Years ago a man named Luis Vega wrote an article entitled, "Breaker's Allegation of 'Verbo' Refuted," in which he wrote a derogatory treatise in which he defended the word Verbo in the modern Spanish Bibles, while attacking Missionary Evangelist Robert Breaker. He further attempted to prove his point with what he claims was "rock-hard" evidence, and what he gave to some might look convincing. However, it's not what he said, but what he DIDN'T SAY. It's what he either intentionally or unintentionally left out that gives us the true story. To read this man's article, and I would encourage you to do so, please click on the link below:
I also encourage you to look up:
In which, Robert Breaker, is labelled a "silly gringo" by these people.
Let's now examine the evidence for ourselves and see who really is the "silly" one. (Oh, and by the way, Robert Breaker does have Spanish Blood in him, so it's quite insulting to call him a "Gringo.").
In Mr. Vega's article, he claims, and I quote, "The only way that the word 'Verbum' could be accurately considered a Catholic word is if it originated from the Roman Catholic Religion or a Catholic text. This article has been written exclusively to carefully examine Breaker's shocking claim to see if it holds water."
In the same spirit, we will do the same, and carefully examine Mr. Vega's claims. For the FACTS prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to any rational minded individual that Verbum and Verbo are both CATHOLIC words.
Before going further, it must be mentioned that Mr. Vega claims he wrote to Mr. Breaker, and that he never responded. The truth is Mr. Breaker did not receive his correspondence and would love for him to email it to him anew. Mr. Breaker's email is: Robertbreaker3@hotmail.com
Now, back to the truth about "Verbo." Mr. Vega says that the word "Verbum" appears in, and I quote, "ALL pre surviving pre-Vulgate Old Latin Bibles."
He then gives a list of those he wants us to look up. And then with an act of uncharitableness, he jabs, "I wonder if Robert Breaker knew this before opening his big mouth."
But what are these Latin manuscripts of which he speaks? He gives us a 4th century manuscript and then tries to make us believe that it came from the 2nd century. So we are supposed to believe him because he gives us a latin text 400 years after Jesus and says that it was from 200 years earlier. So, according to Mr. Vega, the word Verbum is used in the Latin text 200 years after Jesus.
But he forgets two things. First, the Catholic church was being formed around that time. Some give the official date at 324 A.D with Constantine. So wouldn't that put us in the time of Catholic scholars? Second, what about the documented evidence of the fact that before 250-300 A.D. there are Latin texts which DO NOT USE Verbum in John 1:1? Why does Mr. Vega not mention these?
Below, I quote from Marjorie O'Rourke Boyle, who wrote the scholarly work, "Sermo; Reopening the Conversation on Translating Jn. 1:1," published in 1977 by North-Holland Publishing. Be it know that the words in BOLD and all caps were typed that way for emphasis:
"Tertullian [160-225 A.D.] and Cyprian [who died in 258 A.D.] quote Sermo in EVERY CITATION of the opening of the Johannine prologue. In addition to eight quotations, there is Tertulian's valuable, impartial testimony Adversus Praxean that THE CUSTOM OF LATIN CHRISTIANS WAS TO READ, 'In principio era SERMO,' although he preferred ratio to Sermo. Cyprian twice quotes Jn 1:1 in Adversus Iudaeos ad quirinum as 'in principio fuit SERMO, et SERMO erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Sermo.' He also interprets Sermo as Christ in three three Psalm verses and a passage from the Book of Revelation. CYPRIANO IS ACKNOWLEDGED A SUPERIOR SOURCE OF THE OLD LATIN BIBLE BECAUSE OF HIS ANTIQUITY, and because he repeats almost one-ninth of the New Testament. But if the modern theory of dual North African and European sources for the Old Latin Bible is correct, then Sermo in Tertulian and Cyprian may only demonstrate the former tradition. No European patristic writings in Latin contemporaneous with Tertullian survive for comparison. SERMO REMAINS THEN THE EARLIEST EXTANT LATIN TRANSLATION OF logos IN JOHN 1:1 and on Tertullian's word the reading commonly circulated."
Now, how do you argue with that? SERMO is the oldest word, period! But I must continue quoting from the same passage for you to see what happened next historically:
"Verbum FIRST OCCURS as a translation for logos in John 1:1 in Novatian's tract on the Trinity, but he reports Sermo also. After Novatian this ambivalence about Sermo and Verbum disappears until Augustine REVIVES IT. Hilary nine times cites the opening verses of the Johannine prologue an IN EVERY INSTANCE, logos is translated as Verbum. By the fourth century Verbum is UNIVERSALLY PREFERRED IN THE WEST."
Now, I don't want to be mean. I really don't, but if Mr. Vega can say it in his article, can I not say the same, only just changing the name. I will do so, "I wonder if Mr. Vega knew this before opening his big mouth!"
Mr. Vega seeks to tell us that Verbum has always been the early reading. But here is "rock-hard evidence" to show you the exact opposite. He also only runs to 4th century manuscripts, but then tries to make you believe they were from the second century. Should we believe Mr. Vega, or a true scholar who gives us documented evidence?
From the above quotes, we see beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was indeed the CATHOLICS who perverted the word and changed Sermo, the correct word to Verbum, their own preferred word.
Next, Mr. Vega says that Erasmus' Textus Receputs first edition uses "Verbum," and he wants us to believe that because it's in the Latin T.R., we should accept it. He further tries to make you think that Erasmus was in favor of the word because he inserted it into the text. Sounds like a good arguement, doesn't it? But like Paul Harvey used to say, we need to hear "the rest of the story."
Erasmus later put out a second edition of his Greek/Latin New Testament "T.R." text. And guess what? It has Sermo in John 1:1 rather than Verbum. Why is this. It's because Erasmus was a Catholic who worked close with the Catholic Church. For this reason, he HAD to use Verbum in his first edition. But as he studied the issue, he viewed that word as wrong, and having liberty to do so, he later corrected the text with Sermo, and wrote an entire treatise in Latin AGAINST the word Verbum, and in favor of the use of the word Sermo. Why didn't Mr. Vega tell us this? Did he just not know about that? Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. But with this stated, there is now no excuse for ignorance. Verbum was the latin CATHOLIC reading, and Sermo was the old church reading from the 1st and 2nd century. Erasmus, when he learned this, wanted to go back to the older reading, and not to the preferred CATHOLIC reading.
Mr. Vega then goes to the word in Spanish "Verbo" which incidentally comes from the Latin Vulgate word "Verbum," and tries to defend that word. But he doesn't tell you the whole truth. (That seems to be Standard Operating Procedure for Mr. Vega.) The truth is ALL old Protestant Bibles from the 1500's and 1600's use Palabra in John 1:1 in speaking of Jesus Christ. The word Verbo did not appear in the Spanish Bible text until 1793 when a catholic named Scio translated his own Spanish Bible (with the authority of the CATHOLIC CHURCH) directly from the Latin Vulgate. He was the first to use the word Verbo in Spanish, clearly a derivative of the Catholic word Verbum.
Mr. Vega then runs to the dictionaries in Spanish and tries to defend Verbo. But he fails to mention that many Spanish dictionaries are very bias towards Catholicism and the Catholic church. But he does tell us that Palabra and Verbo are "synonyms." If this be the case, then which word do you want? The PROTESTANT word, or the CATHOLIC word. For any sane person can see that Verbo has its roots in Catholicsm, and therefore is a Catholic word.
Mr. Vega closes his article by claiming that Robert Breaker is "irresponsible, profane, ignorant..." He then tries to judge the heart of Mr. Breaker by claiming that Breaker's pointing out that Verbo is a Catholic word was only with the intent to, "harm."
Is that so? Of course not. Mr. Breaker is right and has been right in his assertion that Verbo is indeed a Catholic word. And it's the intention of Mr. Breaker to point true Bible Believers to the only Spanish Bible put out today that doesn't use Verbo in John 1:1. That Bible would be the Valera 1602 Purified.
In closing, something else that should be mentioned is the fact that the 1865 Spanish Bible that Mr. Vega and his crowd so dogmatically stand on leaves us questioning greatly the veracity of that translation. For from the actual documents of the American Bible Socieity, which put out that version, we read that the original 1865 said, "Palabra" in John 1:1. But the 1865 they defend does not say that (it reads Verbo). Yet reading further in the A.B.S. documents we find that Palabra was changed in the text in 1868 to "Verbo." So, the question must then be asked, are those who defend the 1865 really even have an 1865? Could it rather be an 1868?
At any rate, Mr. Vega's article was not done in the spirit of meekness or in a scholarly fashion. It was attacking and the fact that he did not present the facts (all of the facts) proves he needs to rethink his position.
The facts are as follows: Verbo comes from Verbum, the Latin Catholic Vulgate reading, which was not the original word used by the early church. They used Sermo. The word Verbo is a catholic word, who's origins first appear in the Bible in 1793 in Scio's text, which was translated directly from the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. And like the early church, the Spaniards of the time used a different word (Palabra). It was the Catholics who changed the word to Verbo. Should we as Spanish-speakers allow Catholics to bully us and make us accept certain words? For that reason alone, we should return to the word Palabra, especially when that was the original word in the 1865 which these guys so fondly embrace and defend.
For more information about Verbo vs Palabra please click on the link below:
This article written by Robert Breaker. It was not written to attack rather inform. It is my hope that the facts herein will be embraced by those who are truly interested in the truth, and are willing to accept it without becoming emotional about it. It is my hope that true Bible Believers will come to terms with the fact that they've been duped into using a Catholic word. And I hope they will return to the true word rather than continue using the vulgate catholic word or a derivative of it.
Right on brother aleluya!ya casi llegamos a la meta que JESUS te bendiga
ReplyDelete