|
In writing a brief
exegetical article on Hebrews 10,
I encountered a little-discussed mistranslation in the Vulgate
text that not only illustrates the importance of studying the
primary texts of Scripture (over against a secondary
translation) but one which also speaks to the issue of the
development of the dogmatic structure of Roman Catholicism
over time.
The reading is found in Hebrews 10:12, but to get
the context from the New American Standard Bible we provide
verses 10-14:
Hebrews 10:10-14 10 By this will
we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of
Jesus Christ once for all. 11 Every priest
stands daily ministering and offering time after time the
same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12
but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all
time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13
waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A
FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14 For by one offering
He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
The writer is contrasting the repetitive nature
of the old sacrifices with the singular, one-time, finished
offering of Jesus Christ at Calvary. In verse 11 he speaks of
the priest standing and ministering and offering, all present
tense actions, all meant to emphasize the on-going and never
finished nature of their work. This is contrasted with the
one-time, singular offering for sins made by Christ in verse
12. The author uses an aorist participle to express this
singular action of atonement in contrast with the
present-tense offering of the old priests, seemingly still
going on at that time (i.e., at the time of the writing of the
epistle prior to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70). The
present-tense can (and in this situation, does) emphasize
on-going action, just as the aorist can (and in this
situation, does) refer to a punctiliar, point-action in the
past. This is the means the author uses to make the sharp
contrast.
It is just here that I encountered the brief
mention of the reading of the Latin Vulgate at Hebrews 10:12
and how it completely misses the contrast that is so plainly
presented in the original text. Philip Hughes notes,
This is the
clear significance of the aorist participle
prosene,gkaj:
it was after he had offered a single sacrifice that he
sat down. Accordingly, the present participle offerens
in the Vulgate version is seriously misleading. As F.F. Bruce
remarks, R.A. Knox’s translation of the Vg, “he sits for ever
at the right hand of God, offering for our sins a sacrifice
that is never repeated,” is a contradiction in terms. This
demonstrates the danger of a translation of a translation.[i]
I checked the Biblia Sacre Iuxta Vulgatam
Verionem as published by the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft in
Stuttgart, which has a small amount of textual data included
in the footnotes, but no variant was listed. Then, later, in
discussing the issue with some friends, I mentioned the
Douay-Rheims translation should be consulted. Its rendering
truly illustrates the danger of using a translation of a
translation of a translation:
Hebrews 10:12
But this man, offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever
sitteth on the right hand of God,
What a horrific misrepresentation of the
original intention of the author! And to think this was the
“official” version of the Council of Trent! Not only is the
present tense “offering” completely in error, but to even
attempt to make sense out of the sentence the phrase “for
ever,” which is plainly in the context associated with the
offering, is transposed so as to become associated with His
being seated on the right hand of God! The entire point of
the author, that of contrasting the repeated sacrifices of the
old priesthood to the singular, forever offering of Christ, is
turned upside down, so that Christ ends up offering (present
tense) a sacrifice for sins, just like the old priests! A
truly amazing example of one translational error leading to
another.
Now, there truly is no difficulty in interpreting
or even translating this passage. The Vulgate reading is
clearly in error. But consider for a moment a situation that
prevailed quite literally for centuries when Roman Catholicism
reigned supreme in Europe. Before men like Erasmus or John
Colet or Johannes Reuchlin uttered the cry “ad fontes!” (“to
the source!”) and sparked the renaissance of biblical studies
in the original languages, the priest or theologian was, in
the main, limited to the Vulgate. It was during these
centuries that Eucharistic theology underwent a massive change
in light of the promulgation of the concept of
transubstantiation, resulting in a physically-oriented
emphasis upon the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice. The
person limited to the Latin as his only biblical source would
surely not have the testimony of Hebrews 10:12 to enlighten
their studies of this subject. Surely, the Vulgate still
testifies strongly to the singularity of the sacrifice of
Christ in other passages, but this clear testimony is not to
be found. What impact did this have? I do not know. But it
surely testifies to the danger of enshrining a translation as
the final authority without reference to the original
languages, something Rome attempted to do at the Council of
Trent and in the aborted efforts of Pope Sixtus V.
This example reminds us of the nature of Rome’s
dogmatic structure today. So much of her modern dogmas
developed on the untrustworthy foundation of forged documents,
visions, dreams, and errors such as this example from the
Vulgate. Modern Roman Catholic scholars and historians
recognize that such things as the Donation of Constantine or
the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals were in fact frauds. No one
defends them as genuine today. Yet, without those
documents the modern Roman Papacy would not have come into
existence. The foundations are gone, but the edifice
stands. Likewise, one looks back at the central role played
by such things as Gregory the Great’s incredulous acceptance
of second-hand “visions,” combined with the most outrageously
inane allegorical interpretations, soaked in Pelagian error,
without which the dogma of purgatory would not have gained the
form it has today. Then consider the outrageous stories
circulated in the eleventh through thirteenth centuries
concerning “eucharistic miracles,” including stories of bees
building altars to consecrated hosts placed within their
hives, replete with “bee singing,” all of which was vital
to the development of the concept of transubstantiation. Join
this with the supremacy of a translation of a translation as
the standard, and you are again left with the conclusion that
what Rome presents to us today is very much like the facades
found at Universal Studios in California: from a certain angle
they look like real buildings. But there is no reality
to them. But worse, Rome’s dogmas not only have no reality,
they have no foundation. They are left hanging in the
air, the bases upon which they were formed have been washed
away by the tides of truth, yet, the edifice stands, empty,
yet, for those who want them to be, still looking enough like
the real things to satisfy.
Some folks ask me why Rome’s pomp and circumstance
has no attraction for me. It surely has for others. The
liturgy is key to the conversion of many of those who were
raised within non-liturgical traditions. But it has no
attraction for me for two reasons. First, as noted above, I
see Rome as a historical phantom, her vaunted 2000 year
history the stuff of legend, not reality. Newman’s
oft-repeated phrase about going “deep in history” is to me
simply laughable. The mental gymnastics his great mind had to
go through to cobble together the development hypothesis so as
to find a way around the facts of history is testimony to how
far the mind can go to create a reason to believe something
that is in fact untrue. History is no friend to Rome’s
pretensions, and the above examples are only multiplied the
more I engage the study of history itself.
But secondly, and more positively, I have tasted
of divine truth, and there is nothing in Rome’s ostentatious
claims that can begin to compare with the satisfaction that
comes from the Spirit-blessed, obedient, heart-felt, mind and
heart-capturing study of the text of Holy Writ. The joy that
comes from worship wherein one desires to hear the Word of God
so as to be obedient thereto, and the incredible satisfaction
of the in-depth study of Scripture, is simply unknown within
Rome, for she cannot allow that kind of freedom to exist (it
is detrimental to her sacramentalism). But when one
understands the basis upon which one stands before God
forgiven, clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, saved
by grace alone through faith alone, and when one understands
the incredible richness of God’s gift of His Word, the light
it sheds upon the path, the heights of revelation it places
within our hands…such a person will not find the tedious
writings of Popes and prelates satisfying. No, Rome carries
no attraction for me, for when the light of God’s Word shines
upon her, she is seen as the human-centered, man-satisfying
religion she is.
[i]
Philip Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the
Hebrews (Eerdmans, 1977), p. 401.
|
