Posted on 09/04/2011 7:11:37 AM PDT by Publius804
The DRV translates prebyteroi (or a variation of presbyter) as “priest” in vs. 2 of Acts chapter 15 as the persons Paul and Barnabas were to consult in Jerusalem.
But in vs.4 presbyteron is translated as “ancient” as in vss. 6, 22, 23. Is there anything in the context to suggest that vs. 2 should be translated as “priest” contra these other vss.? No.
You really should ask St. Jerome why he translated "seniores" from verse 6 down. In Verse 2 we have their desire to consult specifically with "the apostles and priests" but when they actually arrived, there were some pharisees there as well, who fall under the general description of seniores but would not be Christian priests. But your point is a good one that in Greek it is πρεσβυτεροις throughout, consistently with dual usage we've seen elsewhere.
You compare Acts 15:2 with Philippians's 1:1 which uses the terms epikopois “bishops” and diakonois “deacons”. Saints, holy ones are mentioned, overseers and servants or assistants in the congregation are mentioned but hiereus? No. Why?
ιερευς is not mentioned for reasons I already explained, because there is no connection to the Hebrew levitical priests in these two passages. My point is that in the first case, αποστολους και πρεσβυτερους, bishops are included under πρεσβυτερους, and in the second passage, επισκοποις και διακονοις, priests must be included under επισκοποις. Otherwise how would you explain that some types of clergy are ommitted in both?
What are you talking about? Hiereus is not “mixed up” with episkopos and diakonos at either Acts 15:2 or Phil. 1:1.
Yes, exactly. You seem to forget which side you are arguing.
More tomorrow.
You wrote:
“HIEREUS is not mentioned for reasons I already explained, because there is no connection to the Hebrew levitical priests in these two passages”.
Connection? This simply isn't so nor does the term HIEREUS indicate successors to the Jewish priests and there is no place in the Scriptures that suggest HIEREUS be restricted to or must be connected with Jewish priests. In fact Revelation 1:6 uses the term HIEREUS (Greek “priest”) to refer to kings/priests in heaven. Not the Levitical priesthood.
What Jerome thought about anything is irrelevant here. We don't speak Latin and he didn't speak English. What the DRV translates is relevant since you rely on its terminology and have called other translations like the NAB the work of heretics and error.
You wrote:
“Otherwise how would you explain that some types of clergy are ommitted in both?”
What types of clergy?
Here's a comment made from the Catholic Encyclopedia (Bishops):
“Catholic writers agree in recognized the Apostolic origin of the episcopate, but are much divided as to the meaning of the terms which designate the hierarchy in the New Testament writings and the Apostolic Fathers. One may even ask if originally these terms had a clearly defined significance (Bruders, Die Verfassung der Kirche bis zum Jahre 175, Mainz, 1904). Nor is there greater unanimity when an attempt is made to explain why some churches are found without presbyters, others without bishops, others again where the heads of the community are called sometimes bishops, sometimes presbyters. This disagreement increases when the question comes up as to the interpretation of the terms which designate other personages exercising a certain fixed authority in the early Christian communities. The following facts may be regarded as fully established:....”
and then the article continues on. But notice this sentence:
“Nor is there greater unanimity when an attempt is made to explain why some churches are found without presbyters, others without bishops, others again where the heads of the community are called sometimes bishops, sometimes presbyters.”
The problem is that one I've pointed out several times already, the argument that since our English word priest is derived from the Greek word presbyter it follows by inference that presbyteroi were priests in the earliest Christian church, an argument contradicted by the above.
An arguement contradicted by the Scriptures themselves.
Call the presbyteroi what they were,”elders and older men” who might also be episkopos or “overseers” (see a Greek/English lexicon) and it becomes clear why the term hiereus (priest) is not applied to either in the NT church.
You may argue that since the presbyteroi performed the duties of a priest they were IN FACT priests. Where are the duties of a Christian hiereus (priest) listed, where are such duties restricted to priests, (hiereus)?
You wrote of Phil. 1:1:
“...., priests must be included under EPISKOPOIS”.
Why? Why must hiereus (Greek “priest”) be included in episkopois (Greek “overseer”). Where is that done?
Not here or anywhere else in the Scriptures despite the DRV.
The whole of your position seems to rest upon how the DRV translates (arbitrarily) prebyteroi and your insistence that hiereus demands a “connection” or succession to the Jewish priesthood.
Cheers ‘til tomorrow.
Says I. A bishop is a priest who oversees - who? -- other priests. In order to have a local church, you start with a bishop, and that bishop, as the diocese grows, will begin to have priests. And vice versa, if one day the Church shrinks to smaller numbers, people will consolidate their attendance at the cathedrals and the bishop will be the only priest they know. It is not int he scripture other than you can infer it from places like I cited before, Acts 15:2 with Philippians's 1:1, which only make sense if επισκοποις implies πρεσβυτερους. It is also an arithmetical logic, that ina small church a bishop will have no need to delegate service.
is exactly what #34 was showing as it was cited to refute my statement about the interchangeability question
#34 shows that there were specific roles in the Church from the very beginning, and they are roughly the same roles we have in the Church today. That words επισκοπος and πρεσβυτερος were used interchangeably does not mean the roles of a bishop and a priest are interchangeable; they simply overlap in that a bishop -- to this day -- is also a priest. Sorry if I did notmake it prevously clear; I had assumed that you know what these English words mean.
It is also true that πρεσβυτερος was a word in transition, so it did apply sometime to an old person and sometime to a preist, not necessarily old. Again, sorry that I have to repeat myself.
there is no evidence of a overseer, bishop, episkopos, being a priest in the first church. You've attempted to retrofit that church with the practices, terms and titles of the Catholic church today
Really? In 1 Tim. 4:14 St. Paul says "Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood." so Timothy is a priest. But in 1 Tim 5:22 St. Paul says "Impose not hands lightly upon any man", so he is a bishop.
Why ask me to do research for you? I said nothing about bishops offering Mass
Can you read back to your own post as I respond to it? In #78 you wrote "In fact, as the Catholic Encyclopedia admits, in the primitive Christian church the office of bishop, EPISKOPOS, was not associated with being a priest", and I would like to see the place where the Catholic Encyclopedia says so. You may be right on this and I may be wrong, but since you showed a poor knowledge of what English words mean, I have to ask.
2 John 1:9,10 says we are not invite a person in revolt (protest?) against Christian doctrine into our homes or even say a greeting to them. That if we do we are a “sharer in their sin”.
Here's what he says:
[9] Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. [10] If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. [11] For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.
First, heresy, such as Protestantism is not apostasy. Protestants remained Trinitarian Christian and we respect that. Second, the scenario is that an apostate comes into you howe with his false doctrine, that is coems to teach your household. That is different from both going out and doing some useful work together. Charity to all regardless of belief is of course taught in the Parable of the Good Samaritan as well as, of course, directly in many places: "abound in charity towards one another, and towards all men" (1 Thessalonians 3:12)
Why do you use the Greek fonts if you can't read Greek?
You seem to have some fixation with me knowing Greek. Yet nothing I post could not be done by anyone with an interest in the original using a side-by-side translation. Nor is it such a rarity to actually be able to read Greek. I learned it because I lived in Greece for a while, so I also understand patristic Greek.
(your next post)Connection? This simply isn't so nor does the term HIEREUS indicate successors to the Jewish priests and there is no place in the Scriptures that suggest HIEREUS be restricted to or must be connected with Jewish priests. In fact Revelation 1:6 uses the term HIEREUS (Greek “priest”) to refer to kings/priests in heaven. Not the Levitical priesthood.
See my #46
What Jerome thought about anything is irrelevant here
It is relevant because he worked in Palestine in the culture that approximated theat of the Early Church. He also may have had access to codices now lost.
You cite from the Catholic encyclopedia“Nor is there greater unanimity when an attempt is made to explain why some churches are found without presbyters, others without bishops, others again where the heads of the community are called sometimes bishops, sometimes presbyters.”
Thank you for the reference. So when you say in 78 "the Catholic Encyclopedia admits, in the primitive Christian church the office of bishop, EPISKOPOS, was not associated with being a priest, you really meant to say that the Catholic Encyclopedia says exactly what Annalex also said, that heads of churches were sometime called bishops and sometime priests, and the reasons for that are not held by all the same.
You may argue that since the presbyteroi performed the duties of a priest they were IN FACT priests.
That is exactly what I am arguing. I rarely argue about words, and I am not arguing about words this time.
Where are the duties of a Christian hiereus (priest) listed, where are such duties restricted to priests, (hiereus)?
The word ιερευς is not used anywhere to my knowledge to list duties of Christian priests. The Christian episcopacy and priesthood is described in the Timothys and the Titus and their the word πρεσβυτερος is used.
Why must hiereus (Greek “priest”) be included in episkopois (Greek “overseer”)
More word games. πρεσβυτερος I would expect in that list. ιερευς I would not expect.
whole of your position seems to rest upon how the DRV translates (arbitrarily) prebyteroi and your insistence that hiereus demands a “connection” or succession to the Jewish priesthood.
Again, when I doubt I read Greek untranslated (or assisted with translation), and compare Greek with Greek. I don't much care what the English translations say, except in case of Douay I see an honest effort.
As is so often said, ‘Words have meaning’ and it's just as so in Greek as it is in English.
And trying to turn an episkopos, overseer, bishop into a hiereus, priest because,
“Says I. A bishop is a priest who oversees - who? — other priests”, is an example of sophistry as when you say,
“In 1 Tim. 4:14 St. Paul says “Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.” so Timothy is a priest”.
The gift, the grace, (Greek “charisma”) was what Timothy received by prophecy and the laying on of hands by the presbytery. There simply is nothing there about Timothy becoming a priest, a hierus. So Timothy IS NOT a priest.
I must say how you speak of the DRV is remarkably similar to those Protestants that feel the KJV fell from heaven in modern English and that all other translations are the product of the Devil's spawn.
Anyway at this point it seems needlessly repetitious to continue in this fashion, I rather think if our discussion is to continue some other form must be found.
Your thoughts?
A few remarks on your last post: the laying of hands that St. Timothy received is what made him a πρεσβυτερος.
I generally like King James, certainly better than the modern dynamic "translations", but like I said above, it is futile to depend on any translation. The New Testament was written a long time ago in a different culture in a language rather remote from those based on Latin or even more so Germanic vocabulary, and in a world that was changing rapidly. We have seen shifting terminology many times on this thread. No tnaslation can capture the original for that reason alone.
Quite so and I think that's a very important consideration when quoting Scripture.
Every translator has to choose to what extent he will try to convey the ideas of another language in English and this without endless footnotes or explanatory words in brackets, or move toward an virtual interlinear type of work.
For that reason I have several different translations in my meager library and rely on websites for others.
I've enjoyed our discussion immensely and hope that we might do so again.
“A few remarks on your last post: the laying of hands that St. Timothy received is what made him a PRESBYTEROS.”
We might disagree on the meaning and sense of presbyteros but the laying on of hands we are totally in agreement.
And being in agreement is a good place to stop. Cheers!
Thank you for your company.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.