Three apostolic sees

[prodromos]

Were you born into Orthodoxy?

No. I was raised in the Anglican Church.

 

[Dan Perez]

Why?

Because you said he was a Priest , and a verse will confirm that he was ?

dan p

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Because you said he was a Priest , and a verse will confirm that he was ?

dan p

Therefore, I beg the priests who are among you, as one who is also a priest and a witness of the Passion of Christ, who also shares in that glory which is to be revealed in the future:
[1Pe 5:1]

 

[Dan Perez]

Therefore, I beg the priests who are among you, as one who is also a priest and a witness of the Passion of Christ, who also shares in that glory which is to be revealed in the future:
[1Pe 5:1]

That is NOT what the KJV says , The elders , and does NOT say Priests at all .

Peter is called and Elder and not a Priest !!

dan p

 

[The Liturgist]

That is NOT what the KJV says , The elders , and does NOT say Priests at all .

Peter is called and Elder and not a Priest !!

dan p

In the original Greek he is called a Presbyter, and Priest is literally an anglicization of the word Presbyter. Unfortunately, for reasons that defy explanation, but cause great frustration and confusion, the word Priest was later used to translate sacerdos, hierus and kohen, despite originally only meaning Presbyter (elder).

That being said since St. Peter is a believer, and the scripture does declare all believers to be hieratic or sacerdotal priests, we must assert that St. Peter is a priest in that sense as well as in the sense of being a presbyter and episkopos.

 

[The Liturgist]

No. I was raised in the Anglican Church.

Anglicanism produces a steady stream of converts to our faith, and this is one of the reasons why I like the Antiochian and ROCOR Western Rite Vicarates, because while many people, myself included, prefer the Byzantine Rite liturgy, the Western liturgical rites are still beautiful and the WRVs increase the likelihood of some traditional Anglicans joining us rather than a Continuing Anglican church, although I do also think that the Continuing Anglican churches might be at some point amenable to joining into Western Rite Orthodoxy, one crucial determining variable being how strongly they feel about the filioque.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That is NOT what the KJV says , The elders , and does NOT say Priests at all .

Peter is called and Elder and not a Priest !!

dan p

Why ought I worry about how the KJV says it; the KJV is a church of England bible that tells its stories as a good Anglican should. I am not an Anglican. Are you?

 

[Dan Perez]

Why ought I worry about how the KJV says it; the KJV is a church of England bible that tells its stories as a good Anglican should. I am not an Anglican. Are you?

I am a Pauline DISPENSATIONALIST !!

1 Tim 1:4 says , Nor to give attention to FABLES and Endless Genealogies which cause questioning , rather than God's DISPENSATION , the ONE BY FAITH ,.

dan p

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I am a Pauline DISPENSATIONALIST !!

1 Tim 1:4 says , Nor to give attention to FABLES and Endless Genealogies which cause questioning , rather than God's DISPENSATION , the ONE BY FAITH ,.

dan p

I shall always give three cheers to faith, especially when the faith is lively with good works.

 

[JSRG]

Therefore, I beg the priests who are among you, as one who is also a priest and a witness of the Passion of Christ, who also shares in that glory which is to be revealed in the future:
[1Pe 5:1]

Which translation are you using for this?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Which translation are you using for this?

Does it really matter? The translation is from Latin into English. It could just as easily be from Greek into English. or from Aramaic into English the point that it makes is that the word for elder (Presbuteros) Is the word from which English gets priest. So, all those passages in Pauls letters that speak about elders are speaking about priests. the Greek word for sacrificial priest in a religious cult of some kind is ἱερεύς (hiereus), It is the word that the translators of the LXX used for the members of Aaron's household, those who served as priests at the altar of Jehovah.

 

[JSRG]

Does it really matter?

Well, I looked at the English translations on biblegateway.com, plus the Douay Rheims, and none of them rendered the verse as you offered. Now, obviously, there are translations beyond just those, but those are all of the major ones so I wanted to know what translation you were quoting from.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Well, I looked at the English translations on biblegateway.com, plus the Douay Rheims, and none of them rendered the verse as you offered. Now, obviously, there are translations beyond just those, but those are all of the major ones so I wanted to know what translation you were quoting from.

It was a mix. It was a translation based on a public domain, Latin based Bible and my own work.

 

[The Liturgist]

It was a mix. It was a translation based on a public domain, Latin based Bible and my own work.

I liked your rendering of the verse, I thought you accurately and elegantly rendered it.

Did you do anything else? Because if so I would love to see it.

I have had in mind using a spliced together modification of the KJV, Douai Rheims, Brenton Septuagint and the Murdoch Peshitta, selecting whichever one provides the nicer looking reading, for our lectionary.

Some might object, but I did study divinity for ten years, I know what is in the original Greek and in the Syriac Aramaic translations, and I also know liturgics.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I liked your rendering of the verse, I thought you accurately and elegantly rendered it.

Did you do anything else? Because if so I would love to see it.

I have had in mind using a spliced together modification of the KJV, Douai Rheims, Brenton Septuagint and the Murdoch Peshitta, selecting whichever one provides the nicer looking reading, for our lectionary.

Some might object, but I did study divinity for ten years, I know what is in the original Greek and in the Syriac Aramaic translations, and I also know liturgics.

Yes. I have done a couple of other things. I did some work on the revised standard version, but that work is just for myself. I've also done some work on the King James version. Mostly reintegrating the deuterocanonical books into their proper places in the King James version. Also, some modification of the grammar because there are passages in the KJV that are just really difficult for a modern English reader. And I am very slowly working on producing an English translation from the Vulgate. One of the very nice things about the Vulgate is that Latin and koine Greek have so much in common that familiarity with the Vulgate is pretty close to familiarity with the Greek New Testament. It is a little bit unfortunate that St Jerome used Hebrew texts for his Old Testament. I would have preferred that it had he used the Septuagint. So far, none of these works are ready for public exposure. I occasionally use a passage or two in my posts here.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes. I have done a couple of other things. I did some work on the revised standard version, but that work is just for myself. I've also done some work on the King James version. Mostly reintegrating the deuterocanonical books into their proper places in the King James version. Also, some modification of the grammar because there are passages in the KJV that are just really difficult for a modern English reader. And I am very slowly working on producing an English translation from the Vulgate. One of the very nice things about the Vulgate is that Latin and koine Greek have so much in common that familiarity with the Vulgate is pretty close to familiarity with the Greek New Testament. It is a little bit unfortunate that St Jerome used Hebrew texts for his Old Testament. I would have preferred that it had he used the Septuagint. So far, none of these works are ready for public exposure. I occasionally use a passage or two in my posts here.

This sounds very exciting! I would love to see some of your work. I also agree with you it would have been better if St. Jerome had used the Septuagint. However, are you aware of the Vetus Latina? This is the exquisitely beautiful Classical Latin Bible that St. Jerome was commissioned to replace, because unfortunately, due to the cultural decline of the Western Empire between the second century, when the Vetus Latina and the Latin translation of the liturgy were produced according to the commendable initiative of Pope Victor, so that they would be accessible to all Romans ,and not just the wealthy elite who could afford to attend a Grammaticus and a Rhaetor and learn the Greek language, the Classical Latin of the Vetus Latina had become increasingly difficult for the laity to understand. I have also heard Pope St. Damasus was concerned about its accuracy, but I suspect this, if true, is because it is one of only two known Bibles to use the New Testament textual variant known as the Western Text Type (which is something of a misnomer, because the third century translation of the four canonical Gospels into Syriac, the Vetus Syra, also uses the Western Text Type; this was completed before the later Peshitta due to the pressing need to replace the Diatessaron, a dreadful “Gospel Harmony” produced by Tatian, a noted Syriac churchman who subsequently defected to Gnosticism and founded his own schismatic Gnostic sect closely related to that of Bardesanes and Severian, the Tatianists.

At any rate, the Vetus Latina actually survives in its entirety, and is still heard in the liturgy in several places, simply because it is more elegant than the Vulgate. For example, “Gloria In Exclesis Deo” is from the Vetus Latina, a phrase the Vulgate renders as the rather clunky “Gloria in altissimus Deo.”

By the way, St. Jerome actually translated the Psalter initially from the same Hebrew and Aramaic sources from which he translated the rest of the Vulgate, but Pope Damasus objected, since this would break the Divine Office (it also has this effect in the Byzantine Rite divine liturgy, perhaps even worse because the Byzantine Rite expects it to be divided into 20 Kathisma, or sittings, each of which is divided into three Stases, or standings, so called because one stands after each group of Psalms one stands for the “Glory be to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, now and ever and unto the ages.” Thus St. Jerome dutifully translated the Psalter from the Septuagint, as well as those books some call Deuterocanonical, which exist in the Septuagint but were not recovered in Hebrew or Aramaic until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is the Septuagint Psalter, minus Psalm 151, that is in the Challoner Douai Rheims, and most other Catholic Bibles.

In the case of the Eastern Orthodox Church, perhaps due to our large number of Anglican converts, one of our two most popular English language Psalters is the Jordanville Psalter, produced by ROCOR’s Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, New York, and sold in the excellent A Psalter for Prayer, which also includes useful supplemental material including the Orthodox version of Quincunque Vult, also known as the Athanasian Creed, is basically the Coverdale Psalter modified to follow the Septuagint. The other very popular Orthodox Psalter is the Boston Psalter, produced by the Old Calendarist Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston, which despite not being in communion with GoArch, is heavily used by them as a source of liturgical materials, because they optimize their translations for use with Byzantine Chant. This, however, makes them rather a pain to read for anyone not using Byzantine Chant, which is actually most Orthodox in the world, such as almost all of the Church Slavonic parishes, and their Greek Catholic counterparts. Byzantine Chant is mainly used by the Greeks, with some use by the Romanians and the Bulgarians, a single Russian choir that does it (despite it not being really a historic form of chant in Russia; the ancient form there was Znamenny Chant; likewise the ancient form in Georgia is Three Part Harmony, which also exists in Greece), and the Antiochians have a beautiful, distinctive variant called Syro-Byzantine Chant which as the name suggests was once done in Syriac, but is now done in Arabic, as sadly, unlike the Syriac Orthodox Church, while there are some Aramaic speaking Antiochians, the liturgy tends to be mostly in Arabic or other vernacular languages (however, in the Aramaic speaking town of Maaloula, Syria, where the convent raided by ISIS was recently rebuilt, I vaguely recall hearing something about Aramaic being used in the liturgy, since it is the local vernacular; at one time the Antiochians used a variant of the West Syriac Rite also used by the Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholics and Maronite Catholics, but this has not been the case since the 12th century, apparently, but the ecumenical agreement between the Antiochians and the Syriac Orthodox is superb in that it effectively allows the Antiochians to use the Syriac Orthodox church to access their own Aramaic heritage.

By the way, did you know you can download the KJV and obtain copies of it that have the Deuterocanonical books? Because they are supposed to be in there - it is mainly due to an alliance of penny-pinching publishers and KJV purchasers who are not Anglican (indeed, of the absurd KJV Onlyists, who finally had to be prevented from advocating their position on CF.com because of the endless fights they started with other members, and who in some cases have actually started translating the KJV into other languages on the belief that it is superior to the Greek text, which is patently absurd, I know of precisely zero who are Anglican, although I am sure with some effort I might be able to find some random dude in rural Shropshire or suburban Cincinatti who is an KVJ Only Anglican, or even a KJV Only Episcopalian, a concept I suspect our friends @PloverWing and @seeking.IAM would find most amusing).

At any rate, I am most interested by what you are doing and would love to see some of your work. Are you at all familiar with the work of my charity, LiturgyWorks?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

By the way, did you know you can download the KJV and obtain copies of it that have the Deuterocanonical books? Because they are supposed to be in there - it is mainly due to an alliance of penny-pinching publishers and KJV purchasers who are not Anglican

I have printed editions that include all of the canonical books of the KJV. I have the new Cambridge paragraph bible. And I have an Oxford edition with the Deuteronomy included. There is also a Catholic edition of the KJV that has been produced by the ordinariate for ex-Anglicans. I don't have a copy of it myself, but it is available in print.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have printed editions that include all of the canonical books of the KJV. I have the new Cambridge paragraph bible. And I have an Oxford edition with the Deuteronomy included. There is also a Catholic edition of the KJV that has been produced by the ordinariate for ex-Anglicans. I don't have a copy of it myself, but it is available in print.

Do you have a link?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Do you have a link?

Walsingham Publishing - King James Bible for Catholics

www.walsinghampublishing.com

 

[JSRG]

Yes. I have done a couple of other things. I did some work on the revised standard version, but that work is just for myself. I've also done some work on the King James version. Mostly reintegrating the deuterocanonical books into their proper places in the King James version. Also, some modification of the grammar because there are passages in the KJV that are just really difficult for a modern English reader. And I am very slowly working on producing an English translation from the Vulgate. One of the very nice things about the Vulgate is that Latin and koine Greek have so much in common that familiarity with the Vulgate is pretty close to familiarity with the Greek New Testament. It is a little bit unfortunate that St Jerome used Hebrew texts for his Old Testament. I would have preferred that it had he used the Septuagint. So far, none of these works are ready for public exposure. I occasionally use a passage or two in my posts here.

Why is it unfortunate? The reason Jerome did it was he thought that the Latin translation should be directly from the Hebrew rather than being a translation from the Greek from the Hebrew (translation of a translation), which is what the prior translations were. If absolutely nothing else it's good he did so because it gives us a witness to the Hebrew text around 400 AD (even if via translation), which is useful because aside from a few small fragments, we have zero Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text, a gap of about a thousand years.