تم تعطيل الجافا سكربت. للحصول على تجربة أفضل، الرجاء تمكين الجافا سكربت في المتصفح الخاص بك قبل المتابعة.

الرد على الموضوع

الرسالة: [QUOTE="فادي ك, post: 3837111, member: 118247"] وفي كتاب [B]Beyond What Is Written [/B]Edited by Bruce M. Metzger, Ph.D., D.D., L.H.D., D. Theol., D. Litt. P. 14 بأن ايرازموس شك في كل قراءات الآباء : The ‘emendations’ mentioned here clearly presuppose the Vulgate as the text to be emended. The last point in the above citation is interesting too: it shows that Erasmus assumed a text to be vulnerable to corruption when not accompanied by a commentary. Indeed, as a text-critical rule, [B]he himself[/B] [B]mistrusted each reading in the Fathers, especially those readings which agree with the Vulgate, when it was not confirmed by the Father’s interpretation of the text as found in his subsequent commentary[/B].18 Erasmus’ remark also shows that he did not yet perceive the full impact of the printing press.19 وفي صفحة 37 يقول : Similarly, Erasmus was increasingly cautious in his use of patristic scriptural quotations. In the beginning of his work on the New Testament, he thought that patristic quotations could end the stalemate between Greek and Latin readings. During the various revision periods, however, he became more and more aware of the many pitfalls that beset the use of patristic text-critical data.34 He even writes on them in general terms: [B]... scribes are accustomed to emend the citations of the ancients according to our Vulgate edition;35 the assiduity of those who have emended, according to the Vulgate edition, texts quoted from Scripture has corrupted many passages in the ancient authors.[/B]36 In the case of Latin translations of Greek commentaries, his experience taught him that the critic’s vigilance has to be doubled. ويقول في حاشية التعليق : 36 “Multa depravavit in vetustis autoribus illorum sedulitas, qui iuxta vulgatam aeditionem emendarunt citata scripturae testimonia” (in the 1535 addition to the annotation ‘Salvae factae sunt’ on Rom 11:5; translation CWE 56, p. 294). In the same note, but already in 1527, Erasmus states that the Latin version of Origen’s commentary does not always reflect Origen’s personal views: “Nevertheless I have pointed out that his translator [B]took great liberties with those commentaries[/B]” (“Quanquam admonui iam interpretem in illis commentariis sibi multum iuris sumpsisse”; translation CWE 56, p. 293). For yet another similar statement, see the introduction to the short appendix on the 1527 Annotationes, ASD VI-6, p. 351 ll. 4-7: [B]“... those who thus far translated the commentaries of the Greek writers, for reasons unknown to me, preferred to use the Vulgate translation rather than to express what the Greek books actually had. Therefore, it often occurs that the interpretation does not agree with the translation.”[/B] (“... qui hactenus Graecorum commentaria verterunt, nescio quo consilio Vulgatam translationem reddere maluerunt quam exprimere quod erat in Graecis codicibus. Unde saepenumero fit ut interpretatio non respondeat ad id quod translatum est.”) [/QUOTE]

التحقق