20 Below

A place where Maine teen-agers can get their creative writing, poetry, photos, art, CD and movie reviews, opinions and essays published.

Imagine Maine

Explores the state through photographs, local recipes, and historical documentation.

Maine Mentoring Partnership

Group representing both private and public sector with the mission to support and foster youth mentoring programs.

Mainely Parents

Statewide program that serves families through mutual support groups, parent education and a toll-free Talkline for parents.

Pine Tree Folk School

Educational resource for progressive issues and activists.

Radio Free Maine

An audio site with numerous progressive tapes available for free. Features voices of the left, unedited and uncensored.

Volunteering in Maine

Useful links to groups seeking volunteers. Information is dated 1998 by About.com.

In article , ARBermudez3@yahoo.com
says...
>

[snip]
>> "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.

On that much, we are agreed. But you still miss the point. They did NOT have
sufficient grounds for this opinion, but buttressed it largely with their own
chauvinistic disregard for the Greek Church. This was the period when Latin
blowhards could still preach sermons based on the idea that Constantinople was
punished for her sins by the Turkish conquest.

>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.

No, it shows no such thing. For although, as I said, they upheld the view later,
the even _later_ view of modern scholarship finds the inaccuracies of the
Vulgate and Alexandrian texts also unacceptable. It is now readily admitted, for
example, that the Alexandrian text upon which NA27 and UBS4 are based, is itself
post-recensional. And the principles upon which that recension were carried out
do NOT meet with universal favor today.

>There
>were corruptions introduced into the Vulgate over the years, but
>overall it was the best text available.

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.

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 diffe