Codex Fuldensis Gospel

[Ron_Conte]

Dave,

You place too much emphasis on one codex.

The Council of Trent gave the Latin Scriptural tradition a special place in the Scriptural life of the Church, but not any one edition or manuscript. There are thousands of Latin manuscripts and the Church has never put one above all the others.

Your approach is similar to the KJV enthusiasts who put the KJV above all other English versions. You should broaden your approach.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dave,

You place too much emphasis on one codex.

The Council of Trent gave the Latin Scriptural tradition a special place in the Scriptural life of the Church, but not any one edition or manuscript. There are thousands of Latin manuscripts and the Church has never put one above all the others.

Your approach is similar to the KJV enthusiasts who put the KJV above all other English versions. You should broaden your approach.

Dear Ron,
I welcome your comments, and greatly respect your far superior knowledge.
I do not hail CF per se, but, taking the words of Victor of Capua at face value. and taking into account the words of St Jerome, in his preface to the Gospels, I believe that the CF, or in fact San Gall 56, is an excellent witness to the most ancient Latin of Carthage.
Indeed, I have extracted over 80% of both John and Matthew from Sievers’ work, and I can witness that the CF Gospel was not translated from some other tongue, specifically Aramaic, by ‘fragment substitution’, for I am familiar with the errors introduced by that method, which incidentally I used to obtain he English, and the only such errors I found, were of my own making.
The Arabic, on the other hand, though in a tongue closely related to Aramaic, is littered with such errors, and reads like Vulgate text in Hill’s or Hogg’s translations.
I do like your translation of the Vulgate, but I regret your choice to abandon the second person singular. 2S can be used in modern English, and indeed still is used in Northern regions of Britain. The use of 2S does not require the archaic forms of other persons to be retained, and in modern English, there are only two tenses which are conjugated, the remainder are synthesized using participles, which are in fact adjectives, and auxiliary conjugated verbs have and be.

Incidentally, I still need help with Victor’s preface, of which my translation is far from acceptable to me, but is the best I can do with my limited ability.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I do like your translation of the Vulgate, but I regret your choice to abandon the second person singular. 2S can be used in modern English, and indeed still is used in Northern regions of Britain. The use of 2S does not require the archaic forms of other persons to be retained, and in modern English, there are only two tenses which are conjugated, the remainder are synthesized using participles, which are in fact adjectives, and auxiliary conjugated verbs have and be.

Incidentally, I still need help with Victor’s preface, of which my translation is far from acceptable to me, but is the best I can do with my limited ability.

Could you give an example of a verse or a few verses using the 2S? I’d be interested to see how that would read.

Sorry, I’m occupied completing my translation of the Vulgate; I can’t take time to work on that project right now.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Could you give an example of a verse or a few verses using the 2S? I’d be interested to see how that would read.

Sorry, I’m occupied completing my translation of the Vulgate; I can’t take time to work on that project right now.

It is actually very simply.
All other persons remain in the modern grammar, but the second singular keeps its archaic form.
Thou art, commonly shortened to th’art.
Interrogative: art tha.
Thou hast, commonly shortened to th’as(t),
interrogative: (h)as(t) t(h)a.
Most tenses are conjugated with the auxiliary verb:
Where art tha going? (wheer’t tha goin’)
where hast tha been? (wheer’s’t’a bin)
where art tha sitting? (wheer’rt tha sittin’)
All ‘s’ as ‘ss’, not as ‘z’.
The simple present, and simple past are uncommon, and are commonly conjugated as 3rd person:
Watch where tha sits
Mind how tha goes.
The form of the auxiliary for future is also commonly treated as 3rd person:
Tha’ll be forrit. (you are heading for trouble)
These could all, strictly speaking, be grammatical errors, from lazy talk, for as with Vetus Latina, dialect is not commonly recorded in literature.
Shakespeare and DR, or KJV give the best gramatical correctness, but all three are archaic, and I feel you might prefer the modern common usage.

{1:28} And upon entering, the Angel said to her: “Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women.”
{1:29} And when she had heard this, she was disturbed by his words, and she considered what kind of greeting this might be.
{1:30} And the Angel said to her: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
{1:31} Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and thou shalt bear a son, and thou shalt call his name: JESUS.
{1:32} He will be great, and he will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father. And he will reign in the house of Jacob for eternity.
{1:33} And his kingdom shall have no end.”

I have given your text as an example, modified to restore 2s in modern form.

 

[Ron_Conte]

There is nothing wrong with what you suggest, using ‘thou art’ ‘thee’ etc. in an edition of Scripture. But what would you use for the second person plural?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

There is nothing wrong with what you suggest, using ‘thou art’ ‘thee’ etc. in an edition of Scripture. But what would you use for the second person plural?

Dear Ron,
As I said, this only affects one person out of the six.
The second person plural stands as is.
Here is a link to a modern usage in Yorkshire dialect.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Ilkla_Moor_Baht%27at

Yorkshire dialect is still alive and well!
In spite of ill informed efforts by modern grammaticists, there is a resurgence of local dialects. Most of them still use 2S in a similar form.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dear Ron,
I would have preferred to send this as a PM, but that portal seems to be closed.
Maybe this thread is not appropriate, but I thought I might just catch you here.
I have to say though that my only interest is in the Gospel(s) at the moment. Any how, for what it is worth…

I read again your opening to Matthew, and I worry about your use of the word ‘conceived’ to replace ‘begat’.
My opinion is that this understanding is a false friend.
I believe the intended meaning is in accord with Psalm 2 verse 7, where the verb gigno is used to signify acknowledgement of fatherhood.
So better would be ‘was the father of’, and this could be mirrored in Luke, ‘was fathered by’.
This retains the understanding, and also allows for the old Israelite tradition of including those whome we call adopted, as true descendants, begotten by the father, not as a genetic act, but as an act of will.
Understanding ‘begetting’ in this context of acknowledgement also throws light on other stumbling blocks, specially the idea of ‘only-begotten-ness’.
For though David was acknowledged by G_d as his son, this was in a private vision, or dream.
Our Lord’s acknowledgement was public, and occurred at least twice.
The Baptism, and the transfiguration.
Our Lord also promised to acknowledge us in his Father’s name, thus confirming our birthright as sons, and daughters of G_d. Not by adoption, that is a Pauline Graeco/Roman concept, for genetically, we are all as much sons and daughters of G_d as was/is our Lord, but by acknowledgement.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I read again your opening to Matthew, and I worry about your use of the word ‘conceived’ to replace ‘begat’.
My opinion is that this understanding is a false friend.
I believe the intended meaning is in accord with Psalm 2 verse 7, where the verb gigno is used to signify acknowledgement of fatherhood.
So better would be ‘was the father of’, and this could be mirrored in Luke, ‘was fathered by’.
This retains the understanding, and also allows for the old Israelite tradition of including those whome we call adopted, as true descendants, begotten by the father, not as a genetic act, but as an act of will.
Understanding ‘begetting’ in this context of acknowledgement also throws light on other stumbling blocks, specially the idea of ‘only-begotten-ness’.
For though David was acknowledged by G_d as his son, this was in a private vision, or dream.
Our Lord’s acknowledgement was public, and occurred at least twice.
The Baptism, and the transfiguration.
Our Lord also promised to acknowledge us in his Father’s name, thus confirming our birthright as sons, and daughters of G_d. Not by adoption, that is a Pauline Graeco/Roman concept, for genetically, we are all as much sons and daughters of G_d as was/is our Lord, but by acknowledgement.

Interesting comments. The term begotten is used in a specialized sense to refer to the procession of the Son from the Father. It would not be correct to say that the human nature of Christ is ‘begotten’ in that sense. Generally, the terminology is ‘virgin conception’ so the human nature is conceived, but within the Divine Nature the Son is begotten.

I use begotten in Psalm 2:7 since it refers to the Son, but I could just as well have used conceived there, since it refers to the Incarnate Son.

In passages refering to the generation of various Partriarchs, I use conceived since this is a more literal rendering of the Latin than ‘was the father of’. The latin is usually genuit which is in the active tense (grammatically). Also, the phrasing ‘was the father of’ includes a noun that is not found in the Latin (or in the Greek or Hebrew as far as I know). So while ‘was the father of’ is a perfectly fine loose rendering, I prefer the more literal rendering for my translation.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Dear Ron,
As I said, this only affects one person out of the six.
The second person plural stands as is.

My only objection is that it is somewhat awkward to use thou for the 2S and you for the 2P. It is has the advantage of distinguishing between 2S and 2P, but overall I’d prefer readability to distinctions and correctness that are primarily grammatical.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Interesting comments. The term begotten is used in a specialized sense to refer to the procession of the Son from the Father. It would not be correct to say that the human nature of Christ is ‘begotten’ in that sense. Generally, the terminology is ‘virgin conception’ so the human nature is conceived, but within the Divine Nature the Son is begotten.

Yes, but we must note for all who might be offended, that this begetting has nothing to do with biological reproduction. This is an act of getting to be, by other means.

I use begotten in Psalm 2:7 since it refers to the Son, but I could just as well have used conceived there, since it refers to the Incarnate Son.

In passages refering to the generation of various Partriarchs, I use conceived since this is a more literal rendering of the Latin than ‘was the father of’. The latin is usually genuit which is in the active tense (grammatically). Also, the phrasing ‘was the father of’ includes a noun that is not found in the Latin (or in the Greek or Hebrew as far as I know). So while ‘was the father of’ is a perfectly fine loose rendering, I prefer the more literal rendering for my translation.

Hi Ron,
Forgive me for using an English dictionary, but:
beget /bi’get/ v.t.(-tt-; past begot, archaic begat; begotten be the father of; give rise to (anger begets violence). [OE (BE-)]

So the noun which you find missing is clearly implied by the verb.

conceive /kon’si:v/ v. become pregnant; form(idea etc.) in the mind; (also with of. [F f. L *concipio -cept-]

In abandoning a word you perceived as archaic, you have then taken a word which is then misused, for it is the mother who conceives, not the father.
Incidentally, the mother may also beget.

What you conceive, forms within yourself, whether it be a child, or an idea.
What you beget, you cause to be, (get to be), and you can get it to be anywhere, and by any means.
I think it might have been better to have kept the old word, and to have placed a comment near, that the limited biological usage is not always definitely implied.

As for Luke, ‘fuit’ is the perfect active of ‘esse’, ‘sum’.
If I was translating literally, I would write ‘has been’, not ‘was’, which is imperfect, as is ‘erat’, so clearly, the Latin, as is habit, is omitting a substantive.
The obvious missing substantive is ‘the begotten’, hence:
qui fuit Dei.
who has been the begotten of G_d.

All being said, perhaps the alterations here were not essential, and Douay is close enough, if the appropriate comment is added.

The modern form of the PPP, ‘begot’ is adequate.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

My only objection is that it is somewhat awkward to use thou for the 2S and you for the 2P. It is has the advantage of distinguishing between 2S and 2P, but overall I’d prefer readability to distinctions and correctness that are primarily grammatical.

Yes, I accept that to be strictly grammatical, the complete archaic constructions and conjugations should be used.
But then, perhaps you might consider this:
The first book of any circulation, printed in the English Language, was the KJV Bible.
Actually the dialect therein did not represent native English, but was an artificial dialect to best convey the Latin of the Vulgate, of which it is clearly a translation, for you struggle to insert a cigarette paper between KJV and DR.
Thus KJV begot the English Language, for it was for over 300 years, the only commonly accessible book written in that language.
It still is.

Thus, if you need to bend the English language slightly, to better relfect the Latin, you do no worse than the KJV team did in constructing the KJV dialect.

Yes, strictly, nominative 2P is ‘Ye’, which is still sometimes used as vocative.
However it is so disused as to merit forgetting.
‘Thou’, ‘thee’, ‘thy’, and ‘thine’ are still commonly understood, even if only from the Common Prayer version of Our Lord’s Prayer.
Yes the verb endings should, to be in conformance with the archaic, end with a ‘t’, but in living dialect, this last ‘t’ has commonly been dropped.
Apart from ‘thou art’, (th’art), and ‘art thou’, (art tha), it only now exists in the interogative forms:
‘hast thou’, and ‘doest thou’
commonly pronounced:
’ ‘ast’a’, and ‘dust’a’.
In all other cases I know, the conjugation is as the 3S.
‘Tha’ll bi forrit’ is a typical example. Strictly:
‘Thou wilt be for it’, but ‘Thou will be for it’ is acceptable in modern usage.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Forgive me for using an English dictionary, but:
beget /bi’get/ v.t.(-tt-; past begot, archaic begat; begotten be the father of; give rise to (anger begets violence). [OE (BE-)]

So the noun which you find missing is clearly implied by the verb.

conceive /kon’si:v/ v. become pregnant; form(idea etc.) in the mind; (also with of. [F f. L *concipio -cept-

]

In abandoning a word you perceived as archaic, you have then taken a word which is then misused, for it is the mother who conceives, not the father. Incidentally, the mother may also beget.

What you conceive, forms within yourself, whether it be a child, or an idea.
What you beget, you cause to be, (get to be), and you can get it to be anywhere, and by any means.
I think it might have been better to have kept the old word, and to have placed a comment near, that the limited biological usage is not always definitely implied.

I don’t object to the use of begat. But I prefer conceive since it is less archaic and more easily understood. As for the dictionary, I don’t consider the dictionary to be authoritative when Scripture is concerned, otherwise the non-inspired dictionary would have power over inspired Scripture. There is no rule of faith or morals that ‘conceive’ cannot be used in the sense of the father as well as the mother. Similarly, ‘begotten’ Son is used in an almost entirely different sense than any dictionary would give when it is used to refer to procession. So a translator of Scripture is not bound by what a dictionary says that a word means. Translators may even invent new words in order to translate a difficult word or phrase.

Overall, your views on language and translation in Scripture are too narrow. Whereas I would admit a wide range of different possible wordings, including much of what you prefer, you are too insistent on very particular features of translation and language, where faith and morals and truth are not at issue.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I don’t object to the use of begat. But I prefer conceive since it is less archaic and more easily understood. As for the dictionary, I don’t consider the dictionary to be authoritative when Scripture is concerned, otherwise the non-inspired dictionary would have power over inspired Scripture. There is no rule of faith or morals that ‘conceive’ cannot be used in the sense of the father as well as the mother. Similarly, ‘begotten’ Son is used in an almost entirely different sense than any dictionary would give when it is used to refer to procession. So a translator of Scripture is not bound by what a dictionary says that a word means. Translators may even invent new words in order to translate a difficult word or phrase.

Overall, your views on language and translation in Scripture are too narrow. Whereas I would admit a wide range of different possible wordings, including much of what you prefer, you are too insistent on very particular features of translation and language, where faith and morals and truth are not at issue.

Dear Ron,
Whereas I agree with most of what you say, speaking as an outsider, I am confused when words are not used in the common understanding thereof.
Yes, there are spiritual concepts which are not adequately embodied in common usages, and here indeed it is quite permissible to invent, or leave untranslated, the difficult words.
However, where a common usage is not used, the usage made should be adequately explained by a gloss or note, defining that usage.
Again, as an outsider, I do not see anything special in ‘procession’ for in the bodily sense, we all process from G_d, by begetting, as we all share his physical descent through Adam.
The only scriptural difference in the case of Our Lord, is that his ‘begetting’, or acknowledgement, was publickly made, and twice.
Our Lord promised us that we would likewise be acknowledged on the Last Day, if we acknowledge him, and the Father.
Otherwise we would be rejected, and denied as was Esau.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The Christmas Gospel as in the Codex Fuldensis Gospel: Nativity of Our Lord: Midnight Mass
Witnessed in Cod. Sang. 56.
cesg.unifr.ch/getMs.php?ref=56-32
Using data publicly available from:
liturgyoffice.org.uk/Calendar/2008/Dec08.shtml
and The Sunday Missal to cross-check.
The Gospel: Luke 2: 1-14
(24th-Dec-2008) Nativity of Our Lord: Midnight Mass, Year B

** Today a saviour has been born to us.**
The reading comprises the ending of the first capitulum given, 5: 11 - 13, and the beginning of the next, 6: 1 - 3. The reading is here taken entirely from Luke.

** V. De generatione vel nativitate Christi. **
(Of the generation and birth of Christ.)
** VI. Ubi angelus apparuit pastoribus. **
(Where the Angel appeared to the shepherds.)

The complete posting can be found on the blogsite below:
I treat this blog as if it were a Catholic site, and I expect it to be criticized if I overstep any mark which would earn criticism on your site.
The Forgotten Gospel

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

This week’s Gospel as in the Codex Fuldensis Gospel: The Holy Family
Witnessed in Cod. Sang. 56.
cesg.unifr.ch/getMs.php?ref=56-37
Using data publicly available from:
liturgyoffice.org.uk/Calendar/2008/Dec08.shtml
and The Sunday Missal to cross-check.
This Week’s Gospel: Luke 2: 22 - 40
(28th-Dec-2008) The Holy Family, Year B

** The child grew, filled with wisdom.**
The reading is incorporate in h folloig capitula. Verses 21 – 39 comprise VII. Then a whole series of incidents are inserted before the sequence starting with verse 40 is reached. The harmonizer clearly considered that Luke hada major omission here.
Verses 22 – 40 are taken entirely fom Luke, but the insertion from the harmonizer is taken from a continuous sequence in Matthew.

** VII. Ubi Ihesus ductus est a parentibus ut circumcideretur. **
(Where Jesus is taken by his parents to be circumcised.)
** VIII. De magis qui venerunt ab oriente. **
(Of the wise men who came from the East.)
** VIIII. Ubi fugatus Ihesus et parentes eius in Ægyptum transierunt. **
(Where Jesus and his parents went into exile in Egypt.)
** X. Ubi Herodes interfecit pueros. **
(Where Herod killed the children.)
** XI. Ubi Ihesus revocatur ab Ægypto. **
(Where Jesus was recalled from Egypt.)
** XII. Ubi Ihesus remansit in templo Herosolymis. **
(Where Jesus stayed behind in the temple in Jerusalem.)

The complete posting can be found on the blogsite below:
I treat this blog as if it were a Catholic site, and I expect it to be criticized if I overstep any mark which would earn criticism on your site.
The Forgotten Gospel

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

This week’s Gospel as in the Codex Fuldensis Gospel: The Epiphany of the Lord
Witnessed in Cod. Sang. 56.
cesg.unifr.ch/getMs.php?ref=56-39
Using data publicly available from:
liturgyoffice.org.uk/Calendar/2009/Jan09.shtml
and The Sunday Missal to cross-check.
This Week’s Gospel: Matt. 2: 1 - 12
(4th-Jn-2009) The Epiphany of the Lord, Year B

** We saw his star and have come to do the king homage.**
The reading comprises the following capitula. The reading is taken entirely from Matthew.
You should notice that this reaing was incorporated into lst week’s reading, as the harmonizer of the Fuldensis Gospel seems to have considered that a major omission in Luke had occurred.

** VIII. De magis qui venerunt ab oriente. **
(Of the wise men who came from the East.)

The complete posting can be found on the blogsite below:
I treat this blog as if it were a Catholic site, and I expect it to be criticized if I overstep any mark which would earn criticism on your site.
The Forgotten Gospel

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

This week’s Gospel as in the Codex Fuldensis Gospel: The Baptism of the Lord
Witnessed in Cod. Sang. 56.
cesg.unifr.ch/getMs.php?ref=56-43
Using data publicly available from:
liturgyoffice.org.uk/Calendar/2009/Jan09.shtml
and The Sunday Missal to cross-check.
This Week’s Gospel: Mark 1: 7 - 11
(11th-Jan-2009) The Baptism of the Lord, Year B

** You are my Son, the Beloved; my favour rests on you.**
The reading comprises the ending of the following capitulum, paragraphs 13:22 – 25, and the beginning of the next, 14: 1 – 4. The reading, though witnessing generally the account in Mark, uses not a single word from Mark, but is richly woven from the other three gospels.

** XIII. Ubi Iohannes Baptista apparuit in Israhel. **
(Where John the Baptist appeared in Israel.)
** XIIII. Ubi Ihesus baptizaretur ab Iohanne. **
(Where Jesus is baptized by John.)

The complete posting can be found on the blogsite below:
I treat this blog as if it were a Catholic site, and I expect it to be criticized if I overstep any mark which would earn criticism on your site.
The Forgotten Gospel

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

This week’s Gospel as in the Codex Fuldensis Gospel: 2nd Sunday of Ordinary Time
Witnessed in Cod. Sang. 56.
cesg.unifr.ch/getMs.php?ref=56-50
Using data publicly available from:
liturgyoffice.org.uk/Calendar/2009/Jan09.shtml
and The Sunday Missal to cross-check.
This Week’s Gospel: John 1: 35 - 42
(18th-Jan-2009) 2nd Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B

** They saw where he lived, and stayed with him.**
The reading comprises the entirety of the following capitulum. The reading is taken entirely fom John.

** XVI. Ubi duo discipuli Iohannis secuti sunt Ihesum. **
(Where two of John’s disciples followed Jesus.)

The complete posting can be found on the blogsite below:
I treat this blog as if it were a Catholic site, and I expect it to be criticized if I overstep any mark which would earn criticism on your site.
The Forgotten Gospel

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

This week’s Gospel as in the Codex Fuldensis Gospel: 3rd Sunday of Ordinary Time
Witnessed in Cod. Sang. 56.
cesg.unifr.ch/getMs.php?ref=56-53
Using data publicly available from:
liturgyoffice.org.uk/Calendar/2009/Jan09.shtml
and The Sunday Missal to cross-check.
This Week’s Gospel: Mark 1: 14 - 20
(25th-Jan-2009) 3rd Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B

** Repent and believe the Good News.**
The reading comprises the entirety of the first following capitulum, and the first three paragraphs of that following. Only a fraction of a single verse s taken from Mark. The introdution is grossly different, and most of the reading is taken from Matthew and Luke.

** XVIII. Ubi Ihesus in synagoga legit librum Esaiæ. **
(Where Jesus, in the synagogue, reads from the book of Isaias.)
** XVIIII. Ubi Ihesus vocavit Petrum et Andræam Iacobum et Iohannem. **
(Where Jesus called Peter and Andrew, and James and John.)

The complete posting can be found on the blogsite below:
I treat this blog as if it were a Catholic site, and I expect it to be criticized if I overstep any mark which would earn criticism on your site.
The Forgotten Gospel

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

This week’s Gospel as in the Codex Fuldensis Gospel: 4th Sunday of Ordinary Time
Witnessed in Cod. Sang. 56.
cesg.unifr.ch/getMs.php?ref=56-75
Using data publicly available from:
liturgyoffice.org.uk/Calendar/2009/Feb09.shtml
and The Sunday Missal to cross-check.
This Week’s Gospel: Mark 1: 21 - 28
(1st-Feb-2009) 4th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B

** He taught them with authority.**
As with last week’s reading, the account in Mark is not witnessed directly. Though the verse referenced in the quote above is witnessed indirectly, it is in an entirely different context, taken from Matthew. So, then, the Matthean context is here given, and comprises the entire capitulum following.

** XLIII. Conparatio in his omnibus de sapiente et insipiente ædificatoribus. **
(Comparison to all these of wise and foolish builders.)

The complete posting can be found on the blogsite below:
I treat this blog as if it were a Catholic site, and I expect it to be criticized if I overstep any mark which would earn criticism on your site.
The Forgotten Gospel