What happened to 1 John 5:7

[TimothyH]

Because the Council taught authoritatively the Vulgate is authentic, any reason for rejecting it is by definition a pretext. And the Council taught any pretext is out of bounds, not just claims of inauthenticity.

Each council and the documents it produces have to be read in the context of its time and place. People don’t recall that Trent was called to fight the heresies of that time.

Trent was about one hundred years after the invention of the printing press in 1433, and the statement about the authenticity of the Latin Vulgate was to address a specific problem - the proliferation of innacurate translations produced in little printing shops all over Europe. These often wildly innacurate translations were leading the faithful astray.

In one case, there was a misprint which read, “Let the children first be killed” instead of filled, and some guy in Germany or France killed his kids. The church was right to declare the Bible not to be authentic, round them up and destroy them.

This is an example of the specific problem that the statement about the authenticity of the Latin Vulgate was addressing - lack of scholarship, innacurate translation, production of Bibles in street vernacular rather than proper and formal language, misprints, intentional changes and the like.

Trent was not ruling out future translations based on good scholarship but was rather trying to prevent poor translations from leading people astray.

Nobdy said that the Latin Vulgate is not authentic. It is still approved by the Church. Nobody rejected anything.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

In one case, there was a misprint which read, “Let the children first be killed” instead of filled, and some guy in Germany or France killed his kids. The church was right to declare **the Bible **not to be authentic, round them up and destroy them.

Meant to say, “This Bible” and not “The Bible.”

-Tim-

 

[itguy247]

We can always pray that an older copy is found to finally lay this dreadful issue to rest. Lord hear our prayers.

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Knox supports it’s authenticity I believe. In his commentary on the New Testament to be read as an accompaniment to his translation he notes that the oldest known appearances of this verse are in old Latin manuscripts and that there is no real reason to doubt that the
Latin has preserved the original. Adding that just because Greek was the original language and the verse does not appear in our oldest Greek versions is not sufficient reason to doubt its authenticity in the older Latin versions.
Interesting?

 

[itguy247]

From what I’ve read that’s a fallacy- it’s not in the Old Latin. Can you provide some references to look up?

The verse isn’t in many modern Catholic translations. This should be evidence enough that we don’t have anything to justify it’s being there, no?