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

>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> >1739 is not Byzantine either, but it is hardly pure and also does
>not
>> >fit into a specific type.
>>
>> Again, so WHAT? If we _had_ the autographs, they would not fit into a
>specific
>> type, either.
>
>Are you sure? Can you prove that?

Yes. Read the section on text-types in almost any introduction to New Testament
Textual Criticism, such as Amphoux or Metzger.

In particular, as I _already_ pointed out to you, Amphoux points out that ALL
the surviving text-types are recensional. Now if you understood textual
criticism, you would understand that just by being 'recensional', they are
guaranteed to be significantly different from the autographs. This is WHY
Amphoux called for more study of the 'Western' text, with its 'split' between
recensional and pre-recensional readings.

>> >Again, Jerome went with the best text available - available being
>key.
>>
>> No, this isn't true either. And how _could_ you know that it is true,
>anyway? He
>> never did tell us which manuscripts he used, nor have scholars been
>able to
>> reconstruct his Vorlage.
>>
>> So you must be talking through your hat, making things up out of the
>whole
>> cloth.
>>
>
>He may or may not have used the greatest manuscripts in existence, but
>used the best he could find.

Yes. But this is what you _refused_ to admit earlier.

>We can be fairly certain of the quality
>of the manuscripts based on the results of his work.

The only thing we can be "fairly certain" of concerning the quality of those
manuscripts is that they were not much different from the Alexandrian and
Byzantine manuscripts (and their mixtures) we see from the 4th - 6th centuries.
They were NOT spectacular in quality.

>> >Sinaiticus was in existence at the
>> >time of Trent, but it was neither used nor available.
>>
>> What _are_ you talking about? It was not available to _Rome_. That is
>not the
>> same thing. If Rome had not arrogantly insisted that the Greeks were
>schismatics
>> and heretics, Sinaiticus and _many_ other manuscripts might have been
>made
>> available to them. But as it was...
>>
>You have yet to show where anyone anywhere was using Sinaiticus for
>anything except lighting fires.

This is irrelevant.

>> >You have yet to produce viable alternative to the vulgate.
>>
>> Not true. I gave two alternatives. So what if neither of them were
>complete? By
>> following their example, it would have been possible to construct a
>text MUCH
>> closer to the au