In article , Don Kirkman says...
>
>It seems to me I heard somewhere that Matthew Johnson wrote in article
>:

[snip]

>Helmut had written "The sequence "revised, translated, and
re-translated
>over the >centuries" reads as if there was one text that has undergone
>many consecutive processes of revision, translation, and re-translation,
>addition and removal over the centuries, so that the text became worse 
>and worse. This is not so. 

You have garbled the attributions so badly in the above citation, I will not
even try to address it.

>Rather, each subsequent effort uses not the 
>*result* of the previous one as source but rather uses its *sources* 
>(and sometimes more) and takes the previous results (and typically 
>additional input such as new research) into account.

Not always. On the contrary: certain translations are notorious for IGNORING the
good results of previous translations and repeating mistakes that belong in the
dustbin of history.

> Of course, it may 
>happen that someone works in a slipshod way or tries to introduce 
>bias. But in the long run bad work will not be used for subsequent 
>revisions so the process can be expected to improve rather than 
>deteriorate the quality of the text over time."

I wish I could believe that.

>So Helmut had already corrected the OP's understanding.  This should
>have been clear if you had included Helmut's point.

So says the man who garbles the citation so badly, he mixes my words with
Helmut's and even with his own commentary on them!

>
>>>>>and texts that
>>>>>probably come closer to what was originally written or
spoken but may
>>>>>have been lost or corrupted through the early centuries
of monastic
>>>>>copying,*
>
>>>>This too represents some serious confusion. The text UBS
publishes is a good
>>>>scholarly reconstruction of the state of the NT text as it
was in the late
>>>>SECOND century, in the area around Alexandria. There can be
no serious doubt
>>>>about this. Where the doubts creep in is about the state of
the text _outside_
>>>>this area.
>
>This represents no confusion at all.

Oh, yes it does. As I already pointed out, you represent their achievement as if
it got us closer to the autographs, when all they _really_ achieved was to get
closer to the state of the text in late 2nd century Alexandria. WHY can't you
see the difference?

> How did UBS or anybody else do a
>"scholarly reconstruction" if not by what I alluded to, collating known
>textual materials and analyzing them? 

So now you admit that you only alluded to it, but directly said something else?


>BTW, I wrote in general terms and not about any particular reconstructed
>text;

Is that why you made so many mistakes?

> I have no idea what your acronyms mean,

Five minutes using Google should have been enough to clear up that confusion.
Don't be so lazy.

> what text you're referring
>to, or what the relevance is to my very brief mention of the *process*
>through which we have been working materials now than earlier
>translators did.

Well, if you DON't know what the relevance is, then you have NO grounds for
making your sweeping claims in this post! It really is that simple.

>>>I didn't know we were talking a specific translation but thought the
>>>topic was translations in general; why do you limit it to UBS (United
>>>Bible Society?).
>
>>Because UBS and NA27 texts differ by so very little, and both are
the text used
>>(with small and insignificnt exceptions) by nearly all
"modern" translations.
>
>>>I think you might want to re-read and absorb what I wrote.  The starting
>>>place for textual criticism was the corpus of the Textus Receptus.
>>
>>That is true. But since then, so much has changed in textual criticism. Even
>>Westcott-Hort's theories are considered quite outdated now.
>
>Again, particulars I wasn't referring to.  I was giving a simple but
>accurate outline of one specific issue,

It was simple, but it was NOT accurate.

> that more recent translations
>can be expected to be more accurate and more true to the intent of the
>original (and inferred but not absolutely certain) writings.

No, they cannot. That is WHY I interjected.

>>>  At
>>>that point nothing was known (in a practical sense) about second century
>>>manuscripts.
>
>>>We *now* have papyri fragments, as well as parchment fragments and
>>>codices, to which we can add critical reconstructions of the most likely
>>>state of textual materials (i.e., other scriptural or quasi-scriptural
>>>documents) not found in the early documents.  So within the last century
>>>or so we have come to know the second century materials better than any
>>>earlier translators did.
>
>>No, I did not neglect this. Rather, the result of this "better
knowledge" IS
>>that we know the UBS text is a good reconstruction of the state of
the text in
>>late 2nd century Alexandria. But those 2nd c. manuscripts are mostly
>>Alexandrian. We still havce too litle physical evidence for the 2nd
century text
>>_outside_ of Alexandria.
>
>Again, I was not referring to any specific documents but to a process.

And you gave high praise to a very faulty process.

>>>>But notice that the "monastic copying" you refer
to is completely irrelevant
>>>>here, since monasticism had not yet taken over the copying.
Most of the worrying
>>>>possibilities for changes occured long before, during the
period of persecution.
>
>I will retract "monastic" and leave you with the fact that all known
>manuscripts had been copied at some point prior to the invention of
>printing, either by individuals or by working groups.    
>
>>>Copying is how the Textus Receptus was preserved for us (didn't
>>>Constantine order 50 copies to be prepared for churches?)
>
>>Right. But again, this is all _later_ than "monastic
copying". Your choice of
>>the phrase "monastic copying" really did make it sound
like it was the fault of
>>monasticism that the Textus Receptus came into being.
>
>I didn't mention fault at all; the simple fact is that copying, even
>today with machines, is subject to human error.

But wait a minute! Aren't you the one who just mentioned what you only alluded
to in a previous post? So how can you find fault with my noticing what else you
alluded to? You really shouldn't, since there are a great many people who DO
blame the Catholic Church for the Textus Receptus. And many of them post in this
NG.


[snip]
>>No, what I am trying to do is warn against overstating (as you do)
the 'gains'
>>made in this "last century or two". For many of these
'gains' were things that
>>the Christian East never forgot. Yet Western 'scholars' routinely
take such an
>>unscholarly attitude to the Christian East that they never realize
how much we
>>preserved.
>
>The only mention you've made of the Christian East, as far as I can see,

Then just as you claimed I need to go back and reread, now it is my turn to make
this claim about you: you really do need to go back and reread my earlier post.
For I also mentioned the Christian East when I mentioned the ancient
translations, all of which (other than the Old Latin) were products of the
Christian East.

For that matter, it should be obvious that WHENEVER we are talking about early
manuscripts of the Greek NT, we are talking about the Christian Tradition of and
manuscript transmission in the Christian East. This IS where it was happening.

>is about reconstructed early manuscripts, reconstructions apparently
>done through the [Western] process I mentioned.  Did the Christian East
>have undamaged manuscripts of the original writings and the West did
>not?

How could you even _ask_ such a question? You would have to have completely
misunderstood my point to even _think_ that asking this question makes any sense
at all!

No, we did not (during the relevant period) have undamaged autographs! But we
DID have manuscript traditions that did NOT match either the TR or UBS. And we
had our own way of dealing with the variety of manuscripts, which is something
partisans of the "[Western] process" routinely overlook.

This is particularly ironic since you cannot really understand the process of
manuscript transmission until you understand what this way is, and so few who
dabble in textual transmission and translation issues really understand this.

>I do not intend to go into further details; I made a few general
>statements of process which you have quibbled with but have not refuted,

Oh, yes, I have. For you made a vastly overrated estimate of the value of the
"[Western] process", and I pointed out at least one major flaw: the slavish
reliance on the NEW Textus Receptus, the UBS text.

And now, I will go on to point out ANOTHER flaw: in their modernist presumption,
the overwhelming majority of these modern translation teams have belittled and
ignored the milestones in translation theory achieved by the ancient
translators, i.e., St. Jerome and the anonymous translators of the LXX. Instead
of understanding their achievements and following in their footsteps, the
modernists have assumed they knew better than these saints, and lost sight of
the forest for the sake of the trees.

[snip]


-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/31/05 6:06:10 PM ---