Augustine & the Greek Language

[The Remonstrant]

It is my understanding that Augustine, one of the most influential figures of church history, whom many consider to be the figurehead of Calvinian theology, was not well-learned in the Greek language.

I will provide you here with only one quote from a website I visited:


"He was from the beginning a brilliant student, with an eager intellectual curiousity, but he never mastered Greek -- he tells us that his first Greek teacher was a brutal man who constantly beat his students, and Augustine rebelled and refused to study. By the time he realized that he really needed to know Greek, it was too late; and although he acquired a smattering of the language, he was never really at home in it.

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/50.html

If perhaps, say, Wesley or Arminius, had not understood Greek throughout the better part of their lives (allow me to speculate), would Arminians--even to this day--still not have heard the end of such a matter?

[brother vinny]

It is my understanding that Augustine, one of the most influential figures of church history, whom many consider to be the figurehead of Calvinian theology, was not well-learned in the Greek language.

I will provide you here with only one quote from a website I visited:




"He was from the beginning a brilliant student, with an eager intellectual curiousity, but he never mastered Greek -- he tells us that his first Greek teacher was a brutal man who constantly beat his students, and Augustine rebelled and refused to study. By the time he realized that he really needed to know Greek, it was too late; and although he acquired a smattering of the language, he was never really at home in it.



http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/50.html



If perhaps, say, Wesley or Arminius, had not understood Greek throughout the better part of their lives (allow me to speculate), would Arminians--even to this day--still not have heard the end of such a matter?

Apparently we haven't heard the end of the Augustine matter. :ahem:

[The Remonstrant]

Apparently we haven't heard the end of the Augustine matter. :ahem:

Braveheart, is it a common practise for you to leave quips and one-liners on threads you disapprove of? This I would hardly consider to be in Christian charity. I now am coming to understand why some have left various theological circles completely; unfortunately, on the account of behaviour not unlike your own. I truly do expect better from those who call themselves believers. But your response, and others like it, I deem unworthy to respond any farther to.

[Arminian]

It is my understanding that Augustine, one of the most influential figures of church history, whom many consider to be the figurehead of Calvinian theology, was not well-learned in the Greek language.

I will provide you here with only one quote from a website I visited:


"He was from the beginning a brilliant student, with an eager intellectual curiousity, but he never mastered Greek -- he tells us that his first Greek teacher was a brutal man who constantly beat his students, and Augustine rebelled and refused to study. By the time he realized that he really needed to know Greek, it was too late; and although he acquired a smattering of the language, he was never really at home in it.

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/50.html

If perhaps, say, Wesley or Arminius, had not understood Greek throughout the better part of their lives (allow me to speculate), would Arminians--even to this day--still not have heard the end of such a matter?

It wasn't that he Greek was poor, per se; it was that he almost couldn't understand it at all.

http://matthew.ektopos.com/archives/philosophy/medieval/

[James Peter]

It wasn't that he Greek was poor, per se; it was that he almost couldn't understand it at all.

http://matthew.ektopos.com/archives/philosophy/medieval/

And equally Luther's greek, at the time when his theology was formed at least, was pretty darn poor. Heavily influenced as he was by Augustine it really doesn't bode well for those who want to trace their theology back to these two figures. I've said it before, I'll say it again: Reformation theology was ultimately based on misunderstandings that are the result of an overreliance on the latin texts. And that IS a big issue for protestants everywhere (and if we're dividing Christianity into three then I must be considered protestant).

[brother vinny]

Braveheart, is it a common practise for you to leave quips and one-liners on threads you disapprove of? This I would hardly consider to be in Christian charity.

Is it not Christian charity to gently rebuke the hypocrisy of saying, "Look what our opposition did! If we did the same thing, our opposition would surely point it out to us!"


I now am coming to understand why some have left various theological circles completely; unfortunately, on the account of behaviour not unlike your own.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Aside, for those who know me: I no longer consider myself a Calvinist. Calvinism and Arminianism both have their strong suits and weaknesses, but I am of the opinion that the tension between free will and God's foreknowledge is a divine mystery, and delving into such is patently unbiblical and, further, a waste of time. There's evil to be fought; let's not waste time discussing how it got here.


I truly do expect better from those who call themselves believers.

As do I.


But your response, and others like it, I deem unworthy to respond any farther to.

That's up to you, I guess. I've made my point, to wit, that you're a hypocrite. You've pointed out an opponent's weakness while postulating that if the tables were turned, your opponents would point out the same weakness. I don't care if you stay Arminian or not, but the hypocrisy needs to be repented of.

And if you choose to not repent of it, from what I understand of the Arminian model, the circumstances are dire, indeed.

[TheAnalogman]

And if you choose to not repent of it, from what I understand of the Arminian model, the circumstances are dire, indeed.

Hi Braveheart.
I respectfully suggest you study a bit more about the "Arminian model", before launching into such a statement. I won't be repenting any time soon, btw.

[brother vinny]

Hi Braveheart.
I respectfully suggest you study a bit more about the "Arminian model", before launching into such a statement. I won't be repenting any time soon, btw.

I take it from your statement that you and The Remonstrant are one in the same. I shall see that this is looked into.

And the Arminian model actually allows for unrepented-of sin? News to me.

[Howie]

And equally Luther's greek, at the time when his theology was formed at least, was pretty darn poor. Heavily influenced as he was by Augustine it really doesn't bode well for those who want to trace their theology back to these two figures. I've said it before, I'll say it again: Reformation theology was ultimately based on misunderstandings that are the result of an overreliance on the latin texts. And that IS a big issue for protestants everywhere (and if we're dividing Christianity into three then I must be considered protestant).JP,

The point you make is of crucial importance for anyone who seeks the truth of the message of Jesus. You point out only two of the influential Christian leaders whose knowledge of Greek is suspect… there are a surprising number more!!

I wrote a long diatribe and then decided simply to highlight the important point you raise.

All the best.

[Jezz]

I've made my point, to wit, that you're a hypocrite. You've pointed out an opponent's weakness while postulating that if the tables were turned, your opponents would point out the same weakness. I don't care if you stay Arminian or not, but the hypocrisy needs to be repented of.
I'm a bit confused as to where the hypocrisy is there? He didn't say that it would be wrong for his opponents to point out the same weakness. Indeed, I think his point was that his opponents would be justified in pointing it out - just as he is justifiably points out this weakness in his opponents.

Hypocrisy would be for him to say: "Look! Augustine didn't know Greek!" if Wesley & Arminus didn't know Greek.

[brother vinny]

I'm a bit confused as to where the hypocrisy is there? He didn't say that it would be wrong for his opponents to point out the same weakness. Indeed, I think his point was that his opponents would be justified in pointing it out - just as he is justifiably points out this weakness in his opponents.

Hypocrisy would be for him to say: "Look! Augustine didn't know Greek!" if Wesley & Arminus didn't know Greek.

The hypocrisy comes from Remonstrant/Analogman looking down on Calvinists for what he presumes Calvinists would do, while at the same time doing the same thing himself.

This whole thread was constructed not to evaluate the scholarship of Augustine in light of his lack of knowledge of Greek, but to belittle Calvinists. If this were not so, the whole closing paragraph of the OP could have been omitted. I don't hold to Calvinism, but the Calvinist is my brother as surely as the Arminian, and I don't want to see the Calvinists mocked based on presupposition of what they might have done.

[TheAnalogman]

I take it from your statement that you and The Remonstrant are one in the same. I shall see that this is looked into.

And the Arminian model actually allows for unrepented-of sin? News to me.

You take it wrong. Please feel free to have this looked into. But thank you for the compliment.
As I suggested earlier, you do not understand the "Arminian model".
Never heard of the "unrepented-of sin" theory which you have said applies to Arminians. Or are you saying I need to repent of something I never said?
Thanks.

[brother vinny]

You take it wrong. Please feel free to have this looked into. But thank you for the compliment.
As I suggested earlier, you do not understand the "Arminian model".
Never heard of the "unrepented-of sin" theory which you have said applies to Arminians. Or are you saying I need to repent of something I never said?
Thanks.

Why make the statement that you refuse to repent of what was said if you're not the one who said it?

Maybe you're insane. I'd be willing to buy that. I'm sure there are plenty of insane people who declare they're refusal to repent of actions they didn't do after not having been accused.

[TheAnalogman]

Why make the statement that you refuse to repent of what was said if you're not the one who said it?

Maybe you're insane. I'd be willing to buy that. I'm sure there are plenty of insane people who declare they're refusal to repent of actions they didn't do after not having been accused.

You don't get it, but it doesn't matter.
Off to my shrink, cya.

[brother vinny]

You don't get it, but it doesn't matter.
Off to my shrink, cya.

Well, do explain it then, Professer. Why would you come into a thread that you hitherto hadn't participated in and repent of something which no has accused you?

[neocon_voter]

Read Saint Augustine's Confessions. In Book I that subject is covered, and Augustine asks himself why he hated his Greek lessons as a boy. Its online:
http://www.online-literature.com/saint-augustine/confessions-of-saint-augustine/1/
But why did I so much hate the Greek, which I studied as a boy? I do not yet fully know. For the Latin I loved; not what my first masters, but what the so-called grammarians taught me. For those first lessons, reading, writing and arithmetic, I thought as great a burden and penalty as any Greek. And yet whence was this too, but from the sin and vanity of this life, because I was flesh, and a breath that passeth away and cometh not again? For those first lessons were better certainly, because more certain; by them I obtained, and still retain, the power of reading what I find written, and myself writing what I will; whereas in the others, I was forced to learn the wanderings of one Aeneas, forgetful of my own, and to weep for dead Dido, because she killed herself for love; the while, with dry eyes, I endured my miserable self dying among these things, far from Thee, O God my life.

Henry Chadwick's translation (http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Oxford-Worlds-Classics-Augustine/dp/0192833723/sr=11-1/qid=1163182643/ref=sr_11_1/103-9096861-9712601) has a footnote at the bottom of page 15 that St Augustine, although never fluent in Greek, could make his own translations when needed, and that he knew more Greek than he sometimes admits.

Neocon_Voter

[brother vinny]

I am sorry for having made the charge that TheAnalogman is The Remonstrant, even though the visual evidence available to me seemingly points in that direction. I have no idea why TAM responded the way he did in his initial post.

[spl_cadet]

Latin was the language of Heaven, why would he need to understand a profane language like Greek? :tongue:

[rmwilliamsjr]

If this conversation is going to teach us anything, i believe you will have to take a specific passage in Scripture and show where the Latin and the Greek diverge and how Augustine's lack of Greek skills caused him to part company with the proper theology.

ie, an example would be a big help.

[Tercel]

If this conversation is going to teach us anything, i believe you will have to take a specific passage in Scripture and show where the Latin and the Greek diverge and how Augustine's lack of Greek skills caused him to part company with the proper theology.

ie, an example would be a big help.Romans 5:12 is the oft-cited example of Augustine's latin leading him astray. The latin text renders the last part of the verse as saying "in whom all sinned". Augustine and his latin contemporaries naturally read this as saying that all mankind sinned "in" Adam. As a result they invented the doctrine of Original Sin which claimed humans are born guilty before God as a result of Adam's sin. Whereas, for example, a modern translation of the Greek into English renders it "because all have sinned" (NRSV). ie Paul's saying everyone dies because of their own sins, and not at all saying that we were somehow "in" Adam or are somehow guilty of Adam's sin.

The oft-cited example for Luther's misunderstanding of the Latin text is his views on justification/righteousness which were a result of how the latin words involved were used as legal terms in his day. He initially assumed that the "righteousness of God" referred to the fact that God exacted just punishment on sinners, as implied by the way the latin words were used in day-to-day usage. His horror of such a retributive God caused him quite some emotional anguish before he invented for himself another definition of righteousness/justification where God declares those who are guilty to be innocent. He felt greatly relieved at this new concept. It is worth noting that neither of his views were really founded much on what the Greek text actually said, but rather on how he himself decided he was going to interpret the latin words.

[The Remonstrant]

I am sorry for having made the charge that TheAnalogman is The Remonstrant, even though the visual evidence available to me seemingly points in that direction. I have no idea why TAM responded the way he did in his initial post.

Braveheart, it is not my intention to treat those who oppose my theological beliefs harshly, nor with disdain. I am not certain as to how much you know of Arminianism, or what you have been told about it, but I sense that your knowledge is, in all likelihood, an unfortunate caricature of Arminianism. Calvinists, Baxterians (four-point Calvinists), and Dispensationalists (some are essentially four-point Calvinists, but they reject the Covenant Theology of Baxterians, and strict five-point Calvinists) frequently misrepresent Arminian theology (incongruously, Calvinists often accuse Arminians of being ignorant of Calvinian theology themselves). It would seem that many Calvinists receive their "knowledge" of Arminianism down second, third, fourth-hand. Many don't like their system of thought to be challenged, and, therefore, never learn what Arminians genuinely believe. Those who are unlearned in either Calvinism or Arminianism should take care not to criticise either of the two theologies, so long as they remain naive of what the other actually teaches.

If you desire to learn the doctrines that Arminians ascribe to, it is imperative that you go directly to the source. A disturbing number of Calvinian authors (whether ignorant, malicious, or both)--past and present--apparently, are professional anti-Arminians (eg, John Owen, J.I. Packer, R.C. Sproul, Gomarus, John Gill, A.W. Pink).

My recommendation, if you want to understand Arminianism and know what Arminians really believe, first read John Wesley's brief essay, "What Is An Arminian?" Here is the link:

http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/arminian/

Beyond that, I would recommend a few books written by Arminian theologians. I believe that this would benefit your understanding greatly. They are (along with title links to Amazon.com, to purchase books):


1. Arminian Theology (Olson, Roger E.)

http://www.amazon.com/Arminian-Theology-Realities-Roger-Olson/dp/0830828419/sr=1-1/qid=1163321912/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-7664429-4852754?ie=UTF8&s=books

2. Why I Am Not A Calvinist (Dongell, Joseph; Walls, Jerry L.)

http://www.amazon.com/Why-I-Am-Not-Calvinist/dp/0830832491/sr=1-1/qid=1163321807/ref=sr_1_1/104-7664429-4852754?ie=UTF8&s=books

3. The Arminian Confession of 1621 (Episcopius, Simon)

http://www.amazon.com/Arminian-Confession-Princeton-Theological-Monograph/dp/1597523372/sr=1-3/qid=1163321912/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/104-7664429-4852754?ie=UTF8&s=books


The first book makes it evident what Arminianism is and what it is not, dispelling the myths and highlighting the realities (hence, the book's subtitle, "Myths & Realities"). The second, "Why I Am Not A Calvinist", engages the attentive reader with a very stimulating case for Arminianism on the philosophical level. The third book, "The Arminian Confession of 1621" (also known as "The Remonstrant Confession"); or, more fully, "The confession or declaration of the ministers or pastors which in the United Provinces are called Remonstrants, concerning the chief points of Christian religion"; "Confessio sive declaratio sententiae pastorum qui in Foederato Belgio Remonstrantes vocantur super praecipuis articulis religionis Christianae" in Latin. The confession is a very elegant piece of early Arminian literature. All three titles listed above are still in print.

As for TheAnalogman, I think he had made some attempts of humour in order to lighten the mood; which is quite needed here on these boards, as egos clash (and they do clash).

[Jezz]

The hypocrisy comes from Remonstrant/Analogman looking down on Calvinists for what he presumes Calvinists would do, while at the same time doing the same thing himself.
Remostrant (I see you've acknowledged elsewhere that Analogman didn't do it) didn't say that he would look down on Calvinists for what he presumes that they would do. If they did it, he might acknowledge it as a legitimate tactic. It is you who is assuming that he will be hypocritical, based on what you presume he would do.


This whole thread was constructed not to evaluate the scholarship of Augustine in light of his lack of knowledge of Greek, but to belittle Calvinists. If this were not so, the whole closing paragraph of the OP could have been omitted. I don't hold to Calvinism, but the Calvinist is my brother as surely as the Arminian, and I don't want to see the Calvinists mocked based on presupposition of what they might have done.
No, this whole thread was constructed to belittle "Calvinian [sic] theology". There's a difference between attacking the idea and attacking the person with the idea.

You're making this into something that it isn't.

[James Peter]

No, this whole thread was constructed to belittle "Calvinian [sic] theology". There's a difference between attacking the idea and attacking the person with the idea.

You're making this into something that it isn't.

Although I think it is perfectly justified to make the argument "Reformed theology was overly dependent on latin texts and relies on a lack of knowledge of greek to be well demonstrated."

I don't think it is by chance that the East has not had a similar incident.

[bloodrose]

Do you think it is possible from English or Greek texts to come to the same conclusions as Calvin though? Just wondering...

[James Peter]

If you started with the greek texts you wouldn't come to those conclusions. If you systematically read the texts looking for support for Reformed theology you will find some, but much of it rests on misunderstanding what words like pistis, charis and dikaioo really mean. It is only if you read phrases like "justified by grace" in a Reformed way that they support the Reformed position. In and of themselves they don't, but we are all heavily influenced by the nuances that the phrases have developed since.

[John Reece]

. . . misunderstanding what words like pistis, charis and dikaioo really mean.

Do you presuppose that the words always mean the same thing in every context?

[James Peter]

No, I'm not saying that they do. They have a range of meanings and that presents no difficulties to me. I don't think that the words deserve the technical definitions which they often have given to them and I'm very confident that some of the definitions of, for example, 'grace' are way beyond what somebody in the first century would have understood by charis. I'm leaning towards advocating transliterating these sorts of words rather than trying to 'translate' them. There really is no (good) english equivelant for charis and so I think taking it as a loanword would be both justified and profitable, as long as we preserved its whole semantic range.

[rmwilliamsjr]

Romans 5:12 is the oft-cited example of Augustine's latin leading him astray. The latin text renders the last part of the verse as saying "in whom all sinned". Augustine and his latin contemporaries naturally read this as saying that all mankind sinned "in" Adam. As a result they invented the doctrine of Original Sin which claimed humans are born guilty before God as a result of Adam's sin. Whereas, for example, a modern translation of the Greek into English renders it "because all have sinned" (NRSV). ie Paul's saying everyone dies because of their own sins, and not at all saying that we were somehow "in" Adam or are somehow guilty of Adam's sin.


thanks, i found an excellent discussion of the issues at:
http://crosstalking.blogspot.com/2006/03/comments-on-romans-512-14.html



Augustine, who did not know Greek well, set interpreters to misreading the phrase eph hō pantes hēmarton as though it were equivalent to ev hō pantes hēmarton. Augustine made two mistakes. First, he misunderstood eph hō as equivalent to en hō, thus his Latin translation, in quo. Second, he misunderstood the relative pronoun to refer to the one man (anthrōpou), Adam, rather than to death (thanatos), thus yielding his translation in whom rather than upon the basis of which.

Following Augustine theologically but not exegetically, most interpreters take the phrase eph hō in a causal sense—so death came to all, because all sinned (cf. RSV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, NASB95, ESV). Many take the all sinned to refer to solidarity with Adam when he sinned. Some who take the phrase causally also take the all sinned as referring to imitation of Adam by sinning as individuals in the likeness of Adam’s sin. The problem with this, as Schreiner rightly observes, is that “it suggests a Pelagian understanding of the relationship between Adam’s sin and the sin of the rest of humanity” (p. 275). Of course, if indeed Paul’s theological formulations in Romans 5:12ff support Pelagius’ teaching, we ought to follow such formulations. The remainder of the passage (5:15-21) is against Pelagius’ view. This includes especially verse 14 which, as we will see below, makes it expressly clear that death reigned over all from Adam until Moses even though they did not sin in the same way that Adam had sinned.


the blog is a really nice piece of work. thanks for the motivation to go looking.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Can I just add this point. I'm no fan of Augustine, but everyone should note the following:

(a) Few theologians in the West were familiar with Greek or Hebrew until after the Renaissance. Indeed, the leading figure in Roman Catholic theology, St Thomas Aquinas, knew very little Greek and next to no Hebrew. Compared to Aquinas, Augustine was a veritable scholar of the original languages. So if Augustine's lack of Greek skills somehow invalidate Reformed theology, then Aquinas' lack of Greek skills completely invalidates Roman Catholic theology. And yes, Aquinas' reliance on the Latin Vulgate led him to make mistakes, too. The question is whether such mistakes are material to the whole question of Roman Catholic theology. But there is no question concerning his almost complete ignorance of Hebrew and Greek.

(b) There is also no question that the Reformation led to a massive increase in interest and knowledge concerning the Hebrew and Greek texts. To give just one example, under Zwingli the study of the Greek and Hebrew texts became widespread amongst the educated classes and virtually mandatory. Indeed, the biggest obstacle to progress in this regard was the Roman Catholic church, which put the Vulgate on a higher plane than the original texts. To this day, the official Catholic position remains that the Hebrew and Greek may be used to shed light on the meaning of the Vulgate, but not to contradict it - although this is widely ignored by Catholic scholars.

(c) On the interpretation of specific texts, I will say this: I do know Hebrew and Greek very well, and while some of the points made above are valid (such as Romans 5:12), the question of whether Reformed interpretations of the Greek are generally sound or not is a complex one, and the case is nowhere near as one-sided as some people here seem to think. I'm an Arminian, and while I disagree with certain Reformed doctrines, I wouldn't be so adamant about issues like original sin; and I have no theological barrow to push on the issue. The phrase EF hWi PANTES hHMARTON probably does mean "because all have sinned" and not "in whom all have sinned" as the Vulgate reads. While this makes the text less useful as a "proof-text" for the Reformed view, it is by no means inconsistent with it, and indeed, the whole idea of "proof-texting" is naive anyway. It is very doubtful whether the deficiencies of the Vulgate are such as to explain Reformed exegesis in general. A much better case can be made that deficiencies in Roman Catholic theology were influenced by the Vulgate (e.g. the occasional translation of the verb METANOEW as "do penance" instead of "repent" or "change your mind"). The translation "do penance" is utterly wrong.

(d) Although it is a part of Reformed self-understanding that their theology is essentially Augustinian, this is in fact quite arguable. It ignores the originality of Luther's thinking and the doctrines of imputation, penal substitutionary atonement and so forth, which have no precedent in Augustine. The forerunner of these doctrines was Anselm. Augustine's doctrine of justification was radically distinct from the Reformed doctrine. The common element is the belief in predestination; that is significant, but shouldn't be allowed to obscure the differences. At best Reformed theology can claim to be in "the spirit" of Augustine. I think that's true, in some respects; but it overlooks all the original elements, which are, in my view, the interesting bits.

[The Remonstrant]

Can I just add this point. I'm no fan of Augustine, but everyone should note the following:

(a) Few theologians in the West were familiar with Greek or Hebrew until after the Renaissance. Indeed, the leading figure in Roman Catholic theology, St Thomas Aquinas, knew very little Greek and next to no Hebrew. Compared to Aquinas, Augustine was a veritable scholar of the original languages. So if Augustine's lack of Greek skills somehow invalidate Reformed theology, then Aquinas' lack of Greek skills completely invalidates Roman Catholic theology. And yes, Aquinas' reliance on the Latin Vulgate led him to make mistakes, too. The question is whether such mistakes are material to the whole question of Roman Catholic theology. But there is no question concerning his almost complete ignorance of Hebrew and Greek.

(b) There is also no question that the Reformation led to a massive increase in interest and knowledge concerning the Hebrew and Greek texts. To give just one example, under Zwingli the study of the Greek and Hebrew texts became widespread amongst the educated classes and virtually mandatory. Indeed, the biggest obstacle to progress in this regard was the Roman Catholic church, which put the Vulgate on a higher plane than the original texts. To this day, the official Catholic position remains that the Hebrew and Greek may be used to shed light on the meaning of the Vulgate, but not to contradict it - although this is widely ignored by Catholic scholars.

(c) On the interpretation of specific texts, I will say this: I do know Hebrew and Greek very well, and while some of the points made above are valid (such as Romans 5:12), the question of whether Reformed interpretations of the Greek are generally sound or not is a complex one, and the case is nowhere near as one-sided as some people here seem to think. I'm an Arminian, and while I disagree with certain Reformed doctrines, I wouldn't be so adamant about issues like original sin; and I have no theological barrow to push on the issue. The phrase EF hWi PANTES hHMARTON probably does mean "because all have sinned" and not "in whom all have sinned" as the Vulgate reads. While this makes the text less useful as a "proof-text" for the Reformed view, it is by no means inconsistent with it, and indeed, the whole idea of "proof-texting" is naive anyway. It is very doubtful whether the deficiencies of the Vulgate are such as to explain Reformed exegesis in general. A much better case can be made that deficiencies in Roman Catholic theology were influenced by the Vulgate (e.g. the occasional translation of the verb METANOEW as "do penance" instead of "repent" or "change your mind"). The translation "do penance" is utterly wrong.

(d) Although it is a part of Reformed self-understanding that their theology is essentially Augustinian, this is in fact quite arguable. It ignores the originality of Luther's thinking and the doctrines of imputation, penal substitutionary atonement and so forth, which have no precedent in Augustine. The forerunner of these doctrines was Anselm. Augustine's doctrine of justification was radically distinct from the Reformed doctrine. The common element is the belief in predestination; that is significant, but shouldn't be allowed to obscure the differences. At best Reformed theology can claim to be in "the spirit" of Augustine. I think that's true, in some respects; but it overlooks all the original elements, which are, in my view, the interesting bits.

Very informative post, HB. Thank you.

[James Peter]

I have no problem with saying that Aquinas didn't really have a clue either or with being critical of the RCC. ;)

The Reformation tried to solve the problems of the previous 1000 (or more) years of Roman mistakes/flaws and for that should be commended. The problem is though that they ended up being almost as wrong on a lot of issues as the people they broke away with. We ended up with Schism and still without 'good theology' which was a shame.

[Howie]

It is not merely a lack of understanding of the Greek language that is problematic; it is the imposition of Roman weltanschauung onto that which is definitely of a time, place and understanding not Roman. Knowledge of Greek may not necessarily resolve the issue either, for the imposition of Greek weltanschauung onto the Hebrew Torah creates equally problematic issues.

Most Jewish Hebrew scholars will tell you that Jesus appears to have an understanding of the Torah that is in keeping with Hebrew anschouwunge. Most will tell you that Jesus’ teachings are in keeping with the spirit of the Hebrew Torah though at times not the letter of the Septuagint (many view this aspect of Jesus' teaching positively). It is almost as if Jesus were bridging the gap between the Hebrew anschouwunge and Greek as well as Roman weltanschauung. They will also tell you that many other NT writings do not appear to have that same scriptural understanding.

Lack of knowledge of Greek is a serious issue. However lack of knowledge of Hebrew on the part of Augustine, Aquinas, Martin Luther and others, including many EO Fathers (Origen excepted) may be of even greater import.

The Great Schism and The Reformation may well be seen as battles between forces that did not fully comprehend the seminal revelations upon which Jesus built his ministry: The Hebrew Torah.

All the best.

[Rupert Pupkin]

The Great Schism and The Reformation may well be seen as battles between forces that did not fully comprehend the seminal revelations upon which Jesus built his ministry: The Hebrew Torah.

I agree; everyone is to blame!

So perhaps let's not cast the first stone at Augustine (at least not on this issue) :lol: