I'm quoting this recent post by Mr. Scrivener from TC-Alternate List:
Dear David and list:
You asked a very important and complex question:
"Someone please explain to me how the Nestle reading is more Roman Catholic than
the TR reading, not only in this passage, but in any passage." - David Palmer
This may be an exasperating question, but its no joke.
In our modern 'politically correct' climate, where the pressure is on high, to
avoid impugning motives to individuals and groups, especially without evidence,
it has certainly become the fashion to downplay, deny, and even engage in
historical revisionism in regard to the ongoing actions of power groups like the
RC church hierarchy.
But it cannot be credibly denied, that rogue and clandestine elements within the
RC community are indeed guilty of systemic, conscious and deliberate, planned
attacks and attempts to derail and influence the course of the Reformation, and
modern Christian development.
In regards to what must be regarded as blatantly evil and criminal activity
today, we may mention the Inquisitions, witch-burning, the invasion of the
Spanish Armada, the attempt to blow up the English Parliament, and many attempts
to ban the Bible, book burnings, and countless massacres of innocent 'heretical'
groups, as well as attempts to control translation and interpretation of the
Holy Scriptures.
Of course, it must also be admitted (though it hardly ever is), that Protestant
power blocks are also guilty of some similar crimes. Notorious among these are
the persecutions of reformers like the Puritans, Baptists, stake burnings of
witches and trouble-makers, the treatment of the Irish, etc. etc.
In regards to such activities being conscious and deliberate, planned and covert
'conspiracies', we need only turn to such publicly documented events as the
Council of Trent, and the banning of bibles for clear statements of motive and
intent.
How does all this massive and often violent political/religious activity affect
Textual Criticism?
It clearly does, whether rightly or wrongly, whether coherently or incoherently.
For we must first look at what happened *historically*.
The RC church, and on various levels and at various times also the developing
Reformers (e.g. the Church of England), all wanted to both suppress and also
control the Holy scriptures and their interpretation. The Roman Catholics for
their part, for a long time interfered with the distribution of Protestant
Bibles, while attempting to supplant them with texts and translations of their
own.
It can hardly be denied that even the KJV Bible, was in part an attempt to
suppress extreme Protestant interpretations and marginal notes found in earlier
Bibles, which not only named and blasted the Roman Catholics and 'Papism', but
also the C of E priesthood and power-base. It was a 'damage control' project.
If actually compare texts between Protestant and Catholic translations, we see
both a manipulation of the translation/interpretation, and a manipulation of the
underlying text. While the distinctions are not always clear-cut or consistent,
there are obvious trends in the two main approaches to the NT.
1) Protestant Bibles tended to be literal, and strove for clarity and
understanding, while being influenced by doctrines and beliefs of the Reformers,
notably, Calvinistic and anti-RC views etc.
2) Roman Catholic Bibles tended to consiously translate so as to (a) support
Romanist interpretations on things like penance, absolution, the Eucharist etc.,
and (b) obscurantize other passages which were not convenient to organized
religion and authority.
These tendencies, while not consistent or simple in the case of NT textual
criticism, also nonetheless show trends and 'clusters' of positions and
practices which produce distinct texts.
1) The Protestants tended to substitute the authority of the Bible for the
authority of the (RC) 'church', and so there were some strong fundamentalist
elements within Protestantism, such as the Puritans and the Trinitarians, who
strongly supported the traditional (Byz.) readings.
2) Another looser group of more radical and perhaps 'paranoid' Protestants, a
less organized and more diverse, tended to push the most extreme and peculiar
readings, found in the minority of MSS and in older and more idiosyncratic
texts. This group of critics were by accident or otherwise, mostly Unitarians
and others, from Deists to agnostics, 'rationalists', 'anti-supernaturalists',
and even atheistic skeptics.
3) The Roman Catholics were also 'split' significantly on the issue of the text:
One group of more conservative and probably more sincere RCs also supported the
traditional text, and saw the more radical and liberal critics as heretics and
corrupters of Traditional Christianity.
4) Another group of more opportunistic and devious, more suspect conspirators,
originally in large part culled from the Jesuits and other organizations, also
sided with the radicals. These people saw the main enemy of Roman Catholic
authority as the Protestant Bible itself, which was correctly perceived as a
plausible corrective to RC dogma, practice/tradition, and 'corruption'. This
group engaged in a two-prong attack upon Protestantism (the main general target)
through a direct attack upon the Protestant Bible (the A.V.).
a) On the one hand, the Protestant Bibles were attacked directly as 'bad
translations', misdirected, over-interpreted, 'too-literal', while RC versions
were promoted as 'authoritative', traditional (via Apostolic Succession of both
authority and doctrine), and true to authentic Christianity.
b) On the other hand, RCs, originally in part founders and funders of
universities and centers of learning, had always maintained an almost oppressive
influence upon both interpretation and publication, and tended to dominate
influencial posts. Here RC scholars, some openly RC, and others who were Jesuit
inspired 'stealth scholars', promulgated RC doctrine and subverted Protestant
expansion.
c) At the same time, the RC conservative factions were losing control of both
the church and Europe, and academia. At first in Protestant strongholds like
Germany, Switzerland, even France, and finally even in RC countries.
d) Academia was infiltrated, subverted and eventually dominated by radicals,
heretics and non-Christians of every flavor. These groups also wanted to
'dethrone the Bible', which they saw as an oppressive and superstitious group of
documents having little value to modern scientific man.
e) From the original Protestant Reformers' and Puritans' viewpoint, there was
forged a truly demonic alliance between Roman Catholics, who wanted to
short-circuit the Reformation, and Apostates, who wanted to short-circuit all
Christianity. These groups worked together to undermine the authority of, and
diffuse the power of the Bible in the hands of the ordinary man.
It is clear from this sketch of historic development, that (ironically,) groups
with the RC church and radical apostates had similar goals, and were able to
work together against a perceived 'common enemy', the Bible. They did this by
clever manipulation of what should have been unbiased scientific investigation
of textual transmission, in order to attack the traditional NT text and supplant
it with a less Protestant, and more 'Catholic-friendly' version, built out of
inferior copies.
Ironically, now, in the modern versions, Protestants hold in their hands for the
first time since the Reformation, what is essentially a Roman Catholic
lectionary.
mr.scrivener
