Re: Any comments?
- From: "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:44:51 -0800
"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:121pkt9ac91gu89@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
As for not being "real," well there are two answers for that: In the
Catholic tradition, the New Testament is a mere artifact. The real
authority belongs with the Church as an institution and dogma is Church
determined. In the non-catholic tradition, "God would not have allowed a
corruption of His word. Any 'changes' to the received text were done with
his blessing. We have, today, exactly what He wants us to have" is the
operative theory.
I'm afraid it's a lot more complicated than that.
The Roman Catholic Church does not dismiss Scripture, Old or New Testament,
as a mere artifact; what it does is accept the tradition of the Church, as
having equal value with it. It also accepts the ability of the Pope and the
body of Bishops to speak inerrantly in matters of doctrine and dogma.
The "received text" -- by which I presume you mean the "Textus Receptus" as
originally collected by Erasmus in 1516 from the available Greek
manuscripts, being the first Greek text published using movable type -- was
so named in the publisher's foreword to the 1633 edition and is used to
refer to that edition by Elzevir and to the predecessor 1550 edition by
Stephanus.
It is *by no means* a universal perception among non-Catholics that the TR
specifically, or the latest manuscripts in general, are more definitive than
the earliest ones. The various editions of the National Bible Society and
the Nestle-Aland work are fundamentally non-Catholic exercises, and various
Nestle-Aland editions underlie a number of the modern English translations.
Acceptance of the Textus Receptus recension of the New Testament as
"received from God" is a minority position among Protestants, and the
Orthodox tradition tends to accept the Septuagint recension of the Old
Testament, older than the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament accepted by
Judaism and by most Protestants.
Many Catholic and non-Catholic scholars prefer working back toward the most
likely *earliest* Greek text of the New Testament, sometimes using datable
examples in other languages when those examples predate the extant Greek
manuscripts. If I recall correctly, the "shortest text" philosophy
underlies the Jerusalem Bible, accepted by some Catholics and Protestants
alike, which includes a number of cases in which *no* Greek text actually
matches the translation.
And while Catholics and Protestants agree as to what books the New Testament
includes and what it does not, Luther himself rejected several
hitherto-accepted books, and some parts of the Orthodox tradition delete
some books and add others that the West does not accept.
-Chuck Stevens
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Any comments?
- From: Chuck Stevens
- Re: Any comments?
- References:
- Any comments?
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Any comments?
- From: LX-i
- Re: Any comments?
- From: Howard Brazee
- Re: Any comments?
- From: James J. Gavan
- Re: Any comments?
- From: Richard
- Re: Any comments?
- From: James J. Gavan
- Re: Any comments?
- From: Richard
- Re: Any comments?
- From: James J. Gavan
- Re: Any comments?
- From: LX-i
- Re: Any comments?
- From: HeyBub
- Any comments?
- Prev by Date: Re: Any comments?
- Next by Date: Re: Any comments?
- Previous by thread: Re: Any comments?
- Next by thread: Re: Any comments?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading