I could not find reference to your most recent points in your earlier posts. In my first post, I took issue with your statements "The Bible was specifically NOT translated into any language but Latin until Guttenberg's printing press. In other words, it was VERY proprietary." and "Furthermore, there are all kinds of passages in the Bible about not interpretting God's word."
People complain all the time about US-centric / Euro-centric. I could care less, but you made a blanket statement which was only true in very specific circumstances: European areas under control of Rome, and certain EUROPEAN languages within those areas. And even then you were still technically wrong, no matter how little impact you think Wycliffe had. You did not mention impact, only the production of a translation..
As far as "flippant dismissal", please answer the following in detail: how exactly was every other text produced in Europe prior to Gutenburg? Handwriting (including calligraphy) would be my guess, unless woodcuts were more prevalent than I recall.
Most people at that time were illiterate anyways. Whether the Catholic church preferred that is irrelevant to me. The literate Catholic priests could have made up and preached anything they felt like, and gotten away with it. A lame analogy follows, but is something prorietary just because most people cannot make use of it? If so, I could call bras and dresses proprietary, as I cannot make use of them.
My argument was that the Bible was made proprietary by the Catholic Church, hence the title of the original post,'WWPUIXD?' By arguing that there were people outside the sphere of influence of the Roman Catholic Church, you are not arguing the point.
Your knowledge of Rome likely surpasses mine, but the Catholic Church is not, and never has been the Christian faith. The only conditions where Catholic == Christian may be in Europe, 600 AD to the Reformation. In addition, perhaps you could tell me what percentage of the literate population had some limited access to a Latin bible? That would help back up your claim of "proprietary". Overall, I would say that this is the first time you have clearly defined your argument and it is still restricted to Western Europe. Rome could do whatever it wanted, and it would not make a bit of difference in Asia Minor, or areas influenced by the Eastern Orthodox church. If you limit your argument I will agree with you. If you want to say Rome is the world, you are wasting your time.
For you to argue that those 35,000 texts were not somehow diminished as a result is foolhardy.
Sorry, I must have missed the part where we discussed Jerome earlier, or what relevence it has to any of our previous posts.
It also goes against one of your other sources, on interpretting the word, which argued itself that words should be viewed in the context of the day.
How so? What if most of the words in the bible were the same in different texts, and we were dealing with multiple copies within your 35,000? What if early writings of the church fathers were generally word for word with the current text? What if John William Burgon is right:
Call this text Erasmian or Complutensian, the text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs, call it the Received or the Traditional, or by whatever name you please--the fact remains that a text has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, and ancient Versions.
The difference was, Jerome was beatified because God himself allegedly helped him interpret the other 'flawed' texts into the text used for the last 1600 years.
Text used by Rome. Hate to break it to you, but the Bible I read is based on the Textus Receptus, as you may have noticed in my previous quotes and my sig. Jerome never altered it, and his Latin Vulgate has little or no bearing on this discussion, or the original MLP topic posed by enterfornone. The Textus Receptus is still used in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and they pretty much spurn Latin translations such as the Vulgate. BTW, beautification is a Roman tradition, with no real foundation I have observed in the Bible. So what if a few popes and cardinals thought he was great. He very well may have been a great man, but his beautification is really offtopic here.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Rom 1:16
[ Parent ]