Genesis one

[JLG]

- My answer:

1)

- It is completely right to say that there were both Catholic and protestant martyrs regarding the transmission of Bible in languages people could understand!

- But it became a threat to the authority of the Church which did its best to prevent it!

- I underlined some parts of this text!

http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2413-94672015000200010


Increasingly, the key to what the book really means was sought in the so-called regula fidei, the rule of what the church believes, confesses and teaches, in the form of doctrine, the regula veritatis or rule of truth, and whenever conflicts of interpretation arose believers looked to structures of authoritative teaching in the church to solve these conflicts by official interpretation and teaching, often leading to the official rejection of what was seen as false teaching and false teachers. The Bible became increasingly used as source for the official church to prove its authoritative doctrines and teaching.

The Middle Ages


During the Middle Ages, in the Latin-speaking western Empire, developments took place in three different social locations, namely the monasteries, the cathedral schools and the medieval universities.


From the sixth into the twelfth centuries, it was in the monasteries where "the torch of learning was kept alight" because Biblical learning and reading was kept alive, while education and scholarship suffered neglect and even destruction, together with towns, libraries, books and culture. The monastic tradition of spiritual reading for the edification of the soul through contemplation and discipleship called lectio divina or sacra pagina developed, involving the rhythm of threefold spiritual practices of reading, contemplation and prayer. During these practices the notion of the four senses of Scripture came to full employ - offering literal (historical and literary), allegorical (doctrinal), moral (exemplary) and anagogical (salvific) meanings. The works of celebrated preachers and commentators (like Gregory the Great and the Venerable Bede) were collected to form an accumulative and authoritative tradition of exposition, informing these practices of spiritual reading. The love of learning and the desire for God became closely inter-related - and for those who could not read there was the teaching through liturgy and art, deeply shaping and nourishing the popular imagination.


Since the ninth century, however, education was also becoming more public, books were copied (with the help of a new form of handwriting) and became increasingly available, new copies of classical and pagan texts were commented upon and gradually the cathedrals in the larger towns and cities were challenged to open schools for the education of the clergy, to serve the growing public demand for reading and knowledge. Here a scholastic way of reading the Bible developed, different in purpose and method from the monasteries, so that by the twelfth century two kinds of schools co-existed in different social locations, each with its own traditions of reading and interpretation - monasteries for monks and cathedral schools for clerics. In the schools several material processes were at work that would fundamentally influence and in many ways change practices of interpretation - glosses in the margins of the manuscripts increasingly developed into commentaries and finally into a whole corpus of official comments and opinions from authoritative authors; a method of question and answer, called disputatio, developed as way of instruction and learning in the schools, making possible the dialectical methodology employed by teachers like Peter Abelard and Peter Lombard, so that the three moments of the lectio divina were in these locations replaced by three different moments, namely the grammar, logic and rhetoric of the so-called sacra doctrina. The Vulgate (or Latin text of the Bible) was provided with numbered chapter divisions after which numbered verses also followed, making concordances and similar reference works possible, all serving more systematic study of the Bible.





Still, yet another social location was developing where centres of learning, founded by citizens of more independent cities, were established that would later become known as the first medieval universities, and again the Bible would be read and studies with different purposes in mind and therefore according to different ways of interpretation. By the end of the twelfth century it was possible for students to begin with a general study in the liberal arts, a studium generale, preparing them for theological studies, afterwards. Since the scholastic training was not producing the kind of skills regarded by some in the church as necessary for the work of the church, both the Dominican and Franciscan Orders were founded early in the thirteenth century, both concerned with preaching. Francis' resistance against many of the scholastic ideals and practices led to a situation where most popular preaching, often based on very literal understandings of especially the Gospels, was done by self-appointed and untrained preachers. The Dominican Order of Preachers was therefore set up to combat what they regarded as an uncontrolled spread of heresies. The different orders set up their own centres of training or houses of study in the vicinity of and sometimes even as part of the schools and the universities, a practice that would become increasingly popular after the Reformation. By that time Protestant denominations founded their own seminaries, either separate from or collaborating with, universities, but always with a double-vision understanding of doing theology - for the church but in the academy. This included study of the Bible according to changing scholarly climates, approaches and methodologies, but simultaneously intended to be in the service of the church and its ministry and life. With the focus now on preaching, a new genre of gloss also developed, namely comments and later commentaries for preachers, called postilla (or additions), providing material useful for preachers as sources of interpretation of the Bible. At the same time, the Dominicans refused the translation of the Bible in the vernacular, thereby attempting to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common people, in order to prevent heresy, in the form of interpretation not officially approved by the church.

 

[JLG]

Renaissance and Reformation


The Reformation may be described as a next crucial period in the story of reading and interpreting the Bible, although it should be kept in mind that the Reformation itself was only, albeit an integral, part of a much larger cultural and historical process taking place. Already the Renaissance breathed the spirit of ad fontes, back to the sources, which involved a renewed interest in the original Biblical documents, as well as philological work, translations from the original languages, translations into the vernacular, and wider access to these documents for a broader public. Popular movements grew in which the Biblical documents were read, in spite of official prohibition, spiritually, meditatively, literally, psychologically and morally - for example the reform movement called the devotia moderna which produced Thomas a Kempis' Imitation of Christ. Almost inevitably, these widespread encounters with the original documents led to an increasing conflict between these popular readings searching for literal meaning on the one hand and the official readings of the church according to the authoritative and doctrinal rule of faith on the other. A conflict between Bible and Church was developing - with many incidents and episodes contributing to this growing tension, for example the fate of William of Ockham, John Huss and John Wycliffe. For obvious reasons, the invention of printing was a major game-changer. The Reformation was unthinkable without printing. As a result of the technology of printing and the industry of paper-production the world was changed. Printing conquered Europe and later the whole world, is the way Henri-Jean Martin in The History and Power of Writing describes this process, and in their own hands, in their vernacular, the Bible captured the imagination of many, it became the language they spoke, the lenses through which they saw the world, the strange new linguistic and imaginative world in which they lived. For the first time in history it really became meaningful to speak about "the Bible" in the singular, referring to one book in one physical format. It became possible to imagine a book with a single message, thrust or purpose, to claim sola Scriptura over against the external authority of the church's teaching office and tradition.

Again, this would have major implications for the social locations where "the Bible" became read and interpreted. The major location was obviously the pulpits of local Protestant congregations. That is where the message was "preached and heard." In official theological studies and training, study of the Bible would also occupy pride of place, in universities, but also in the curricula and classes of the typically Protestant seminaries that would later become so widespread and popular. At the same time, however, the Bible was also from now on increasingly read "in and for the public sphere," so that princes, rulers, cities, regions, even countries could also hear - and hopefully obey - the "Word of God." Visionary interpretations, prophetic interpretations, covenantal interpretations all became popular as attempts to show how public life could also be transformed in obedience to the authoritative message of God's Word, according to the self-understanding of the Reformation.

 

[JLG]

2)

- Censorship of the Bible:

- It was always organized by the authorities of the Church

- let’s start with wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_the_Bible

During the Middle Ages

There were some controversies whether the translation in Old Church Slavonic was permissible. According to St. Methodius, he was officially allowed to use it by John VIII in 880. Yet Christians were forbidden to use the Old Church Slavonic translation by John X in 920 and by the Lateran Synod of 1059, with the synod being confirmed by Nicholas II and Alexander II. In a letter to Vratislav II of Bohemia dated 2 January 1080, Pope Gregory VII revoked his predecessors' permission to use the Slavonic language. The reason he gave was that "Not without reason has it pleased Almighty God that Holy Scripture should be a secret in certain places, lost, if it were plainly apparent to all men, perchance it would be little esteemed and be subject to disrespect; or it might be falsely understood by those of mediocre learning, and lead to error."[11][12][e]


Between 1170–80, Peter Waldo commissioned a cleric from Lyon to translate the New Testament into the vernacular "Romance" (Franco-Provençal).[13] He is credited with providing Western Europe the first translation of the Bible in a 'modern tongue' outside of Latin.[14]


In 1199, Pope Innocent III, writing in a letter to the bishop of Metz, banned the reading the Bible in private meetings (which he labeled as occultis conventiculis, or "hidden assemblies"). However, he noted that the desire to read and study the divine scriptures, was not to blame, but rather it was a recommended disposition. Since, however, the individual by himself apart from private meetings could hardly procure Bible texts, this ban was practically equivalent to a Bible ban for lay people.[15][f]


After the end of the Albigensian Crusade, the Council of Toulouse tightened the provisions against the heretics in this ecclesiastical province. The Inquisition was the first to work nationwide, and the University of Toulouse was founded, to which the Catholic Institute of Toulouse is also called. At the synod a general Bible ban was pronounced for lay people of this ecclesiastical province, only Psalterium and Brevier in Latin were allowed.[16][17][18][19]

We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and New Testaments; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."[20]​

This quote was not repeated in 1233 at the Council held in Bréziers. Although sections of the Council Toulouse were used, this statement was omitted. In the course of a confirmation of the writings in 1215 at Fourth Council of the Lateran's condemnation of the writings of David of Dinant ordered Gregory IX. in 1231, to hand over all the theological books written in Latin to the diocesan bishops. At the Second Council of Tarragona (Conventus Tarraconensis) in 1234, the Spanish bishops, according to a decree of King James I of Aragon, declared that it was forbidden to anyone, to own a translation of the Bible. They had to be burned within eight days, otherwise, they were considered heretics.[21][22][23][24]


At the diocesan synod of Trier (Synodus Dioecesana Trevirensis) convened by Archbishop Theodoric II in 1231, alleged heretics called Euchites were described as having translated the scriptures into German:[25][26]

There was an unnatural heresy everywhere. In the year of 1231 in the same city and territory, heretics were perceived at three schools. And several of them belonged to that sect, and many of them were taught from the scriptures, which they had translated into German.​

At the synod of Béziers (Concilium Biterrense) in 1246[g] it was also decided that the laity should have no Latin and vernacular and the clergy no vernacular theological books.[27][28]


Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor issued an edict against German interpretations of Scripture at the request of Pope Urban V 1369 in Lucca, This was in order that such interpreters would not seduce laymen and malevolent spirits to heresy or error.[29] Nevertheless, his son started the handwritten Wenceslas Bible in 1385.


In 1376, Pope Gregory XI ordered that all literature on the Bible should be placed under ecclesiastical direction. As a result, only the Vulgate and a few poor quality translations in national languages were tolerated.[30]

 

[JLG]

John Wycliffe (1330–1384), a theologian with pre-Reformation views, finished the first authoritative translation of the Bible from Latin into English in 1383. His teachings were rejected in 1381 by Oxford University and in 1382 by the church. For fear of a popular uprising Wycliffe was not charged. The translation of the Bible caused great unrest among the clergy, and for their sake, several defensive provincial synods were convened, such as the 3rd Council of Oxford (ended in 1408). Under the chairmanship of Archbishop Thomas Arundel, official positions against Wycliffe were written in the Oxford Constitution and Arundel Constitution. The latter reads as follows:[31]

[…] that no one in the future will translate any text of Scripture into English or into any other text than book, scripture or tract, or that such a book, scripture or tract be read, whether new in the time of said John Wycliffe written or written in the future, whether in part or as a whole, public or hidden. This is under the punishment of the greater excommunication until the bishop of the place or, if necessary, a provincial council approves the said translation. But those who act against it should be punished like a heretic and false teacher.​

Unlike before, translations of liturgical readings and preaching texts (psalms, pericopes from the Gospels and Epistles) were now bound to an examination by church authorities. Individuals like William Butler wanted to go even further and also limit Bible translations to the Latin language alone. In 1401, Parliament passed the De heretico comburendo law in order to suppress Wycliffe's followers and censor their books, including the Bible translation. At the Council of Constance in 1415, Wycliffe was finally proclaimed a heretic and condemned as "that pestilent wretch of damnable memory, yea, the forerunner and disciple of anti-christ who, as the complement of his wickedness, invented a new translation of the Scriptures into his mother-tongue."[32] His helpers Nicholas Hereford and John Purvey were forced to recant their teachings, and his bones, as determined by the council were finally burned in 1428. However, his translation of the Bible along with 200 manuscripts were secretly preserved and read by followers, and have survived to the present day. However, Wycliffe's Bible was not printed until 1731, when Wycliffe was historically conceived as the forefather of the English Reformation.[33] The next English Bible translation was that of William Tyndale, whose Tyndale Bible had to be printed from 1525 outside England in areas of Germany sympathetic to Protestantism. Tyndale himself was sentenced to death at the stake because of his translation work. He was strangled in 1536 near Brussels and then burned.

 

[JLG]

From the printing press until the Reformation

Around 1440–1450 Johannes Gutenberg invented a printing press with movable type, with which he produced the Gutenberg Bible. His invention quickly spread throughout Europe. In 1466 the Mentelin Bible was the first vernacular language Bible to be printed. It was a word-for-word translation from the Latin Vulgate.[34]


Pope Paul II (pontificate 1464–1471) confirmed the decree of James I of Aragon on the prohibition of Bibles in vernacular languages.[35] Under Isabella I of Castile and her husband Ferdinand II of Aragon, the printing of vernacular Bibles was prohibited in Spanish state law. The Spanish Inquisition which they instituted ordered the destruction of all Hebrew books and all vernacular Bibles in 1497. This was five years after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain. In 1498, the Inquisition stated that it was impossible to translate the Bible into a modern language without making mistakes that would plunge unskilled and especially new converts into doubts about faith.[36]


The complete translation of the Bible into a Romance language,[h] a transfer of the Vulgate into Valencian, was made by the Carthusian order general Bonifaci Ferrer (1355-1417) and was printed in 1478.


By letter of March 17, 1479, Sixtus IV authorized the rector and dean of the University of Cologne to intervene with ecclesiastical censors against printers, buyers and readers of heretical books. This authorization was approved by Pope Alexander VI. In several theological and non-theological books from this period a printing patent is included in the publications. From this time also printing patents of the Patriarch of Venice can be found. With the censorship of January 4, 1486 and an executive order of January 10, the Elector-Archbishop Berthold von Henneberg of Mainz can be considered a pioneer in censorship regulation in the German-speaking countries for Mainz, Erfurt, and Frankfurt. His censorship decisions did not concern secular topics, but instead targeted specific religious texts, especially translations from Latin and Greek into the German. Berthold was of the opinion that the German language was too poor to reproduce the precise and well-formulated Latin and Greek texts. Up to this time, no heretical writings had appeared printed in German, but since 1466 about ten relatively identical German Bible translations were completed. He commented:[37]

Divine printing makes the use of books accessible to the world for instruction and edification. But many, as we have seen, misuse this art out of lust for glory and greed for money, so that they destroy humanity instead of enlightening it. Thus, in the hands of the people, which are translated from Latin into German, libri de divinis officiis et apicibus religionis nostrae can be found for the reduction of religion and its peaks. The sacred laws and canons, however, are composed by wise and eloquent men with such great care and skill, and their understanding is so difficult that the duration of human life, even for the most discerning, is scarcely sufficient to cope with them. Nevertheless, some cheeky and ignorant people have dared to translate those writings into such poor ordinary German that even scholars are seduced by their work into great misunderstandings.​

In 1490 a number of Hebrew Bibles and other Jewish books were burned in Andalucía at the behest of the Spanish Inquisition.[38]

 

[JLG]

16th century

From 1516 to 1535, Erasmus of Rotterdam published several editions of his Novum Instrumentum omne. It was a double edition with both a new Latin version as well as the first print of the Greek text, which was reconstructed in a few places by back-translating Latin into Greek. In 1517 Luther published his Ninety-five Theses. In 1521 he was excommunicated with the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem, declared a heretic, and issued the Edict of Worms. In 1522, the first translation of Luther's New Testament was published. It was translated on the basis of the Greek text of Erasmus. In 1534 the entire Holy Scripture was printed, completing the Luther Bible.


At the Council of Trent, both Luther's and Erasmus's writings were put on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Later printed copies of the index explicitly banned their Bibles as well as any prior editions and in general all similar Bible editions:[39][40]

Biblia cum recognitione Martini Luteri. […] Cum universis similibus Bibliis ubicunque excusis. […] Novum Testamentum cum duplici interpretatione D.[esiderius] Erasmi & veteris interpretis. Harmonia item Evangelica, & copioso Indice […] Cum omnibus similibus libris Novi Testamenti.​

[…] along with all similar Bibles, wherever they may be printed. [...] [...] along with all similar New Testaments, wherever they may be printed.​

The Edict of Worms against Luther was not enforced throughout the empire. In 1523, at the Reichstag in Nuremberg the papal nuncio Francesco Chieregati asked for the Holy Roman Empire to enforce the clause of the Lateran Council against printing any book without the permission of the local bishop or his representative. He also wanted the Edict of Worms to be enforced. Instead, on March 6, 1523, it was decreed that until the demanded church council could be held, local rulers themselves should ensure that no new writings were printed or sold in their territories unless they had been approved by reasonable men. Other writings, especially those of an insulting nature, were to be banned under severe punishment.


The 1529 Diet of Speyer limited its decrees essentially to repeating the resolutions of 1523 Diet of Augsburg. On May 13, 1530, the papal nuncio gave the Emperor a memorandum which recommended that the Edict of Worms and the bull of Leo X was to be implemented by imperial decree and on pain of punishment. Following the Protestation at Speyer at the conclusion of the Reichstag on November 19, 1530, it was decided that nothing should be printed without specifying the printer and the printing location. The nuncio's request had failed.


As part of the 1541 Diet of Regensburg which set the terms of the Regensburg Interim, the rule against publishing insults was repeated.

 

[JLG]

England

In 1534, the Canterbury Convocation requested that the king commission a new translation of the Bible by suitable persons and authorize the reading of the new translation. Although the king did not designate translators, new translations appeared from 1535 and afterwards. In 1536 and 1538 Thomas Cromwell prescribed that Coverdale's translation of the Bible was to be placed in every church. These Bibles were to be printed in a large size and chained to prevent theft. This translation came to be called the "Great Bible" or "Chained Bible."

Index Librorum Prohibitorum

Around this time, the papal Index Librorum Prohibitorum began to be developed. At the 1548 Diet of Augsburg, which pronounced the terms of the Augsburg Interim, the ordinance against insults was repeated and the previous provisions were extended to include the name of the author or poet. In addition, books were to be checked before printing by the "ordinary authority of every place." There was a sentiment against that which was "rebellious and ignominious or unruly or obnoxious to the Catholic Doctrine of the Holy Christian Church." The already printed books of Luther were to be suppressed. The Holy Roman Imperial Fiscal official was to intervene against the offending authorities. After the 1555 Peace of Augsburg ended the Augsburg Interim and increased religious freedom by declaring cuius regio, eius religio, the papal Index Librorum Prohibitorum was only observed as law in Catholic territories.





General Rules in the Roman Index

Pius IV (pontificate 1559–1565) also added general rules to the Index Romanus. In the first printed and published version of 1559, there are 30 Latin editions of Scripture, 10 New Testament editions, and two short general rules for Bibles in foreign languages.


At the 18th meeting of the Council of Trent on 26 February 1562, it was decided to work out general indexing rules. On December 3 or 4th, 1563, the Council decided to submit its proposal, the Decretum de indice librorum, to the Pope for final adaptation. With the bull Dominici gregis custodiae the Index tridentinus was published on March 24, 1564 by the Pope. In it all the writings of all heresiarchs (all Reformers) were included on the index, regardless of whether they contained theology, religious words, or descriptions of nature. Especially on Bibles, Rules 3 and 4 came into play:

Rule 3.
The translations of older ecclesiastical writers (for example, Church Fathers) published by authors of the first class are allowed if they do not oppose the sound doctrine. Translations [in Latin] by scholars and pious men of Old Testament books originating from first-class authors may be authorized by bishops, but only as explanations of the Vulgate for understanding the Scriptures and not as Bible texts. On the other hand, translations [in Latin] of the New Testament are not to be permitted by first-class authors, because reading them does not bring much benefit to the readers. Instead, such translations pose much danger. Commentaries by First Class authors, on the condition they are associated with such Old Testament or Vulgate translations, may be allowed for use by pious and learned men after theologically suspect men have been dealt with by theological faculties or the Roman Inquisition. This is especially true of the so-called Bible of the Vatablus. Forewords and Prolegomena are to be removed from the Bibles of Isidore Clarius; But let no one take the text of the text of the Vulgate.[41]​

Rule 4. ​

Since experience teaches that if the reading of the Bible in the vernacular is permitted to all without distinction more harm than good results because of the audacity of men, the judgment of the bishop and inquisitor should be decisive with respect to vernacular translations. ​

The reading of the Bible in vernacular translations by Catholic writers may be permitted at the judgement of the applicable counselor or confessor. The counselor or confessor may permit the reading of such translations when they realize that reading such translations can bring no harm, but instead will augment faith and piety. ​

This permission should be given in writing. He who reads or has read a Bible in the vernacular without such permission should not be able to receive absolution from his sins until he has delivered the Bible translation to the bishop. Booksellers who sell or otherwise procure Bibles in the vernacular to those who lack permission shall be required to pay for books for the bishop to use for religious purposes. Other punishments may be given according to the nature of the offense, with penalties that expire at a set time. Members of Religious orders may not read and buy such Bibles without the permission of their superiors.[41]​

The rules were reprinted in each version until the reform in 1758. Believers were forbidden to make, read, own, buy, sell or give away these books on the basis of excommunication.[42]


With this addition, the rule remained valid until 1758. How it was dealt with in each country was different. In a Catholic country like Bavaria, it was state law. In particular, booksellers had their licenses revoked for violating it. In contrast, in Württemberg, a refuge of Protestantism, the index functioned more like a blacklist. But it also found application in elite Catholic schools in secularized France until the 20th century. In general, secularized France almost never used the Roman Index.[41][43]

 

[JLG]

17th–18th centuries
Unigenitus

In 1713 Clement XI issued the bull Unigenitus dei filius in order to fight against Jansenism. The bull condemned 101 excerpts from the work Réflexions morales by Pasquier Quesnel, including the following propositions:[44]

It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places and for everyone, to explore and get to know the spirit, the piety and the secrets of the Scriptures.[45]​

Reading the scriptures is for everyone.[45][j]​

The obscurity of the Holy Word of God is not a reason why laymen should excuse themselves from reading it.[k]​

The Lord’s day ought to be hallowed by Christians by readings of piety, and, above all, of the Holy Scripture.[l]​

It is injurious to wish that a Christian draw back from that reading.[m]​

To snatch the New Testament from the hands of Christians, or to keep it closed to them by taking away from them this manner of understanding it, is to close to them the mouth of Christ.[n]​

To forbid to Christians the reading of the Holy Scriptures, especially the Four Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a certain kind of excommunication.[o]​

This bull was controversial among the French clergy for various reasons. Among the reasons it was controversial was that it condemned various sentences from the Bible and the Fathers of the Church. But the 1719 bull Pastoralis officii threatened excommunication on all who did not submit to Unigenitus dei filius.[46] The Lateran Council confirmed Benedict XIII's bull Unigenitus dei filius.[47]

Punishments against violators

As part of a program of persecution against the Salzburg Protestants, in 1731, Leopold Anton von Firmian – Archbishop of Salzburg as well as its temporal ruler as Count, ordered the wholesale seizure and burning of all Protestant books and Bibles.[48]


On May 27, 1747 Jakob Schmidlin ("Sulzijoggi") was hanged as the leading head of a Bible movement in the canton of Lucerne in Galgenwäldli on the Emme. His corpse was burned along with a Luther Bible. He is considered the last Protestant martyr of Switzerland. Where his farm stood, a pillar was erected. Of over 100 co-defendants of this movement (from Ruswil, Wolhusen, Werthenstein, Menznau, Malters, Kriens, and Udligenswil), 82 of them were also punished, mostly with perpetual banishment. Since the Bible was at the center of this movement and violations of censorship rules against the use and possession of Bibles was one of the offenses committed by the convicted, after the trial the authorities issued a decree that included a general prohibition on laymen having Bibles:[49]

We also want to prohibit all and each of our subjects, who are not taught, not only from selling the uncatholic and forbidden books, but also good Bibles and their distribution in any way. We will see to it that any Bibles or other forbidden or other seductive books to date should be delivered to their pastors or pastors within a fortnight from the announcement of this call, or wherever sooner or later such things would be found behind them, we will be against those with all proceed with appropriate sharpness ...​

 

[JLG]

19th–20th centuries

In 1816, Pius VII sent two breves concerning the Bible societies. One to the archbishop of Gniezno and Primate of Poland (Nimio et Acerbo, June 29), and another to the archbishop of Mohilev (Magno et acerbo, September 3[50]). Both breves are very strongly against the translations in vernacular of the Bible which were not approved by the Catholic Church and letting untrained laypeople read the bible.[51] Magno et acerbo reads:[52][51]

For you should have kept before your eyes the warnings which Our predecessors have constantly given, namely, that, if the sacred books are permitted everywhere without discrimination in the vulgar tongue, more damage will arise from this than advantage. Furthermore, the Roman Church, accepting only the Vulgate edition according to the well-known prescription of the Council of Trent, disapproves the versions in other tongues and permits only those which are edited with the explanations carefully chosen from writings of the Fathers and Catholic Doctors, so that so great a treasure may not be exposed to the corruptions of novelties, and so that the Church, spread throughout the world, may be "of one tongue and of the same speech. [...]
For this purpose, then, the heretics have been accustomed to make their low and base machinations, in order that by the publication of their vernacular Bibles, (of whose strange variety and discrepancy they, nevertheless, accuse one another and wrangle) they may, each one, treacherously insert their own errors wrapped in the more holy apparatus of divine speech. "For heresies are not born," St. Augustine used to say, "except when the true Scriptures are not well understood and when what is not well understood in them is rashly and boldly asserted." But, if we grieve that men renowned for piety and wisdom have, by no means rarely, failed in interpreting the Scriptures, what should we not fear if the Scriptures, translated into every vulgar tongue whatsoever, are freely handed on to be read by an inexperienced people who, for the most part, judge not with any skill but with a kind of rashness?​

Leo XII's Ubi primum (3 May 1824) also did not exhibit any liberal attitudes, stating: "You have noticed a society, commonly called the Bible society, boldly spreading throughout the whole world. Rejecting the traditions of the holy Fathers and infringing the well-known decree of the Council of Trent, it works by every means to have the holy Bible translated, or rather mistranslated, into the ordinary languages of every nation. There are good reasons for fear that (as has already happened in some of their commentaries and in other respects by a distorted interpretation of Christ’s gospel) they will produce a gospel of men, or what is worse, a gospel of the devil!"[53]


Pius VIII's Traditi humilitati nostrae (1829) states:[54]

It is also necessary to watch over the societies of those who publish new translations of the Bible in every vulgar language, against the sane rules of the Church, whereby the texts are astutely distorted into aberrant meanings, according to the moods of each translator. These versions are distributed free of charge everywhere, with exorbitant costs, even to the most ignorant, and often perverse writings are inserted in them so that readers drink a lethal poison, where they thought they were drawing the waters of healthy wisdom. For some time the Apostolic See has warned the Christian people against this attack on the faith, and has condemned the authors of such a great misfortune. To this end, all the rules established by decision of the Council of Trent were recalled once again, as well as what was laid down by the Congregation of the Index itself, for which the vernacular versions of the sacred texts must not be allowed, unless approved by the Holy See, and accompanied by comments taken from the works of the Holy Fathers of the Church.​

 

[JLG]

In 1836, Gregory XVI eliminated the relief made back in 1757. His encyclical letter Inter praecipuas of 1844 spoke out against vernacular Bibles of the Bible societies.[55] Hans-Josef Klauck considers when commenting this encyclical that that "there is a deep wisdom in the previous Catholic practice to forbid the independent reading of the Bible in the vernacular to laymen, or only to allow it with considerable caution, because they ultimately threaten to undermine the teaching authority of the Church."[56]


Pius IX wrote in 1846 his encyclical Qui pluribus against "the most impudent Bible societies, which renewed the ancient artifice of the heretics and translated the books of the Divine Scriptures, contrary to the most sacrosanct rules of the Church, into all national languages and often provided twisted explanations."[57]


The situation in Nice was very different from the situation in the Duchy of Tuscany. The duchy had a reputation for being liberal during the rule of Leopold II, even prior to 1849. There were three Protestant churches within the duchy: one English, one Scottish and one French. The French Protestant church held fairs in the Italian language. After the brief period during the republic the subsequent counter-revolution, the liberal climate changed to conservative. On May 18, 1849, 3,000 copies of a Catholic Italian translation of the Bible were confiscated and burned under the orders of Antonio Martini, the Archbishop of Florence, even though they had been printed with permission. Persecution of Protestants increased. In 1851, services in Italian were outlawed. The possession of a Protestant Italian Bible alone was considered sufficient evidence for conviction. The most prominent prisoner was Count Piero Guicciardini, who was arrested with six others. They had met on May 7, 1851, the day before his voluntary departure for religious exile, and read the Scriptures together. He was therefore sentenced to six months imprisonment for blasphemy, which was then converted into exile.[58][59][60]


In the Austrian Empire, the Patent of Toleration was published on October 13, 1781. In addition, on June 22, 1782, and October 12, 1782, Joseph II issued court decrees explicitly authorizing the import and printing of Protestant books and stipulating that previously confiscated publications should be returned as long as they were not abusive towards the Catholic Church.[61] These decrees were usually followed, but the reforms were not always followed everywhere throughout the empire. In 1854 in Buda the police seized 121 Bibles found in a Protestant congregation and reduced 120 of them to pulp in a paper mill. In return the congregation was given 21 kreuzers due to the value of the books as pulp as well as the one remaining Bible, "which is enough for the pastor."[62]


On December 7, 1859, in front of the Archbishop's Palace in Santa Fe de Bogotá in the then Granadine Confederation a great bible burning took place.[63][64]


On January 25, 1896 Leo XIII issued new rules for the Roman Index with the Apostolic constitution Officiorum ac Munerum.[65] It was published on January 25, 1897. It generally contained some more relaxed rules and no longer automatically included all the books written by Protestants. It namely states:[66][67]

CHAPTER I. Of the Prohibited Books of Apostates, Heretics, Schismatics, and Other Writers ​

1. All books condemned before the year 1600 by the Sovereign Pontiffs, or by Ecumenical Councils, and which are not recorded in the new Index, must be considered as condemned in the same manner that have formerly been, with the exception of such as are presently permitted by General Decrees. 2. The books of apostates, heretics, schismatics, and all writers whatsoever, defending heresy or schism, or in any way attacking the foundations of Religion, are altogether prohibited. 3. Moreover, the books of non-Catholics, ex professo treating of Religion, are prohibited, unless they clearly contain nothing contrary to Catholic Faith. 4. The books of the above-mentioned writers, not treating ex professo of Religion, but only touching incidentally upon the Truths of Faith, are not to be considered as prohibited by Ecclesiastical Law unless proscribed by special Decree. ​

CHAPTER II. Of Editions of the Original Text of Holy Scripture and of Versions not in the Vernacular ​

5. Editions of the Original Text and of the ancient Catholic versions of Holy Scripture, as well as those of the Eastern Church, if published by non-Catholics, even though apparently edited in a faithful and complete manner, are allowed only to those engaged in Theological and Biblical Studies, provided also that the Dogma of Catholic Faith are not impugned in the Prolegomena or Annotations. 6. In the same manner and under the same conditions, other versions of the Holy Bible published by non-Catholics, whether in Latin or in any other dead language, are permitted.​

 

[JLG]

3)​

- Now let’s have a look at what the United States Conference of Catholoc bishops say :​

https://www.usccb.org/offices/new-american-bible/changes-catholic-attitudes-toward-bible-readings​

​

By Msgr. Daniel Kutys


Average Catholics asked today how often they read the Bible likely would say that they do not read the Bible regularly. However, if asked how often they read Scripture, the answer would be different. Practicing Catholics know they read and hear Scripture at every Mass. Many also recognize that basic prayers Catholics say, such as the Our Father and the Hail Mary, are scriptural. But for most Catholics, the Scripture they hear and read is not from the Bible. It is from a worship aid in the pew.


Scripture always has played an important role in the prayer life of the Catholic Church and its members. For the ordinary Catholic in earlier centuries, exposure to Scripture was passive. They heard it read aloud or prayed aloud but did not read it themselves. One simple reason: Centuries ago the average person could not read or afford a book. Popular reading and ownership of books began to flourish only after the invention of the printing press.


Once the printing press was invented, the most commonly printed book was the Bible, but this still did not make Bible-reading a Catholic’s common practice. Up until the mid-twentieth Century, the custom of reading the Bible and interpreting it for oneself was a hallmark of the Protestant churches springing up in Europe after the Reformation. Protestants rejected the authority of the Pope and of the Church and showed it by saying people could read and interpret the Bible for themselves. Catholics meanwhile were discouraged from reading Scripture.


Identifying the reading and interpreting of the Bible as “Protestant” even affected the study of Scripture. Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so. And with Catholics studying Scripture and teaching other Catholics about what they were studying, familiarity with Scripture grew.


Scripture awareness grew after the Second Vatican Council. Mass was celebrated in the vernacular and so the Scripture readings at Mass were read entirely in English. Adult faith formation programs began to develop, and the most common program run at a parish focused on Scripture study. The Charismatic movement and the rise of prayer groups exposed Catholics to Scripture even more. All of this contributed to Catholics becoming more familiar with the Bible and more interested in reading the Scriptures and praying with them.


In a round-about way, aspects of U.S. culture also have encouraged Catholics to become more familiar with the Scriptures. References to John 3:16 appear in the stands at sporting events. Catholics who hear of and see other Christians quote or cite Scripture verses wonder why they cannot. Such experiences lead Catholics to seek familiarity with the Bible.


Such attitudinal changes bode well for Catholics, especially when reading and praying with the Word of God leads to lessons learned, hearts inspired and lives profoundly moved for good.


- - -
Monsignor Daniel Kutys is a pastor in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Previously, he served as the Executive Director of the USCCB Secretariat of Evangelization and Catechesis.

 

[JLG]

If you have a short paragraph you want to quote fine, but this is a discussion group, not meant for posting large portions of anti-Catholic books or any other book you may follow. An old anti-Catholic tactic is simply to make more and more accusations. Any of us could post long portions of books. A quotation that has been attributed to many and has many versions goes like: "A lie goes round and round the world while Truth is putting on her boots." Protestants rounded up Catholic Bibles and destroyed them and tortured and killed people who distributed those Bibles, and the same goes for Catholics. Heresy was the underlying reason, really having little or nothing to do with actual translation. Sadly there is still a lot of hatred in portions of Protestant religion towards Catholics, "Fundamentalists" come to mind. My mom told me she came to her elementary school one day and the American flag had been replaced with a KKK flag. I have twice been in foreign countries where they were celebrating Guy Fawkes Day, Catholic Guy Fawkes was tortured and murdered. Bishop Fulton Sheen:
“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
The Word of God has always been crucial to Catholics. Much because of the reformation and Sola Scriptura many Protestants scoured the Bible to try and come up with things they could say Catholic got wrong. But remember it was the Catholic Church that chose the 73 books of the Bible and translated and preserved the Bible over the centuries--you would not have a Bible but for those Catholics.

 

[JLG]

My answer:

- The Third part is about a Catholic Bishop!

- So if I am not wrong, it can’t be anti-Catholic!

- As in Jesus' time, religious leaders have always been the responsible!

- They make arrangements with political leaders!

- Now it's up to people to follow them or not!

- By reading the Bible it is possible to understand when something is right or wrong!

- As in Jesus' time, religious leaders opposed Jesus and Jerusalem was destroyed and many Jews died because they listened to religious leaders and not Jesus!

- They ended eating their own children because of famine during the siege of the Romans!

- I don't believe in religious leaders, I believe in Jesus!

- I just explained why it is easier to speak about the Bible with a Protestant and more difficult to speak with a Catholic!

- You need a minimum knowledge of the Bible!

- History is there to testify that both Catholics and Protestants killed each other in the name of God and it didn’t matter if there were men, women or children!

- Animals wouldn’t do that!

- They only kill to feed themselves!

- Religion will always be religion!

- When the Hebrews entered into the promised land, they were supposed to kill the inhabitants because they were bad people who could offer their children to their gods!

- They didn’t get rid of all the inhabitants and they ended doing the same!

- And they payed for that and it was a high price!

- They can pray for peace but we only see wars again and again!

- I am not saying it is better, it is different !

- Simply reading the Bible makes a great difference !

- Now people may believe what they want!

- I want to learn about the Bible and tell about the Bible!

- Religion is not my problem!

- My concern are the faithful servants of God the Bible speaks about!

- It is the same with translations of the Bible !

- There are so many mistakes and usually people believe some are good ones !

- But it is usually a shame because they take away essential elements !

- When Jesus comes back, will it matter if you belong to such or such religion or if do your best to know him and God and tell about God’s word!

- What does it mean when he says I know you or I don’t know you!

 

[JLG]

I have seen the counts of Catholics today as over a billion. So with billions of Catholics over a two thousand year period not every Catholic gets every part of history correct. Far from it. You have a lot of writings by Catholics to pick and choose from. But I'll address the article by this monsignor. A monsignor is not the same as a bishop, since the title is used I presume he is NOT a Catholic bishop. He states: "Once the printing press was invented, the most commonly printed book was the Bible, but this still did not make Bible-reading a Catholic’s common practice." A Catholic named Gutenberg printed the Bible in the 1400s, by 1500 roughly 10% of the population was literate. So roughly 90% of Catholics could not read the Bible at that time even if they wished to do so. We know from history that the price of some of the Gutenberg Bibles was around 30 florins. 30 florins was about three years' wages for a clerk. Now people back then did not have so much discretionary money as we do today, how long would it take them to save up 30 florins? Given these two factors, it would not surprise me if only one or two percent of Catholics read the Bible back then, so the monsignor was right that it was not a "common practice." have no doubt that individual priests at different times discouraged reading of the Bible, even though the popes and higher-ups endorsed it. They knew that Catholics hear a lot of the Bible at mass and I am sure almost all were well-intentioned thinking that it was better to learn from the homilies. I understand, some background on history and language is a good thing before starting reading the Bible to prevent at least some of the more amateurish false interpretations--that the Bible shows Mary had other children, etc.
I assure you Catholics read the Bible in the 1800s. I don't think my ancestors would have purchased the Bible if reading it was discouraged by the Catholic Church. Let me name some of the endorsers of the Catholic Haydock Bible from the 1800s was endorsed by: Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, Archbishop Spalding, of Baltimore, Bishop Fitzpatrick, of Boston, Bishop O’Reilly of Hartford, Bishop Rappe, of Cleveland, Bishop O’Regan, of Chicago, Bishop Miles, of Nashville, Bishop Chanche, of Natchez, Bishop Shanahan, of Harrisburg, Bishop Loughlin, of Brooklyn, Bishop Wigger, of Newark, N.J., and Bishop O’Farrell, Trenton, N.J., But I

 

[JLG]

- My answer:

- History gives a testimony of what religions have done through centuries !

- Religious leaders and politicians and commercial leaders have organized to control people !

- They have worked for their own interests rather than people interests !

- They are like wolves Jesus tells us to be careful !

- People can stay blind and deaf !

- That’s free will !

- But when you read carefully and regularly the Bible by yourself it is not possible !

- The Hebrews threw away God’s word and they paid a high price !

- Through history religious people have organized against their religious leaders because as Jesus says you must do what they say but not what they do !

- The problem is that you mustn’t do neither what they say nor what they do !

- I remember once when I was in Germany, I had a short discussion with two French teenagers !

- One said she believed in God and the other one didn’t !

- Why ? Just because of their familes !

- The first one had a family who believed in God, the other one her family didn’t believe !

- But in fact, there was no difference !

- The one who believed couldn’t defend his faith !

- I can take the example of a young Muslim !

- He makes his five prayers a day !

- He makes Ramadan !

- But he doesn’t know anything about the Coran !

- If you look at humanism, you will see they promoted the study of original books and the Bible through the original texts because it was very different from reading translations with many mistakes !

- JESUS TELLS US WE MUST READ THE BIBLE REGULARLY !

- THAT’S THE ONLY WAT TO GET CLOSE TO HIM AND GOD !

- If the Jews accuse Jesus of blasphemy because they say he calls himself a god whereas jesus says they accuse him of blasphemy because he calls himself God’s son, whom am I going to believe ? (John 10:33- 36)

- Not the Jews ! Never ! Or it would mean I believe Jesus is a liar ! Never !

- You say amateurish when the Jews speak about Jesus family saying the carpenter’s son, his mother Mary, his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, Judas and his sisters (Matthew 13:55,56 / Mark 6:3 / Matthew 12:48-50) !

- Have you read the Bible !

- You will see it is a tradition among them to have many children !

- You think Joseph would stay with his wife !

- Remember when he realized she was pregnant he wanted to leave her all at once !

- We have the original text in Greek!

- Good luck to understand the Bible !

 

[JLG]

Oh boy. Lot is referred to as Abrams "brother" yet they have completely different parents. That's just one example, obviously "brother" does not mean the individuals have the same mother or the same father. Many non-Catholics who read the Bible don't understand that languages, and thus words, change meaning and that translations are by no means perfect. A bible translator may translate the same word into different English words based on his bias. And also there is often is no understanding of Jewish idioms. Those who start with an anti-Catholic bias and look for things to show those Catholics are wrong found all kinds of things. But to me it is remarkable that so many easily dis-proven stories last for decades if not centuries.

 

[JLG]

- My answer:





- Matthew 13:55: (biblehub)





His
αὐτοῦ (autou)
Personal / Possessive Pronoun - Genitive Masculine 3rd Person Singular
Strong's 846: He, she, it, they, them, same. From the particle au; the reflexive pronoun self, used of the third person, and of the other persons.

brothers
ἀδελφοὶ (adelphoi)
Noun - Nominative Masculine Plural
Strong's 80: A brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian. A brother near or remote.





- Matthew 13:56: (biblehub)





His
αὐτοῦ (autou)
Personal / Possessive Pronoun - Genitive Masculine 3rd Person Singular
Strong's 846: He, she, it, they, them, same. From the particle au; the reflexive pronoun self, used of the third person, and of the other persons.

sisters
ἀδελφαὶ (adelphai)
Noun - Nominative Feminine Plural
Strong's 79: A sister, a woman (fellow-)member of a church, a Christian woman. Fem of adephos; a sister.


- Mark 6:3 (biblehub)





[the] brother
ἀδελφὸς (adelphos)
Noun - Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong's 80: A brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian. A brother near or remote.


His
αὐτοῦ (autou)
Personal / Possessive Pronoun - Genitive Masculine 3rd Person Singular
Strong's 846: He, she, it, they, them, same. From the particle au; the reflexive pronoun self, used of the third person, and of the other persons.

sisters
ἀδελφαὶ (adelphai)
Noun - Nominative Feminine Plural
Strong's 79: A sister, a woman (fellow-)member of a church, a Christian woman. Fem of adephos; a sister.


- Matthew 12:48: (biblehub)





My
μου (mou)
Personal / Possessive Pronoun - Genitive 1st Person Singular
Strong's 1473: I, the first-person pronoun. A primary pronoun of the first person I.

brothers?”
ἀδελφοί (adelphoi)
Noun - Nominative Masculine Plural
Strong's 80: A brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian. A brother near or remote.

- Matthew 12:49: (biblehub)



My
μου (mou)
Personal / Possessive Pronoun - Genitive 1st Person Singular
Strong's 1473: I, the first-person pronoun. A primary pronoun of the first person I.

brothers.
ἀδελφοί (adelphoi)
Noun - Nominative Masculine Plural
Strong's 80: A brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian. A brother near or remote.


- Matthew 12:50: (biblehub)



My
μου (mou)
Personal / Possessive Pronoun - Genitive 1st Person Singular
Strong's 1473: I, the first-person pronoun. A primary pronoun of the first person I.

brother
ἀδελφὸς (adelphos)
Noun - Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong's 80: A brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian. A brother near or remote.

and
καὶ (kai)
Conjunction
Strong's 2532: And, even, also, namely.

sister
ἀδελφὴ (adelphē)
Noun - Nominative Feminine Singular
Strong's 79: A sister, a woman (fellow-)member of a church, a Christian woman. Fem of adephos; a sister.

and
καὶ (kai)
Conjunction
Strong's 2532: And, even, also, namely.

mother.”
μήτηρ (mētēr)
Noun - Nominative Feminine Singular
Strong's 3384: A mother. Apparently a primary word; a 'mother'.

 

[JLG]

https://goodquestionblog.com/2020/07/13/how-old-was-joseph-when-he-married-and-when-he-died/




How old was Joseph when he married and when he died?

Q. We don’t hear much about Joseph in the Bible. Do we know how old he was when Mary and he married? How old was he when he died, how did he die, and how old was Jesus when he died?


We don’t have exact answers to any of these questions because, as you say, we don’t hear much about Joseph in the Bible.


We do know that in New Testament times, Jewish women often married in their mid-teens, while Jewish men married when they were a bit older, perhaps around twenty, once they had become somewhat established and could support a wife. So if Joseph and Mary’s experience was typical for the period, he might have been just out of his teens when he married her, and she was likely still a teenager.


We know from the gospels that Joseph was at least still alive when Jesus was twelve years old. Luke tells us how Joseph and Mary brought Jesus to Jerusalem at that age, where he spoke with the teachers of the law in the temple. But Joseph seems to have died by the time Jesus was 30 and began his ministry. The gospels portray Jesus interacting with his mother and brothers at several points during his ministry, but never with Joseph.


We know nothing about how Joseph died, or how old he was when he died, except that if he married at around age 20, and had died by the time Jesus was 30, then he would like have died before age 50. So he would have lived a little shorter time than the average for a man in the Roman Empire, which was the mid-50s. But whether he died of illness or an accident or some other cause, we just don’t know.


So the primary picture we have of Joseph comes from the time around the birth of Jesus. What stays in our minds is that he was a righteous man, unwilling for Mary to experience public disgrace, and that he accepted the challenging role of being the adoptive earthly father of the Son of God. Perhaps it’s best that we think of him mostly in that light.


________________________________________________________________________________





https://www.douglasjacoby.com/linguistic-insight-adelphos/





This linguistic study centers around the word adelphos, which is Greek for brother. The following memo was emailed to me. Please read it; my response follows.


I wanted to ask you about Jesus' brothers. I was recently challenged by a Catholic that the Bible never specifically says (there is no proof) Mary had other children than Jesus. When I asked him about the numerous passages that refer to his brothers, he told me to look to the Greek. Apparently (according to http://www.blueletterbible.com) the same word for brother, adelphos {a-del-fos'}, could mean a brother, or a close relative. Here are all the definitions I got:


(1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother;
(2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman;
(3) any fellow or man;
(4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection;
(5) an associate in employment or office;
(6) brethren in Christ


(1) and (2) are the ones that need to be dealt with. Personally, I see these definitions as supporting his view.—Robert Borgersen (Winnipeg)


I would say that these possible meanings of adelphos are all correct. Of course, a word cannot have all possible meanings simultaneously; each word as a semantic range.


Context determines the meaning, much more one's preference of dictionary definition. In the case of Jesus' family, the logical inference from Matthew 1:25 is that Joseph and Mary had normal sexual relations after Jesus was born. The seven or more siblings indicated in Matthew 12 and 23 vindicate this view. We ought to embrace the simplest view, provided there is no biblical reason to reject it.


In the case of the Catholic position that Mary remained a virgin in perpetuity, the meanings of adelphos actually support that position no more than they do the view that his "brothers" were his fellow craftsmen in the family business, as in definition (5). The semantic range in this case will need to be restricted, by context, logic, and cross-checking with other scriptures which delimit the possibilities. Once that is done, frankly speaking, the Roman position is untenable.


Let me illustrate the point before I let you go. Someone says, "She's blue." What does this mean?


(1) Reflecting light at a certain wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum (such as the villain in the film "Big Fat Liar," whose skin had been dyed).
(2) Oxygen deprived (and therefore the blood being a different color).
(3) Sad, depressed.
(4) Noble (as in "blue blood").
(5) Barely cooked; rarer than rare (as in a blue steak).


Even though (1) is the most common sense of the word in the English language, when said of a person the word "blue" could mean (1), (2), (3) or (4). Sense (5) would be unintelligible, apart from a macabre context of cannibalism, so we will let this one go. In all likelihood, (3) is what "blue" means, although in special circumstances (1), (2) and (4) might also make sense. Once again, to insist that (1) is the true meaning of "blue" in the sentence "She's blue" may be reasonable, but in the absence of certain evidence it is almost certainly unreasonable.


So it is with the Greek word for brother. While adelphos might mean a number of things, it cannot mean all of them at once; context and careful study determine the precise meaning. (Unless, of course, Matthew was trying to be vague or ambivalent, which no one I have read holds to be the case.) The burden of proof is on the one pleading the exception.


Adelphos, the normal Greek word for one's physical brother, is the strongest contender, despite theologies which beg to differ. Were it not for the view of sexuality that was emerging in the second century AD, it is doubtful anyone would have come up with the Catholic or Orthodox interpretation of adelphos as cousin, or stepbrother. (Besides, there is a perfectly good Greek word for cousin; it is anepsios, as in Colossians 4:10.)


Further, these brothers are often found in Mary. Why would Jesus's cousins accompany her? One more fact tells against the traditional Catholic interpretation. Psalm 69, a Messianic psalm, speaks of the rejection by Christ of his brothers (v.8)—not cousins.

 

[JLG]

- The Bible doesn’t say that Joseph was a monk !


- Not long ago it was natural and normal to have big families !


- It was not different in Israel !


- At least that’s what the Bible tells us !


- Above all, Joseph restrained from having sex with Mary till she gave birth !


- But not all his life !


- It is not serious !


- Except for the monks !


- Matthew 1:25


[But]
καὶ (kai)
Conjunction
Strong's 2532: And, even, also, namely.

he had no union with
ἐγίνωσκεν (eginōsken)
Verb - Imperfect Indicative Active - 3rd Person Singular
Strong's 1097: A prolonged form of a primary verb; to 'know' in a great variety of applications and with many implications.

her
αὐτὴν (autēn)
Personal / Possessive Pronoun - Accusative Feminine 3rd Person Singular
Strong's 846: He, she, it, they, them, same. From the particle au; the reflexive pronoun self, used of the third person, and of the other persons.

until
ἕως (heōs)
Preposition
Strong's 2193: A conjunction, preposition and adverb of continuance, until.

she gave birth to
ἔτεκεν (eteken)
Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 3rd Person Singular
Strong's 5088: A strengthened form of a primary teko tek'-o; to produce, literally or figuratively.

a Son.
υἱόν (huion)
Noun - Accusative Masculine Singular
Strong's 5207: A son, descendent. Apparently a primary word; a 'son', used very widely of immediate, remote or figuratively, kinship.

- If I am not wrong, the context is clear!

 

[JLG]

The Bible doesn't say Joseph was a monk so therefore Catholics must be wrong. That is what you included in the arguments you present. And the obvious bias, claiming the "Roman" position is untenable, same words left over from the hateful times of the reformation. The Bible says all kinds of things that would lead one to believe Mary remained a virgin, which the anti-Catholic arguments so conveniently don't mention, so many have been posted before, but the bottom line is the Bible itself does not specifically state one way or another some definitive statement, as is so often the case. Yet people go to such trouble to try and find something wrong with Catholic teaching, and in this case and so many others it really has little or nothing to do with their idea of salvation. What Satan does not want us to do is focus on own personal relationship with Jesus and emphase what our brothers and sisters in Christ have in common.

- My answer:

- In fact, I should have said even the monks would understand because through history many had and keep having sex with…!

- But it doesn’t matter!

- And it is not a criticism because everywhere men have sex with… even when they are married!

- And even when they are religious leaders!

- You don’t need to belong to a special religion!

- I am just saying that Joseph controlled himself not to have sex with his wife because she was pregnant!

- But there are limits!

- Today people have videos, video games, TV and so on!

- In Africa , and it is not a criticism, they don’t have so many options so they have more children!

- Just to remind you that I said both Catholics and Protestants used to kill themselves including women and old men and children!

- Men will always be animals!

- And men keep doing it for any reason, religion , politics, whatever!

- Now you raised the issue!

- And whenever possible I try to look for information!

- And I try to analyze the issue!

- Think about what happened with circumcision with some pharisees who became Christians!

- The issue was discussed in Jerusalem!

- I always discuss whenever possible even when it is not particularly interesting for me!

- I am interested in the faithful servants of God the Bible tells us about!

- Thus we can learn to know how to get a good relationship with God!

- It doesn’t matter if people belong to such or such religion!

- A discussion is a discussion and I will look for information in the Bible or whatever possible!

- And we learn a lot from history to compare with what the Bible says!