Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Has Irenaeus' text and translation been mangled?
- On 10/22/2012 12:09 PM, Robert Relyea wrote:
> Mike Holmes has an edition of the church fathers, that has beenOops, It appears I have again mixed up Irenaeus with Ignatius. Mike
> reedited in light of more recent finds, as well as a new modern
> english translation:
> If we are likely Mike may even chime in on any difficulty he had in
> reconstructing Irenaeus.
Holmes volume does not include Irenaeus.
> On 10/22/2012 09:30 AM, mikek wrote:
>> To David Hindley (and all wanting to add anything):
>> Thanks. But agian David, it just "sounded" like the translators
>> Roberts and Donaldson come across as saying that the translators
>> thought Irenaeus text NEEDED IMPROVEMENT (because the Latin was so
>> bad) and they made the IMPROVEMENTS themselves (whoever the
>> translators into English that actually did the translating), in both
>> the Latin AND THE GREEK(where it was bad). Sort of like they said,
>> "Irenaeus text is not understood here[or wherever] so let's just
>> TRANSLATE IT in the way what he was trying to write." To me then,
>> in Irenaeus' quotations of the New Testament (or wherever he wrote
>> something) the translators would just WRITE IN the English
>> [IMPROVEMENTS] verses FROM OUR MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES INTO THE
>> TRANSLATION ITSELF. This would make my comparision of Irenaeus
>> quotes null and void. I would be wasting my time.
>> David, are you familiar with Irenaeus' text then? Is the above
>> scenerio not the case then?
>> Would I be able to do a study on the New Testament quotes of Irenaeus
>> from the english translation; or most all of his writings in
>> (mainly) "Against Heresies" books?
>> You also mentioned that some of the text of Irenaeus and the other
>> texts you mentioned (like Hippolytus and that other church writer)
>> OVERLAP. Would that mean I have a better shot at studying those
>> OVERLAPPING TEXTS since it is like saying the same thing twice??
>> Thank-you for the link to and your contribution to this issue.
>> Mike Karoules
>> --- In email@example.com, "David
>> Hindley"<dhindley@...> wrote:
>>> The underlying Greek and Latin text Andrew speaks of is this two
>>> volume edition
>>> of Irenaeus:
>>> Sancti Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis Libros quinque adversus haereses
>>> Vol 1 http://archive.org/details/sanctiirenaeiep01harvgoog
>>> Vol 2 http://archive.org/details/sanctiirenaeiep00harvgoog
>>> There is a 100 page introduction which appears to be concerned
>>> mainly with
>>> Gnostic heresies, but quite a lot of notes (in English) which I am
>>> sure would
>>> comment on any irregular quotes.
>>> Where the Greek fragments overlap (say from Epiphanius and
>>> Hippolytus), the
>>> readings are fairly in accord with one another, and where Greek
>>> overlap the Latin translation Harvey deduced that the Latin is very
>>> literal in
>>> rendering the Greek, and was made not too long after it was written
>>> by Irenaeus.
>>> The "barbarous" Latin is not as barbarous as the editor of the ANF
>>> series makes
>>> it, but rather exhibits a "provincial" accent of the region near
>>> Lugdunum, if
>>> you may. The Latin translation appears to have been known to
>>> Tertullian in the
>>> early 3rd century. The translation issues mentioned are due to the
>>> terminology used by the Valentinian gnostics (hence the need for
>>> Harvey's 100
>>> page introduction.
>>> The 2 volumes above served as the primary source for the ANF
>>> translators, half
>>> by D. Roberts and the other half by W. H. Rambaut (originally
>>> published 1868),
>>> and it looks as though they tried to be literal as well. The
>>> American editor A.
>>> Cleveland Cox does not appear to have made any changes.
>>> Fun Fun!
>>> Dave Hindley
>>> Newton Falls, Ohio, USA
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> 1a. Has Irenaeus' text and translation been mangled?
>>> Posted by: "mikek" steelcurtain40@... steelcurtain40
>>> Date: Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:13 am ((PDT))
>>> Hello folks and all textual criticism junkies!
>>> I have a question for everyone (please):
>>> I had wished to embark on my own research on the accuracy and type
>>> of style of
>>> Irenaeus' own quotes of the New Testament. It seems , though, my
>>> trip has
>>> crashed through because, according to what I have read in a
>>> preview of
>>> Irenaeus' texts and writings - much of the translation in english is
>>> almost a
>>> reinvention of what the translators think Irenaeus intended to write.
>>> In the Introduction of Roberts-Donaldson it is stated: "The work of
>>> now for the first time translated into English, is unfortunately no
>>> extant in the original. It has come down to us only in an ancient
>>> version, with the exception of the greater part of the first book,
>>> which has
>>> been preserved in the original Greek through means of copious quotes
>>> made by
>>> Hippolytus and Epephanuis. The text, BOTH LATIN AND GREEK IS
>>> OFTEN MOST
>>> UNCERTAIN. [what; oh say it ain't so, Joe!] Only 3 manuscripts
>>> of the work
>>> Against Heresies are at present known to exist. Others, however
>>> were used in
>>> the earliest printed editions put forth by Erasmus. . . .One of our
>>> throughout, HAS BEEN TO FIX THE READINGS WE SHOULD ADOPT, especially
>>> in the
>>> first book. AFTER THE TEXT HAS BEEN SETTLED ACCORDING TO THE BEST
>>> WHICH CAN BE FORMED, THE WORK OF TRANSLATION BEGINS"
>>> They go on to say, "Irenaeus, even in the original Greek, is often
>>> a very
>>> obscure writer. . .And the Latin version adds to these difficulties
>>> of the
>>> original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. IN FACT
>>> IT IS OFTEN
>>> NECCESSARY TO MAKE A CONJECTURAL RETRANSLATION OF IT INTO GREEK IN
>>> ORDER TO
>>> OBTAIN SOME INKLING OT WHAT THE AUTHER WROTE."
>>> So, I asked myself, then, why even bother to make a translation
>>> of Irenaeus
>>> if it is next to impossible to know what Irenaeus wrote down in the
>>> first place?
>>> It seems to me , having already read some of Irenaeus in English, the
>>> translation (in the English) appears clear enough and the often
>>> quoted New
>>> Testament texts of Irenaeus also seem very understandable and clear.
>>> Here is my point or question: Are we to conclude, then, that the
>>> New Testament
>>> quotes of Irenaeus (in the English translation OF IRENAEUS) was
>>> interjected by
>>> the translators themselves from the current Englsih translations
>>> that we have??
>>> To put it this way, instead of just translating the New Testament
>>> quotes of
>>> Irenaeus from the copies that we do have, (Latin or Greek) did the
>>> translators more-less just guess or CONJECTURE (as best they could
>>> with the
>>> best intentions that they had) the wording of Irenaeus' NT quotes
>>> FROM OUR
>>> MODERN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS ONTO THE IRENAEUS ENGLISH TRANSLATION??
>>> And , should I just toss aside my own personal study of Irenaeus'
>>> quotes of the
>>> New Testamnt (in English)??
>>> Another way, am I just spinning my wheels in researching Irenaeus'
>>> quotes of
>>> the New Testament seeing that the text and TRANSLATION is already been
>>> significantly tampered with?? thank you much. Kindly, Mike Karoules
>> Yahoo! Groups Links