The Fort Worth Municipal Court offers an alternative to in-person appearance by providing a Virtual Court option. For individuals that would otherwise appear in walk-in court, Virtual Court allows access to a Judge while affording all parties a safe and structured courtroom appearance. Please review the e-service, expectations, and requirement in preparation for Virtual Court.Individuals may gain access to the Virtual Court process by calling 817-392-6700.
Formerly, it was somewhat credible, as Shaheen puts it, that "Arguments that Shakespeare ... was acquainted with the Rheims are too farfetched and contrived to be taken seriously" (35). However, in the light of recent scholarship, this claim no longer makes sense. The Rheims New Testament (1582) was preceded by a long line of previous translations of the Bible, especially the Tyndale (1526), the Great (1539), the Geneva (1560), and the Bishops' (1568). Translated in exile at Rheims principally by Gregory Martin, formerly of St. John's College, Oxford, it provided extensive notes and annotations. Intended to counter English Protestant translations, it in fact followed them in many ways, differing of course at crucial points. (2) Contrary to the simplistic carnard about the Protestants going back to "the original Greek" and the Catholics to the "corrupt" Latin Vulgate, in fact the title page of Rheims reads, "Diligently Compared with the Original Greek." The question was which Greek texts were more accurate, a problem that Gregory Martin, who was proficient in Greek and Hebrew, attempted to resolve by recourse to St. Jerome and the Church Fathers, who presumably better understood Greek and possibly had access to better texts. The Rheims translation drew an elaborate and fascinating response from the Protestant controversialist William Fulke, who in 1589 published an edition of the Bishops' and Rheims versions in parallel columns with commentary.
Ford Tis 2013 Torrent
To be sure, with Catholicism illegal, the Rheims New Testament certainly would have been a dangerous book to have around, although perfect cover would have been afforded by a copy of Fulke's edition. But it is apparent that two root assumptions, once quite plausible, have blocked any full consideration of the Rheims translation by Noble and Shaheen. First, if indeed the Rheims translation "does not appear to have had a wide circulation, [since] after it was published in 1582 it was not reprinted until 1600" (Shaheen 35), Fulke's publication of the Bishops' and Rheims versions in 1589 went into two additional printings in 1601, suggesting it was more widely read, possibly as a fascinating contrast of theological commentary. Second, allusions to the Rheims version of the New Testament... 2ff7e9595c
Comments