Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
> But that was not true then, and it is not true now. For one thing,
although you
> have been writing about the Vulgate as if it were pure Alexandrian
text-type, it
> is not. It is a _mix_ of the very Byzantine text-type you decry and
the
> Alexandrian, which is post-recensional. And what is more, _contrary_
to your
> careless claim below, Amphoux says this mixure was already present in
the
> manuscripts Jerome himself used.

I have never claimed the Vulgate was pure.

>
> As I have said quite often before, modern scholarship upholds a more
modest
> claim, that the UBS (basically Alexandrian) is a good scholarly
reconstruction
> of the text IN ONE AREA, Lower Egypt, around Alexandria, AT ONE TIME,
the late
> 2nd century.
>
> >> >I stated that there was no knowledge or understanding of
> >> >textforms.
> >>
> >> Where did you say that?
> >
> >Let's see, my exact words were:
> >"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."
>
> And those exact words do NOT state that there was no knowledge or
understand of
> textforms. Don't you know what "even if" means?
>
> >> >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.
> >
> >It was a simple matter, the Vulgate was right, and it was closer to
the
> >originals than the TR.  Your words: "scholarship upheld it only MUCH
> >later."
>
> Ah, but what I omitted to say was that although "scholarship upheld
it only MUCH
> later", it does NOT uphold it as unconditionally superior _today_, if
indeed it
> ever put _that_ much stock in it.
>
> There is a world of a difference between "more accurate" and 'right'.
>

I never claimed the Vulgate would be superior today, only that it was
superior to anything else being used at the time.


> You seem to have missed this and assumed I meant much higher praise
of the
> Vulgate than I really did.
>
> >The Roman Catholic Church was right to begin with and that has been
> >borne out by scholarship.  Why do you have a problem with this?
>
> Because that is NOT true. What scholarship _really_ upheld was only
that it was
> more accurate than the texts the _Protestants_ were basing their
translations
> on. But this is not the same at all. More importantly, "more
accurate" does NOT
> mean "right".

See above.  Again, we seem to agree on something.

>
> But what I _really_ have a 'problem' with is the lengths you have
shown you are
> willing to go to in order to cover up the chauvinism of the Roman
Church at that
> time. They guessed that the Vulgate was better than the TR more out
of sheer
> luck than out of insight. And there really _was_ chauvinism in their
breezy
> dismissal of the Greek original of the NT.

Can you point to a Greek "original" that was being used?  No because
there are no "originals."  Any Greek manuscripts that were being used
were Byzantine and corrupt.  There was no "breezy dismissal."

>
> [snip]
>
> >>It was the
> >> _canonization_ of the Vulgate, to the _exclusion_ of all the Greek
> >manuscripts,
> >> that smacks of bigotry.
> >
> >Why?  Because Most Roman Catholics at this time spoke Latin?
Because
> >the Roman Catholic Church needed ONE official text and the best
> >available happened to be in Latin?
>
> Because that was NOT the "best available". They may have thought it
was the
> "best available", but that was only because they were paying too
little
> attention to the Greek East to know the alternatives.
>
> 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!

>
> 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.

>
> >> 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.

>
> 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.

> 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. St. Jermome went with the best text
available.

> >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?
> >
> >Sure, some Old Latin was thrown back in, as were Byzantine passages.
> >Which was why the Roman Catholic Church worked to produce editions
that
> >were free from these errors.
>
> You miss the point: it was the _Clementine_ edition of the Vulgate
that was
> proclaimed canonical at Trent. The 'reconstruction' you mention
didn't get under
> way seriously until the early 20th century.
>
> >This never happened,
>
> You are right about that, but Wordsworth-White gets close.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> The elevation of a translation over the original does NOT sound
like
> >"practical
> >> necessity" to me.
> >
> >It is "practical necessity" if a translation happens to
be the best
> >you've got.
>
> Again, that is a _very_ big 'if'. I happen to believe it is false.
>
> >Can you point to Greek alternatives available at the time
> >that were more accurate?
>
> Yes. Codex Sinaiticus. But because they had been paying no attention
to the
> Greek East, they barely even knew of the monasteries existence, much
less of the
> treasures in its library. And amazingly, it is only in the last few
years that
> people finally noticed the text-critical notes in the Codex.
>

Better, but a moot point since Greek churches were not doing anything
with Sinaiticus other than using it to light fires.  Had Tischendorf
not intervened, Sinaiticus may well be lost by now.  The Greek churches
had fallen in love with the Byzantine text and understood the value of
Sinaiticus about as well as Rome grasped the value of Vaticanus.

> >> > 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.
> >
> >Bigotry = saying that it is wrong to deny Christ's divinty?
> >Bigotry = saying corrupt manuscripts should not be used?
>
>
> Do you _always_ twist other people's words and throw the distortions
back at
> them? Is _that_ your idea of representing the Latin tradition?
>
> I _NEVER_ said these things.

You were accusing the Roman Catholic Church of bigotry for its
statements at Trent.  Statements like the ones above.  You were indeed
accusing the Roman Catholic Church of bigotry for saying that corrupt
manuscripts should not 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.


>
> >> >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.
> >
> >Can you show where that scribal tradition produced manuscripts that
> >were more accurate than the Vulgate?  Again the fact that a
manuscrpt
> >is written in Greek - or any other language for that matter - is
> >meaningless if the text is not accurate.
>
> First of all, I have already done this, second, it is NOT true that
it is
> 'meaningless'.
>

No, you have not; and yes, it is when there are better texts available.
 See above.

> As yet another example of how it is NOT 'meaningless', consider that
the modern
> edition of "Prometheus Bound" includeds, in its Appendix,
translations into
> Latin and English of the remaining fragments (and allusions to
fragments) of the
> presumed sequel, "Prometheus Loosed". If you actually read it, you
will see for
> yourself how even such fragments viewed throught the lens of
translations and
> unreliable manuscript traditions sheds light on the first play of the
trilogy,
> "Prometheus Bound".

You have missed the point.  In this case, these fragments and allusions
constitute the best text available.

>
> >> >  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.
> >
> >And people with axes to grind for the sake of grinding axes are not
> >helping.
>
> That would be a better description of what YOU are doing than of what
I am
> doing. What other explanation can there be for your irrational
insistence on the
> superiority of the Vulgate? What other explanation can there be for
your
> irrational insistence on the purity of the decision of Trent?

I have no ax to grind.  I'm not the one whining about what the big, bad
dog did to my cute little dog.  I'm not the one whining about "bigotry"
or "chauvinism" or calling people "warped" or
"irrational."
>
> >> > 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?
> >
> >Do you not realize that "anathema" has more than one meaning and
that
> >it was a form of "legalese"?
>
> Yes, I do realize it, and it has NO bearing on the discussion here.
You are
> trying to use the multiple sense to cover up the crime of your
'fathers' in the
> Latin faith. They had NO RIGHT to anathematize those who used their
traditional
> texts.

They had every right when the "traditional texts" being used were
defective.


>

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100