Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Matthew 28:18(19,20)

Expand Messages
  • malcolm robertson
    ... ________________________________ Dear Dave, Actually your remarks are not correct with regard to the following: 3/ et spiritus sancti... here we have a
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 27, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, DaveAt168@a... wrote:
      >
      > << I appreciate all of the information provided in the previous replies
      > to my question concerning the text of Matthew 28:19. An additional
      > question comes to mind. >>
      >
      > Dear Friend,
      >    Although I cannot give you direct evidence, here is a cause for thought...
      >    Look at this Latin, it is from the Codex Fuldensis Gospel:
      > "Euntes in mundum universum prædicate evangelium omni creaturæ, docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine patris et filii et
      > spiritus sancti, docentes eos servare omnia quæcumque mandavi vobis."
      >    Look i  particular at:
      > 1/ nomine patris... patris is genitive as we would expect, ie, in the name *of the father*,
      > 2/
      et filii... filii is also genitive as we would expect, ie, *and of the son*,
      > 3/ et spiritus sancti... here we have a problem, the noun, spiritus is nominative, but the adjective is genitive.  They both should be genitive to gramatically correct.  Now most of the grammar in CF is extremely good Classical Latin, but here we have corrupt ecclesiastical Latin.  This looks to me like evidence of doctoring the text.  Ie, #3/ should read 'et spiriti sancti'.
      > If we try to read this as correct Latin, then we find *the spirit of the holy* is baptizing
      >
      > Are any of the sources that you have so kindly provided that give
      > the verse as containing the words "baptizing them in the name of the
      > F, S, and HG . . ."
      >
      > --
      > Best regards,
      >     Dave Smith.
      >     (B.A.2,1, Science & Technology, Open Univerity.)
      >     168 Bristol
      Road,
      >     Frampton Cotterell,
      >     Bristol, BS36 2AX,
      >     U.K.
      > eMail    <DaveAt168@a...>
      > WWW:     <http://www.sangallen56.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk>
      ________________________________
       
      Dear Dave,
       
      Actually your remarks are not correct with regard to the following:
      "3/ et spiritus sancti... here we have a problem, the noun, spiritus is nominative, but the adjective is genitive. They both should be genitive to gramatically correct. Now most of the grammar in CF is extremely good Classical Latin, but here we have corrupt ecclesiastical Latin. This looks to me like evidence of doctoring the text. Ie, #3/ should read 'et spiriti sancti'. If we try to read this as correct Latin, then we find *the spirit of the holy*
      is baptizing"
       
      In fact spiritus is in the genitive form/case.  You have assumed that this form is a second declension noun when in fact it is a forth declension noun.
      I also would caution you to be careful about the assumption that ecclesiastical Latin is somehow "corrupt."  Latin naturally progressed toward the later developing venacular languages (e.g Italian, French, German, Russian - yes Russian too etc).  The classical models, while often very precis and clear among the better authors, were and still are artifical and stilted.  One need but compare the different styles of lets say Cicero and Caesar to prove this point.  In addition the common Roman would doubtless have spoken somewhat otherwise (whatever that may have been).
       
      Again I would caution you to broaden your horizons other than codex Fuldensis and not to try and make it the touchstone of textual collation.
       
      Finally, there exists no textual variant among the biblical manuscripts to support any other reading. 
       
      With friendly greetings,
       
      Malcolm



      Do you Yahoo!?
      With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail.
    • DaveAt168@aol.com
      Message 2 of 2 , Jan 28, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        << Dear Dave,

        Actually your remarks are not correct with regard to the following:
        "3/ et spiritus sancti... here we have a problem, the noun, spiritus is nominative, but the adjective is genitive. They both should be genitive to gramatically correct. Now most of the grammar in CF is extremely good Classical Latin, but here we have corrupt ecclesiastical Latin. This looks to me like evidence of doctoring the text. Ie, #3/ should read 'et spiriti sancti'. If we try to read this as correct Latin, then we find *the spirit of the holy*
        is baptizing"

        In fact spiritus is in the genitive form/case. You have assumed that this form is a second declension noun when in fact it is a forth declension noun.
        I also would caution you to be careful about the assumption that ecclesiastical Latin is somehow "corrupt." Latin naturally progressed toward the later developing venacular languages (e.g Italian, French, German, Russian - yes Russian too etc). The classical models, while often very precis and clear among the better authors, were and still are artifical and stilted. One need but compare the different styles of lets say Cicero and Caesar to prove this point. In addition the common Roman would doubtless have spoken somewhat otherwise (whatever that may have been).

        Again I would caution you to broaden your horizons other than codex Fuldensis and not to try and make it the touchstone of textual collation.

        Finally, there exists no textual variant among the biblical manuscripts to support any other reading.

        With friendly greetings,

        Malcolm >>

        Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
        Thankyou for putting me right.
        Please though, look at the CF. Consider that it may not be Tatian's First Edition, translated fron Syriac into Latin, but rather that it may be a new work, heavily based on that edition, but compiled, not from a syriac source, but rather from the Vetus Latina Gospels inspired by Victorius Africanus.
        My work, using the technique of Fragment Substitution, shows me clearly, that the resultant text is 'corrected' to the target template, and any omissions wrt the source template are made 'good'. there should be no deviations from the target template in gramatical, or idiomatic form. This is not the case with CF. The CF latin, is frequently more brief than the Vulgate, and quite often, a phraseology is found, which though identical in meaning, is not found verbatim in any of the other Gospels. I find these indicators to be a good proof that Jerome's Vulgate was not the destination template for a FS translation from Syriac, or Greek. If we find a trace of Syriac or Greek in the CF, it is because the source material was clearly derived from Syriac or Greek!

        --
        Best regards,
        Dave Smith.
        (B.A.2,1, Science & Technology, Open Univerity.)
        168 Bristol Road,
        Frampton Cotterell,
        Bristol, BS36 2AX,
        U.K.
        eMail <DaveAt168@...>
        WWW: <http://www.sangallen56.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk>
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.