My point in both references was to demonstrate that it was not Prince nor Ellis that have redefined "metanoia"
This is not topic really of this thread but i will clarify a bit more and then I am done since I do not want to derail.
I really do appreciate though your civil response, we need more people like you here and I am persuadable.
That a pastor (Treadwell) and yes a Catholics were given as two examples of people who argued the meaning of "metanioa" as not meaning pain, penance and sorrow for sins but a change of mind.
Really I cannot vouch for their character or even if they were Godly men, I really do not know, I do believe that history, linguistical analysis and etymology are very important though.
In the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate metanoia was translated as
paenitentia which came to mean
penance or acts of penance that had to be done if one hoped to obtain grace.
This is historical fact.
People like Justin Martyr and Augustine looked for some type of contrition for sin.
It was actually the Reformation that saw the new church fathers begin to go back to the Classical Greek.
Both Luther and Calvin desired to remove the concept of
penance from the meaning of repentance.
They very accurately looked at the root of the meaning of the word repentance:
meta=after;
noeo=to think. Put the two together and the effect of
meta was “after the fact” or “afterwards.”
Essentially, it means to think about something later on and have a reversal of opinion about it. Thus, repentance meant “to change the mind.” Specifically—to change the mind about Christ.
I would also add that a good translator is going to look at all writings to see how the word was used in that time period. Paul wrote in the common language not some special biblical language.
Like the word “breath” it did used to mean “spirit” to know this I could refer to Shakespeare.
In a letter to John Staupitz
Luther wrote……
“metanoia signifies a changing of the mind and heart, because it seemed to indicate not only a change of heart, but also a manner of changing it, i.e., the grace of God.
I disagree somewhat, we must absolutely use the Greek, linguistical, contextual, cultural definition and also how it is used in the biblical context and not the historical Catholic definition which was only a way to enslave people again to guilt and earning salvation.
It would seem the Reformers who sought to loosen the shackles of a corrupt religious system built on guilt and ungodly sorrow are loosing ground in our present modern day church.
Just a reminder Valla was a humanist. He had a agenda against the Catholics . His whole point was not that the word translation was wrong . He believed that man was basically good . His philosophy led him to believe that some may not even need a redeemer so the word had to have another meaning to him . Villa stuck with a strictly Greek meaning for the word . A language deeply influenced by paganism. The word Metanoia has been expressed as being daughter of a Greek mythological titan . That works to change our minds . We can’t just use the Greek definition. It definitely had a different or more nuanced meaning for the Jews .
Blessings
Bill
