Matthew Johnson wrote:

> >No, since the Textus Receptus is based on manuscripts that were not
> >around in Constatine’s time.
>
> This is true, but the TR really is just a slightly degenerate form of
the
> Byzantine text, which was already around even as early as Chrysostom,
if not as
> early as Constantine. And the copies that Constantine ordered very
likely did
> contribute to the formation of the Byzantine Text.

I was looking for a definition of terms here, such as the one you
provided.  We are dealing with the Byzantine textform, of which the TR
is a good-but-not-great representative.

>
> >
> >"there are a great many people who DO
> >blame the Catholic Church for the Textus Receptus."
> >
> >What could the Catholic Church possibly have to do with the Textus
> >Receptus?
>
> Quite a bit, actually.
>
> >  The Church has never used the TR.
>
> What? No, that is not true. Don't you realize that it was Catholics
who _copied_
> the manuscripts used for the TR? Of course, they were not _Roman_
Catholics. But
> most of the copying referred to took place while Rome and
Constantinople were
> still in communion with each other.
>

Sure, people affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church (I should have
realized the need to specify Roman) copied Byzantne manuscripts and
even tried to "correct" non-Byzantine manuscripts by bringing them
closer to the Byzantine.  They believed they were advancing textual
studies and bringing the text closer to the Word of God.  I can't fault
them for trying.    My point is that the Roman Catholic Church never
thought highly enough of these manuscripts to make any official use of
them.  In the Vulgate the Roman Catholic Church had a sort of snapshot
(in translation) of what older Alexandrian manuscripts looked like.
Even if the idea of textforms was not known or understood, The Roman
Catholic Church saw that the Byzantine manuscripts differed
significantly from the Vulgate. If other groups thought more highly of
these manuscripts, then it became their choice to use, copy, preserve,
and distribute them.  They could have - and should have - said, "Hey,
there must be something wrong with these rejected manuscripts."

> >  The Vulgate was official
> >text for centuries and the church made no official translation of
Greek
> >manuscripts until after 1944.
>
> True. But so what if the first _translation_ was after 1944? Greek
Uniates were
> using the Greek NT without translation, in a text very similar to the
TR.

Of course.  Again, I should have specified that my focus was solely on
the Roman Catholic Church.  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.  What other groups did was done of their
own volition.
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------
> Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
> quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
> (St. Augustine, Ser. 96)
>
> (((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you
post.   )))

((( 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} 2/6/05 2:27:39 AM ---