Did Augustine change the NT text?

[Christian2]

Someone is telling me that Augustine changed the text of the Bible to read as he wanted it to read. This is the first I've heard this one. Here is his evidence:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701105.htm

"And this," He adds, "is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent." The proper order of the words is, "That they may know You and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent, as the only true God." Consequently, therefore, the Holy Spirit is also understood, because He is the Spirit of the Father and Son, as the substantial and consubstantial love of both. For the Father and Son are not two Gods, nor are the Father and Son and Holy Spirit three Gods; but the Trinity itself is the one only true God. And yet the Father is not the same as the Son, nor the Son the same as the Father, nor the Holy Spirit the same as the Father and the Son; for the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are three [persons], yet the Trinity itself is one God. If, then, the Son glorifies You in the same manner "as You have given Him power over all flesh," and hast so given, "that He should give eternal life to all that You have given Him," and "this is life eternal, that they may know You;" in this way, therefore, the Son glorifies You, that He makes You known to all whom You have given Him. Accordingly, if the knowledge of God is eternal life, we are making the greater advances to life, in proportion as we are enlarging our growth in such a knowledge. And we shall not die in the life eternal; for then, when there shall be no death, the knowledge of God shall be perfected. Then will be effected the full effulgence of God, because then the completed glory, as expressed in Greek by δόξα. For from it we have the word δόξασον, that is used here, and which some Latins have interpreted by "clarifica" (make effulgent), and some by "glorifica" (glorify). But by the ancients, glory, from which men are styled glorious, is thus defined: Glory is the widely-spread fame of any one accompanied with praise. But if a man is praised when the fame regarding him is believed, how will God be praised when He Himself shall be seen? Hence it is said in Scripture, "Blessed are they that dwell in Your house; they will be praising You for ever and ever." There will God's praise continue without end, where there shall be the full knowledge of God; and because the full knowledge, therefore also the complete effulgence or glorification.

The Latin Vulgate reads the order thus:

Haec est autem vita aeterna ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum et quem misisti Iesum Christum.

The Greek NT has this:

αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἱησοῦν Χριστόν.

There is no reason from either Greek or Latin to suppose that Augustine's
reordering of the words to indicate from this verse that Jesus was "the only true God" is justified syntactically.

******
Did Augustine change the text of the Bible? Maybe this is not saying what this person thinks it is saying?

Thank you.

[Hail Mary]

Someone is telling me that Augustine changed the text of the Bible to read as he wanted it to read. This is the first I've heard this one. Here is his evidence:

He didn't "change the text of the Bible" but it seems his commentary suggests a proper word order. Its hard to say what is meant by 'proper' in this case, indeed what is meant by the whole sentence without knowing the original Latin in which it is written. Do you happen to have the Latin of St Augustine's Tractate 105? (I looked for a little while and couldn't find it)

Also, St Augustine readily acknowledged his knowledge of Greek wasn't very good.

[Christian2]

He didn't "change the text of the Bible" but it seems his commentary suggests a proper word order. Its hard to say what is meant by 'proper' in this case, indeed what is meant by the whole sentence without knowing the original Latin in which it is written. Do you happen to have the Latin of St Augustine's Tractate 105? (I looked for a little while and couldn't find it)

Also, St Augustine readily acknowledged his knowledge of Greek wasn't very good.

Thanks Mary. No I don't have the Latin.

I am going to attempt to find more of Augustine's thoughts on the Trinity. This particular article is a little confusing.

[James Peter]

Augustine's trinitarian theology is generally confusing. Certainly not his finest work.

As for changing the word order...the first sense is probably correct, Augustine just wishes that the second was. Word order in greek isn't that important but being in different clauses is pretty important...

It says...

aute de estin he aiownios zoe hina ginoskosin se ton monon alethinon theon kai hon apesteilas iesoun xriston.

The two words I bolded, plus the fact that it is Jesus who is speaking, make it clear that Augustine's prefered reading cannot be the case. It is 'you' (the Father) who is the 'only true god'. Augustine is aware of that though, he wants the text to say:

aute de estin he aiownios zoe hina ginoskosin se kai me hon apesteilas ton monon alethinon theon.

It doesn't, there is no textual evidence it ever has...

[Christian2]

Augustine's trinitarian theology is generally confusing. Certainly not his finest work.

As for changing the word order...the first sense is probably correct, Augustine just wishes that the second was. Word order in greek isn't that important but being in different clauses is pretty important...

It says...

aute de estin he aiownios zoe hina ginoskosin se ton monon alethinon theon kai hon apesteilas iesoun xriston.

The two words I bolded, plus the fact that it is Jesus who is speaking, make it clear that Augustine's prefered reading cannot be the case. It is 'you' (the Father) who is the 'only true god'. Augustine is aware of that though, he wants the text to say:

aute de estin he aiownios zoe hina ginoskosin se kai me hon apesteilas ton monon alethinon theon.

It doesn't, there is no textual evidence it ever has...


Thanks JP.

This guy was trying to imply that Augustine changed the text of the NT. I finally got him to admit that he didn't.

So, in the long run does it matter what Augustine wished it had said? It think not.

[James Peter]

So, in the long run does it matter what Augustine wished it had said? It think not.

It depends what you're interested in. If you're interested in the integrity of the NT texts then no, it isn't really relevant (except to show that Augustine believed that textual corruption was possible perhaps). If you're interested in Augustine himself though I think it may matter. But you're dealing with the first not the second.

[Christian2]

It depends what you're interested in. If you're interested in the integrity of the NT texts then no, it isn't really relevant (except to show that Augustine believed that textual corruption was possible perhaps). If you're interested in Augustine himself though I think it may matter. But you're dealing with the first not the second.

The integrity of the NT is my first concern.

A lot of people think highly of Augustine but his writing came after the Trinity was already settled. It might be interesting to read some of his stuff for the sake of church history but that is all.

I tried to read some of his homilies this morning. Maybe it was the mood I'm in today but I kept thinking this is like reading some of what St. Paul said. lol

[James Peter]

It depends what you mean by 'already settled' - the Trinity is still discussed by scholars to say. Believe it or not the creeds leave a lot of questions and systematic theologians spend a long time arguing about the fine details of 'how' and 'why'. Augustine's model of the Trinity was the dominant one for centuries, he had a huge impact on the development of the doctrine.

As for Augustine sounding like Paul... he sounds like Luther's Paul with good reason. Luther's (and thus Reformation/ early Protestant) theology was very strongly influenced by Augustine. So if you are used to a Lutheran-influenced understanding of Paul you will find that in Augustine. That is different to Augustine sounding like Paul though, you actually have it flipped round - your Paul sounds like Augustine.

[humanevitae]

Someone is telling me that Augustine changed the text of the Bible to read as he wanted it to read. This is the first I've heard this one. Here is his evidence:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701105.htm

"And this," He adds, "is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent." The proper order of the words is, "That they may know You and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent, as the only true God." Consequently, therefore, the Holy Spirit is also understood, because He is the Spirit of the Father and Son, as the substantial and consubstantial love of both. For the Father and Son are not two Gods, nor are the Father and Son and Holy Spirit three Gods; but the Trinity itself is the one only true God. And yet the Father is not the same as the Son, nor the Son the same as the Father, nor the Holy Spirit the same as the Father and the Son; for the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are three [persons], yet the Trinity itself is one God. If, then, the Son glorifies You in the same manner "as You have given Him power over all flesh," and hast so given, "that He should give eternal life to all that You have given Him," and "this is life eternal, that they may know You;" in this way, therefore, the Son glorifies You, that He makes You known to all whom You have given Him. Accordingly, if the knowledge of God is eternal life, we are making the greater advances to life, in proportion as we are enlarging our growth in such a knowledge. And we shall not die in the life eternal; for then, when there shall be no death, the knowledge of God shall be perfected. Then will be effected the full effulgence of God, because then the completed glory, as expressed in Greek by δόξα. For from it we have the word δόξασον, that is used here, and which some Latins have interpreted by "clarifica" (make effulgent), and some by "glorifica" (glorify). But by the ancients, glory, from which men are styled glorious, is thus defined: Glory is the widely-spread fame of any one accompanied with praise. But if a man is praised when the fame regarding him is believed, how will God be praised when He Himself shall be seen? Hence it is said in Scripture, "Blessed are they that dwell in Your house; they will be praising You for ever and ever." There will God's praise continue without end, where there shall be the full knowledge of God; and because the full knowledge, therefore also the complete effulgence or glorification.

The Latin Vulgate reads the order thus:

Haec est autem vita aeterna ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum et quem misisti Iesum Christum.

The Greek NT has this:

αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἱησοῦν Χριστόν.

There is no reason from either Greek or Latin to suppose that Augustine's
reordering of the words to indicate from this verse that Jesus was "the only true God" is justified syntactically.

******
Did Augustine change the text of the Bible? Maybe this is not saying what this person thinks it is saying?

Thank you.





I have never heard that Augustine changed any part of the Bible. The answer to him changing the Bible must be "no". Why is it "no".
It's no because when Augustine was able to change anything, if he did, it wasn't the Bible. The men working on the Bible were mostly Catholic Bishops. They had to complete the draft of the Bible and then give it to the Pope for approval. Once the Pope approved the draft of the Bible, it then became the Bible. At this point no one had the audacity to change anything in the Bible.

Therefore, Augustine changed nothing in the Bible.

Humanevitae

[COPLAND 3]

No Augustine did not change the NT text, he would have never thought of such a thing. Augustine had Old Latin translations of the NT which had not been standarized until Jerome finished the Latin Vulgate. You will find in many places of the Church Fathers where there are many citations of the Bible that follow different Bible manuscript traditions.