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

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Vulgate text-form

Expand Messages
  • Jovial
    ((((((((( A) Since a similar practice of translation was followed by the KJV and RSV committees, i. e. substantial revision of an existing text in the target
    Message 1 of 24 , Sep 4, 2006
      (((((((((
      A) Since a similar practice of translation was followed by the KJV
      and RSV committees, i. e. substantial revision of an existing text
      in the target language with an eye on both other, previous versions
      as well as the original, I'd say that Jerome's gospels are a translation in
      as much as we also call those texts translations rather than updates of
      Tyndale and Wycliffe.
      )))))))))

      What you're saying about the KJV is correct, which is why I would not
      consider the KJV a fresh translation either, but merely a revision of
      previous translations, much like Jerome describes the Vulgate as a revision
      of the previous Latin.

      One argument Jerome made was that he claimed he really couldn't conclude
      that differences between the Latin and Greek were necessarily Latin
      deficiencies. He also argued that perhaps the Greek scribes goofed. But he
      did seem to use the Greek as the final authority anyway. For example, he
      argued in one place that the Johanine comma was legit, but he appears to
      have left it out of the Vulgate.
    • Larry Swain
      ... It would be interesting to know how he determined what Greek manuscripts to choose (besides the oldest ) to compare the Latin with. On a related note,
      Message 2 of 24 , Sep 4, 2006
        >
        >
        > (((((((((
        > A) Since a similar practice of translation was followed by the KJV
        > and RSV committees, i. e. substantial revision of an existing text
        > in the target language with an eye on both other, previous versions
        > as well as the original, I'd say that Jerome's gospels are a translation in
        > as much as we also call those texts translations rather than updates of
        > Tyndale and Wycliffe.
        > )))))))))
        >
        > What you're saying about the KJV is correct, which is why I would not
        > consider the KJV a fresh translation either, but merely a revision of
        > previous translations, much like Jerome describes the Vulgate as a revision
        > of the previous Latin.
        >
        > One argument Jerome made was that he claimed he really couldn't conclude
        > that differences between the Latin and Greek were necessarily Latin
        > deficiencies. He also argued that perhaps the Greek scribes goofed. But he
        > did seem to use the Greek as the final authority anyway. For example, he
        > argued in one place that the Johanine comma was legit, but he appears to
        > have left it out of the Vulgate.

        It would be interesting to know how he determined what Greek manuscripts to choose (besides the "oldest") to compare the Latin with.

        On a related note, Nestle argued in a couple of places that translation choices in the gospels indicated to him the presence of multiple hands there, and that John was all but untouched.

        I haven't looked at the Comma problem in the Vulgate, what evidence is there that it wasn't in the Vulgate? It is in Codex Amiatinus, the oldest complete Vulgate mss., I didn't check Codex Fuldensis, the oldest Vulgate NT, since its gospels are a Vulgatized version of the Diatesseron in which case it wouldn't tell us one or another if the Comma was in the Vulgate. Other evidence?

        Larry Swain

        --
        _______________________________________________
        Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
        Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com

        Powered by Outblaze
      • Daniel Buck
        ... is there that it wasn t in the Vulgate? It is in Codex Amiatinus, the oldest complete Vulgate mss., I didn t check Codex Fuldensis, the oldest Vulgate NT,
        Message 3 of 24 , Sep 7, 2006
          --- In msg #2563, "Larry Swain" wrote:

          >>I haven't looked at the Comma problem in the Vulgate, what evidence
          is there that it wasn't in the Vulgate? It is in Codex Amiatinus, the
          oldest complete Vulgate mss., I didn't check Codex Fuldensis, the
          oldest Vulgate NT, since its gospels are a Vulgatized version of the
          Diatesseron in which case it wouldn't tell us one or another if the
          Comma was in the Vulgate. <<

          You may be thinking of the Johannine Pericope, which is in the
          gospels. The Johannine Comma is 1 John 5:7/8. It is apparently not
          original to the Vulgate as it dominates the late Vulgate tradition
          only.

          Daniel Buck
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.