In any disputes about the material words of Scripture, recourse must be made to this slavishly-faithful-to-the-original▓English translation, or the Latin Vulgate itself.
No, he was referring to the English translation as being slavishly faithful to the original Latin Vulgate. The syntax was a bit confusing, but I understood exactly what he was saying.
Sigh. It appears that the "
brain-cramp" was my own. I've done my
due diligence by refreshing the Web page containg the
original posting by ‘Matthew’. Amazing what
syntactic difference is made by the presence or absence of the tiny mark known as the
hyphen (its absence signified above by ‘
▓English’).
• Its
presence makes the disputed phrase "
original-English", which is incorrect, but that's how I read it, despite knowing fully well that none of the New Testament was "
original[ly]" written in English.
• Its
absence makes the phrase "slavishly-faithful-to-the-
original▓", which as a substantive phrase, implies the
Vulgate, and modifies "
English translation" which is, of course, what ‘Matthew’ intended.
Sooo,
mea culpa. And I wish you & yours a Merry Feast of, ironically, St. John the
Evangelist.
Topic: Condemnation of Poche Errors and Formal Warning (Read 18202 times)