rewrite biblical anthropology. But, on the other hand, I think we must translate in a way that communicates with contemporary culture. (Read the rest…)

My New Book: “Bible Translation and the Making of the ESV Catholic Edition” by Mark Giszczak

Leave a reply

If you have been following my blog the past few years, you might have guessed that I would be writing something official on the ESV Catholic Edition Bible translation. And now I have! This new book, “Bible Translation and the Making of the ESV Catholic Edition,” tells the story of where the ESV-CE Bible came from and the translation strategies it employs.

When I first heard that the ESV was coming out in India as a Catholic Edition, I was so happy that we would finally have access to this to translation as a fully approved Catholic version. That Protestants are way out ahead of us Catholics when it comes to options in Bible translations. They have so many! In English, we Catholics have only had access to about three families of translations and it is such a relief to get a new translation out.

Where Did the ESV Come From?

But as soon as I started sharing with people about the ESV Catholic Edition, they started asking me questions:

  • Why are there so many Bible translations?
  • What is unique about the ESV-CE?
  • Who translated it?
  • What original texts does it rely on?
  • How is it different from the RSV-CE or other translations?

Since it seemed like I was uniquely situated to respond to these types of questions, as a biblical scholar at the Augustine Institute (the North American publisher of the ESV-CE), I thought I would pen a whole book. So, yes, during the Covid-19 lockdowns which we all remember so clearly, I was reading up and typing away.

Similarity Between Evangelical and Catholic Translation Discussions

My hope was to tell the backstory of the ESV-CE so that people would know where it came from, who translated it and why it was so suitable for adoption by English-speaking Catholic countries. What I found as I researched and read surprised me. It seemed like discussions and controversies that Protestants (specifically, evangelical Protestants) were having about Bible translation mapped on to the debates about translation taking place in Catholic bishops’ conferences around the world. Indeed, it seems the bishops are always talking about how to translate the Bible, the liturgy and even the Catechism.

What is in the Book?

In this book, I cover the conversations that preceded the ESV project and the promulgation of the Vatican document on translation, Liturgiam authenticam (2001). The meeting of the minds represented by the ESV translation philosophy and the Vatican’s own translation norms is remarkable. To get a sense of the topics that I cover in the book, here is the Table of Contents:

Part I – Origins

Chapter 1 – Why Another Translation?
Chapter 2 – The Catholic Lectionary Problem
Chapter 3 – The King of Bibles and the Toil of Revision
Chapter 4 – Catholic Battles in the Inclusive Language Debate
Chapter 5 – Evangelical Battles in the Inclusive Language Debate
Chapter 6 – How the ESV Came to Be

Part II – Translation

Chapter 7 – Which Text Is Really the Bible?
Chapter 8 – The Case for Essentially Literal Translation
Chapter 9 – A Christian Translation by Design
Chapter 10 – A Christ-Centered Answer to the Inclusive Language Wars
Chapter 11 – Can Evangelicals Produce a Trustworthy Catholic Translation?
Chapter 12 – The Origin and Destiny of the ESV-CE

I hope that gives you a good idea of what I am up to in the book. If you are interested in taking a closer look, you can get the book from catholic.market

Bloodthirsty Flies and the Prohibition on Blood Drinking in the Old Testament

Leave a reply

I hate flies. Living in a dry climate is helpful, but late in summer the flies start to multiply and collect. They often haunt the windows, banging their disgusting bodies against the glass repeatedly, trying to escape to the outdoors. Flies are carrion creatures, feeding on dead things, excrement and other unmentionable rotting items. They have a role in the ecosystem, I suppose, but not one that I want to personally witness.

Fortunately, most flies don’t bite, but some do. I remember going to Lake Michigan as a child and my brother and I fending off the “horse flies” that attacked any part of me not submerged in the water. Fly bites, while not as itchy as mosquito bites, actually hurt more. I don’t know what the flies were doing, but their blood-sucking plungers must have been higher caliber than the mosquitoes’ delicate straws.

In reading Aesop’s Fables to my children in combination with teaching the Book of Sirach, I came across a theme that I had never noticed before: flies are blood-drinkers! I wondered if this little insight could link up a few disparate concepts in the biblical world, namely, carrion flies, the prohibition on blood-drinking in the OT law, the portrayal of enemies as bloodthirsty and most fun of all the identity of Baal-zebub, “lord of the flies.” Well, let’s try it on for size.

 

Blood-Drinking Flies in Aesop

First, Aesop! “The Fox and the Hedgehog” mentions a “swarm of blood-sucking flies,” who are “full of blood” and who plan to “drink up all the blood I have left.” Also, “The Bald Man and the Fly” introduces a controversy between a bald man and a fly who bit his bald head. The bald man derides the fly as one who “live[s] by sucking human blood.” The flea who stars in “The Flea and the Ox” brags about how he lives on human bodies and “drink[s] my fill of their blood.” In “The Bald Man and the Gardener,” the gardener insults the bald man and wishes that flies might “bite you and drink your blood and poop on your head.” I hope that’s enough examples to convince you that flies as blood-drinkers is a common trope in Aesop. I wouldn’t be surprised, if we looked longer and deeper at Greco-Roman literature if we could find many more examples of  blood-drinking flies.

 

Blood-Drinking in the Bible (and related literature)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Judgement_and_first_resurrection_-_The_final_battle_Wellcome_L0029284.jpg

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Judgement_and_first_resurrection_-_The_final_battle_Wellcome_L0029284.jpg

But now, the Bible! Leviticus 17:10 threatens that anyone who “eats blood” will be cut off from the people of God. King David, whose extreme thirst was provided for by a few of his bravest soldiers at the risk of their lives, refuses to drink the water they give to him since it would be tantamount to blood-drinking. Instead, he poured out the water as a libation and said, “Shall I drink the blood of the men who went at the risk of their lives?” (2 Sam 23:17 ESV). This event is memorialized again in the non-biblical 4 Maccabees 3:15, where David “considered it an altogether fearful danger to his soul to dirnk what was regarded as equivalent to blood” (RSV). Also see Josephus, Ant. 7:314. Sirach 12:16 portrays an enemy whose “thirst for blood” is “insatiable.” The nonbiblical 4 Esdras 15:58, describing the sorry plight of sufferers, who “drink their own blood in thirst for water.” Zech 9:15 in the LXX as least in certain manuscripts refers to soldiers who will “drink their blood like wine.” Ezekiel envisions the carrion birds drinking the blood of the dead after the grand battle against Gog and Magog (Ezek 39:17-19). And of course, the Lord turns normal water into blood to make it undrinkable a few times (Exod 7:21; Ps 78:44; Rev 16:6). The nonbiblical Book of Enoch also refers to giants eating people and “drink[ing] the blood” (7:5).

 

“Men of Bloods”

The Bible also uses a phrase, ish-damim, which literally means “man of bloods.” Usually it is translated as something like “bloodthirsty men.” We see the exact phrase in 2 Sam 16:8 and Ps 5:7. A similar phrase, anashe-damim, “men of bloods,” shows up in Ps 26:9, 55:23, 59:2, and Prov 29:10. The point is that nasty, violent men seek out the blood of other people. You know, kinda like flies! Flies are bloodthirsty and so are violent men.

 

What about Flies?

Flies show up in the Bible as a divine curse (ha!) sent against the Egyptians in Exodus 8:20-32. They come as a “swarm,” but the text says nothing about blood. The Hebrew word for “fly,” zebub, is only used twice in the Hebrew Bible (Eccl 10:1 and Isa 7:18). However, the term “Baal-Zebub” does show up in 2 Kings 1:2, 3, 6, and 16. This god of Ekron plays a minor role in the narrative of Elijah’s relationship with Ahaziah, but the term underlies the “Beelzebul” who shows up in Jesus’ disputes with the Pharisees as the name of a demon or an alternate term for Satan. “Baal-zebub” means “lord of the flies,” or as the TDOT puts it “lord of filth,” perhaps beacause the offerings which the god consumes are regarded as ritually polluted and therefore disgusting. The term could show up in the fragmentary Qumran text 4Q560. Creepily, the female demon Lilith, Adam’s first wife in Jewish mythology, “could enter the rooms of pregnant women as a fly.”[1] So flies, since they are blood-drinkers, consumers of ritually impure sacrificial offerings, are associated with the demonic.

 

Conclusions

So now that we’ve taken a look at the biblical texts, Aesop’s fables and a few nonbiblical texts, what kind of portrait can we draw? I think we can offer up a few tentative conclusions:

  1. Flies were regarded as suspicious, demonic and violent because their habit of drinking human blood.
  2. Drinking blood was forbidden in biblical law not only because of its associations with magical practices of uniting oneself with an animal’s spirit (the typical explanation), but because it mirrored the carrion activity of flies.
  3. Violence is regarded as “fly-like” behavior. Violent men, like flies, are “bloodthirsty.”
  4. Demons, since they also seek to violently destroy human beings, are also “fly-like” in their desire for human blood.

I have to admit I didn’t think that Aesop’s fables would lead me down such a dark and scary path! It does seem like Dracula is staring back at us from what I’ve concluded here. The blood-drinking of vampires then appears “fly-like” and therefore also demonic. The connection between violence, flies, and demons on the basis of blood-drinking now makes more sense to me, but I do think it will give me pause when reading seemingly innocent old tales to my children. Hopefully, we can keep those pesky “horse flies” away!

——————–
[1] Penney, Douglas L, and Michael O Wise. “By the Power of Beelzebub: An Aramaic Incantation Formula from Qumran (4Q560).” Journal of Biblical Literature 113 (1994): 627–50, here 634.

Saint Augustine and Demons on Pillars

Leave a reply

augustinedemons1

Yesterday, I picked up my copy of Augustine Confessions from the Penguin Classics series, translated by the most splendidly morbid translator, R.S. Pine-Coffin. The cover has a picture of Augustine as bishop taken from a “French illuminated manuscript in the Bibliothèque Nationale” in Paris. What struck me as a little odd, however, were the pillars standing behind the great saint. Each pillar had a human figure on top, with a winged demonic creature behind. So, I asked my colleague, Dr. John Sehorn, “What do these demon figures on pillars mean?” After some digging, he found a good explanation, while I found more versions of our given picture. Unfortunately, none of the online versions of this illuminated page are both complete and high resolution, so I’m including a couple different versions in this post.

The artwork that I saw on the book cover omitted much of the page. In fact, the page actually has two illuminated scenes. Top register include St. Augustine with attendants talking with a pagan. The pagans are saying, “Quare Romani tanta mala paciuntur” or “Why have the Romans endured such great evils?” St. Augustine responds “Propter mala culpe perpetrata per vos sugestione demonum,” or “Because of offenses perpetrated by you at the suggestion of demons.” This little conversation leads to an explanation of the whole image. On the left hand side, a group of pagans is confronting St. Augustine with a challenge to faith—very similar to challenging questions raised today like “why do bad things happen to good people?” Their question is a bit different, simply, “Why would a just, loving, merciful God such as you proclaim, if he were really all powerful, allow such a great civilization such as Rome be destroyed by the barbarian hoardes?” It is a question that Augustine himself asks in one of his most famous works, The City of God. Augustine’s response here is a paraphrase of the book, where his answer is that God is bringing judgment on the sins of Rome. In particular, I think the artist is point to Book II, chapter 26.

This brings us to the background of the image, where we see a bunch of people robed in brown, kneeling down and looking at the figures on pillars. The kneeling people represent the pagans of Rome and the human figures on idols represent the gods of Rome. The demonic whisperers are animating these false gods, like St. Paul teaches “I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God” (1 Cor 10:20). Thus the answer to my question is that the winged demons are the spiritual powers behind the false gods of Rome like Saturn, Vesta and Venus.

augustinedemons

The bottom register depicts St. Orosius, a student of St. Augustine, preaching to the Romans while demons dance around the city. Presumably, the demons represent the evil barbarian forces which are about to overrun the city. The demons are celebrating the downfall of the great city and the spread of chaos. The saint meanwhile is telling the Romans, “Roma destruetur propter peccata hominum,” “Rome shall be destroyed because of the sins of men.”

In this explanation and even in the transcription of the words, I am relying heavily on Les manuscrits à peintures de la Citè de Dieu de Saint-Augustin by Alexandre Laborde, vol. II (Paris: Société des bibliophiles François, 1853-1944; 1909), pp. 408-409. Here is his text in full:

LIVRE II. – fol. 23. – H. om, 325× om,230. – Saint Augustin et les païens, Orose et les Romains. – Deux registres.

I° Dans une sale spacieuse, aux fenêtres grillagées, dont le sol est recouvert de dalles vertes, des colonnes en marbre de couleur, places contre le mur de droite, soutiennent des idoles qu’assaillant des diables. Dans le fond, un groupe de païens implorent à genoux ces divinités. Au premier plan à gauche, les Romains debout discutent. Le chef du groupe déploie une banderole et s’adresse à saint Augustin: Quare romani tanta mala paciuntur. En face à droite, saint Augustin, en évêque, recouvert d’une dalmatique rouge et suivi de huit ecclésiastiques, répond: Propter mala culpe perpetrata per vos sugestione demonum.

2° Nous sommes à Rome, ville française du xve siècle, aux maisons rouges et jaunes, entourée de murs crénelés que le Tibre, mince filet bleu, baigne de ses eaux. Six diables se tenant par la main deansent au dehors. Sur une place publique, à l’intérieur, un docteur, probablement Orose, barbu et tête nue, vêtu d’une robe brune, s’adresse à un groupe de vingt Romains des deux sexes, richement vêtus et leur dit: Roma destruetur propter peccata hominum.

I don’t know if you had the same question as I did when looking at this picture for the first time, but I do think that the illumination does a great job of visually summarizing St. Augustine’s argument. Good job, Anonymous Illuminator!

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!

Huge Hobby Lobby Bible Collection

Leave a reply

The NY Times is reporting that the Hobby Lobby founding family is purchasing huge numbers of Bibles and Bible manuscripts for their projected Bible museum. The Times reports that their collection has grown to over 30,000 items. The plans for the museum are not final, but the likely location will be in Dallas. So I may have to plan a visit when the open up shop. It does not seem that the museum has a website yet.

For some reason the whole project reminds me a lot of the enormous manuscript and Bible collection that was acquired by the Holy Land Experience and is now housed in their Scriptorium. The Holy Land Experience is a biblical theme park in Orlando. Their collection actually belongs to the Sola Scriptura Foundation, a trust set up by Robert Van Kampen (d. 1999), who formerly housed the collection in Grand Haven, MI. Perhaps the Hobby Lobby folks could attempt to acquire some of the Van Kampen collection or convince the foundation to move it from a theme park to a mueseum. The Evangelical Textual Criticisms blog claims that some of the texts in the Van Kampen collection are dated very early and have not been officially included in lists of NT manuscripts used for textual criticism.