Matthew Johnson wrote:
> In article ,
ARBermudez3{at}yahoo.com
> says...
>
> >Matthew Johnson wrote:
> >> In article ,
> >ARBermudez3{at}yahoo.com
> Is it? Then either you do not read your own words or you do not read
closely
> enough before you express agreement.

My words from my original post:
What could the Catholic Church possibly have to do with the Textus
Receptus? The Church has never used the TR. The Vulgate was official
text for centuries and the church made no official translation of Greek

manuscripts until after 1944.


>
> >  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.

Roman Catholic scribes may have inadvertently conflated, harmonized,
and distorted the text by mistakenly inserting glosses which should
have stayed in the margins as notes - along with other scribal errors.
However, you must still realize that these corrupt texts never gained
acceptance and were never used by the Roman Catholic Church.  That
remains the bottom line.  If someone else decided to use these faulty
manuscripts, they did so at their own peril.  If you take out the trash
and people passing by your trash can see things they like, are you
responsible for what they do with your discarded items?  Of course not.

>
> >  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!
>

Then explain yourself!  LOL

> >  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;)

Again, explain yourself and never mind being catty.  LOL

>
> >
> >> 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.

Again, the Roman Catholic Church did not doubt the accuracy of the
Vulgate, so anything that differed from the Vulgate was considered
inaccurate.  The fact that scholarship upheld that view "only MUCH
later" just shows how careful St. Jerome and the Roman Catholic Church
was with the official text used by the Roman Catholic Church.  There
were corruptions introduced into the Vulgate over the years, but
overall it was the best text available.
>
> >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."


>
> >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."

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?


>
> >
> >>
> >> > 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.

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?

>
> 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.

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.  This never happened, but the Roman
Catholic church tried and again, the Vulgate was still the most
accurate text available.

>
> >  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 is "practical necessity" if a translation happens to be the best
you've got.  Can you point to Greek alternatives available at the time
that were more accurate?

>
> > 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?

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.  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?


>
> >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.



>
> >  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.

>
> > 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"?


>
>
> --
> ---------------------------
> 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} 2/9/05 6:43:09 PM ---