LXX Rendition of Matthew 16 Supports the Papacy

 An argument that I found convincing in accepting the Papacy is the connection between Matthew 16:19 and Isaiah 22:22. I wont rehash the argument here, but it was pointed out to me that the way the Septuagint, or the Greek version of the Old Testament, called the LXX, translates Is 22:22 is notably different from the Hebrew. There are times this happens, and the New Testament is aware of this and continues to cite the LXX anyway. 

The NIV translates the Hebrew version of Is 22:22 as follows, "I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open." Pretty straightforward. You can clearly hear the parallels Jesus is making in Matthew 16:19. 

However, the LXX translates Is 22:22 as follows, "And I will give him the glory of David; and he shall rule, and there shall be none to speak against him." 

Before we touch on the significance of the difference, lets explain what's going on. "The key to the house of David" is an idiom. And the idiom is clear in the Hebrew. When the writers of the LXX then translate that idiom into Greek, they have at least two ways to communicate that idiom. They can either translate the words of the idiom word for word, or they can convey the meaning of the idiom without the idiom itself. 

So for example, take the English idiom, "Kick the bucket". If I wanted to translate this to Spanish, I could write, "Pateo el balde", which is a 1 for 1 English to Spanish translation, or, I could instead write, "El murio" which means "He died" which is what the English idiom is communicating. When it comes to the LXX translation of this Hebrew idiom of David's key, it seems as though it is opting to go this second route. 

Why is this significant for Catholicism? Some Protestants don't seem to understand the connection between Matthew 16:19 and Isaiah 22:22. It's difficult for them to see that Jesus is giving St. Peter an office here. The meaning of the idiom isn't clear enough for them. But the LXX is clarifying the meaning of that idiom. Jesus is giving to St. Peter "rule, and there shall be none to speak against him." That's pretty much what Catholics have claimed about Papal infallibility and Papal rule over the entire church. So the LXX confirms what Catholics have been saying about Matthew 16:19. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Milo

Image
So I decided to go see Milo Yiannopoulos at UCSB yesterday. I was really hesitant to do so, and decided not to go, but a few of my friends wanted to go, and they're all losers who don't drive, so, I had to take everyone. I didn't know much about Milo, and I still don't, but I did learn some things. In some of the more, ahem, colorfully conservative pages of facebook that I follow, Milo has been something of an iconoclast, destroying the feminist narratives left and right. But I also know that he is an active homosexual and he is a rabid Trump supporter (even calling him "Daddy"). So, for those reasons, I was never interested in what he had to say. He was, to take a phrase from Lenin, a useful idiot. That was my impression. But I was wrong. A few days before the event, I had read somewhere on these pages I follow but wont name, that Milo believed himself to be a Christian, and a Catholic at that. I dismissed this immediately, and my opinion of him stoppe...
Read more

What Does The Bible Say About Birth Control?

From the early church up to 1930, virtually every church believed contraception was a sin. That fact alone should have us induce that contraception is in fact a sin. Yet, there are many Christians today, even in my own congregation, that will never entertain the possibility of contraception being a sin.
Read more

Is Canon 28 Binding?

In my previous post , I discussed Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (you'll find the full text of the canon there). But I should have put an asterisk on the conversation because Canon 28 isn't properly part of the council. You'll remember from an earlier post , that what makes a council ecumenical is ratification from the Roman Pontiff. Canons are part of councils. And naturally, canons also have to be ratified. However, Canon 28 was not ratified by Pope Leo (Roman Pontiff at the time). So Canon 28 isn't part of the council and thus isn't binding.  If you are Orthodox, this may sound too convenient. I've already suggested why Roman Ratification is the correct theory in the previous link. However, I want to add two things. First, even Saints in the East agree with the Roman position, and second, a case can be made for Canon 28 not being problematic for Catholicism.  First, there are the sayings of Pope St. Gelasius (about 490 AD), and Pope St. Gelasius is...
Read more