Theological Language Detective Work

It’s quite a fascinating story I have to tell you: the true tale of how my bumbling along as a writer led to the uncovering of a centuries-old mistake of sorts in the Clementine Vulgate. Does that sound like something from a Dan Brown novel? Well, we have exciting lives — both the real scholars, and those of us who venture into the cavern tunnels of classical antiquity to have a look around and — how shall one say? — borrow the rare antiquities, or their likenesses, anyway, for use in our fiction.

I will state clearly that any errors concerning ancient languages that occur in this post are entirely my fault, the result of my inaccurate reporting, and are not the responsibility of my consulting scholar and friend, introduced hereafter.

In the book I’m working on, I include a few meta-texts — books that exist in the fictional world and are real to the characters. Since these are scholarly works of a former age, I wanted to give them titles in proper Latin. Also, I had the need for several Latin inscriptions on walls. Now, I learned just enough Latin in college to get myself into trouble — though it has helped me in countless ways with English (vocabulary, spelling, and seeing relationships among words). [And it sure helps in correctly answering more Jeopardy questions than you’d think!] Also, I no longer have dear Professor Froehlich close by to ask my Latin and Greek questions to.

Providentially, I have some friends not far away who are the real thing — scholars and professors of the classics, including the languages — Ann and Dwight Castro. Between them, they have the classical world well covered. Ann graciously agreed to help me with the Latin for my book, and Dwight graciously reinforces her with second opinions.

Okay, so I needed the word “pestilence” as part of the title of a book-within-my-book. Now, I clearly remember from college the phrase “Negotium perambulans in tenebris,” or “the pestilence that walks in darkness,” from Psalm 91:6. I knew perambulans meant “that walks” (think of English words such as “ambulatory”); and in tenebris is “in the dark” — some churches have tenebrae services at night. So negotium has to mean “pestilence,” right? I slapped it together with the other word I wanted, and voila!

But when I ran my title past Ann, she asked, “Why did you use negotium?” She thought it was a strange choice indeed. I dutifully recited my Latin Psalm 91:6 and added that there was also a famous story by E. F. Benson called “Negotium Perambulans.” I found quotations of the phrase as I remembered it all over the Internet — so I certainly wasn’t the only person who remembered the words that way.

It still didn’t make sense to Ann, though, who actually knows Latin. Why were so many people in the 20th century using a word for “pestilence” that essentially means “business”?

Well, Ann got to the bottom of it, with some Hebrew help from her colleague, Mr. Rod Whitacre. The unraveling goes like this (and I’m using mostly Ann’s wording here):

1. The Psalm was first written, of course, in Hebrew. The word in question there has three radicals (consonants): dbr. This word, with vowel points added, is deber, which means “pestilence.” So far, so good.

2. However, there is another word (dabar) with the same three radicals but different vowel points which means “word,” but also a lot of other things like “thing,” “matter,” “affair,” etc.

3. It looks like the writers of the Greek Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament) mistook deber for dabar and used the Greek word pragma which also means “thing,” “matter,” “deed,” etc.

4. Pragma can also mean such things as “trouble” and also occasionally “business.”

5. Jerome’s Vulgate, dating from the late 4th century, correctly translates the Hebrew deber as pestis (“pestilence”).

6. The Clementine Vulgate, written at the end of the 16th century, apparently went back to the Septuagint and translated pragma with negotium, which, as we have seen, means “business” but also possibly “trouble” (see #4).

7. The Clementine Vulgate was in common use in the Roman Catholic Church until 1979 when the New Vulgate was authorized.

8. However, the King James Version of the Bible went back to earlier manuscripts and found pestis and thus translated the word as “pestilence” — as do all subsequent translations.

9. The result of all that is that people familiar with the Psalm in the King James Bible knew the word “pestilence,” and when they looked at the Clementine Vulgate and saw negotium, they assumed that it meant “pestilence.” Ergo the various sources I (Fred) had found — including one that tried to explain negotium as “a vague, unspecified terror” — you know, that business that walks in the darkness . . . which is actually pretty creepy, like it’s a euphemism for something too terrible to specify.

Anyway, in Dragonfly, that Latin phrase from the Psalm is inscribed in the Tenebrificium, using the word negotium. I was worried about that in light of Ann’s discovery, but she says it’s okay: the phrase there is quoted in context, and it is straight from the Clementine Vulgate, after all . . . which is apparently the translation favored by the denizens of Harvest Moon. And I suppose one might make the case that the meaning of negotium actually serves Hain and his people well. What ambulates in the darkness is their thing, their affair, matter, and business — their ongoing hunt that is their means of survival.

So many thanks to the Castros for all their help! Ann, especially, is pretty much the guest blogger of this post, because I’ve used her explanation almost verbatim — except, again, for any errors you find: blame me for those. I’ve probably misplaced my vowel points somewhere.

I have to give the last word to my good friend John from my college days, who was always designing new schedules for studying the theological languages he packed into nearly every semester. One evening, all stressed out, John was telling all of us who lived on our dorm floor: “I have a test on thirty Hebrew verbs tomorrow! And they’re all dots!

I never took Hebrew myself, so his talk of dots was Greek to me.

Yes, I should end the post there, but I have one more tidbit I’ve been meaning to write about. This house we live in is heated by hot water that circulates through conduits hidden in the walls and floors. It’s the first time I’ve ever dwelt in such a place. I’ve grown to enjoy the peaceful burbling the system makes. The colder it is outside, the more the hot water has to get around to do its job. So on winter nights, it’s cozy to crawl into bed and hear the house flowing and gurgling all around you — it’s like being inside a living creature! Aqua perambulans in tenebris? Ann, can I say it that way?

25 Responses to Theological Language Detective Work

  1. Hagiograph says:

    ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING! A couple years back I read “God’s Secretaries” about the academics who were drafted to write the KJV. It was amazingly interesting. It lead me to read more about the various translation efforts. During this time from another source I stumbled onto the “Johannine Comma” and the controversy around that and Erasmus’ demand that the Church find him an actual older document that contained the Comma because they demanded it be put in per their tradition but Erasmus had never seen it in any older “original” manuscript. Et viola, the Church produced one….may have been a forgery produced for Erasmus but he was honor bound to put it in his Textus Receptus. Isn’t it fascinating that the concept of the “Trinity”…foundational in many ways to the Christian faith…has ANY controversy around its actuality in the Bible itself?

  2. i am mr brown snowflake says:

    Totally out of my league on all of this … all i know is i am not the one who changed Romans 3:28

    • i am mr brown snowflake says:

      Amen! Considering that punctuation did not appear before the 1200s and chapter/verse for another few hundred years, the misplacing of a comma is far less significant than any deliberate alterations of the text themselves! Dei Gloria!

  3. jhagman says:

    But I thought the original translators of the Tanakh into Greek were rabbis hired by a Ptolemy for his library- Luciano Canfora in his book “The Vanished Library” wrote about how Ptolemy had several rabbis working on the translations, and when these varied, Ptolemy became most unpleasant. I can see a rabbi being confused about greek, but hebrew?

    • fsdthreshold says:

      Well, I never took Hebrew, jhagman, and I don’t know the details of how the Septuagint came about. Do the vowel points exist in the Hebrew manuscripts of the Psalms, or do readers (and translators) have to make logical guesses from the radicals/consonants? Is it a situation such as, you see: “Pckd p pn” and infer “I picked up a pen,” but it might also be “I picked up a pin” or “I picked up a pan”? OR the verb might be “packed”? If that’s the way it is, then I can see how “deber” could be confused with “dabar” — or simply interpreted differently.

    • jhagman says:

      Ptolemy hired 100 rabbis to do the translation for his copy that was going to go into his library at Alexandria. He would compare all 100 translations, and if there were vast differences, there would be executions. Rabbinic tradition is one of accuracy, they are amongst the most ancient scholastic traditions of the world, in their Cabalistic tradition, to manipulate the letters of God’s name can have dire consequences, so for them not to know what a word is in the Tanakh, becomes very odd and out of Rabbinic character. Canfora’s book was alot of fun to read.

  4. Hagiograph says:

    I am desperately hopeful that no one here actually thinks the “Johannine Comma” is literally a “comma”…as in: “,”

    Please tell me I’m right?

    It is kinda crucial to differentiation between trinitarians and unitarians.

    • fsdthreshold says:

      Well, Hagio, I can only speak for myself, but I had never heard of the “Johannine Comma” until you brought it up. That’s true of quite a lot of things. It sounds like it would be a comma, since that’s what it’s called. But then again, the “Diet of Worms” sounds like . . .

  5. Hagiograph says:

    I am going to say some things here that will likely be somewhat unpopular, so my apologies beforehand.

    How do we know God or know Christian soteriology? Well, the Bible…that’s why. I’m not saying that the faithful don’t also “feel” God’s presence and action in their lives, but if you were placed on the planet without access to any Christians would you _ever_, from nothing, hypothesize that everything around you was created by a Being who, about 2000 years ago decided that his creation (mankind) needed to be atoned to him by him manifesting himself as someone else to be sacrificed by mankind to Himself in order to atone mankind to Himself and it took place all in a small isolated backwater Roman colony? And that further one cannot “earn” salvation but is given it by Grace predicated merely on accepting this story.

    While I love the concept of Grace (it has value even to secular beings!) and I like that view of humility as a human virtue. And I even like the symbolism in Christ’s sacrifice in the construct of earlier sacrificial rites and the scapegoat etc. I realize that everything we “know” about all of this hinges on traditions and translations passed down.

    Brown Snowflake will, of course, allow for Catholic doctrine to also be from “revelation”, but we are a creature with a big brain and a bigger imagination so if you seed the ground with the original traditions and let take root what takes root in the human mind we wind up with all manner of possible “inspiration”.

    Again it all comes back to the original “owners manual” for who and what God is.

    As such I find it fascinating that the original semitic language was mostly radicals and that the introduction of vowels which help define the actual word are a much later addition to the language.

    A great “evolutionary step” but understandable. If we were to dig through Julie’s Dissertation Notes Files we’d probably find all manner of “shorthand” notations that only she could remember what they meant. Or Fred’s story notes for his latest novel. Same thing. Sui generis annotations to help the “teller” remember the story and pass it along.

    But somewhere along the line the originals got lost and generations upon generations built it out. Someone occasionally tried valiantly to preserve the original, but after a while we have to wonder…do we have the original intent?

    I recognize that Christianity is NOT defined by all the jots and tittles, and in fact has as its value less focus on those marks. But it is all still built off the jots and tittles.

    Beyond that we have generations of thinkers not only trying to figure out the “Trinity” and Jesus’ “humanity” or “duality” or whatever heretical position you want to assume and we see council upon council convened throughout history to establish it.

    And now we are in the 21st century and people want to move _forward_ with their faith. But that faith is predicated on SOMETHING. If it isn’t then what is to differentiate it from New Age stuff? If it is predicated on something _how much of that something do we really know sufficiently_?

    So that’s why I brought up the Comma Johanneum. And it fits in nicely with Fred’s example in the blog post.

    Wow…sorry so long on this. Hope I didn’t offend TOO much…but if I didn’t I wouldn’t be doing my job and Satan wouldn’t give me a new toaster.

  6. fsdthreshold says:

    Hagiograph, please consider this: our planet, this whole sphere of human history and culture, is an infinitesimal mote in the universe. It’s not at the center of our galaxy, and what is our galaxy in the vastness of space? Yet it troubles you that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. What would have been a more appropriate place on this speck of dust? The site of the future Vatican? The site of the future New York? Oh, yes, THOSE would have been worthy of God’s glory! 🙂 The point is, the infinite God came into the human realm and became one of us. No matter where he might have chosen to do that, geographically, it is the bridging of a vast, vast gulf.

    I’ll need some help from the Biblical scholars here, but it is well established that the various parts of the Bible are more reliable as ancient documents than, for example, the works of Aristotle. There are verified discoveries of very early and widespread texts that match up with striking agreement. There are solid intellectual reasons for believing that the Bible is as old as we’ve long believed it to be, and that it was written down by the authors we’ve long supposed.

    For the record, God didn’t “decide 2000 years ago” that humankind needed redeeming. The Old Testament is a chronicle of how he was working out that plan of salvation from the moment humankind began to need redemption, when things in Eden went sour. (And if we posit an all-knowing God, he knew from eternity that we would one day need salvation. But that’s another discussion.)

    Yes. Faith is by revelation, and by the work of the Holy Spirit. Natural, unassisted humans can look around themselves and realize that someone or something wondrous and superior to themselves must have made everything and must keep it running. But we don’t know the identity of that force without revelation; we don’t know what’s wrong with ourselves, or that we need redeeming.

    Even if one considers Christianity from a position outside the faith, one has to acknowledge that something extraordinary is going on here. Here is a school of thought and practice that is like no other: it has its roots in these ancient texts — history, poetry, prophecy — and yet it makes this ridiculous claim that the whole thing absolutely hinges upon an event in history — God becoming Man, dying on the cross, and rising from the dead. Yet for all the boldness of that claim, this religion hasn’t been a flash in the pan. It’s endured over the millennia, spread to the farthest corners of the Earth, stayed alive under the most severe repressions, and inspired — despite the atrocities of mortals who have practiced it very badly at times — an ongoing record of the best of human behavior. Christians will be the first to tell you that it isn’t just about what they’ve been taught or what they “feel”: it’s a model of reality that works. God answers prayers. He works things out. He demonstrates again and again that he’s in control, and that he’s loving.

    Christianity is the only model of faith that addresses and accommodates what’s going on with the human spirit. There are religions that teach us to perfect ourselves through discipline. We can’t. There are schools of thought that say we should live as we want to, because we’re going to die and vanish, anyway. Those leave us empty and afraid of death. Christianity offers help from beyond ourselves — “You can’t do it alone, so here’s what you need.” Yet it also holds us to ideals, to the duty and joy of love, of practicing compassion. AND it allows for and encourages the exercise of those wondrous brains we’ve been given.

    • Hagiograph says:

      You raise some interesting points. I must take exception to some of them. The Bible has some glaring errors and inconsistencies in it (certainly in the O.T. where archaeology finds that the reality doesn’t quite comport with certain key parts…take David’s adventures before becoming King. Many of the cities mentioned in some of these writings didn’t exist until long after David’s existence –I’m going off of a book by Finklestein and Silber called “David and Solomon”) and other archeological indicators give us a much more nuanced view of the rise of the nation of Israel than the BIble would have us believe. The Hebrews may have been a small highland tribe that slowly moved into Caanan and displaced the original Caananites, there may have been almost no large-scale Hebrew slavery in Egypt and there’s almost no evidence whatsoever for the Exodus, either in Egypt or more importantly in the Sinai. The book of Deuteronomy may have been the scroll found during Josiah’s reign and might have been a document ginned up to secure the pivotal role of the priesthood in the kingdom’s political millieu.

      This is not to say that it is all wrong, not at all! No doubt a lot of stuff is correct. As one would expect.

      As for authorship in the New Testament, no doubt you know better than I that not all the Pauline Epistles are thought to be by Paul and that even the Gospels are never actually attributed to the authors whose names they bear and in fact that attribution comes much later in the Church history. Even the choice of canonical gospels wasn’t hashed out for hundreds of years. I believe it was the Gospel of Peter (?) that had some support in the first part of the first millenium and was on its way to being cannonical but then one of the church fathers at the time felt it was espousing an heretical position and it got booted from the “short list”.

      I don’t post these things to say “seeeeee, it’s all a LIE!” I post these things in support of the contention that human hands are all over not only the _start_ of the faith but the DEVELOPMENT…”evolution” if you will, of the Faith.

      I find it absolutely fascinating to read about where the beliefs come from and the “sausage making” that IS the development of Christianity (I say “Sausage making” because, like sausage it is good but few really want to see what went into making it).

      It was an amazing process. And it makes a lot of sense from the secular point of view.

      Clearly you and others on here gain a great deal from your faith and I’m amazingly happy for that! It feels quite real to you and that is exactly the way it should be. Who knows? You’re probably right! I’m probably wrong.

      But bringing it back around to the original point of your post: it is fascinating how finding a little “thread” of how one group of people translated one word until millenia later it winds up with “business” being “pestilence” (a quite fitting term in my opinion after working in “business” some time now, but that’s another topic altogether).

      That doesn’t change anything in the long run. In fact as you point out the “business that walks in darkness” is INFINITELY creepier! It is brilliant! But what it represents is the all-too-human factors behind it all.

      The hand of man leaves a huge sweaty palm-print on the development of the faith and humans have man-handled the concept of God and, fascinatingly, worked to fit Him into a box humans can comprehend but not quite there.

      Maybe God IS real…you guys would know! But the point of my original reply there wasn’t to marvel that God came down to one tiny little town in Judea (another interesting word confusing seems to be around “Nazarene” and “Nazarite” when referencing Jesus!) but rather that the development of the most crucial aspect of infinite truth, foundational truth, should come about in the fashion and place it did.

      Are you familiar with “Diabolical Mimicry” as described by Justin Martyr and other early Church fathers? It is interesting that a religion could form that bore so many commonalities with pre-existing pagan religions that the early thinkers in the church had to invent the concept that Satan attempted to pre-empt Christianity by developing pagan religions BEFORE CHRIST that wound up as tiny aspects in Christianity…all in the service of making Christianity look “man made”.

      The history of the faith is phenomenal. And tiny little word threads are an amazing aspect to it.

      Truly the word is mighty. 🙂

  7. fsdthreshold says:

    On pretty much any subject, you can find books and articles that will conflict with one another, and you can find ones that will eloquently and convincingly support the position you’d prefer to believe, because writers learn to be eloquent, and we humans do a lot of thinking.

    For example: my dad was a great fan of the writer Zechariah Sitchin, whose books put forth the theory that the human race was created by the aliens that visited the Earth in the dim past — created by crossing their own DNA with the indigenous apes to produce a better, more intelligent labor force. Sitchin ties his ideas in with various Old Testament passages in which he finds support, and he claims to have found this information on Sumerian tablets which predate the OT. Now, my dad, bless him, thought that Christians were a bit innocent to “take things on faith.” But we Christians are going on the work of hundreds . . . thousands . . . of scholars and thinkers, laboring through thousands of years to preserve and debate and understand the Scriptures; Sitchin is one man . . . and we’re the innocent ones? But Dad found his arguments very persuasive.

    Another example. You know that Dr. Grover Krantz was ridiculed by the scientific community for spending so much of his time and energy studying the sasquatch phenomenon. But if you read his Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence, you’ll see that he makes a very solid and persuasive mathematical argument that the figure in the Patterson-Gimlin film could not be a human being in a costume. Was Krantz right? Who knows? The point is, he wrote a well-researched book that made his case strikingly well.

    In your reading, I can’t help thinking that these books you read about the history of canonical Scripture are almost all by hostile sources. Because there’s also a whole boatload of books by scholars who will tell you that, whether you believe what the Bible says or not, it’s more reliable as an ancient document than any other ancient document.

    Yes — I’m the first to agree with you that we don’t understand God perfectly. If we posit an infinite being, we couldn’t possibly understand him perfectly. And yes — in the long run, as you say, the precise nuance of this word or that doesn’t matter much, because the total picture given to us by Scripture doesn’t depend on one passage, or two, or ten; the message is there throughout, woven through all the parts.

    • Hagiograph says:

      I don’t believe that the authors I have been reading are ipso facto “hostile”. I have read quite a bit of Bart Ehrman’s stuff (“Lost Christianities” and “Misquoting Jesus”) and being the product of the Moody Bible Institute as well as Princeton Theological Seminary one would hardly call him “hostile” in any meaningful way toward Christianity. Indeed Israel Finkelstein is hardly an anti-religious zealot from what I’ve been able to tell.

      It is an easy toss off to simply assume anyone who finds error in the Bible (or disagreements in the BIble) is somehow “hostile” to the Bible. But that borders on argumentum ad hominem.

      I totally agree that one can read any given topic from either side and be “moved” based on personal bias. And I do know that I, like all people, carry biases. That is why it was important to me to actually read the bible cover to cover (sans apocrypha) as I was starting to question my faith.

      I don’t think the Bible NEEDS to be perfect, I see no problem with parts of the Pentateuch being little more than political machinations of an ancient kingdom. It is humanity writ large! But the problems arise when we try to infuse it with some deeper perfection reflecting “God”. That it lacks. It is a human writing. Regardless of how one feels it was “Inspired” or its deeper meanings. It is a human construction.

      And the centuries of academics who came after it, who “built” Christianity as we know it, are among the most fascinating people I have ever read about. BUT, the fact remains that what Christianity “is” was forged over centuries after Christ himself left the scene.

      The forging came in the form of “synoptic gospels” originally written decades and decades after Christ’s life. The forging continued with centuries of heterodoxy and orthodoxy. The wars fought internally to anthematize the heretics.

      Even Paul himself debates Peter over the nature of Christianity’s outreach to Gentiles.

      In theBible itself the Pauline version of Christianity won out, but it was not a foregone conclusion from the start. Ironic that a man who never met Jesus (short of a vision) would essentially define the faith.

      The reason I mentioned Justin Martyr in the previous post was to highlight that even some of the earliest Christian thinkers and church fathers faced a giant mountain of information; not all of which was favorable to the “Faith”.

      And the mention I made of Erasmus “Comma Johanneum” is even more fascinating. A man tasked with the definitive translation of the Bible at the time couldn’t find one of the key passages underlying the Trinity in the Bible. It is still unclear whether what the Church finally gave him to shut him up and force his hand to include the Johannine Comma was real or a forgery.

      Most of the scholars who have studied Josephus and his ostensible writings of Jesus now accept that the Josephus references to Jesus were likely medieval additions made by someone in service to the faith.

      When one reads the Bible and the associated historical record without the need of it being “true” (in the spiritual sense) a lot of it starts to make much more sense. Not that it is more accurate, but makes more sense.

      The bias I bring to “faith” is hopefully to be a “null” hypothesis. But I know I’m not perfect and I know I will read plenty of stuff that is going to be crafted to find a foregone conclusion…but isn’t that exactly the same thing that one does when reading the Bible with a “spiritual sense”?

      When testing an hypothesis I must start with the “null” that there is no supernatural agency here. Does this reading make sense without that agency? Or is the agency NECESSARY?

      • jhagman says:

        It becomes extremely problematic to say with any certainty what happened in ancient times. One conservative estimate has it that 85% of the documentation has been lost. Archaeology? An interpretation! Read the Bible cover to cover? Only if you can read fluently Hebrew and Aramaic- and really what does “fluently” mean? Those traditions are thousands of years behind us. Imagine running into someone thousands of years in the future who says “I’ve read all of Shakespeare” and it turns out they’ve read it in some bizarre futuristic language, have they read Shakespeare? The only thing I know with certainty is we only have small gleamings of what is at work in our history and our lives, and our analytic tools very often lead us to errors.

  8. Julie says:

    Okay, so I Googled the ‘comma’ (and nope, I didn’t know, or at least didn’t remember, what it was, and I’ve decided to be okay with that. I don’t know everything. There, I’ve said it.)

    And by the way, in my NIV Bible, it’s not there (it’s in the footnotes, where they put stuff that isn’t in earliest manuscripts).

    I’d recommend adding a little N.T. Wright and/or Ben Witherington to your reading diet, Hagio. I’d recommend Tim Keller too, but not sure he’s academic enough for ya… Good thinker, tho.

    For me, the weird differences among the gospels, for example, are reassuring (and are also consistent with a still primarily oral culture). I’d think a text that the Church was setting out to manipulate — would be a little more consistent. When a bunch of kids try to make up a convincing lie, first thing they do is meet up and try to get their story straight. You don’t see that kind of conspiracy when you read the whole of Scripture. Just saying’

    I know whatever I write here at this point is just providing opportunities for more argument/debate, and I’m afraid we’ll all just be talking past each other 🙁 But had to put in a cent or two. Cheers.

    • Hagiograph says:

      Julie, thanks for the reading recommendations! As for the “inconsistency” thing, you know I thought that EXACT thing a number of times. Why would there be two obviously contradictory genealogies for Jesus?

      I’m not sure that’s dispositive for a more likely TRUE gospel story but it is a very good example of how the faith isn’t just made up out of whole cloth by some “illuminati” group.

      And I would never say that. I honestly think that the people who wrote and compiled and codified the Bible were, by and large, all very earnest and honest Christians and Jews trying to make sense of the world around them and their faith.

      • Julie says:

        Yeah 🙂 That’s also why I’m happy to belong to a faith tradition that doesn’t believe in a magic book that fell out of the sky whole!

        I also agree with you that there are human handprints all over the faith tradition. Got no problem with that.

        I also echo Mr. Snowflake’s compliment. 🙂

  9. i am mr brown snowflake says:

    Hagio is going to Hell (There, I said it! If I had not he might have thought me less a stormtrooper for Rome! lol).
    Justin Martyr had some issues, Ireneaous, Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, Origen, Tertullian, Frederic S. Durbin, my local parish priest and, of course, myself … no one can go through life as a believer in Christ and not have doubts or concerns at one time or another — just how it is.
    Hagio is right in my response re: Catholic Doctrine.
    Has the Christian faith evolved over time? You bet.
    As a Catholic, I will tell you that the Church holds the unbroken apostolic succession from Peter and that she was given authority (the keys) to define and protect the faith.
    Look at it like this: the U.S. Constitution collapses without a Supreme Court to rule on, and defend, the Constitution; this is Rome’s role in the faith.
    Oh, yes, many of her leaders have been corrupt and done evil things, but the Faith she defends and proclaims? That is Christ Himself, the word (and Truth) made flesh.
    What I appreciate about Hagio is that he can take a position counter to what his friends believe and can do so without judgment — a real Christian virtue!

    • Hagiograph says:

      Mr. Snowflake, Defensor Fides, thank you for the compliment.

      Indeed I take a great deal of solace that all the people I count as friends who are Christian have their faith and it does them good. I have, in my various strolls about the intarwebs met some unpleasant people draped in the mantle of Christian faith who seem to fail at it badly.

      I see faith as a boon to those for whom it is real and for whom it fulfills an important niche in their lives.

      As such I hope I never offend or get on anyone’s nerves here.

      As for me going to hell…well, there’s an apocryphal tale told about Bertrand Russell (I don’t know if it’s true or not), but someone supposedly asked him what he would say upon his death if he was in front of God and asked to explain his unbelief. He replied that he would ask God why he didn’t give him more evidence.

      What is evidence for you is not for me. God can be as unclear to us as “gravity” (the nature of which is still difficult to grasp) but should be as incontrovertible.

      And finally, one more unsourced quote from Russell: “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence”.

      Amen.

  10. Mrs. Spamman says:

    Hagio is correct on one thing — way back in his 3rd comment on this post: What person would imagine such a plan for our salvation? That’s just it! What human indeed would conceive of such a preposterous sounding plan for the salvation of mankind? But God did! And it’s just that fact — that a bunch of uneducated fishermen would not have come up with such a plan (nor any other humans) — that makes God’s plan for my salvation so believable. As they say, truth is stranger than fiction. How often have you heard someone say, “You’re not going to believe this.” or “I’m not making this up.” Only God could have thought up such an odd sounding plan and made it all to work out — having real people and circumstances all come together just right to make it work. And thanks be to Him that He did!

    • Hagiograph says:

      Mrs. Spamman, I’m not entirely certain that my point was quite _that_.

      My point was that since the standard Christian Soteriology is so _specific_ and requires a lot of knowledge solely from the Bible then it means that the Bible carries a very heavy burden of near perfection in the “instructions”.

      So it becomes somewhat more mysterious that the Church had to develop orthodoxies and -gasp- even suffered a foundational split in terms of “justification by faith” vs “justification by works” centuries later.

      That is why I constructed the question as I did. If you had never met a Christian and had never read the Bible could one infer from anything in nature that mere acceptance of the sacrifice of a man/God being in Judea 2000 years ago was the key to salvation?

      It is fine no matter how “weird” or “complex” the salvation plan is…I’m OK with all that. What I’m wondering is if the instruction manual has some question as to how it came about and even shows marked change in application over the centuries, is it a compelling instruction manual?

  11. fsdthreshold says:

    Hagio, you wrote:
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence.”
    I agree with you on that. As Mr. Brown Snowflake pointed out, I can’t imagine that there’s one believer who hasn’t doubted at one time or another. That’s part of the nature of faith, “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.” Yet Scripture and history demonstrate again and again God’s extreme patience even with those who know about him, who have been following him and “should know better” from experience than to doubt. Yet still he’s patient. Absolutely — how much more so would a loving God not be patient with those who do not yet know him? Scripture is clear on the point that God desires all people to be saved. He holds off the Last Day so that as many as possible might come to know him.

    Bertrand Russell, you say, felt there was insufficient evidence. A man rises from the dead — a feat not reproducible by charlatans. His disciples immediately begin claiming he rose from the dead. This vexes the authorities, both Jewish and Roman, but they do not produce a dead body to counter the claim.

    The Way spreads around the world and down the corridors of time, wholly unlike any other religion in the claims it makes. It permeates vastly different cultures. A messy faith with a messy history? Yes, absolutely, as we all agree. A faith that addresses the human condition, bears out in practice, and rings true? Yes, I believe so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *