Improvising Illinois priest barred from pulpit

stl today ^ | July 10, 2012 | Tim Townsend

[jjotto]

It would have been Greek that was limited to elites, normal folk used Aramaic or Hebrew. Probably the Romans ended the use of Hebrew publicly as a reaction to the Bar Kochba rebellion.

[hopespringseternal]

Meanwhile, “catholic” politicians like Pelosi that encourage people to kill babies and who make outright war on the catholic church won’t even get a stern look.

[MarkBsnr]

It would have been Greek that was limited to elites, normal folk used Aramaic or Hebrew. Probably the Romans ended the use of Hebrew publicly as a reaction to the Bar Kochba rebellion.

I would use the agument that the NT was composed entirely in Greek (thus making it available for the literate Jews) as well as the Septuagint (also in Greek) which showed that the lingua franca of the region was not Hebrew.

[jjotto]

Yes, that seems a good argument, but Yiddish and Ladino were used by exiled Jewish communities long after this point in time, and they include much Hebrew, little Aramaic and almost no Greek (’Sanhedrin’ is a great example).

And the fact remains that literate Jews on the whole were unimpressed with the Greek books. Perhaps the prominence of the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria have skewed the history of the Land of Israel.

[spunkets]

"Hebrew was almost a dead language at the time of Christ."

Hebrew was the language of the Jewish Scripture as it is today.

"Only those immediately connected with the temples knew anything of Hebrew."

Like the folks in the Qumran caves...

"Missals and entire Bibles are used by the congregation.

Missalettes. The only Bibles at a Catholic Mass are personal Bibles.

[MarkBsnr]

"Hebrew was almost a dead language at the time of Christ."

Hebrew was the language of the Jewish Scripture as it is today.

http://www.fisheaters.com/septuagint.html says that:

"The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" (also called "LXX" or "The Seventy") and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).

It was a standard Jewish version of the Old Testament, used by the writers of the New Testament, as is evidenced by the fact that Old Testament references found in the New Testament refer to the Septuagint over other versions of the Old Testament. Let me reiterate: the then 300+ year old Septuagint version of Scripture was good enough for Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, etc., which is evident in their referencing it over 300 times (out of 350 Old Testament references!) in their New Testament writings -- and the Septuagint includes 7 books and parts of Esther and Daniel that were removed from Protestant Bibles some 1,500 years after the birth of Christ.

The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or "Doctrine of the Apostles" (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles.

"Only those immediately connected with the temples knew anything of Hebrew."

Like the folks in the Qumran caves...

There was a large separation between the language of worship (Hebrew) and the lingua franca (Greek), just as there is now between the Latin of the Church and the vernacular. However, with that said, the scrolls were written in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. If Hebrew was the only language used, why include Aramaic and Greek?

Missals and entire Bibles are used by the congregation.

Missalettes. The only Bibles at a Catholic Mass are personal Bibles.

Our parish has both missals and missalettes. I am not aware of any parish that does not have Bibles within the church. Personal Bibles are welcome and often used. Bottom line: the Septuagint was the version of the Old Testament accepted by the very earliest Christians (and, yes, those 7 "extra" books were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which date between 168 B.C. and A.D. 68, and which by the way, support both the Septuagint and the 6th - 10th c. A.D. Masoretic texts in various ways, but supporting the Septuagint on average. 3 ).

[MarkBsnr]

There are many, many reasons to doubt that was the case. No doubt Aramaic and Greek were widespread, but there is no reason to think Hebrew was not still in use as an everyday language. Classical Hebrew was the language of the Mishnah (as well as most Dead Sea scrolls). A few hundred years later, Aramaic was used for the Gemara.

Remember though, the Dead Sea Scrolls represent a particular non rabbinical sect. I think that, just as the languages of the Church are first Greek, then Latin, then Church Slavonic, the day to day language of the people was greated more to the vernacular - Aramaic first, then Greek for worldwide communications, much as English is today, and French formerly was.

[MarkBsnr]

Yes, that seems a good argument, but Yiddish and Ladino were used by exiled Jewish communities long after this point in time, and they include much Hebrew, little Aramaic and almost no Greek (’Sanhedrin’ is a great example).

The emerging Christian movement angered the Jews and started to drive them back to using Hebrew, to separate them from the Greek of the Church.

And the fact remains that literate Jews on the whole were unimpressed with the Greek books. Perhaps the prominence of the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria have skewed the history of the Land of Israel.

Not just Alexandria. Everywhere outside the Middle East, and most places in it.

[spunkets]

Re: Hebrew was the language of the Jewish Scripture as it is today.

"http://www.fisheaters.com/septuagint.html says that:"

Nothing you posted from this link addresses the fact that the language of Jewish Scripture is Hebrew — then and now.

"The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint"...

There was no "text". There were books written in Hebrew, which were not unanamously accepted by the Jews as Jewish canon.

"and the Septuagint includes 7 books and parts of Esther and Daniel that were removed from Protestant Bibles some 1,500 years after the birth of Christ."

The OT belongs to the Jews. They never did accept them as Canon.

"Let me reiterate: the then 300+ year old Septuagint version of Scripture was good enough for Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, etc., which is evident in their referencing it over 300 times (out of 350 Old Testament references!)"

I think there's no real distinction, given that the writer's of the NT mos tlikely referred to the Greek texts of the LXX. The Hebrew just wasn't captured in the LXX. Here's an example:

Matt. 15:8-9; Mark 7:6-7(NIV) "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men."

Isaiah 29:13(NIV) The Lord says: “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men.[b]

Isaiah 29:13(Hebrew, And the Lord said: Forasmuch as this people draw near, and with their mouth and with their lips do honour Me, but have removed their heart far from Me, and their fear of Me is a commandment of men learned by rote;

Isaiah 29:13(septuagint), "Then Jehovah said this: 'With their mouths, these people approach Me, and with their lips they offer Me praise; but in their hearts they are far away, so it's in vain that they bow before Me, since they're teaching the ideas and instructions of men!

Isaiah 29:13(Septuagint), "And the Lord hath said, This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, and with their lips with their lips do honour Me, but their heart is far from Me: howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching the precepts and doctrines of men.

Matt 15:8-9(NAB), " ‘This people honors me with their lips,* but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.’”

Isaiah 29:13(NAB), " The Lord said: Since this people draws near with words only and honors me with their lips alone, though their hearts are far from me, And fear of me has become mere precept of human teaching,"

Doctrines are rules. There is no real difference here to say Jesus preferred one term over another for the exact same concept. That means the distintion of 300/350 is non-existent.

"The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or "Doctrine of the Apostles" (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings.

The OT belongs to the Jews, the folks you mentioned do not have the authority to determine what belongs in their Scripture. They can add those Books to their Canon, but it is not the OT according to the folks of the Old Covenant. As I noted, the distinctions are non-existent for the most part.

"The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles."

Nevertheless, they can not overrule the Jews and claim that they were mistaken, or wrong when they chose the Books that are their Canon. They alone have the authority and right to determine the canon of their own Scripture that belongs to them and is rightly The OT.

"If Hebrew was the only language used, why include Aramaic and Greek?"

The claim is, "Only those immediately connected with the temples knew anything of Hebrew." The use of Aramaic and Greek at Qumron is irrelevant. The use of Hebrew there is not. It shows the claim is false.

"I am not aware of any parish that does not have Bibles within the church."

That's anecdotal non-evidence.

[jjotto]

The tale gets taller and taller. First a hypothetical Council of Jamnia that changed canon, then ‘pressure’ that changed the basics of communication in widely scattered independent communities.

I suppose if one can get from Jesus is The Messiah to Mary is the Mother of God, no bridge is too far.

[MarkBsnr]

Nothing you posted from this link addresses the fact that the language of Jewish Scripture is Hebrew — then and now.

During the two centuries before Christ, most new Tanakhs were written in Greek, though. There was no one Jewish scripture, anyway; various schools varied somewhat.

There was no "text". There were books written in Hebrew, which were not unanamously accepted by the Jews as Jewish canon.

Nonetheless, the Septuagint was written in Greek.

The OT belongs to the Jews. They never did accept them as Canon.

The Septuagint did.

The OT belongs to the Jews, the folks you mentioned do not have the authority to determine what belongs in their Scripture. They can add those Books to their Canon, but it is not the OT according to the folks of the Old Covenant. As I noted, the distinctions are non-existent for the most part.

The Christian canon was declared by the Church, not the Jews. Otherwise none of the NT would have been included.

That's anecdotal non-evidence.

Versus your anecdotal non evidence? How about naming me a parish that you think does not have a Bible, and I can call them up and ask them. Or you can.

[MarkBsnr]

I suppose if one can get from Jesus is The Messiah to Mary is the Mother of God, no bridge is too far.

You may wish to research the Church's declaration of the matter.

[spunkets]

"The Christian canon was declared by the Church, not the Jews."

A Church is an independent organization contained within an unorganized belief system called Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church does not represent, or have authority over all Churches, nor does it represent, or have authority over Christianity. Christianity itself is fundamentally the belief that the man Jesus is God.

Each Church organization has created their own organizational structure, culture and details of beliefs held by that organization. The first major organizational split resulted, because of the Roman Catholic's insistence on the installation of their Bishop as the supreme Bishop with authority over all the others. There's also "doctrinal" differences that resulted from that split and differences in their methodologies used to determine what is doctrine.

Both the Roman and Orthodox Catholic Churches chose to use the Septuagint to develop their canon. They do not have the authority, nor the justification to determine anyone elses canon. Fundamentally, the OT belongs to the Jews. Christianity is the NT and is based on Jesus. Nothing can be lost by holding a canon that consists of the OT canon of the Jews and the NT, because of what God said in Matt 11:27, "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.", John 6:45 "It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[Isaiah 54:13] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me." and John 6:35, "Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty."

"How about naming me a parish that you think does not have a Bible, and I can call them up and ask them."

The point was not that there is no Bible in the parish. the fact is that the Bible is not normally used during a Mass. I gave the link of the USCCB that explains why. The reason is that they use preselected readings that are given in Lectionaries. Lectionaries are used, not Bibles and they do not resemble Bibles. They are organizational works.