- Q
- Why did the Catholic Church not oppose St. Jerome's translation called Vulgate?
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Catholic-Church-not-oppose-St-Jeromes-translation-called-Vulgate/answer/Francis-Marsden-1
- Francis Marsden
- 41 yrs priest with Cambridge chemistry doctorate
- Updated 1 year ago
- Firstly, because the Church itself, in the person of Pope Damasus, commissioned the scholar Jerome to produce an up-to-date Latin version of the Scriptures, in place of the miscellaneous out-of-date classical Latin versions which were circulating.
The Catholic Church has always sponsored vernacular translations of the Scriptures, provided they were accurate. It has taken measures, sometimes draconian measures, to suppress faulty or heretical translations which would mislead souls to damnation. It has also censured editions laced with anti-Catholic footnotes and prologues.
The Vulgate is a vernacular late Latin translation produced by St Jerome and his collaborators from original Greek and Hebrew texts. Pope St Damasus I commissioned it in 380 AD. The 382 Synod in Rome stipulated which books it should contain I.e. defined the Canon of both OT and NT.
St Jerome is honoured as one of the four greatest western Doctors of the Church, along with Ambrose, Augustine and Gregory.
The Church has never opposed accurate translations.
- 1 year ago
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- “It has taken measures, sometimes draconian measures, to suppress faulty or heretical translations which would mislead souls to damnation.”
Speaking of which, are there Catholic clergy trying to suppress, if not my blogs, themselves, at least their free circulation among Catholics, due to thinking my identification of Babel (Genesis 11) with Göbekli Tepe is faulty?
- 2025
- Oct 12
- Joel Hatfield
- Oct 12
- First, you are not doing a bible translation. Second, pointing out your speculation as being incorrect is not draconian.
- Fri Oct 17
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I am not doing translation, but commentary.
I don’t get people pointing out I’m wrong and hearing me out, I get them dissuade others from reading me, I get them treating me like an excommunicatus vitandus without the pronunciation of an excommunication or declaration of latae sententiae such, I get my blogs treated like book titles on the Index which no longer exists, because I didn’t apply for a nihil obstat first, and this instead of actually …
… not just “pointing out” but ARGUING my speculation as being incorrect.
I don’t see you doing much arguing here. Except against the content of a complaint you misunderstood basically everything of.
- Sun Oct 19*
- Joel Hatfield
- I have not misunderstood you.
Your contention was that you were being “oppressed” by Catholic clergy who were blocking your writings from being circulated among Catholics, etc. They have no obligation to circulate your content, or facilitate its discussion. In fact they are obligated to protect the flock from inaccurate, misleading, or false teachings. In other words “pointing out you are wrong;” which is what they doing by refuting or arguing with you assertions.
Perhaps there are academics who would engage in debating your theory. If there are not, then that should tell you something about your theory.
- Mo Oct 20
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- “They have no obligation to circulate your content, or facilitate its discussion.”
That’s a very precise misunderstanding of what I said.
They do have an obligation of honesty if and when actively warning against.
Telling parishioners that they shouldn’t read me, parish after parish, diocese after diocese, while NO canonic procedure is made against the content of my blogs is simply dishonest. Making innuendo’s about books on the Index when my blogs aren’t such, definitely is using innuendo when clear statements wouldn’t do, and as such dishonest.
I’m not complaining about reader statistics not rising when I hoped, I’m complaining about sudden drops, accompanied with sudden changes in behaviour from parishioners.
“In fact they are obligated to protect the flock from inaccurate, misleading, or false teachings.”
False teachings in the sense of heresy, certainly.
Inaccurate? You are joking right? How many of them are fine with saying “no Church Fathers were Young Earth Creationist” when the correct fact is not all Church Fathers were Six-Day Creationists (because the other ones were One-Moment Creationists, while both sets were Young Earth insofar as any position can be ascertained).
An inaccuracy doesn’t kill the soul, and protecting against inaccuracy as if it were heresy is the battle cry of Scientism and of Communism.
“which is what they doing by refuting or arguing with you assertions.”
Are you nuts or can’t you speak English? I never complained about them arguing or refuting. I complained about radio silence imposed. Taking that as a complaint about arguments or refutations is, if not dishonest, at least an argument you speak your probable first language less well than I speak my third, that being English.**
I complained about sudden mood changes with the faces I see, that very reasonably can be put down to someone like a clergyman saying things like “don’t argue with him” …
That’s not preserving the flock from doctrinal error, it’s inducing it into very grave moral error.
- Tue, 21.X
- Joel Hatfield
- Oh gosh! I’m so embarrassed, you have definitely put me in my place, not.
Your original premise:
“Speaking of which, are there Catholic clergy trying to suppress, if not my blogs, themselves, at least their free circulation among Catholics, due to thinking my identification of Babel (Genesis 11) with Göbekli Tepe is faulty?”
It sounds like you either have a case to make or you are just bitter and have an axe to grind. Go get yourself a canon lawyer and make your case to your diocesan bishop and produce your receipts for your supposed suppression. Name the priests or bishops who have done you wrong.
However, multiple AI searches using different AI engines yield no evidence of any formal or informal suppression of your theory other than your claims. If you have private evidence produce it.
Blogging is not scholarship. Present your theory in scholarly forums, perhaps you will find the validity you seek.
However: None of the recognized academic authorities on Göbekli Tepe — Klaus Schmidt, Lee Clare, Necmi Karul, Oliver Dietrich, or Jens Notroff, nor any team under the German Archaeological Institute (DAI) or Turkish Ministry of Culture — have ever made, endorsed, or even seriously entertained a connection between Göbekli Tepe and Babel (the Tower of Babel or the city of Shinar from Genesis 11.
This is also true of Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic biblical archaeologists.
So, a logical conclusion is that you are being ignored, rather than being suppressed, because your theory is fringe and speculative.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- “It sounds like you either have a case to make or you are just bitter and have an axe to grind.”
I have made my case several times over.
The most basic is, Göbekli Tepe is West of Mount Judi, as opposed to Classic Babylon which is to the South and even somewhat to the East (and to the East of any part of Armenia West of Nagorno Karabagh / Arzakh). Miqqedem means, and in old translations is also translated ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν / de oriente / from the east.
You had the chance of giving me another opportunity by attacking the position you claimed is erroneous. Your claim, your onus. Meaning your turn, I was willing to wait for mine.
I have made it several times over, priests in a particular parish of the diocese of Paris, and in SSPX St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, and in the homeless shelters for Knights of Malta and of another parish, have all discouraged parishioners from reading my blogs, even on matters like musical compositions I made. In other words, the “burnt soil” tactic they have used has cost me additional years of pretty extreme poverty.
This situation of mine should tip you off about canon lawyer. If I could afford one, I wouldn’t need one.
“no evidence of any formal or informal suppression of your theory”
If the theory had been answered on the internet rather than informally suppressed, it would have shown, but I would have called that an answer, not a suppression, and I would not have complained.
You, and my readers, will have to take my word for it, Marsden already knows what he has done (like suppressed one of my answers to you, where I answered one of the possible attacks on my position, like suppressed an answer of his denying Heaven is a place, when I pointed out that this is against Catholic Christology, Eucharistology, Mariology and Eschatology — his answer was gone, with my replies, before I could transfer the exchange to a blog).
“If you have private evidence produce it.”
Not really private, but perhaps unknown to non-readers of my blogs. This statistic is from December 2022, before Ratzinger died:
France[1]
818 + 2507 + 17 + 2 + 2 + 2486 + 13 + 1853 + 2 + 1150 + 1 + 2 + 1714 + 4 + 2945 + 2 = 13518
(13518 + 2543) / 8 = 2008 par jour
This statistic is from January 2023:
This Month, I.2023[2]
521 + 703 + 703 + 18 + 23 + 4 + 11 + 52 + 81 + 6 + 10 + 32 + 7 + 20 + 43 + 5 + 77 + 12 + 5 + 9 + 6 + 6 + 1 + 2 + 6 + 25 + 21 + 18 + 94 + 29 + 41 + 4 + 27 + 16 + 63 + 30 + 4 + 46 + 9 + 8 + 16 + 298 = 3112, 311 per day
Last Month, XII.2022
1889 + 61 + 35 + 23 + 568 + 54 + 484 + 14026 + 187 + 557 + 31 + 124 + 9963 + 210 + 56 + 87 + 101 + 18 + 38 + 25 + 29 + 24 + 34 + 10 + 18 + 1620 + 56 + 356 + 6209 + 56 + 999 + 124 + 118 + 10528 + 12591 + 275 + 48 + 167 + 131 + 9470 + 2902 + 16185 = 90487
90487 / 31 = 2919 per day
Here is more specifically France, a week in late January:
France[3]
2 + 1 + 1 + 39 + 71 + 252 + 1 + 1 + 36 + 4 + 3 + 20 + 1 + 3 + 63 + 1 + 82 + 2 = 583,
83 et 2/7 par jour
While overall stats have recovered, as of late my stats from France have been at 29 views per day, though last time I published my stats are before that:
France[4]
143 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 9 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 3 + 1 + 39 + 20 + 5 + 8 + 8 + 1 + 4 + 6 = 259, soit 37 par jour
France
76 + 69 + 1 + 1 + 7 + 23 + 1 + 4 + 1 + 10 + 1 + 24 + 54 + 2 + 17 = 291, soit 42 par jour
“Blogging is not scholarship.”
Printing is not scholarship. Printing and blogging, vlogging and making TV or radio programmes can serve to promote accredited OR amateur scholarship.
“Present your theory in scholarly forums, perhaps you will find the validity you seek.”
I did not seek academic validity with accredited scholars. It’s not as if they were an episcopate with promises from Jesus in Matthew 28.
I seek a rise in my conditions, since a printer would make texts accessible in buyable format, and since a number of people discussing my theories would prevent some of the incivilities that I’m exposed to.
Priests have a duty to push back against heresy, not against unacademic procedures or bypassing of academic gatekeeping. The priests I talk of have exactly reversed this.
“have ever made, endorsed, or even seriously entertained a connection between Göbekli Tepe and Babel”
Probably because they take carbon dates at face value. If Göbekli Tepe is from ending in 8000 BC, it’s not Nimrod’s Babel and it’s not even in Creation.
If instead Göbekli Tepe is Babel (which the geographic locality, the carbon time frame between a unitary system of 32 symbols and diverse more fragmented attempts of prot-writing, that seems to fit a language split fine), “8000 BC” as a carbon date is the real date of Peleg’s birth, meaning 2556 BC.
Meaning, the atmosphere had a carbon 14 content so low that it gave samples 5444 instant extra years. That is c. 51 pmC.[5]
“you are being ignored, rather than being suppressed,”
If I turn to exactly one set of people, and they are interested until they hear me, and then ignore me, that’s ignoring.
But if people arrange for set after set after set of people to need to ignore me even before hearing me out (or reading my blogs), that’s not just individuals chosing to ignore, that’s an organised minority pushing them to ignore, thereby de facto suppressing.
“because your theory is fringe and speculative.”
Neither of which makes it untrue or unworthy of consideration.***
- Footnotes
- to previous
- [1] 15 jours - pardon, 8 + 1 = 9
[2] I had 3000 daily visitors
[3] Semaine et mois, depuis 28.XII
[4] Deux semaines (et deux mois)
[5] What's "pmC"?
* On Saturday, I think, I posted an extra reply to the comment from Oct 12, with at least one specific argument on the actual theorem. This reply has been deleted, showing the deep aversion to actual argument. One way to refute "Göbekli Tepe is Nimrod's Babel" is to say "Göbekli Tepe is not in Mesopotamia" and I posted a reply footnoting to an endtimes related video on the Euphrates, where a map shows where the two main contributaries to Ephrates meet, namely in Turkey, way further North than Göbekli Tepe. ** For those who speak English as badly as he, English is his probable first and my own third language, the first of my second languages, since Swedish and German are both my native languages. *** I published after this one, and he is notified.
No comments:
Post a Comment