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

Re: [textualcriticism] FW: Help with some Latin, please.

Expand Messages
  • Stephen Carlson
    Aufer is an imperative, meaning remove! or expunge! The second translation renders aufer with an English imperative no problems. I think the first
    Message 1 of 4 , May 8 1:25 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Aufer is an imperative, meaning "remove!" or "expunge!" The second translation renders aufer with an English imperative' no problems.  I think the first translation's rendering "Marcion must ... expunge" is also intended to convey this sense (with "must" in the present and as a deontic modal, not in the past as an epistemic modal, as your interpretation of the translation suggested).

      Stephen


      On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:16 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...> wrote:
       

      Apologies to anyone who has seen this request on another list:

       

      Could someone help me with some Latin from Tertullian, Adv. Marcion IV. He is commenting on Marcion either needing to remove, or having already removed, from his gospel some text that we only see today in Mt. The Latin is: Ut dici solet, ad quod venimus; hoc age, Marcion, aufer etiam illud de evangelio, Non sum missus nisi ad oves perditas domus Israel, et, Non est auferre panem filiis et dare eum canibus, ne scilicet Christus Israelis videretur.

      Here are two different translations:

      As the adage runs: "The business on which we are come, do at once." Marcion must even expunge from the Gospel, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel;" and, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs," -- in order, forsooth, that Christ may not appear to be an Israelite. (I take this as meaning: “Marcion needed to remove from the Gospel…”, i.e. that he has already removed it)

      And:

      As the saying goes, let us get down to it: to your task, Marcion: remove even this from the gospel, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and, It is not <meet> to take away the children's bread and give it to dogs: for this gives the impression that Christ belongs to Israel. (I take this as meaning; “Marcion, you need to remove from the Gospel…”, i.e. that he hasn’t removed it yet, but should)

      Which of these meanings is correct (or closer to the Latin)? Help much appreciated.

      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

       




      --
      --
      Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
      Post-Doctoral Fellow, Theology, Uppsala
    • David Inglis
      Stephen, thank you for the reply. I understand the point, but it seems that it could still perhaps be (loosely!) translated as follows: Yeah Marcion, so,
      Message 2 of 4 , May 9 12:32 PM
      • 0 Attachment

        Stephen, thank you for the reply. I understand the point, but it seems that it could still perhaps be (loosely!) translated as follows: “Yeah Marcion, so, remove from the gospel ‘I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ … You had to do it, didn’t you, because it gives the impression that Christ belongs to Israel.”

         

        This appears to be the way that Walter Richard Cassels read it in 1905, when he wrote (Supernatural Religion, http://books.google.com/books?id=UsJAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false ): “This may be illustrated by the fact that both Tertullian and Epiphanius reproach Marcion with erasing passages from the Gospel of Luke, which never were in Luke at all. In one place Tertullian says : "Marcion, you must also remove this from the Gospel :  ‘I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,’ and : ‘It is not meet to take the children's bread, and give it to dogs,’ in order, be it known, that Christ may not seem to be an Israelite."' [He gives the Latin at the bottom of the page]

         

        Very few people seem to have translated Tertullian’s Latin in the sense that Marcion should have removed the text, but didn’t, but instead that he DID remove it. A Google search for ‘marcion remove –expunge sent sheep israel’ gives links to Evans 1972 translation (the second one I gave below) and Cassels book, but very little else that is relevant, whereas Googling ‘marcion expunge sent sheep israel’ brings up vast numbers of uses of the first translation below, from Holmes in 1870. This older translation is used in many websites, and also in the great majority of English language books on Marcion from the late 19th century until now. This is (to me) disappointing, because it means that much of what is written on Marcion all stems from a single English translation of Tertullian’s Adv. Marcion. So, I wonder whether this is typical, i.e. that biblical (and perhaps all) scholars tend to rely on, and inevitably be unduly influenced by (some might say biased towards) earlier work, rather than using the earlier work as an adjunct to their own. Or am I just being unrealistic?

         

        Sorry for the diversion away from the initial question, and someone please let me know if my final point is not something to discuss on-list.

         

        David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

         

        From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Carlson
        Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 1:26 PM
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] FW: Help with some Latin, please.

         

         

        Aufer is an imperative, meaning "remove!" or "expunge!" The second translation renders aufer with an English imperative' no problems.  I think the first translation's rendering "Marcion must ... expunge" is also intended to convey this sense (with "must" in the present and as a deontic modal, not in the past as an epistemic modal, as your interpretation of the translation suggested).

         

        Stephen

        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:16 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...> wrote: 

        Could someone help me with some Latin from Tertullian, Adv. Marcion IV. He is commenting on Marcion either needing to remove, or having already removed, from his gospel some text that we only see today in Mt. The Latin is: Ut dici solet, ad quod venimus; hoc age, Marcion, aufer etiam illud de evangelio, Non sum missus nisi ad oves perditas domus Israel, et, Non est auferre panem filiis et dare eum canibus, ne scilicet Christus Israelis videretur.

        Here are two different translations:

        As the adage runs: "The business on which we are come, do at once." Marcion must even expunge from the Gospel, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel;" and, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs," -- in order, forsooth, that Christ may not appear to be an Israelite. (I take this as meaning: “Marcion needed to remove from the Gospel…”, i.e. that he has already removed it)

        And:

        As the saying goes, let us get down to it: to your task, Marcion: remove even this from the gospel, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and, It is not <meet> to take away the children's bread and give it to dogs: for this gives the impression that Christ belongs to Israel. (I take this as meaning; “Marcion, you need to remove from the Gospel…”, i.e. that he hasn’t removed it yet, but should)

        Which of these meanings is correct (or closer to the Latin)? Help much appreciated.

        David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

      • Barry
        ... Greetings, David -- I know you have already interacted with Stephen on this. Here is a literal translation of the Latin as it stands above: As it is
        Message 3 of 4 , May 9 9:48 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          On 5/7/2013 2:16 PM, David Inglis wrote:
          > Apologies to anyone who has seen this request on another list:
          >
          > Could someone help me with some Latin from Tertullian, Adv. Marcion IV.
          > He is commenting on Marcion either needing to remove, or having already
          > removed, from his gospel some text that we only see today in Mt. The
          > Latin is: Ut dici solet, ad quod venimus; hoc age, Marcion, aufer etiam
          > illud de evangelio, Non sum missus nisi ad oves perditas domus Israel,
          > et, Non est auferre panem filiis et dare eum canibus, ne scilicet
          > Christus Israelis videretur.

          Greetings, David -- I know you have already interacted with Stephen on
          this. Here is a "literal" translation of the Latin as it stands above:

          As it is accustomed to be said, for that which we have come, this do:
          Marcion, take away even that from the gospel, <that> "I have not been
          sent except to the lost sheep of Israel" and "It is not right to take
          bread from the sons and give it to the dogs" so that Christ not appear
          to be of Israel."

          > Here are two different translations:
          >
          > As the adage runs: "The business on which we are come, do at once."
          > Marcion must even expunge from the Gospel, "I am not sent but unto the
          > lost sheep of the house of Israel;" and, "It is not meet to take the
          > children's bread, and to cast it to dogs," -- in order, forsooth, that
          > Christ may not appear to be an Israelite. (I take this as meaning:
          > “Marcion needed to remove from the Gospel…”, i.e. that he has already
          > removed it)
          >
          > And:
          >
          > As the saying goes, let us get down to it: to your task, Marcion: remove
          > even this from the gospel, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the
          > house of Israel, and, It is not <meet> to take away the children's bread
          > and give it to dogs: for this gives the impression that Christ belongs
          > to Israel. (I take this as meaning; “Marcion, you need to remove from
          > the Gospel…”, i.e. that he hasn’t removed it yet, but should)
          >
          > Which of these meanings is correct (or closer to the Latin)? Help much
          > appreciated.

          As pointed out, we are dealing with present imperatives here, age and
          aufer. However, I am not sure your question can be answered apart from
          more context -- it appears to me that it is something that Marcion
          should have done to be consistent with is principles.



          --
          N.E. Barry Hofstetter
          Semper melius Latine sonat
          The American Academy
          http://www.theamericanacademy.net
          The North American Reformed Seminary
          http://www.tnars.net
          Bible Translation Magazine
          http://www.bible-translation.net

          http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.