Matthew Johnson wrote:

> But how can you believe it is so close to pure, that it was better
than any of
> the Greek manuscripts? The difference between this claim and "the
Vulgate was
> pure" is too small for this to be a good defence for you.

It isn't close to pure.  My point, my only point, from the start, has
been that the Roman Catholic Church made the vulgate the official text
because it was the best text available at the time(a point we continue
debating).

> [snip]
>
> >I never claimed the Vulgate would be superior today, only that it
was
> >superior to anything else being used at the time.
>
> And that claim too, is false. For it _already_ had the Byzantine
mixture that
> you criticize so harshly in the Greek manuscripts.
>

I already said it was mixed.  It is a question of degree.  Compared
with the other texts available - and availability is key -the vulgate
was better.

> When I said 'original', I was NOT referring to the _autographs_. Of
course they
> had disappeared. But I see you snipped w/o comment where I made this
point more
> clear. SO why are you still refusing to see it?

The question remains:  Can you point to Greek manuscript in use at the
time that was superior to the vulgate?


> >  No because
> >there are no "originals."  Any Greek manuscripts that were being
used
> >were Byzantine and corrupt.  There was no "breezy dismissal."
>
> But that sentence of yours IS "breezy dismissal". That is why we are
still at
> loggerheads here. It is simply NOT TRUE that "Any Greek manuscripts
that were
> being used were Byzantine and corrupt." Where did you _think_ Codex
Koridethi
> and 1739 came from?

Yes, Codex Koridethi is not Byzantine, but it is mixed to the point of
not fitting into any specific text-type and we are not even sure if
Koridethi was produced by someone who knew more than a little Greek!
Koridethi contains only the Gospels, but lacks parts of Matthew.

1739 is not Byzantine either, but it is hardly pure and also does not
fit into a specific type.  1739 also lacks the Gospels and may never
have included Revelation.

Neither is more accurate than the Vulgate.


> [snip]
>
> >> Because no, the RCC did _not_ "need ONE official
text". That was a
> >fiction of
> >> the over-legalistic Latin mind.
> >
> >And you talk of bigotry!
>
> Yes, I do. It is NOT bigotry to point out that over-legalistic
mindset of the
> Latin world. On the contrary: this is well known, and sometimes even
admitted
> _within_ the Latin world. See, for example. Fr. Seraphim Rose's book
on the
> position of St. Augustine in the Orthodox Church, where he defends
his cult
> against certain rash detractors who wanted to deny that St. Augustine
was in
> fact a saint of the Orthodox Church.

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?  So just because a members of
a certain group use offensive terms to characterize themselves, does
that mean that we should all use those terms in relation to that group?
 It's bigotry.


>
> >> Because it is absurd on the very face of it to canonize a
> >_translation_ to the
> >> neglect of the original, especially when the very reason for
> >_translating_ the
> >> Vulgate in the first place was to _avoid_ this error!
> >
> >Original language does not equal original text.
>
> I never said it did.

You are claiming that Greek manuscripts are superior to the Vulgate
simply because they are written in Greek.  You are not taking the
accuracy of those manuscripts into account here.


> >> >> 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,
> >> >
> >> >It's extremely likely if the translation is based upon the most
> >> >accurate examplars available and the Greek
"original" you mention
is
> >> >faulty.  Being written in Greek counts for nothing if the text
> >itself
> >> >is corrupt.
> >>
> >> This is where you show your _real_ ignorance of textual criticism.
> >For you have
> >> compounded many errors all together in one short utterance!
> >>
> >> They are:
> >>
> >> 1 - that is a VERY big 'if'. You certainly don't know the
tranlsation
> >was based
> >> on the most accurate exemplars
> >
> >Actually, I don't have to.  It is enough to know that the Vulage was
> >more accurate than the Byzantine manuscripts being used at the time.
>
> But this isn't even TRUE!

You have not yet demonstrated this.

>
> >> 2 - even if they wer ethe most accurate then available, the
scinece
> >of textual
> >> criticism was still in its infancy. IN fact, St. Jerome _was_ one
of
> >the
> >> founders of the art. It is only later that we learned how to apply
> >the art well
> >> to Scripture.
> >>
> >
> >A point I made in my orininal post.
>
> But you seemed to promptly forget it with your hyperbolic praise for
the Vulgate
> and the decision to make it the official text.

Saying that the Vulgate was the best text available at the time is not
hyperbolic.  For you to call it so is hyperbolic.

>
> >> 3 - Even when the Greek original is _completely_ lost, it is STILL
> >FALSE that
> >> "the Greek original counts for nothing". And St.
Jerome knew this
> >very well.
> >> That is why the Deuterocanonicals are included in the OT even
though
> >their
> >> Aramaic originals were (or still are) completely lost, yet modern
> >editions rely
> >> on scholarly reconstructions of the 'Vorlage'. You should read St.
> >Jeromes'
> >> prefaces to his translations of the OT books.
> >>
> >
> >Your point is well-taken, but you still seem to be confusing
original
> >language with original text.
>
> If you still think that, then you do not yet understand the point.
>
> > St. Jermome went with the best text
> >available.
>
> That is FAR from clear. Although he may have had access to many
choices that
> have since disappeared, he did _not_ have the principles of modern
textual
> criticism to guide him, nor did he know about the Diatessaron and Old
Syriac. It
> is simply _not possible_ to establish the "best text" with such
limits.

Again, Jerome went with the best text available - available being key.
I never said Jerome went with the best text of all time.
>
> [snip]
>
> >Better, but a moot point since Greek churches were not doing
anything
> >with Sinaiticus other than using it to light fires.
>
> More racist slander. Yes, it is you who are the bigot, not me, as you
make clear
> with this slander.
>
> It was the Greek Church that _wrote_ Sinaiticus, it was the Greek
Church that
> put the text critical marks in it. It was _one abbot_ of St.
Catherine's who was
> using it to light fires, and he would have saved the world a lot of
quarreling
> over textual issues if he had succeeded!
>
Racist?  Since there are only three races and the people we are writing
about share the same race, it can hardly be called racist.

Can you point to Sinaiticus actually being used in the textual
tradition you have written about?  Sinaiticus was in existence at the
time of Trent, but it was neither used nor available.

>
> You are still twisting my words. I never said that their saying that
corrupt
> manuscripts should not be used was the bigotry. I said that the
decision that
> the Vulgate alone was incorrupt was bigotry. Can't you READ?

You have yet to produce viable alternative to the vulgate.  Since the
other texts available were more corrupt and therefore should not be
used, how can it be bigoted to say that only the Vulgate should be
used?

>
> >> >Bigotry has to do with people and culture.  The Roman Catholic
> >church
> >> >never spoke against Peoples or cultures unless they were
violating
> >the
> >> >teachings of Christ.
> >>
> >> Peoples and cultures do not violate the teachings, _individuals_
do.
> >How could
> >> you miss this?
> >
> >So do cultures.  The Roman Empire comes to mind.  So does the Soviet
> >Union.
> >
> >>
> >> >It has nothing to do with not using certain
> >> >manuscripts because of the language they are written in.  Again,
can
> >> >you point to any viable Greek alternatives to the Vulgate?
> >>
> >> Yes, I already did. And the reason the Latins did now know about
its
> >superiority
> >> was bigotry. Out of bigotry, they pretended they had no obligation
to
> >know the
> >> achievements of Greek Christianity.
> >
> >See above.  Greek Christianity forsook its obligation to its own
proud
> >acheivements by disregarding them and producing, preserving, and
> >distributing defective Byzantine manuscripts.
>
> This is ridiculous. It was no more a "forsaking of obligation" that
what Rome
> did with the Vulgate. Why, the bold interpolation that _ROme_ allowed
in 1 Jn
> 5:7 was far worse than ALL the Byzantine 'corruptions' taken
together!
>
> I refer, of course, to the (in)famous "Johannine Comma", which is not
found in
> ANY Greek manuscripts, except obvious forgeries -- Roman forgeries,
at that.
>
> So if Greek Christianity were guilty of this, Rome is far, FAR more
guilty.
>

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.

>
>
> --
> ---------------------------
> 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} 2/15/05 9:23:55 PM ---