RE: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 05:47:21 -0800

No big deal, as any rabbinical student had to memorize the entire OT perfectly. iz

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 9:08 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

 

seminarians, partic the leaders and doctors among them, are unfathomable to average biblical bean counters..

 

e.g., Erasmus was easily one of the ten most prolific writers in history; could probably quote vast portions of the NT in either Greek or Latin before he wrote it down in certain vernaculars..

 

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:32:34 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Deegan <openairmission@yahoo.com>
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:54:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

A LITTLE STUDY Clears up many misconceptions!

I think you took a peek at a few INET web sites spent 5 minutes and became an expert your lack of even a surface knowledge and monumental errors testify to it.

 

JD's BIGGEST BLUNDER in which he said "What is amazing to me is that Erasmus created this greek text in something like 22 weeks -- the whole NT into greek from the Latin in 22 weeks. "

 

Now where did this 22 week work happen?

Perhaps you confused one of the Later "updated editions"

Just so you know he did publish three other editions - in 1522, 1527 and 1535

 

This came from class notes ,   biblical studies,   Abilene Christain University,   1966. 

The 22 weeks certainly does not refer to Erasmus's whole body of work  --  perhaps it refers to editing and publishing of the 1516 edition  ---   my understanding is that he published 5 or 6 editions.   Which one was the right one,  Deegan?  The first or was it the last one.   Why did it take him so long to get it right.?  These would be the kinds of questions you would be asking me if the tables were reversed.  Don't bother answering.   I was just making a point. 

 

 

AFA Jeromes Latin Vulgate JD says "As a translation,  it was being written and rewritten."

 

BY who? It was NOT Erasmus in 1516 his first edition was called Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Rot. Recognitum et Emendatum. This edition included a Latin translation and annotations. It used recently rediscovered additional manuscripts.

The actual first manifestation of this authorized text was sponsored by Pope Sixtus V (1585-90), known as the Sistine Vulgate, but was soon repudiated with the advent of the next pope, Clement VIII (1592-1605) who immediately ordered a new edition. This "Clementine" Vulgate of 1592 became the standard Bible text of the Catholic Church until the 1960s, when worship in vernacular languages was permitted.

 

 

You mean "by whom?"  !!!  Well, it certainly wasn't Erasmus .   Who said that it was?   Where do you find even a hint in my writings that I attributed this "rewrite" of the Vulgate to Erasmus?   Makes me wonder if you even read my posts at all.   The Latin Vulgate has a greek history  (after all, it is a TRANSLATION) that pre-dates the Byzantine text family.   

 

THESE ARE DATED too late. How can you take Vulgate retranslations after the death of ERASMUS and TRANSPORT them back to his time & before?

THEN who wrote & rewrote the Latin Vulagate at the risk of their LIFE & Property in the face of ROME?

What was the names of some of these MYSTERY WORKS?

 

What in the world are you talking about.   Certainly nothing that I have said. 

 

JD  says "Erasmus used a text, the Latin Vulgat primarily, that had been in existence for for hundreds and hundreds of years."

 

Erasmus translated the Greek into a NEW Latin Text

Not Latin to Latin but Greek to Latin

Greek on the Left - Latin on the Right in parallel columns.

In a letter Erasmus said "We do not intend to tear up the old and commonly accepted edition [the Vulgate], but amend it where it is corrupt, and make it clear where it is obscure."

Sounds like Wescott & Hort talking about the KJV.

Since this is basically the same thing (amend & correct) the Wescott & Hort commitee publicly calimed for the RV the predecessor to the ASV & NASV then by the same reasoning process the NASV is just a TRANSLATION of the KJV

 

Erasmus developed a GREEK text.   He also amended the Latin Vulgate.   The NASV is translated from a differing family of textual documents.   And I do not want to over-play these four textual families.   In the earlier days  say 100 to 400 AD,  the  boundaries that define the four families are not as heavily drawn as one might suppose.   Whether a particular fragment or document belongs in this family or that family is still debated today.  

 

Wescott had an ax to grind with the Majority Text of his day.   Most scholars today do not think he made his point   ......................    but much of his work in translating the text continues to be considered excellent.   What is remarkable is that the NASV and KJV are so similar while having come from very different historical sources.  The "similarities" are give at somewhere around 98% in regard to the actual English translation of both.  

 

 

 

JD says "he KJV was taken from the Greek text authored and/or edited by a Dutch Roman Catholic named Erasmus."

 

 For centuries, Jerome's Latin translation, the Vulgate, was the Bible of the Church. However, Jerome's translation had deficiencies. Erasmus reconstructed the original New Testament as best he could from Greek texts and printed it. In a parallel column he provided a new Latin translation. What is more--and this could have cost him his life--he added over a thousand notes that pointed out common errors in interpreting the Bible. He attacked Rome's refusal to let priests marry although some lived openly with mistresses; and he denied that the popes have all the rights that they claim. The scholar also challenged practices not taught in scripture: prayers to the saints, indulgences, and relic-worship.

 

He did the best he could with what he had available to him, at the time.  His work is extraordinary.

But he was a Dutch Catholic  --  somewhat free thinking, but still a Catholic. 

 

 

 

Then we have the Creme de la Creme JD says "I have given much evidence for my point of view"

 

No further comment!

All right  !!!!  

 


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Erasmus used a text, the Latin Vulgat primarily, that had been in existence for for hundreds and hundreds of years.   During that time, it was not just laying around collecting dust.  As a translation,  it was being written and rewritten.    I would not expect the documents of this text family to be significantly different from those of other text families  -   since all of the biblical texts had, as their point of origin, the original documents.   I also would not expect to see a high degree of "corruption" in the Byzantine documents used by Erasmus, since they had been edited over and over and over again, through the centuries.  

 

There is no doubt, in my mind, that God's providential hand has been a part of the continuance of the Message.  The fact that the NASV is so close to the KJV while coming from a differing family of documents is only a testimony to this providential involvement. 

 

Jd

 

 

 

Reply via email to