Sunday, December 17, 2023

Allah praying update and Islamqa

Some disputed the accuracy of the translations by Aisha Bewley for Islamic hadith, since her translation has Muhammed wearing Aisha's dress to make prophecy, and below has Allah praying: 

1387. Abu Umama reported that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Allah and His angels and the people of the heavens and the earth, even the ants in their rocks and the fish, pray for blessings on those who teach people good.” [at-Tirmidhi]--(Aisha Bewley, Riyad as-Salihin (The Meadows of the Righteous), Book of Knowledge, 241. Chapter: the excellence of knowledge

 This was pointed out by Sam Shamoun. Sam is generally hated by Muslims as an Islamophobe. However, it appears that Islamqa reposted the above passage with Bewley's translations!

Friday, November 24, 2023

Luke 11:28 "rather" or "indeed" Menoun

Below is list several references, the weight of the evidence is menoun is a confirmation with a correction made. 

Some Protestants think Luke 11:28 is the smoking gun against Marian devotion and doctrine. A woman praises Jesus' mother, to which Jesus responds (according to the KJV): "Yea rather, blessed [are] they that hear the word of God, and keep it" 

Other Protestant translations are more negative:

But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” (ESV) 

But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and follow it.” (NASB) 

"Nay rather," He replied, "they are blessed who hear God's Message and carefully keep it." (Weymouth New Testament) 

But he said, "Instead, how blessed are those who hear God's word and obey it!"(ISV) 

But he replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it!” (New English Translation)

Some translations (lesser known) are more positive/affirming of the woman's praise but adding an explanation or correction for why she is blessed:

 But he said, Yes, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. (Webster's Bible Translation)

 And He said, “Indeed, rather, blessed those hearing the word of God, and keeping [it]!” (Literal Standard Version) 

Jesus replied, "That's true, but the people who are really blessed are the ones who hear and obey God's message!"(Contemporary English Version)

As we can see, this verse is dispute with mostly two sides being taken: negating the woman's statement and affirming but correcting/improving it.

Some interpret the "rather" as "who cares about her!" This matter is not as straight forward as most translations imply; in fact, it seems to say the exact opposite--that Jesus was making an affirmation of Mary's blessedness but adding that those who believe are blessed too! Mary had to have believed in order to be His mother!

If we are to assume the Greek word translated by "yes, rather" is correct, let's look at meaning of the word 'rather' according to Merriam Webster:

1: with better reason or more propriety : more properly this you should pity rather than despiseWilliam Shakespeare 
2: more readily or willingly : preferably I'd rather not go would rather read than watch televisionoften used interjectionally to express affirmation 
3: more correctly speaking my father, or rather my stepfather 
4: to the contrary : instead was no better but rather grew worseMark 5:26 (Revised Standard Version) 
5: in some degree : somewhat it's rather warmoften used as a mild intensive spent rather a lot of money 
“Rather.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rather. Accessed 26 Nov. 2023.

As we see, rather does not necessarily negate something, but can clarify, or to more correctly state something. 

Now for the Greek term used. 

The commonly accepted text reads:

αὐτὸς δὲ εἶπεν Μενοῦν μακάριοι οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες.--Luke 11:28 (Westcott and Hort/Alexandrian Text) 

The word translated at times as "Rather" is Μενοῦν (menoun).

Alan Thompson's comments state: 

 "The particle Μενοῦν, however, need not imply a rejection of the remark (pace Marshall 482; cf. BDAG 630d; BDF §450[4]; R 1151; Bock 1095; Bovon 2.131-32; Fitzmyer 927-29; a "correction" rather than a simple rejection or affirmation, Nolland 649; "even more" HCSB; cf. 1:45, 48). It may merely emphasize Jesus' point that a positive response to him must be accompanied with genuine adherence to his word..."--Thompson, Alan J.. Luke. United States, B&H Publishing Group, 2017.

Baker Exegetical Commentary agrees:

"The only issue in the verse is how it relates to what was said in Luke 11:27. The connective μενοῦν (menoun) has three possible senses (Fitzmyer 1985:928):"on the contrary," thus rejecting the previous remark (Manson 1949: 88; Marshall 1978: 482); (2) an affirmation meaning "indeed" (as in Phil 3.8); or ( 3 ) a correction meaning " yes , but rather " (Luce 1933: 216; Arndt 1956: 302; Plummer 1896: 306; Danker 1988: 235; Schneider 1977a: 269). The first meaning is not likely, since Luke has already affirmed such a blessing (Luke 1:42, 48) and elsewhere uses οὐχί, λέγω ὑμῖν (ouchi, legō hymin, no, I say to you) to express rejection of an idea (12:51; 13:3, 5; Fitzmyer 1985:928). The sense is not complete affirmation either. Rather, the woman's remark is correct, but not exhaustive. The recent examples provided by Jesus' teaching about the Samaritan, Mary, and prayer are but three illustrations of what is expected of disciples (Schneider 1977a: 269). Blessing resides in obedient response, whether in care for others, in attention to Jesus, or in discourse with God."--Bock, Darrell L.. Luke: 2 Volumes (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament). Page 8-235. United States, Baker Publishing Group, 1996.

The last two citation mention Fitzmyer. He was recent Bible scholar and commentator, Joseph Fitzmyer, a Catholic priest respected by secular scholars, argues Luke 11:28 has Jesus affirming what the woman says but clarifying it:

rather. The compound Greek participle menoun (used only four times in the NT and, against classical usage, at the head of the sentence) can have three different senses: (a) adversative, "nay, rather," "on the contrary": so commonly in classical Greek (Sophocles, Ajaz 1363; Aristophanes, Eccl. 1102) and in the NT (Rom 9:20, 10:18; this would mean that Jesus was rejecting the woman's blessing of his mother (it seems to be the sense advocated by T.W. Manson, I.H. Marshall, M.P. Scott, et al.). (b) affirmative, "indeed" expressive of agreement with what was said. See Phil 3:8, (c) corrective. "yes, but rather," meaning that what was said is true as far as it goes (Plato, Rep. 489D). M.E. Thall (Greek Participles in the New Testament, 34-35) points out that for Luke the first two uses are to be eliminated since, when he wants to express contradiction, he uses ouchi, lego hymin (12:51; 13:3,5); and for affirmation he employs nai (7:26; 10:21; 11:51 12:5). Hence, the last corrective sense is to be preferred. Cf. C.F.D. Moule, Idiom Book, 163-164. --The Gospel according to Luke (X-XXIV): introduction, translation, and notes (Anchor Bible). pages 928-929. 1985. Joseph Fitzmyer  
A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of Luke reads:

menoun (+) 'rather'. IT does not question the truth of the preceding statement, but emphasizes the greater relevance of what follows.... 

Translation: Blessed rather are, or, 'yes, but happier are', 'be that as it may, very much blessed are' (Shona 1966), 'that may be true, but those are-called (i.e, really are) blessed are' (Balinese).--A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of Luke, page 444. 1971

 Idioms in the Greek New Testament simply translates it as "therefore":

"a. In NT Greek, some words which in classic Greek are postpositive occur first in clauses. Lk. 11.28: Μενοῦν μακάριοι οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον  (therefore, blessed are those who hear the word), where μενοῦν  appears at the beginning of the clause.--Porter, Stanley E.. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. United Kingdom, Bloomsbury Academic, 1992. page 288

The text "Greek Particles in the New Testament" (written by non Catholic, likely an evangelical Protestant) gives a brief history of the word and its usage in the NT, insisting one instance is a contradiction, but that Luke 11:28 uses it as an affirmative correction:

In classical Greek the combination μεν οῦν is used both connectively, as a particle of transition, and adverbially, chiefly in answers in dialogue. It is never the first word in the sentence. In the New Testament, connective men οῦν remains in its classical form, but adverbial μεν οῦν in answers has undergone two changes: the two particles are now written as one word, μενοῦν, and it has moved to the beginning of the sentence. There are three examples:....(Lk. xi 27-28)....(Rom. ix 19-20)...(Rom. x 18)...Despite the alteration in position, in two out of three instances, at any rate, the meaning of μενοῦν remains that of the classical idiom. In the second example from Romans it plainly expresses contradiction, as in the follow quotation from Plato, given by Denniston to illustrate the use of οῦν to emphasize men.....(Pl. Chrm. 161 D). The meaning of the Lucan example is less easy to determine, as the precise significance of the saying is not very clear from the context, and all three classical functions of adverbial men οῦν could be attributed to the particle here without any great difficulty. It might be strictly adversative, as in Romans: "On the contrary, this parental relationship is not in itself of any importance whatsoever. The people who are blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it." Or it might be assentient in the full sense: "Yes, certainly my mother is blessed, for the people who are blessed are those..." (cf. i 38). Finally, it might be corrective: "What you have said is true as far as it goes. But the blessedness of Mary does not consist simply in the fact of her relationship towards myself but in the fact that she shares in the blessedness of those who hear the word of God and keep it, and it is in this that true blessedness lies." The first two possibilities can perhaps be eliminated, however, on the ground that when Luke wishes to express contradiction he uses elsewhere the phrase οὐχί, λέγω ὑμῖν (all' η), as in xii 51; xiii 3, 5; and when he expresses affirmation he tends to use the particle νa, as in vii 26; x 21; xi 51; xii 5. This leaves us with μενοῦν as a corrective, "rather," as in Plato, e.g. εις σμιχρον γ', εφη, χρóνον ειρηχας; εις ουδεν μεν οῦν, εφην, ως γε προς τον απαντα (Pl. R. 498 D). --Thrall. Greek Particles in the New Testament: Linguistic and Exegetical Studies. Germany, Brill, 2019. page 34-35

"To this, Jesus, in line with his non-emotional, matter-of-fact teaching, replies: μɛvоν μакápioι oi ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες “ Rather / it is more correct to say: happy are those who hear the Word of God and observe / keep it "--Caragounis, Chrys C.. New Testament Investigations: A Diachronic Perspective. pages 34-3. 6. Menoun and Menounge in the New Testament. Germany, Mohr Siebeck, 2022.

Liddell Scott Lexicon states likes the 3 uses:

μὲν

II. 4. μὲν οὖν or μενοῦν, a strengthd. form of οὖν, so then, id=Soph.; in replies, it affirms strongly, πάνυ μὲν οὖν Plat., etc.; also it corrects a statement, nay rather, like Lat. imo, imo vero, μου πρὸς τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀποψῶ wipe your nose on my head, Answ. ἐμοῦ μὲν οὖν . . , nay on mine, Ar., etc.; μὲν οὖν δή Soph.:—so in NTest., μενοῦνγε, to begin a sentence, yea rather, Lat. quin imo. --An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, μὲν

A scholar in Greece says Jesus' statement is purely affirmative:

According to the dictionaries, this particle is comprised of three different words:  the oppositional particle “ΜΕΝ” (men = rather), the conclusive particle “ΟΥΝ” (oon = therefore) and the certifying particle “ΓΕ” (ye = certainly). In composite form, these words do not maintain their initial significance. The fragment “ΜΕΝΟΥΝΓΕ” (men-oon-ye) is usually used at the beginning of a reply; at times, it can be used as a weighty verification and it can also be used as a certification that somehow corrects and supplements the significance of those words that precede it. The particle “ΓΕ” (ye = certainly) intensifies the meaning of the word to which it is annexed. 
Thus, the specific tract of the New Testament, could be seen as equivalent to the modern Greek expressions of “indeed”, "verily", “yes, of course”, “most certainly!”.  It is remarkable how, this same composite word “ΜΕΝΟΥΝΓΕ” (men-oon-yeh) is mentioned in three other tracts of the New Testament, with the same connotation...[he then proceeds to cite Romans 9:20, 10:18, Philippians 3:8]--Stergios N. Sakkos, Professor emeritus of the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki

Now concerning the appearance of the word(s).

Some texts read menounge, others menoun.

But he said, Yea rather, blessed [are] they that hear the word of God, and keep it.--Luke 11:28 KJV

Αὐτὸς δὲ εἶπεν, Μενοῦνγε μακάριοι οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες αὐτόν. --Luke 11:28 (Byzantine Majority/Textus Receptus)

αὐτὸς δὲ εἶπεν Μενοῦν μακάριοι οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες.--Luke 11:28 (Westcott and Hort/Alexandrian Text) 

In Paul: 

Nay but [Μενοῦνγε], O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?--Romans 9:20 KJV

Μενοῦνγε, ὦ ἄνθρωπε, σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ ἀνταποκρινόμενος τῷ θεῷ; Μὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάσμα τῷ πλάσαντι, Τί με ἐποίησας οὕτως;--Romans 9:20 (Byzantine)

ὦ ἄνθρωπε, μενοῦνγε σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ ἀνταποκρινόμενος τῷ θεῷ; μὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάσμα τῷ πλάσαντι, τί με ἐποίησας οὕτως; --Romans 9:20 (Alexandrian)

Here almost every English translation has "No, but" or "nay but." Though, "no, but" is used, the Greek professor in Greece insists it is simply "indeed." There are four variants for this verse (two are shown above), one (variant 4 mentioned below) omits men oun completely. In addition, Caragounis insists it's just emphasizing "o man" and should not be read as negating the prior verse, but read separately:

Variant 4 has good early Alexandrian support and it is, furthermore, the shortest reading, lacking the particle altogether. However, the force in Paul's words is such that it seems improbable that Paul would have failed to intensify his rhetorical question by omitting μενοῦν and especially the stronger μενοῦνγε.... 

In Rom. 9:20 Paul's imaginary interlocutor puts forward the objections (trying to show that God is unjust)..."Why is he still finding fault [with us humans]? For who has stood/can stand against his will"? In view of the criticism that is here directed toward God, Paul now contrasts the littleness and insignificance of man with God....the phrase μενοῦνγε has the function of confirming the littleness of man, by emphasizing that phrase ω ανθροπε. That is, "you who are a mere man and no more, how can you/who are you to question/controvert/gainsay what God has willed?" Thus, μενοῦνγε here must be understood in close connection with ω ανθροπε, that is, qualifying the vocative, by underlining his weak, emphemereal humanness.--Caragounis, Chrys C.. New Testament Investigations: A Diachronic Perspective. b. Μενοῦνγε. Page 36. Germany, Mohr Siebeck, 2022.

The other appearance in Romans of menounge is not disputed much as being confirming:

But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily [menounge], their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.--Romans 10:18

alla legw mh ouk hkousan menounge eiV pasan thn ghn exhlqen o fqoggoV autwn kai eiV ta perata thV oikoumenhV ta rhmata autwn--Romans 10:18 All major Greek texts 

It appears again in Philippians, where most English translations have it strictly as an affirmation with a few variants:

Yea doubtless [menounge],], and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ,--Philippians 3:8

alla menounge kai hgoumai panta zhmian einai dia to uperecon thV gnwsewV cristou ihsou tou kuriou mou di on ta panta ezhmiwqhn kai hgoumai skubala einai ina criston kerdhsw--Philippians 3:8 Textus Receptus

alla men oun kai hgoumai panta zhmian einai dia to uperecon thV gnwsewV cristou ihsou tou kuriou mou di on ta panta ezhmiwqhn kai hgoumai skubala einai ina criston kerdhsw--Philippians 3:8 Byzantine Majority

alla menounge kai hgoumai panta zhmian einai dia to uperecon thV gnwsewV cristou ihsou tou kuriou mou di on ta panta ezhmiwqhn kai hgoumai skubala ina criston kerdhsw--Philippians 3:8 Alexandrian/Westcott and Hort

The reason why later manuscript such as the "Byzantine Majority" and "Textus Receptus" have ge at the end is explained reasonable here:

...According to the 28th edition of the text of the New Testament (2015) μɛvоõν is found in the earlier manuscripts...The other reading is μενοῦνγε and it is supported by the great majority of later...manuscripts....The decision here is not straightforward....The combined form μɛvоõν occurs in post-New Testament literature down to the XII-XIIIth century only 15 times. During the same period the form μενοῦν γε occurs 25 times, while the form μενοῦνγε occurs no fewer than 69 times. It is obvious here that there is a tendency to go from μɛv οῦν to μενοῦν to μενοῦν γε and end up with μɛvоõνγε. In other words, the tendency was to strengthen the classical form μɛv οῦν by joining the two words into one word (μɛvоõν) - a tendency that was at work in post-classical times with many other words and expressions, because the older forms were felt to be inadequate to express the intensity desired. This was further intensified by the addition of the particle γε (giving the form μενοῦν γε), and the process was completed by joining γε to μενοῦν, producing μενοῦνγε. This process of development seems to suggest that Luke may have written μɛvоõν, and that the reading μɛvоõνγε is a correction by later copyists in line with general developments.--Caragounis, Chrys C.. New Testament Investigations: A Diachronic Perspective. pages 34-35. 6. μενοῦν and μενοῦνγε in the New Testament. Germany, Mohr Siebeck, 2022.

An explanation of menoun(ge) is also provided by the same author:

Like μενοῦν the tripartite particle μενοῦνγε is late, beginning to occur first in the New Testament...there are only three examples of it (Rm 9:20; 10:18 and Phil 3:8). Furthermore, there are 66 examples in Christian authors down to the Middle Ages, of which several times in quotation of Paul's words. The lexicographers, Photios (IX A.D.) Lexicon, Suda (X A.D.), Etymologicum Gudeanum (XI A.D.), Etymologicum Magnum (XII A.D.), Pseudo-Zonaras (XII A.D.) and Lexica Segueriana (Late Byz. times) all agree in giving to μενοῦνγε the meaning of to αληθες 'what is true', in other words, affirming the veracity of what is said. The oldest lexicon we possess, Hesychios (c. 500 A.D.) Lexicon...for the entry μενοῦν: τοιγαρουν, μεντοιγε και μενοῦνγε (exactly so, really/actually, rather/indeed").--Caragounis, Chrys C.. New Testament Investigations: A Diachronic Perspective. b. Menounge. Page 35. Germany, Mohr Siebeck, 2022.

If we are to take just Μενοῦν as a single compound word, it only appears in Luke 11:28. However, in the old manuscripts letters were crunched together even for words that were separate. Some manuscripts used nomina sacra, or abbreviations. The Codex Sinaiticus for instance simply reads: μενου with a line above the υ, meaning the reader would find the full word to be obvious!

μὲν οὖν as two separate words:

The separation of letters is somewhat artificial, the manuscripts smash together letters from different words.  Here it either confirms, sometimes with an improvement or correction, or is used as a transitive.

Μεν οῦν occurs often also in answers in order to express strong confirmation. For example in Platon, Thaitetos 158 d, to Sokrates' question to Theaitetos whether the matter, Theaitetos answers: ....μɛv οῦν "I certainly do" or "altogether [sc. I understand]"...Here the phrase μὲν οῦν has acquired a new meaning, which is not the sum total of the meanings of each of the two component particles.   As a consequence of its frequent use, μɛv οῦν came to be used also a transitional conjunction to what follows...In the New Testament this can be illustrated by Mk 16:19: Ὁ μὲν οὖν κύριος μετὰ τὸ λαλῆσαι αὐτοῖς ἀνελήμφθη εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ("As for/Now the Lord, after he had spoken with them, was taken up to heaven")...      
Μεν οῦν occurs also in answers, to give strong confirmation to the question and at the same time to correct and complement the question. Thus, in Aristophanes, Ekklesiazousai 1102:....Commiserating his plight, the wretched man asks: "Am I not ill-starred?" Then, he broads and answers his own question by intensifying (and thereby) correcting his earlier description of himself as 'ill-starred' (κακοδαιμων--a very frequent word that was losing its cutting edge), by using an infrequent and stronger word 'one with a heavily evil fate' (βαρυδαιμων). See also Euripides, Hippolytos 1012: ματαιοσ αρ' ην, ουδαμου μɛv οῦν φρενον "Therefore, I was a fool, what am I saying 'a fool'? Rather I was without any senses at all". His second evaluation of himself is much stronger than his first evaluation. So, here, too, there is not only confirmation but also correction and intensification. I have not found any example of μɛv οῦν with this meaning in the New Testament.--Caragounis, Chrys C.. New Testament Investigations: A Diachronic Perspective. 5. Compounds with men Acquiring a New Meaning. Pages 33-34.  Germany, Mohr Siebeck, 2022.

We can look at other instances where in software (using Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894) Μενοῦν is broken into two as Μεν οῦν. We find Μεν οῦν 37 times in 37 verses, the red being the translation used (note some verses omit translating it):

So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.--Mark 16:19

o men oun kurioV meta to lalhsai autoiV anelhfqh eiV ton ouranon kai ekaqisen ek dexiwn tou qeou --Mark 16:19 Byzantine Majority text

And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people.--Luke 3:18

Πολλὰ μὲν οὖν καὶ ἕτερα παρακαλῶν εὐηγγελίζετο τὸν λαόν--Luke 3:18 all major texts

They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.--John 19:24

εἶπαν οὖν πρὸς ἀλλήλους Μὴ σχίσωμεν αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ λάχωμεν περὶ αὐτοῦ τίνος ἔσται: ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ “ Διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον. Οἱ μὲν οὖν στρατιῶται ταῦτα ἐποίησαν--John 19:24 Alexandrian text

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:--John 20:30 

When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?--Acts 1:6 

Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.--Acts 1:18 

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls.--Acts 2:41

And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. --Acts 5:41

Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.--Acts 8:4

And they, when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans. --Acts 8:25 

Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.--Acts 9:31

Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.--Acts 11:19

Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.--Acts 12:5

So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.--Acts 13:4 

Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands. --Acts 14:3

And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.--Acts 15:3

So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:--Acts 15:30

And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.--Acts 16:5

Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.--Acts 17:12

Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.--Acts 17:17

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:--Acts 17:30

And when Paul was now about to open [his] mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O [ye] Jews, reason would that I should bear with you:--Acts 18:14

Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.--Acts 19:32

Wherefore if Demetrius, and the craftsmen which are with him, have a matter against any man, the law is open, and there are deputies: let them implead one another.--Acts 19:38

So he took him, and brought [him] to the chief captain, and said, Paul the prisoner called me unto [him], and prayed me to bring this young man unto thee, who hath something to say unto thee.--Acts 23:18

So the chief captain [then] let the young man depart, and charged [him, See thou] tell no man that thou hast shewed these things to me.--Acts 23:22

Then the soldiers, as it was commanded them, took Paul, and brought [him] by night to Antipatris.--Acts 23:31

But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart shortly [thither].--Acts 25:4 

My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;--Acts 26:4

 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.--Acts 26:9

And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.--Acts 28:5

If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.--1 Corinthians 6:4

Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather [suffer yourselves to] be defrauded?--1 Corinthians 6:7

And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they [do it] to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.--1 Corinthians 9:25

Him therefore I hope to send presently, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me.--Philippians 2:23

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?--Hebrews 7:11

Then verily the first [covenant] had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.--Hebrews 9:1

In the later version of the same ISA software, using the Alexandrian texts, it shows 40 verses.

If we simply only used Μεν then 193 appear in the Textus Receptus--almost mostly translated as "indeed" or something similar in the KJV. Just to list a few instances:

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:--Matthew 3:11 

ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν: ὁ δὲ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἰσχυρότερός μου ἐστίν, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι: αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί--Matthew 3:11

Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.--Luke 11:48  

ἄρα μάρτυρές ἐστε καὶ συνευδοκεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν, ὅτι αὐτοὶ μὲν ἀπέκτειναν αὐτοὺς ὑμεῖς δὲ οἰκοδομεῖτε. --Luke 11:48  

And Moses verily [was] faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;--Hebrews 3:5 

καὶ “Μωυσῆς” μὲν “πιστὸς ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ” ὡς “θεράπων” εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν λαληθησομένων,--Hebrews 3:5 

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you--1 Peter 1:20 

προεγνωσμένου μὲν πρὸ. καταβολῆς κόσμου--1 Peter 1:20 

Regardless, whether menounge or menoun is read, it does not matter, the word virtually always, if not always, reads as an affirmation, not a negation.  

Church Fathers and Translations:

 The 2nd century Old Syriac texts per Curetonianus and Sinaiticus read:  

ܐܡܪ ܠܗܿ ܝܫܘܥ܂ ܛܘܒܝܗܘܢ ܠܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܫܡܥܝܢ ܡܠܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܘܢܛܪܝܢ ܠܗܿ--Luke 11:28 Old Syriac 

He said, "Blessed (ܛܘܒܝܗܘܢ) are they who hear the word of God and keep it"--Luke 11:28 (Old Syriac Curetonianus)

 Neither mentions "rather."

Tertullian, an early 3rd century north African apologist who wrote in Latin, who towards the end of his life joined a pentecostal cult records the account as:

Exclamat mulier de turba beatum uterum qui illum portasset, et ubera quae illum educassent. Et dominus, Immo beati qui sermonem dei audiunt et faciunt:--Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 26

 A (certain) mother of the company exclaims, 'Blessed is the womb that bare You, and the paps which You have sucked;' but the Lord said, 'Yea, rather, [Immo] blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.'--Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, chapter 26

Immo has a similar ambiguity as menoun: 

immo , incorrectly written īmo perh. sup. form from in, with ending mo; cf.: summus, primus; hence, I. [select] on the contrary, no indeed, by no means, or yes indeed, by all means (more commonly contradicting or essentially qualifying what precedes; but never, like minime, as an independent negative, being regularly accompanied by a clause defining the meaning; v. Krebs, Antibarb. p. 551). 

The 4th Century Greek commentator, St John Chrysostom says Jesus was not downplaying the Virgin Mary but pointing to her faith:

Knowing therefore these things, let us neither pride ourselves on children that are of good report, unless we have their virtue; nor upon noble fathers, unless we be like them in disposition. For it is possible, both that he who begot a man should not be his father, and that he who did not beget him should be. Therefore in another place also, when some woman had said, "Blessed is the womb that bare You, and the paps which You have sucked;" He said not, "The womb bare me not, neither did I suck the paps," but this, "Yea rather, blessed are they that do the will of my Father." Do you see how on every occasion He denies not the affinity by nature, but adds that by virtue? And His forerunner too, in saying, "O generation of vipers, think not to say, We have Abraham to our father," Matthew 3:7, 9 means not this, that they were not naturally of Abraham, but that it profits them nothing to be of Abraham, unless they had the affinity by character; which Christ also declared, when He said, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham;" John 8:39 not depriving them of their kindred according to the flesh, but teaching them to seek after that affinity which is greater than it, and more real.--St John Chrysostom, Homily 44 on Matthew

Think of this then, and when you hear a certain woman saying, "Blessed is the womb that bare You, and the paps which You have sucked," and Him answering, "rather blessed are they that do the will of my Father" [Luke 11:27], suppose that those other words also were said with the same intention. For the answer was not that of one rejecting his mother, but of One who would show that her having borne Him would have nothing availed her, had she not been very good and faithful. Now if, setting aside the excellence of her soul, it profited Mary nothing that the Christ was born of her, much less will it be able to avail us to have a father or a brother, or a child of virtuous and noble disposition, if we ourselves be far removed from his virtue. --St John Chrysostom, Homily 21 on the Gospel of John

The Peshitta text is another Syriac translation of the Bible, this time from the 5th Century:

  ܐܳܡܰܪ ܠܳܗ ܗܽܘ܃ ܛܽܘܒܼܰܝܗܽܘܢ̈܂ ܠܰܐܝܠܶܝܢ ܕܰܫܡܰܥܘ ܡܶܠܬܼܶܗ ܕܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ܂ ܘܢܳܛܪܺܝܢ ܠܳܗ--Luke 11:28 Peshitta text

He said to her, Blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it.--Luke 11:28 Lamsa (translation of Peshitta)

The Peshitta largely follows the Old Syriac from above. 

For the last citation see the Greek professor linked below for another translation. 

St Augustine of Hippo, a late 4th century bishop and commentator states:

Therefore Mary is more blessed in receiving the faith of Christ, than in conceiving the flesh of Christ. For to a certain one who said, "Blessed is the womb, which bare You," He Himself made answer, "Yea, rather, [imo] blessed are they who hear the Word of God, and keep it." Lastly, to His brethren, that is, His kindred after the flesh, who believed not in Him, what profit was there in that being of kin? Thus also her nearness as a Mother would have been of no profit to Mary, had she not borne Christ in her heart after a more blessed manner than in her flesh.--St Augustine, Of Holy Virginity

Both St John Chrysostom and St Augustine acknowledge that her faith was necessary for her to be blessed. No one denies this. 

The Vulgate translated by St Jerome in the late 4th century/early 5th from Greek to vulgar Latin reads:

At ille dixit : Quinimmo beati, qui audiunt verbum Dei et custodiunt illud.--Luke 11:28

Quinimmo means "indeed, in fact", "furthermore." Which means St Jerome understands it as affirmative.

The modern Catholic Vulgate Bible called the "nova vulgate" that was translated in the late 20th century reads almost the same:

At ille dixit: “ Quinimmo beati, qui audiunt verbum Dei et custodiunt! ”.--Luke 11:28 (New Vulgate)

Protestant Commentaries: 

The Expositor's Greek New Testament on the verse reads:

menoun might be confirmatory (utique) or corrective (imo vero), or a little of both ; the tone of voice would show which of the two the speaker meant to be the more prominent. Correction probably was uppermost in Christ’s thoughts. Under the appearance of approval the woman was taught that she was mistaken in thinking that merely to be the mother of an illustrious son constituted felicity (Schanz). Viger (Ed. Hermann), p. 541, quotes this text as illustrating the use of menoun in the sense of imo vero, rendering: ‘‘ Quin imo, vel imo vero, beati qui audiunt verbum Dei”. Its position at the beginning of the sentence is contrary to Attic use: “‘reperitur apud solos Scriptores Macedonicos,” Sturz, De Dial. Mac. el Alez.,  . 203.—τὸν λόγον τ. θ., those who hear and keep the word of God, the truly blessed. Cf. ‘‘His word”’ in x. 39; an established phrase.--Expositor's Greek New Testament, Volume I, page 550

The editor of Expositor's Greek New Testament William Robertson Nicoll was a Calvinist.

Adam Clarke (British Methodist, Arminian leaning):

Verse 27. A certain woman - lifted up her voice, and said — It was very natural for a woman, who was probably a mother, to exclaim thus. She thought that the happiness of the woman who was mother to such a son was great indeed; but our blessed Lord shows her that even the holy virgin could not be benefited by her merely being the mother of his human nature, and that they only were happy who carried Christ in their hearts. True happiness is found in hearing the glad tidings of salvation by Christ Jesus, and keeping them in a holy heart, and practising them in an unblamable life.--Clarke Commentary, Luke 11:27

Calvinistic Baptist commentator John Gill:

But he said 
Christ said "to the woman", Persic version reads, as correcting her, though not denying it, nor reproving her for it, but improving upon it: 
yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it;

intimating, that though his mother was happy in bearing and suckling such a son, yet it was a far greater happiness to hear the word of God; meaning either himself, the eternal "Logos", so as to embrace him, believe on him, and have him formed in the heart; or the Gospel preached by him, so as to understand it, receive it as the ingrafted word, and bring forth fruit, and act in obedience to it, observe it, and abide by it, and never relinquish it. This is a greater happiness than to be related to Christ in the flesh, though ever so nearly. The Ethiopic version reads, "that hear the word of God, and believe, and keep it": for faith comes by hearing, and shows itself in doing. Barely to hear the word, and even give an assent to it, will be of little avail, unless what is heard and believed is put in practice. --John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, Luke 11:28

Albert Barnes (Presbyterian): 

Yea, rather blessed ... - Jesus admits that she was happy - that it was an honor to be his mother, but he says that the chief happiness, the highest honor, was to obey the word of God. Compared with this, all earthly distinctions and honors are as nothing. Man's greatest dignity is in keeping the holy commandments of God, and in being prepared for heaven. --Barnes' Notes on the Bible, Luke 11:28 

Matthew Poole's commentary states of course she is blessed,

Christ doth not here deny his mother to have been blessed; her cousin Elisabeth (Luke 1:42) had pronounced her blessed amongst women, and the angel had before called her highly favoured, and told her that she had found favour with God. But our Saviour here declareth that her blessing did not so much lie in that her womb bare, and her paps gave suck to him, as in that she was one who heard and kept the word of God; for he pronounces all such as did so principally blessed. Nor must we separate what God hath put together; the blessing is not pronounced to those who barely hear the word of God, the blessed and the unblessed pariter adeunt, pariter audiunt, they may go to church together, and hear the word together, but the blessing is to those that hear the word of God, and keep it. See Jam 1:22,23. The word to some that hear it may be a savour of death unto death. The soul that through grace is made obedient to the will of God, is a more happy soul than the virgin Mary was, considered merely as the mother of Christ, without the consideration of her faith and holiness.--Matthew Poole's Commentary, Luke 11:27-28

As pointed out, the woman that said, "Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked" (Luke 11:27) was fulfilling Luke 1:48:

For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.--Luke 1:48

Certainly, Jesus was not negating these words! 

The argument some Protestants make trying to degrade Mary with this verse is largely meaningless and is used because it sounds degrading to Mary, though is not.

This link is a page by a Greek Orthodox scholar Stergios N. Sakkos explains the word more.

https://thecatholicwesleyan.blogspot.com/ has a pretty long section on this.

Professor Dr. Chrys C. Caragounis posted an article on his person website largely matching his book on this matter.

To be continued.


Friday, October 20, 2023

Unusual theophoric names:

 The Hebrew Bible has several theophoric names. Names like Michael, Mi-ka-el (Who is like God?) which reference God are theophoric. Some of the names the Old Testament has are very unusual. Most of the names appear in the times of the Jewish kings.

One of the oddest is Ahijah.

Ahijah (Ahiyah) אֲחִיָּה means "brother of the LORD" or "my brother is Yah," which was the name of a lesser known prophet. This is odd considering this is before the incarnation when relatives of Christ were called "brother of the Lord."

A few instances where Ahijah appears:

And it came to pass at that time when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah [אֲחִיָּה] the Shilonite found him in the way; and he had clad himself with a new garment; and they two [were] alone in the field--1st Kings 11:29 

וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִיא, וְיָרָבְעָם יָצָא מִירוּשָׁלִָם; וַיִּמְצָא אֹתוֹ אֲחִיָּה הַשִּׁילֹנִי הַנָּבִיא בַּדֶּרֶךְ, וְהוּא מִתְכַּסֶּה בְּשַׂלְמָה חֲדָשָׁה, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם לְבַדָּם, בַּשָּׂדֶה.-- First Kings 11:29

His family is mentioned, also with interesting names:

And Ahiah, the son of Ahitub, Ichabod's brother, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli, the LORD'S priest in Shiloh, wearing an ephod. And the people knew not that Jonathan was gone.--1 Samuel 14:3 

וַאֲחִיָּה בֶן-אֲחִטוּב אֲחִי אִיכָבוֹד בֶּן-פִּינְחָס בֶּן-עֵלִי כֹּהֵן יְהוָה, בְּשִׁלוֹ--נֹשֵׂא אֵפוֹד; וְהָעָם לֹא יָדַע, כִּי הָלַךְ יוֹנָתָן. -- 1Samuel 14:3

The last verse is a bit absurd to read, when translating the names as:

And Yah's-my-brother, son of My-Brother-Is-Good(ness), brother of.... 

Sometimes Ahijah is spelled with a vav at the end--Ahiyahu:

And the LORD said unto Ahijahu [אֲחִיָּהוּ], Behold, the wife of Jeroboam cometh to ask a thing of thee for her son; for he [is] sick: thus and thus shalt thou say unto her: for it shall be, when she cometh in, that she shall feign herself [to be] another [woman].--1 Kings 14:5 

וַיהוָה אָמַר אֶל-אֲחִיָּהוּ, הִנֵּה אֵשֶׁת יָרָבְעָם בָּאָה לִדְרֹשׁ דָּבָר מֵעִמְּךָ אֶל-בְּנָהּ כִּי-חֹלֶה הוּא--כָּזֹה וְכָזֶה, תְּדַבֵּר אֵלֶיהָ; וִיהִי כְבֹאָהּ, וְהִיא מִתְנַכֵּרָה.

Another possible variant of the name is Ahi אֲחִי (brother of):

Ahi (אֲחִי) the son of Abdiel, the son of Guni, chief of the house of their fathers.--1 Chronicles 5:15 

 אֲחִי בֶּן-עַבְדִּיאֵל בֶּן-גּוּנִי, רֹאשׁ לְבֵית אֲבוֹתָם. --1st Chronicles 5:15

In addition to this name, the time of the kings of Israel, there seems to be plenty of names with "brother" in it:

and Ahishar [אֲחִישָׁר] was over the household--1 Kings 4:6

Baana the son of Ahilud[אֲחִילוּד], in Taanach and Megiddo--1 Kings 4:12

Ahinadab [אֲחִינָדָב] the son of Iddo, in Mahanaim; Ahimaaz, in Naphtali; he also took Basemath the daughter of Solomon to wife--1 Kings 4:14-15

The book 'Dictionary of Deities, and Demons in the Bible' under the entry Brother states:

"In Hebrew theophoric personal names known from the Bible and from inscriptions (Zadok 1988:178-187), the most common elements, apart from 'el, 'god', and variants of yhwh are 'ab, 'father' (more than 30), 'ah , 'brother' (more than 25), and amm-, 'paternal uncle/kinsman' (more than 12). Note names such as Ahijah, 'Yah(u) is My (divine) Brother' (8 men. one woman?: STAMM 1980:111), Ahinadab 'My (divine) Brother is Generous' (one man), and Ahisamach, 'My (divine) Brother Has Helped' (one man), as well as Ahinoam, 'My (divine?) Brother is Gracious' (one man [Samarian ostraca], two women; STAMM 1980:133). Probably substitute names, such as Ahitub, 'My Brother is Goodness' (two men), also occur (STAMM 1939:279, 295; 1980:67, 69). In societies that rely heavily on the extended patriarchal family, as illustrated especially in the Books of Genesis and Ruth in the case of Israel, a brother or an uncle is commonly a primary authority figure, one whose protection is essential....As such the epithet 'brother' can be used of a deity, even if only in the popular or family piety reflected in personal names (ALBERTZ 1978). --'Dictionary of Deities, and Demons in the Bible' Entry for Brother, page 179

Bithiah בִּתְיָה

The daughter of a Pharoah is named "Bityah" which can be interpreted "Daughter of Yah":

And his wife Jehudijah bare Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Socho, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah. And these [are] the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, which Mered took.--1 Chronicles 4:18

וְאִשְׁתּוֹ הַיְהֻדִיָּה, יָלְדָה אֶת-יֶרֶד אֲבִי גְדוֹר וְאֶת-חֶבֶר אֲבִי שׂוֹכוֹ, וְאֶת-יְקוּתִיאֵל, אֲבִי זָנוֹחַ; וְאֵלֶּה, בְּנֵי בִּתְיָה בַת-פַּרְעֹה, אֲשֶׁר לָקַח, מָרֶד.

Bealiah בעליה

The name Bealiah בעליה resembles בעל ba'al which means either "husband", "lord", or the pagan god Ba'al.

Eluzai, and Jerimoth, and Bealiah, and Shemariah, and Shephatiah the Hariphite--1 Chronicles 12:6

אֶלְעוּזַי וִירִימוֹת וּבְעַלְיָה וּשְׁמַרְיָהוּ, וּשְׁפַטְיָהוּ החריפי --First Chronicles 12:6

Some have interpreted this as "Baal is Yah", whereas others seeing it less sacrilegious to interpret it as "Yah is master."

Benaiah בְּנָיָה 

"Son of Yah"

Benaiah [בְּנָיָה]the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man of Kabzeel, who had done many acts; he slew two lionlike men of Moab: also he went down and slew a lion in a pit in a snowy day.--1 Chronicles 11:22

בְּנָיָה בֶן-יְהוֹיָדָע בֶּן-אִישׁ-חַיִל רַב-פְּעָלִים, מִן-קַבְצְאֵל; הוּא הִכָּה, אֵת שְׁנֵי אֲרִיאֵל מוֹאָב, וְהוּא יָרַד וְהִכָּה אֶת-הָאֲרִי בְּתוֹךְ הַבּוֹר, בְּיוֹם הַשָּׁלֶג.-First Chronicles 11:22

 

Tuesday, October 3, 2023

Partial list of Papal claims at the first 7 ecumenical councils

 As some have done before, a list of times in the 7 ecumenical council that the papacy asserted its claims:

Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable Synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members by our [or your] holy voices, ye joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle. And since now our mediocrity, after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, has arrived, we ask that ye give order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy Synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination.--Council of Ephesus, Acts of Session II

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place m this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time --Council of Ephesus, Acts of Session III

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties. --Council of Chalcedon, Session III (spoken by the papal legates)

and besides all this he stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Saviour, we mean of course your holiness, and purposed excommunication against one who had at heart the unifying of the Church. And instead of showing penitence for this, instead of begging mercy with tears, he exulted as if over virtuous actions, rejecting your holiness' letter and resisting all the dogmas of the Truth. --Council of Chalcedon, Letter to Pope Leo the Great

Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written as by the Chief of the Apostles....Up to now grief, sorrow, and many tears have been our portion. For we cannot laugh at the fall of our neighbours, nor exult with joy at their unbridled madness, nor have we been elated that we might fall all the more grievously because of this thing; not thus, O venerable and sacred head, have we been taught, we who hold Christ, the Lord of the universe, to be both benign and man-loving in the highest degree; for he exhorts us to be imitators of him in his priesthood so far as is possible, as becometh the good, and to obtain the pattern of his pastoral and conciliatory government.--Constantinople III, Letter to Pope Agatho 

For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, "Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren." Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter's faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all. --Constantinople III, Letter of Pope Agatho to the Emperor, read at Constantinople III 

If the ancient orthodoxy be perfected and restored by your means in those regions, and the venerable icons be placed in their original state, you will be partakers with the Lord Constantine, Emperor of old, now in the Divine keeping, and the Empress Helena, who made conspicuous and confirmed the orthodox Faith, and exalted still more your holy mother, the Catholic and Roman and spiritual Church, and with the orthodox Emperors who ruled after them, and so your most pious and heaven-protected name likewise will be set forth as that of another Constantine and another Helena, being renowned and praised through the whole world, by whom the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is restored. And especially if you follow the tradition of the orthodox Faith of the Church of the holy Peter and Paul, the chief Apostles, and embrace their Vicar, as the Emperors who reigned before you of old both honoured their Vicar, and loved him with all their heart: and if your sacred majesty honour the most holy Roman Church of the chief Apostles, to whom was given power by God the Word himself to loose and to bind sins in heaven and earth. For they will extend their shield over your power, and all barbarous nations shall be put under your feet: and wherever you go they will make you conquerors. For the holy and chief Apostles themselves, who set up the Catholic and orthodox Faith, have laid it down as a written law that all who after them are to be successors of their seats, should hold their Faith and remain in it to the end of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all, and by Him is he honoured with this privilege, by which the keys of the kingdom of heaven are entrusted to him. He, therefore, that was preferred with so exalted an honour was thought worthy to confess that Faith on which the Church of Christ is rounded. A blessed reward followed that blessed confession, by the preaching of which the holy universal Church was illumined, and from it the other Churches of God have derived the proofs of Faith. For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat forever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors, etc. --Nicea II, Session II, Letter of Pope Adrian to the Emperor and Empress

 

 

Sunday, October 1, 2023

EO priest argues in favor of Immaculate conception/existence

 Not my article. EO priest, Fr. Lev Gillet argues in favor of Immaculate conception/existence, citing even post schism fathers https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2021/09/23/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church-2/

An excerpt:

First of all – the patriarch Photius. In his first homily on the Annunciation, he says that Mary was sanctified ek Brephous. This is not an easy term to translate; the primary meaning of Brephos is that of a child in the embryonic state. Ek means origin or starting point. The phrase seems to me to mean not that Mary was sanctified in the embryonic state, that is to say, during her existence in her mother’s womb, but that she was sanctified from the moment of her existence as an embryo, from the very first moment of her formation – therefore – from the moment of her conception.1

A contemporary and opponent of Photius, the monk Theognostes, wrote in a homily for the feast of the Dormition, that Mary was conceived by “a sanctifying action”, ex arches – from the beginning. It seems to me that this ex arches exactly corresponds to the “in primo instanti“ of Roman theology.3

St Euthymes, patriarch of Constantinople (+917), in the course of a homily on the conception of St Anne (that is to say, on Mary’s conception by Anne and Joachim) said that it was on this very day (touto semerou) that the Father fashioned a tabernacle (Mary) for his Son, and that this tabernacle was “fully sanctified” (kathagiazei). There again we find the idea of Mary’s sanctification in primo instanti conceptionis.3

Let us now turn to more explicit evidence.

(St) Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonica and doctor of the hesychasm (+1360) in his 65 published Mariological homilies, developed an entirely original theory about her sanctification. On the one hand, Palamas does not use the formula “immaculate conception” because he believes that Mary was sanctified long before the “primus instans conceptionis“, and on the other, he states quite as categorically as any Roman theologian that Mary was never at any moment sullied by the stain of original sin. Palamas’ solution to the problem, of which as far as we know, he has been the sole supporter, is that God progressively purified all Mary’s ancestors, one after the other and each to a greater degree than his predecessor so that at the end, eis telos, Mary was able to grow, from a completely purified root, like a spotless stem “on the limits between created and uncreated”.4

The Emperor Manuel II Paleologus (+1425) also pronounced a homily on the Dormition. In it, he affirms in precise terms Mary’s sanctification in primo instanti. He says that Mary was full of grace “from the moment of her conception” and that as soon as she began to exist … there was no time when Jesus was not united to her”. We must note that Manuel was no mere amateur in theology. He had written at great length on the procession of the Holy Spirit and had taken part in doctrinal debates during his journeys in the West. One can, therefore, consider him as a qualified representative of the Byzantine theology of his time.5

George Scholarios (+1456), the last Patriarch of the Byzantine Empire, has also left us a homily on the Dormition and an explicit affirmation of the Immaculate Conception. He says that Mary was “all pure from the first moment of her existence” (gegne theion euthus).6

 I plan on showing the primary sources here when I find them.

St Jerome and the Deuterocanonicals

Often some Protestant will provide statements by St Jerome where he questions or rejects the deuterocanonical books,

See the following site on examples of when St Jerome calls the books scripture (they also address many Protestant arguments by the Church Fathers) and St Jerome many times quotes the books Protestants call apocrypha.

The examples are as follows:

Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2]—St  Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: "wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]" Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age [Daniel 13:55-59 aka Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles)—St Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119

"I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH, 'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS."—St Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159

still our merriment must not forget the limit set by Scripture, and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.(Mt. 3:16)—St Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45

For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent. [Sir. 27:5] "Potters' vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation." And in another place it is written: [Sir. 2:1] "My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation."—St Jerome, Against Jovinianus,, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390

"Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: "For all that every man walketh in the image."(Psalm 39:6) Also after David's time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: "God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity."[Wisdom 2:23] And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above--that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen--teaches us that man does possess God's image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: "It is an unruly evil ... therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God."(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the "chosen vessel,"(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. "A man," he says, "ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God."(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of "the image" simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word "glory." Instead of THE THREE PROOFS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN"—St Jerome, Letter 51, 6, 7, NPNF2, VI:87-8

Here is another example of St Jerome calling the alleged “apocrypha” scripture: 

 Holy scripture says: ""a tale out of season is as music in mourning."" [Sirach 22:6]—St Jerome Letter 118 Section 1, Paragraph 2 To Julian

 

Thursday, September 21, 2023

Protestant anti-celibacy arguments and the Church Fathers

Since my old site has become defunct this month, this will be a largely a re-post of a poorly written article I made around 2004.

In the Old Testament the priesthood was hereditary and priests were expected to be married and have children, so their male child may become a priest. The New Testament has a different order; the ministerial priesthood is never passed on hereditarily, every man in order to be a priest must receive Holy Orders. Nowhere is it found in the New Testament that priests are REQUIRED to be married, but rather there is evidence from the Early Church Fathers proving otherwise that the Apostles were celibates or unmarried, though St Peter was married at once, and St Paul was likely married at once. Before going on further I will address common so-called verses that seem to require or expect priests in the New Testament to be married.

1 Timothy 3:2

First is the verse where people claim St Paul required Bishops to be married.

"Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,"--1 Timothy 3:2

δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον, σώφρονα, κόσμιον, φιλόξενον, διδακτικόν,--1 Timothy 3:2 (Greek found in Alexandrian and Byzantine texts)

Here is St Jerome concerning this issue showing that whether or not the man is married not the issue but whether or not he is a bigamist

What the true effect of baptism is, and what is the real grace conveyed by water hallowed in Christ, I will presently tell you; meantime I will deal with this argument as it deserves. 'An ill knot,' says the common proverb, 'requires but an ill wedge to split it.' The text quoted by the objector,"a bishop must be the husband of one wife,"[1 Timothy 3:2] admits of quite another explanation. The apostle came of the Jews and the primitive Christian church was gathered out of the remnants of Israel. Paul knew that the Law allowed men to have children by several wives, [Exodus 21:10] and was aware that the example of the patriarchs had made polygamy familiar to the people. Even the very priests might at their own discretion enjoy the same license. [Leviticus 21:7, 13] He gave commandment therefore that the priests of the church should not claim this liberty, that they should not take two wives or three together, but that they should each have but one wife at one time. Perhaps you may say that this explanation which I have given is disputed; in that case listen to another. You must not have a monopoly of bending the Law to suit your will instead of bending your will to suit the Law. Some by a strained interpretation say that wives are in this passage to be taken for churches and husbands for their bishops.--St Jerome Chapter 33*notice the issue is not required having a wife, but not having 2. 

St Paul according to some translations of this verse declares that the Apostles have a right to marry.

1 Corinthians 9:5 

numquid non habemus potestatem sororem mulierem circumducendi sicut et ceteri apostoli et fratres Domini et Cephas--Vulgate

"Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"- Douai Rheims Version

"Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" -New American Bible

“Do we not have the right to marry a believing woman like the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”--New American Bible 1970

"And every right to be accompanied by a Christian wife, like the other apostles, like the brothers of the Lord, and like Cephas?" -New Jerusalem Bible

"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" - King James Version

"Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"- New King James

"Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" - New Internation Version

"Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" - New American Standard Bible

"Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" - Revised Standard Version

Have we no right to take about with us a Christian wife, like the rest of the Apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? --Bible in Basic English

Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?-- American Revised Standard

have we not a right to take round a sister as wife, as also the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? --Darby's English translation

Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? --Noah Webster's

Have we no right to take along a wife who is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?--World English Bible

Have we not a right to take with us on our journeys a Christian sister as our wife, as the rest of the Apostles do--and the Lord's brothers and Peter?- Weymouth

have we not authority a sister -- a wife -- to lead about, as also the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?--Young's Literal

"For have we not the power of leading about women, like the other apostles and Cephas?" - Tertullian's Rendering in "De Monogamy"

mh ouk ecomen exousian adelfhn gunaika periagein wV kai oi loipoi apostoloi kai oi adelfoi tou kuriou kai khfaV--Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus**

μη ουκ εχομεν εξουσιαν αδελφην γυναικα περιαγειν ως και οι λοιποι αποστολοι και οι αδελφοι του κυριου και κηφας -- The actual Greek text

**Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus, Byzantine Majority, Alexandrian, Hort and Westcott are all exactly the same, so the issue is not in the texts themselves 


The word usually translated as wife is the Greek word gunaika, which CAN mean wife, but it can also mean ANY woman who is betrothed, married or single. It is root word is gune, which is the word Christ even uses to address His Mother as woman. Sadly this issue was resolved nearly 1800 years ago by Tertullian prior to his heresy of Montanism, in his writing on Monogamy, in which he states he finds no evidence of the Apostles having been married, save St Peter, and even goes as far as to say they were all celibates, and even quotes 1 Corinthians 9:5, and defends that gunaika means woman in this instance and not wife, they were like the woman who helped Jesus. Furthermore the text of 9:5 shows it DID NOT MEAN WIVES, since it used the word "sister" rather than leaving it alone, yet MOST translation don't really consider this, they assume St Paul was relaying useless information by saying it was "a sister" or "believing sister," of course a believer would follow them, so why is "sister" necessary unless St Paul was trying to clarify the meaning of the word "gunaika."

"Peter alone do I find--through (the mention of) his "mother-in-law",--to have been married. Monogamist I am led to presume him by consideration of the Church, which, built upon him, was destined to appoint every grade of her Order from monogamists. The rest, while I do not find them married, I must of necessity understand to have been either eunuchs or continent. Nor indeed, if, among the Greeks, in accordance with the carelessness of custom, women and wives are classed under a common name--however, there is a name proper to wives--shall we therefore so interpret Paul as if he demonstrates the apostles to have had wives? For if he were disputing about marriages, as he does in the sequel, where the apostle could better have named some particular example, it would appear right for him to say, "For have we not the power of leading about wives, like the other apostles and Cephas?" But when he subjoins those (expressions)which show his abstinence from (insisting on) the supply of maintenance, saying, "For have we not the power of eating and drinking?" he does not demonstrate that "wives" were led about by the apostles, whom even such as have not still have the power of eating and drinking; but simply "women," who used to minister to them in the stone way (as they did) when accompanying the Lord." - "On Monogamy" Chapter 8 

The women that Tertullian refers to are:

And there were there many women [γυναικες -- geenaikes] beholding from afar, who did follow Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him, among whom was Mary the Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and of Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.--Matthew 27:55-56

ησαν δε εκει γυναικες πολλαι απο μακροθεν θεωρουσαι αιτινες  ηκολουθησαν τω ιησου απο  της γαλιλαιας διακονουσαι αυτω --Greek Matthew 27:55-56

 and,

Afterward he journeyed from one town and village to another, preaching and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. Accompanying him were the Twelve and some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, Susanna, and many others who provided for them out of their resources.--Luke 8:1-3

St Jerome has his own commentary on the marital status of the Apostles, he says the same as Tertullian stated, but says it was possible the Apostles did in fact have wives, but had to separate from them once they were made Apostles of Christ. Then he further states that even if it were to be translated wives it must be understood that the wives were "related in spirit, not by wedlock." Nonetheless, St Jerome believes this verse not to infer the Apostles were married. 

In accordance with this rule Peter and the other Apostles (I must give Jovinianus something now and then out of my abundance) had indeed wives, but those which they had taken before they knew the Gospel. But once they were received into the Apostolate, they forsook the offices of marriage. For when Peter, representing the Apostles, says to the Lord:[1] "Lo we have left all and followed thee," the Lord answered him,[2] "Verily I say unto you, there is no man that hath left house or wife, or brethren, or parents, or children for the kingdom of God's sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this time, and in the world to come eternal life." But if, in order to show that all the Apostles had wives, he meets us with the words[3] "Have we no right to lead about women or wives" (for gunh in Greek has both meanings) "even as the rest of the apostles, and Cephas, and the brethren of the Lord ?" let him add what is found in the Greek copies, "Have we no right to lead about women that are sisters, or wives ?" This makes it clear that the writer referred to other holy women, who, in accordance with Jewish custom, ministered to their teachers of their substance, as we read was the practice with even our Lord himself. Where there is a previous reference to eating and drinking, and the outlay of money, and mention is afterwards made of women that are sisters, it is quite clear, as we have said, that we must understand, not wives, but those women who ministered of their substance. And we read the same account in the Old Testament of the Shunammite who was wont to welcome Elisha, and to put for him a table, and bread, and a candlestick, and the rest. At all events if we take gunaikas to mean wives, not women, the addition of the word sisters destroys the effect of the word wives, and shews that they were related in spirit, not by wedlock. Nevertheless, with the exception of the Apostle Peter, it is not openly stated that the Apostles had wives; and since the statement is made of one while nothing is said about the rest, we must understand that those of whom Scripture gives no such description had no wives. - Book I Against Jovianius

St Augustine, likewise, interprets 1 Corinthians 9:5 use of the word gunaika as women:

"...for to this end did also faithful women which had earthly substance go with them, and minister unto them of their substance, that they might lack none of those things which pertain to the necessities of this life. Which thing blessed Paul demonstrates to be lawful indeed unto himself, as also the other Apostles did it, but that he had not chosen to use this power he afterwards mentions. This thing some not understanding, have interpreted not “a woman which is a sister,” when he said, “Have we not power to lead about a sister a woman;” but, “a sister a wife.” They were misled by the ambiguity of the Greek word, because both “wife” and “woman” is expressed in Greek by the same word. Though indeed the Apostle has so put this that they ought not to have made this mistake; for that he neither says “a woman” merely, but “a sister woman;” nor “to take” (as in marriage), but “to take about” (as on a journey). Howbeit other interpreters have not been misled by this ambiguity, and they have interpreted “woman” not “wife.”.."--Treatise 137:5 

 1 Timothy 4:3

Some invoke 1 Timothy 4:3 “They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.”

This refers to groups the condemn marriage as evil and dishonorable, the Catholic Church does not do this, but incidentally there are groups of heretics throughout the ages that considered marriage wicked and did not do it, some of these Protestants hold to as being orthodox, such as the Catharis, which the false prophetess Ellen G White considered to be “true” (Ellen White, Great Controversy, Chapter 6, paragraph 1, p97).  When commenting on groups that DO condemn marriage Church Fathers have said:

“Such also as "forbid to marry" he reproaches in his instructions to Timothy. [1 Timothy 4:3]  Now, this is the teaching of Marcion and his follower Apelles.”—Tertullian Prescription Again Heretics Chapter 33  c. AD 200

“For this leads me to remark of Marcion's god, that in reproaching marriage as an evil and unchaste thing, he is really prejudicing the cause of that very sanctity which he seems to serve.”—Tertullian Book I Against Marcion Chapter 29 c. AD 200

Likewise St Jerome (400):

"We are no disciples of Marcion or of Manichæus, to detract from marriage. Nor are we deceived by the error of Tatian, the chief of the Encratites, into supposing all cohabitation unclean. For he condemns and reprobates not marriage only, but foods also which God has created for us to enjoy”--St Jerome Letter 48

St Augustine similarly identifies a group as being the fulfilment of St Paul's prophecy:

"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your [religious] law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1-4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps"--Against Faustus the Manichaean 15:7  c.A.D. 400.

St Jerome further expounds:

A mother before she was wedded, she remained a virgin after bearing her son. Therefore, as I was going to say, the virgin Christ and the virgin Mary have dedicated in themselves the first fruits of virginity for both sexes. The apostles have either been virgins or, though married, have lived celibate lives. Those persons who are chosen to be bishops, priests, and deacons are either virgins or widowers; or at least when once they have received the priesthood, are vowed to perpetual chastity.--St Jerome Letter 48

Another writing which did not deal so much with having celibate priests but whether or not married priests should be celibate:

For we do not reject marriage, but simply refrain from it. Nor do we prescribe sanctity as the rule, but only recommend it, observing it as a good, yea, even the better state, if each man uses it carefully according to his ability; but at the same time earnestly vindicating marriage, whenever hostile attacks are made against it is a polluted thing, to the disparagement of the Creator.”—Tertullian Book I Against Marcion Chapter 29 c. AD 200

“he reminded them, that according to the ancient tradition of the church, those who were unmarried when they took part in the communion of sacred orders, were required to remain so, but that those who were married, were not to put away their wives.”--- Ecclesiastical History Sozomen Book II, chapter 23

It demonstrates that that it is tradition for those who are ordained while being married are not to be required to not cohabit with their wives, but at the same time it calls it a tradition for celibates to be ordained and REMAIN celibates. Tertullian states celibacy is greater, and that we do not reject it, but we promote celibacy since it is regarded in scripture as greater. In Catholicism this high standard is expected of most priests, if a person cannot be celibate as a priest, he cannot become a priest, no one is forced to be a priest or forced to be celibate.  Celibacy is a vow to God and vows to God must be kept as scripture many times states.

Other scriptures in favor of celibacy:

“But the priest replied to David, "I have no ordinary bread on hand, only holy bread; if the men have abstained from women, you may eat some of that."”—1 Samuel 21:5

"Disciples said to him, "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word,  but only those to whom that is granted. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.”—Matthew 19:12 

Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do--1 Corinthians 7:8 NAB 

Then Peter said to him in reply, "We have given up everything and followed you. What will there be for us?"--Matthew 19:27

Further reading: here, here, SACERDOTALIS CAELIBATUS