Here is the link to the encyclical.
I once thought this bad, since at variance with Tridentine confession of faith:
Then I used it myself about an enigmatic usage of the word Jews in the Gospel of St John:
vs:
What I do of it - by that method - is: the Gospel was written by a man remembering how Christ himself used the word. But he wrote it after the Rabbinic synod or Sanhedrin of Jamnia had given the word a different sense.
Once (as I have seen) however He used it Himself in the new sense, before Pilate:
There the Jews had already fallen. So, have I sinned against rule of Tridentine confession hereby, by this attempt of historic-critical scholarship? Or have I given a proof of traditional dates of the Gospels (Synoptics before destruction of Jerusalem, St John's after his writing Apocalypse)?
Obviously, I cannot judge my own case. At least, one accusation against Pius XII I have "eaten up", the one concerning Divino Afflante Spiritu.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard/Paris V
17/IV/2010
I once thought this bad, since at variance with Tridentine confession of faith:
nec eam umquam nisi iuxta unanimem consensum Patrum accipiam et interpretabor. - Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
Then I used it myself about an enigmatic usage of the word Jews in the Gospel of St John:
4:22 vos adoratis quod nescitis nos adoramus quod scimus quia salus ex Iudaeis est - You adore that which you know not: we adore that which we know; for salvation is of the Jews.
vs:
20:19 cum esset ergo sero die illo una sabbatorum et fores essent clausae ubi erant discipuli propter metum Iudaeorum venit Iesus et stetit in medio et dicit eis pax vobis - Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you.
What I do of it - by that method - is: the Gospel was written by a man remembering how Christ himself used the word. But he wrote it after the Rabbinic synod or Sanhedrin of Jamnia had given the word a different sense.
Once (as I have seen) however He used it Himself in the new sense, before Pilate:
18:36 respondit Iesus regnum meum non est de mundo hoc si ex hoc mundo esset regnum meum ministri mei decertarent ut non traderer Iudaeis nunc autem meum
regnum non est hinc - Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence.
There the Jews had already fallen. So, have I sinned against rule of Tridentine confession hereby, by this attempt of historic-critical scholarship? Or have I given a proof of traditional dates of the Gospels (Synoptics before destruction of Jerusalem, St John's after his writing Apocalypse)?
Obviously, I cannot judge my own case. At least, one accusation against Pius XII I have "eaten up", the one concerning Divino Afflante Spiritu.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard/Paris V
17/IV/2010
1 commentaire:
Jamnia revisited.
Enregistrer un commentaire