S
Sporaticus
Guest
Mr Conte,
I’m sorry if in error, do I need correction?
I am open to correction.
You have supplied none.
- Status
I’m sorry if in error, do I need correction?
I am open to correction.
You have supplied none.
J
Jehuty_X
Guest
// forgot to add in my previous reply that not only do i doubt it, but what makes you think or believe that some books of the new testament were written in latin (mark and the letter to the romans)??? because of them being in rome at the time???
B
benedictus2
Guest
Just a quick question: Why would one take account of the Latin when no original text was ever in Latin?
Would this be due to the Aramaic version of Matthew being no longer extant?
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
The Latin Vulgate was never “going to be put in the dark,” it was and still is (albeit a newer version) the official Bible of the Catholic Church. Also, the Council of Trent doesn’t designate the Vulgate as the Bible here for any specific reason other than it was the official Bible and had the complete canon, which was not like the newer vernacular versions which were and are (if they don’t have the full canon) heretical. You are right, the Council is not, was not, and never will be God, but it spoke with God’s complete authority, you claim to be Catholic so you should know that already.
Another thing to point out, nothing is going to happen if you don’t use the Vulgate, but if you reject its canon you effectively excommunicate yourself.
See the point above.
So the Douay-Rheims is a useless translation? Are you serious? Also, you admit that the books were translated into Latin, presumably a long time ago, correct? Definitely St. Jerome, you have no idea the number of (now lost) Greek and Hebrew manuscripts those early Christians had access to. That is why it is always a good idea to check a translation against the Latin as well, the Latin may be a translation, but it was done more accurately than any translation today could be done.
I doubt this one too, I’d have to see some facts here, but I don’t see why Romans couldn’t have been written in Latin, considering it was written to Latin speaking people.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
There is some support for Mark and Romans having been written in Latin. No, it has nothing to do with Matthew having been written originally in Hebrew.
It is the long usage of the Latin Bible in the Church by the Living Tradition and by the Living Magisterium and by so many of the faithful that gives the Latin a special place in the Scriptural life of the Church. But this is not to the exclusion of the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.
DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
21. And if the Tridentine Synod wished “that all should use as authentic” the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which “had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church.” Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Dear Jehuty,
You need to understand what the Old Latin is.
For the most part, the Old Latin is New Testament, primarily Gospels.
This Old Latin, for the most part dates from the end of the 2nd Century, and is incorporated into the Jeromian Latin with minimal alterations or Editing.
This Old Latin was commissioned by Pope Victorius I, the world’s first black Pope, an African from Carthage.
It was he who, if anyone pushed the Catholic Church from a multilingual mix of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, into a unified Latin Church, and though he died before work commenced, an Old Latin New testament was in use by AD 210.
Though in its original form it is now lost, there are witnesses of this old Carthaginian Latin. The Codex Fuldensis is clearly such a witness, and it shows how little Jerome altered the text thereoff.
The presence of Latin gramatical structures in the Pesheeta show that much, at least of the Pesheeta New Testament is a back translation into Syriac from Latin.
There is also good reason to suspect that some old Greek are also back translations.
Clearly, for some long time the Carthaginian Latin was treated as an international standard, and used as a translation source for local language texts, as indeed happened when the Old Latin Mixed Gospel was translated into Old High German, a dialect similar to Saxon English.
I might have argument with Friend Ron’s abandonment of what is wrongly considered ‘Archaic English’, that is, the second person singular, without which, much of the meaning of the Latin is lost. 'Thee’s, 'thou’s, and 'thine’s are still in use on many dialects of English. However, I will without question trust his close reliance on the Latin, which, at least as far as the NT is concerned, is far more reliable than any other language.
The Carthaginian Latin was produced by the best scholars at the University of Alexandria, while there were yet alive, some who remembered the tales of their grandfathers.
This immediacy is now lost in modern translations from old languages which like old Hebrew, are no longer fully understood.
You can find some readings from the Latin Mixed Gospel, and a progress report on my progress in re-typesetting Ernestus Ranke’s Transliteration of the Codex Fuldensis at:
sangallensis.blogspot.com/2009/08/progress-report-on-codex-fuldensis.html
Only Jude and the Apocalypse are yet to be formatted of the scripture.
Much help will soon be needed if I am to give an English translation.
D
David_Zampino
Guest
Upon what scholarship to you base this “opinion”?
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Our friend Ron has without any doubt a great scholarship in Latin.
What I will say from what little Latin background I have is that as you read the Latin, you see behind it the native language of the author in the idioms he uses.
To express an opinion, or verdict, you need no qualification other than an understanding of the subject.
I have no reason to question Ron’s understanding here.
Latin and Greek were the language of NT Rome, but Greek was the language of the intelligentsia, Latin was the language of slaves, many of whom were African, or Carthaginian or Libyan.
Christianity first found her home among slaves.
What fool would try to converse with a slave in Greek?
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Voco proTatiano:
I think that may be an exaggeration. Certainly in Rome, Italy and the Western Empire Latin was spoken by the nobility and Imperial family, as well as the magistrates and early bishops, not to mention the people in general and our great Latin Authors of distinction. Plutarch was heavily criticized for never learning Latin, although he wrote mainly for the Latin reader. It’s true Greek was the common tongue of the Eastern empire (even of slaves.) However, you can be sure business was conducted in Latin even in Jerusalem by the Procurator Pontius Pilate. IOW, Latin was much more than the language of slaves.
D
David_Zampino
Guest
This may or may not be true.
It does not answer my question.
Upon what “scholarship” does our Mr. Conte imply that the originals of Mark and Romans were written in Latin?
D
David_Zampino
Guest
Um, the Koine Greek was the trade language of the entire Mediterranean basin.
Your notion is entirely without warrant.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Scholars of that time period learned and wrote both Greek and Latin. The common people of Rome were much better versed in Latin, than in Greek. But Latin was also the official language of Rome; coins, inscriptions in stone, various official documents were written in Latin. Scholars such as Seneca, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny all wrote in Latin.
Mark lived in Rome for many years after going there with Peter. They both undoubtedly learned Latin in order to communicate with the faithful there.
According to St. Jerome, when Peter was away for a time, and Mark was planning to leave for Alexandria, the faithful of Rome pestered Mark to write the Gospel for them, since they were concerned that they would be without their two best sources of knowledge about the Gospel, Peter and Mark. So Mark wrote the Gospel for the faithful at Rome, and then he soon departed for Alexandria. And this is supported by the fact that the oldest versions of Mark’s Gospel, those that lack the later ending, are from northern Africa and are in Latin.
“Baronius and others say that the original was written in Latin.” – note at the beginning of Mark’s Gospel in the Douai Rheims Bible (1899 edition published by Baronius Press).
I also think that Jesus spoke Latin at times, for example, to the Herodians when He spoke about paying the tax to Caesar, and to Pilate during His trial.
As for the Letter to the Romans, Tertius had to help Paul write the letter because Paul, being a Hebrew scholar, knew Hebrew and Aramaic best, then Greek (Acts 21:37), and least of all Latin. The Romans invaded and conquered the Jews, so a strict Pharisee, as Paul used to be, would not be spending much time learning Latin. So the line written by Tertius shows that the letter was written in Latin (i.e. translated into Latin) by Tertius for Paul
{16:22} I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, greet you in the Lord.
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
Mark for instance does use a lot of words from Latin. Especially concerning those things to do with Rome. And the reference in 1 Peter of both Peter and Mark being in Babylon (assumed to mean Rome) Being penned originally in Latin though is rather specualtive and would largely hinge on the old custom of when in Rome do as the Romans do.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
As I said previously, a basic knowledge of Latin will enable the reader to find ‘foreign’ idioms.
If the reader finds no ‘foreign’ idioms, he can be sure that the writer was thinking in Latin.
That being the case, the text was almost certainly written in Latin.
That logic does not require a Ph. D.
Again, the appearance of Latin slang would not be expected in a scholarly translation of Greek or Hebrew.
These are things a scholar of Latin would be aware of.
This ought to have answered your question.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
I don’t think that 1 Peter was written in Latin. Peter makes use of Sylvanus as his translator, so the letter was probably not written in Hebrew or Aramaic, which Peter knew well, and probably not in Latin, which Peter would have learned from his years in Rome. Also, Sylvanus is a (Latinized) Greek name, so it seems that the letter was written in Greek. 1 Peter appears to be addressed to Jews of the dispersion, who generally used Greek, and who had converted to Christianity.
2 Peter is addressed to Gentiles who had converted, possibly those who lived in Asia minor. There appears to be no translator or a need for a translator, since Peter would have written to them in Aramaic, a language that he knew well.
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
I did not say 1 Peter was written in Latin. People point to the reference to Babylon as evidence Mark was in Rome and thus supportive evidence that he wrote Mark in Latin.
S
Squanto
Guest
The OP later posted this, in one of his postings.
What does this refer to?
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
During my work translating,(by fragment substitution), I was amazed at the number of multilingual puns with which Our Lord littered is lessons.
It is impossible not to conclude that he was at home in Greek and Latin as well as Samarian, Gallilean and Hebrew.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
A play on words does not necessarily indicate which language was original to the text.
[Wisdom]
{12:8} Sed et his tamquam hominibus pepercisti, et misisti antecessores exercitus tui vespas, ut illos paulatim exterminarent.
{12:8} Yet, so that you were lenient even to these men, you sent wasps, forerunners of your army, so that you might destroy them little by little,
Here is an interesting play on words, in the Latin, which is not (as far as I know) found in the Hebrew or the Greek. The wasps are said to be forerunners of God’s army, but the word army in Latin, exercitus, can also mean swarm, as in a swarm of insects.
Wisdom was not originally written in Latin, but there is a play on words in the Latin.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Dear Ron,
It seems that your idea of a play on words differs from mine.
A swarm, and an army, are essentially derived from the same root concept, so in my mind, this is not a play on words.
Take however, the word ‘Paradise’
In Persian, it simply means a garden, though a Garden is often a place of peace and refuge from the troubles of the world.
However, mispronouncing the word slightly, you get ‘Para’ ‘Deus’, which is a mixed pun in Latin and Greek, meaning ‘with G_d’
Actually, Latin Deus is probably related to Greek Zeus, or the king of the gods.
Now that is what I mean by a multilingul pun.
It seems that your idea of a play on words differs from mine.
A swarm, and an army, are essentially derived from the same root concept, so in my mind, this is not a play on words.
Take however, the word ‘Paradise’
In Persian, it simply means a garden, though a Garden is often a place of peace and refuge from the troubles of the world.
However, mispronouncing the word slightly, you get ‘Para’ ‘Deus’, which is a mixed pun in Latin and Greek, meaning ‘with G_d’
Actually, Latin Deus is probably related to Greek Zeus, or the king of the gods.
Now that is what I mean by a multilingul pun.
- Status