In article , ARBermudez3{at}yahoo.com
says...

>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> In article ,
>ARBermudez3{at}yahoo.com
>> says...
>
>> >My point here is that the Roman Catholic
>> >Church did not think highly enough of the Greek text to make
>official
>> >use of it until after 1944.
>>
>> But this is _sheer_ revisionism. And I fear it goes far to
>_misrepresent_ what
>> the Roman Church's real thinking was. Have you ever even _read_ the
>Council of
>> Trent's documents on Scripture? If you do, you will see that they
>showed no sign
>> of even _concerning_ themselves with the Greek sources of the
>Vulgate. No, all
>> they cared about was the Vulgate. It really is eerily reminiscent of
>today's
>> KJV-only groups.
>>
>
>That has been my point all along.

Is it? Then either you do not read your own words or you do not read closely
enough before you express agreement.

>  You're the one linking the Roman
>Catholic Church to the Byzantine textform.

Yes. For as I have already said, they _were_ Catholic, who copied those
manuscripts. It was only _later_ that Rome separated.

>  Remember that my original
>question was what could the (Roman)Catholic Church possibly have to do
>with the Textus Receptus?  In a strange, roundabout way we seem to be
>in agreement here, despite your cry of "sheer revisionism."

No, we are not in agreement here. For you are _still_ denying that they were
Catholic, who came up with the Byzantine textform. You are showing the same
attitude as at Trent, for which I can still come up with only one explanation.

>  The
>Vulgate was the only text that mattered to the Roman Catholic Church
>even as some people affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church worked
>with Byzantine manuscripts (as you pointed out) in attempts to make the
>Vulgate more accurate.

No, that was NOT what I was talking about! I was talking about BEFORE this!

>  Since we seem to be taking different paths to
>the same conclusion, does that mean we're both warped?  No.

You're right. The conclusion is still possible that you are the only one who is
warped;)

>
>> There was certainly not even a _hint_ of the magical foresight you
>attribute to
>> them concerning the quality of the texts of the Vulgate.
>
>Careful there.  At no time did I attribute "magical foresight" to
>anyone.

"Magical foresight" was my choice of expression, but you _did_
claim that they
thought the Vulgate was more accurate. And you gave an awful lot of weight to
that opinion, even though scholarship upheld it only MUCH later.

>I stated that there was no knowledge or understanding of
>textforms.

Where did you say that?

>It was simply a matter of Byzantine manuscripts differing
>significantly from the Vulgate.

No, it was NOT "simply a matter" of this. For they believed that where they
differed, it was the Vulgate that was right. And you _agreed_ with them when you
claimed that since the Vulgate followed the Alexandrian, it was closer to the
originals than the TR.

>
>>
>> > What other groups did was done of their
>> >own volition.
>>
>> But Trent was binding on the _whole_ Catholic Church, not just the
>Latin Rite.
>> And that is part of the problem, since Trent specified that ONLY the
>Vulgate is
>> canonical, paying NO attention to the existence of Greek manuscripts
>and
>> Greek-speaking Churches. It really does look rather like Latin
>bigotry.
>
>Bigotry?  Can you support that?  The Council of Trent acted in such a
>manner because Bibles were being - and had already been -  circulated
>which were based on manuscripts which the Roman Catholic Church
>considered faulty.  The only text which was considered reliable was the
>Vulgate.  The Vulgate did not originate from any bias or bigotry.

You are confusing two separate topics. Of _course_ the _origin_ of the Vulgate
had nothing to do with bias or bigotry. I NEVER said that. It was the
_canonization_ of the Vulgate, to the _exclusion_ of all the Greek manuscripts,
that smacks of bigotry.

Think about it: how likely IS it that a _translation_ is going to be more
accurate than the original, especially when the translation was based on such a
narrow choice of manuscripts, then subjected to its own VERY unreliable copying
tradition? Are you aware of how Jerome's translation got corrupted by the
various Old Latin versions floating around?

>  By
>the time of the Council of Trent the most prudent thing to do was to
>continue using the Vulgate, not out of bigotry, as you imagine, but out
>of practical necessity to ensure that bibles were based upon the most
>trustworthy text available.

The elevation of a translation over the original does NOT sound like "practical
necessity" to me.

> It occurred in reaction to the Protestant
>Reformation, not anti-Greek bias.  It was the Roman Catholic Church's
>way of drawing a line in the sand and saying, "These things are truly
>Roman Catholic.  We will preserve them and fight for them.

If they had stopped there, that would not have been bad, but as you say, they
went on to poison the well by saying:

>  Those other
>things are not Roman Catholic, and anyone preserving them and fighting
>for them is wrong."

And THAT is where the bigotry is.

>Some churches who were in league with Rome felt
>excluded, and that is unfortunate.

Oh, it is worse than that. For they were not just "in league" with Rome.
According to Rome's own ecclesiology, they were one Church with Rome, and Trent
forced them to consider the Vulgate more authoritative than their own manuscript
tradition.

>  Faith united us and it is
>unfortunate that language should divide.

It was and is much more than mere languate that is doing the division.

> Groups not in league with
>Rome felt they had been "cursed" or "condemned."

And they WERE. Didn't you read the anathemas attached to the Council's decrees?


-- 
---------------------------
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} 2/8/05 10:36:47 AM ---