August 2009 Archives

In Thomas Aquinas' commentary on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, Aquinas describes Logic as an ordering of our thoughts which enables us to reason better.

In the beginning of his Metaphysics, Aristotle states that the human race lives by art and reasoning. He seems to touch here on something properly human, which distinguishes man from the other animals. For while the brute animals are moved to their actions by natural instinct, we direct our actions by rational judgments. To enable us to carry out these actions easily and in an orderly way, we have invented many arts. For an art is nothing other than a certain ordering of reason by which human acts achieve a suitable end through determinate means.

Now reason is able to direct not only the acts of inferior faculties, but also its own acts. For the capacity to reflect upon itself is proper to the intellectual power; the intellect understands itself and, similarly, reason can reason about itself. Now, if by reasoning about the acts of the hand, we discovered the art of building, and this art enables us to build easily and in an orderly way, then, for the same reason, we need an art to direct the acts of reason, so that in these acts also we may proceed in an orderly way, easily, and without error. This art is logic, the science of reason. [1, p.1]

In other words, the science of Logic is justified because it helps us to do more easily, more accurately, and more productively that which we must do as human beings--reason.

---

1

Thomas Aquinas.
Commentary on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, St. Thomas Aquinas. A Translation of Aquinas's Commentary and of the Latin Text of Aristotle, With Introduction and Supplementary Commentary by Richard Berquist.
Aristotelian Commentary Series. Dumb Ox Books, Notre Dame, Indiana, 2007.

Herklots mentions an interesting textual variation in Codex Bezae:

There is also in England the famous Codex Bezae, which may
date from the Sixth or the Fifth Century. It is called after the
scholar Theodore Beza, by whom it was owned and used, and who
presented it to the University of Cambridge in 1581. It is now in
the University Library. Beza obtained it in Lyons in 1562, but no
one knows where it originally came from. It is the first example of
a Bible in two languages, with the Greek and Latin side by side.
This indicates that it originated in the West, where Latin was
the dominant language: the actual style of writing indicates that
it did not come from one of the great centres of scribal industry,
such as Alexandria or Rome. It is smaller that the other codices
described, each page measuring ten by eight inches. The writing is
in a single column, the Greek on the left-hand page and the Latin
on the right. It contains the Gospels and Acts only. What makes
it of particular interest is the considerable number of variations
it contains from other texts. In some places the Latin version has
been accommodated to the Greek: in others the reverse process
has taken place. There are, as might be expected, many minor
variations. But there are also additions and omissions of a kind
which is unique. This in Luke 6, in place of verse 5, it records this
incident, which is found nowhere else: 'On the same day, seeing
one working on the sabbath day, he said unto him, Man, if thou
knowest what thou doest, blessed art thou: but if thou knowest
not, thou art accursed and a transgressor of the law.' Was this an
invention, or a genuine saying of Jesus independently preserved?
Some would like to think that it was the latter.[1]

---
1

H.G.G. Herklots.
How Our Bible Came To Us.
Oxford University Press, New York, 1957

It is ironic. The great scholar Erasmus is famous in history for bringing together the Greek text which would (several editions later) become known as the Textus Receptus, the basis for the KJV. The more I learn about Erasmus, however, the more I am convinced that, living today, he would be the most ardent opponent of the KJV-Only movement.

In his own work, Erasmus made the scandalous decision to prefer the older Greek manuscripts over the newer Latin ones. He faced serious criticism on account of this decision, and the modern reader will be able to see, if he is willing, the parallels in criticism provided by modern KJV-Only advocates.

To criticize the sacred Vulgate, to presume to improve upon St. Jerome, this was indeed to be an iconoclast. In March 1515 a sudden stimulus towards publication was given by a famous Swiss publisher, John Proben, who invited him to Basle to prepare a Greek New Testament upon the very lines on which he was working. Erasmus set off from England at once. Even on his way he had to meet criticisms of his project. His satirical Praise of Folly had already caused trouble enough. What would come next? An Open Letter from Martin Dorpius of the University of Louvain met him as he travelled:

What matters it whether you believe or not that the Greek books are more accurate than the Latin ones; whether or not greater care was taken to preserve the sacred books in all their integrity by the Greeks than by the Latins;-by the Greeks, forsooth, amongst whom the Christian religion was very often almost overthrown, and who affirmed that none of the Gospels were free from errors, excepting the one gospel of John. What matters all this when, to say nothing of anything else, the Church has continued throughout the inviolate spouse of Christ? . . . What if it be contended that the sense, as rendered by the Latin version, differs in truth from the Greek text? Then, indeed, adieu to the Greek. I adhere to the Latin because I cannot bring my mind to believe that the Greek are more correct than the Latin codices.'

Erasmus could not accept any such forced good-bye. For him it was not adieu to the Greek, but welcome. He did not want to go part of the way back to the original New Testament but all the way.

How is it that Jerome, Augustine, and Ambrose all cite a text which differs from the Vulgate? How is it that Jerome finds fault with and corrects many readings which we find in the Vulgate? What can you make of all this concurrent evidence-when the Greek versions differ from the Vulgate, when Jerome cites the text, according the Greek versions, when the oldest Latin versions do the same, when this reading suits the sense much better than that of the Vulgate-will you, treating all this with contempt, follow a version corrupted by some copyist? . . . In doing so you follow in the steps of those vulgar divines who are accustomed to attribute ecclesiastical authority to whatever in any way creeps into general use . . . I had rather be a common mechanic than the best of their number.

[1]

---

1

H.G.G. Herklots.
How Our Bible Came To Us.
Oxford University Press, New York, 1957

An Alaskan newspaper article reported this weekend that Planned Parenthood is attempting to block an initiative by (now) Governor Parnell which would enforce parental notification before an abortion procedure could be performed on a minor. The initiative provides for certain exceptions, but otherwise requires that a parent, legal guardian, or custodian must be notified of a minor's abortion procedure at least 48 hours before it takes place. See the text of the initiative.

Parnell's certification does not put the initiative into law, but only makes it possible for the initiative to go up before Alaskans in a public vote, if pro-life advocates can gather enough signatures by a deadline next year. (Which, I suspect, will not be very difficult.)

It should be emphasized here that the initiative does not require parental consent, only parental notification. Former Governor Palin recently fought and lost a similar battle in the state legislature, as I reported earlier.

I recently submitted a letter to editor of that local newspaper, the substance of which I provide here:

Thank you for informing us on Sunday of Planned Parenthood's lawsuit, which endeavors to ensure that Parnell's initiative, which would enforce parental notification before abortions, never goes to public vote. Once again, Planned Parenthood demonstrates that their agenda has nothing to do with "planning" or with "parenthood", but everything to do with ensuring that abortion remains the social norm for young women. Certainly, what thought is more terrible than the possibility that a young girl might have the advice of a concerned parent before having her fetus pumped out of her womb? What right is more sacred than the right of a teenager to have an abortion without the meddling of a loving mother, who may have gone through the same procedure herself at one time? We will not allow a minor to purchase cigarettes, but of course we must allow her to have an invasive surgery without possible intervention from an adult. In President Obama's speech at Notre Dame, he said "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions. So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions. Let's reduce unintended pregnancies." I guess that "together" does not include the parents of candidates for abortion procedures.

[Note: I mistakenly used only the term 'fetus' in my letter, when 'embryo' would be the technically correct term in an early abortion. This is a distinction I noted previously. I hope that the slip does not take much attention away from the substance of the message.]