Matthew Johnson wrote:
> >1739 is not Byzantine either, but it is hardly pure and also does
not
> >fit into a specific type.
>
> Again, so WHAT? If we _had_ the autographs, they would not fit into a
specific
> type, either.

Are you sure?  Can you prove that?

>

> >Again, Jerome went with the best text available - available being
key.
>
> No, this isn't true either. And how _could_ you know that it is true,
anyway? He
> never did tell us which manuscripts he used, nor have scholars been
able to
> reconstruct his Vorlage.
>
> So you must be talking through your hat, making things up out of the
whole
> cloth.
>

He may or may not have used the greatest manuscripts in existence, but
used the best he could find.   We can be fairly certain of the quality
of the manuscripts based on the results of his work.
>
> >Sinaiticus was in existence at the
> >time of Trent, but it was neither used nor available.
>
> What _are_ you talking about? It was not available to _Rome_. That is
not the
> same thing. If Rome had not arrogantly insisted that the Greeks were
schismatics
> and heretics, Sinaiticus and _many_ other manuscripts might have been
made
> available to them. But as it was...
>
You have yet to show where anyone anywhere was using Sinaiticus for
anything except lighting fires.

> >
> >You have yet to produce viable alternative to the vulgate.
>
> Not true. I gave two alternatives. So what if neither of them were
complete? By
> following their example, it would have been possible to construct a
text MUCH
> closer to the autographs than the Vulgate. But no one (among the
Latins) was
> interested in doing this, so it didn't happen.
>
Apparently no one else has been interested in doing this since it
simply hasn't happened.
>
> >The fact remains that you still cannot point to a text available at
the
> >time that was superior to the Vulgate because in practicality no
other
> >textual tradition was using such texts.
>
> No, no such 'fact' remains. 1739 and Koridethi were _both_ superior,
despite
> their missing books. Put those together with a few similar
manuscripts and even
> in the time of Trent, it would have been possible to construct
something very
> similar to today's UBS, maybe better. But it never happened, because
Rome could
> not be persuaded to take the Greek seriously: the Pope's delay of the
> Complutensian Polyglot proves this also.

You are very much mistaken since no one else --then or now --has taken
these manuscripts seriously enough to make much use of them.  Maybe you
can take the world by storm by producing this document yourself and
demonstrating it's similarity - or even superiority - to the
UBS/NA text.

I do not have to judge your statements any further.  History, textual
criticism, and Bible scholarship in general have already provided their
unfavorable verdicts.

Our discussion turns on one question which I have asked repeatedly and
for which you still have not given a solid answer that a reputable
scholar would take seriously.

You keep making the excuse that my question is based on a faulty
assumption, but this fact remains; the Vulgate became "King of the
Hill," so to speak.  Anyone seeking to challenge the status quo must be
able to knock the king off the hill.

Can you point to a viable alternative to the Vulgate?  No.

End of discussion.

Have a nice life.



>
>
> --
> ---------------------------
> 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} 2/16/05 5:24:24 PM ---