Quick One on CMI

Jesuit accommodation in relation to biblical chronology and Chinese history
by Andrew Sibley, This article is from
Journal of Creation 36(1):53–56, April 2022
https://creation.com/jesuit-accommodation-and-biblical-chronology

The Jesuit missionaries developed a policy of accommodation in relation to Chinese religious and cultural practices in the 17th century. The Order further received permission in AD 1637 to use the Septuagint, instead of the Latin Vulgate, to try and harmonize the biblical chronology with Chinese history.

The Roman Martyrology (for Dec 25) actually has a Septuagint based chronology, since Creation to Flood is 2242 years LXX for Genesis 5, and Flood to birth of Abraham is 942 years, LXX without the Second Cainan, for Genesis 11./HGL

PS, next day, two more quotes. With comments. First:

Without getting into a discussion over whether the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint provide the better chronology, the Jesuit motivation for preferring the Septuagint was not entirely pure, being based upon an accommodation to non-Christian beliefs.

We are dealing with:

• non-Christian beliefs about history and chronology;
• which unlike Egyptian and Sumerian king lists do not flatly contradict the Bible.

We do not deal with:

• non-Christian beliefs about the universe;
• which (unlike spirit beings moving stars) contradict Christian beliefs about the universe.

Why is the distinction an important one? Because for one, anything contradicting the Bible, as such, all text versions and therefore the original autograph of the hagiographer, is clearly in and of itself by that fact alone false. For another, history and chronology tend to be pretty easy to verify, even by non-Christians (and so are some of the items of cosmology, geocentrism being true and spirits moving celestial bodies, or the soul being immaterial and therefore immortal).

Second:

The China missionaries had gained permission from the Vatican in AD 1637 to use the longer chronology of the Greek Septuagint (LXX), instead of the Latin Vulgate that is based upon the Rabbinical Masoretic Text.

Actually, the Masoretic text is from AD 1000 and the Vulgate from AD c. 400. It is a matter of opinian whether St. Jerome had access to the Hebrew text as in being able to read it, or whether he was using Aquila of Sinope. However, it is very clear that the two earliest translations into Greek are the Septuagint and Aquila. The Septuagint was made by people who were waiting for Christ. Aquila made himself a disciple of rabbi Akiba who represented a Judaism which had already rejected the true promised one.

Now, two or three more things, without quotes.

• With all adaptations that Jesuits made to Chinese rituals, they kept the Catholic belief pure.
• The main harm done by Chinese Rites was by people hearing the one describe it (as does Sibley) as a concession to Pagan and erroneous beliefs, and seeing the other, a Jesuit, as a better friend. People started adapting to, not what the Jesuits did, but what their accusers thought they did.
• Their "adaptation" clearly allowed them to make all of Chinese history post-Flood, if not post-Babel (and "they" who "removed from the East" were arguably not all of mankind, but a global élite, keeping in touch with relatives ranging from Thogorma's to Regma's tribes and Jectan's too. The ones concluding against a global Flood were arguably more likely to come from people sharing the esteem for Chinese historiography and also not sharing the Septuagint solution.
• The secular learned men who were here cited as deviating from Biblical history, namely Vossius, Isaac La Peyrère, Giordano Bruno, were none of them Catholics in good standing with their written works too:
  
  
  • Vossius was a Protestant;
  • Isaac La Peyrère was a Jew, who shilly-shallied about converting to Protestantism or Catholicism, and his book was condemned, even if he was saving his soul, dying among Oratorian fathers in Aubervilliers;
  • Giordano Bruno was a Dominican lapsing from the faith who ended up on the stake in 1600, and Protestants and Freemasons have contributed much more than Catholics or specifically Jesuits to give him an undue influence.

PPS, as Sibley is attacking the fact of believing Pagan beliefs about their history, he is in fact attacking the basis for believing Christian history, including existence of Jesus or authorship of the Gospels or founding of a Church that recognised that authorship and the life of Her Founder, at once Divine and Human.

Because, beliefs about the public or otherwise accessible past is the bread and butter of how history is tested. I'll link to previous writings on diverse of the topics touched on in the comment or comments.
/HGL