Latin Question

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Hope of Glory, May 13, 2007.

  1. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does anyone know anything about the Latin Vulgate or any of the older Latin translations? What Greek manuscripts were they translated from? What is their basis?
     
  2. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,148
    Likes Received:
    1,309
    Western Textform.
     
  3. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Could you be more specific?

    All of the Western Text Form manuscripts I could find are from the 6th century or later. In order for the LV to be translated either from Greek, or older Latin manuscripts that were translated from the Greek, the Greek manuscripts had to be older.
     
  4. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    Dr. Cassidy is right. The text type of the Old Latin versions is said to be the Western. The Greek mss behind them are not extant, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist when the translations were made.

    Concerning the Vulgate of Jerome, it's been a long time since I read up on it, but I believe it veers back towards the Alexandrian somewhat. :type:
     
  5. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, basically, there is no way to examine the manuscripts from which the Latin was taken. Is that correct?
     
  6. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    Right. What you have to do is compare the Vulgate to a Greek NT (or various Bible versions if you don't know Greek). Even if you don't know Latin, if you work hard at it you'll be able to figure some things out, since many English words have Latin words as their origin. Also, a hard copy Latin NT should have apparatus (footnotes) discussing the readings. (Electronic versions such as e-Sword don't.)

    I have to caution, though, that there have been various corrections and revisions of the Vulgate since Jerome translated it in the early 5th century. So it takes a lot of work to get educated about its history and manuscripts.
     
  7. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,148
    Likes Received:
    1,309
    The Western textform is, in my opinion, most likely a partially corrected Alexandrian text, using a Byzantine exemplar for the corrections.

    I say "partially" because the Western textform exhibits characteristics of both textforms.

    As far as the exemplars no longer being extant, the oldest manuscript exhibiting a Western type text I am aware of is p5, dating to the mid third century (about 250 AD), but it only contains small parts of the Gospel of John. P38 also dates to about the same time and contains small portions of Acts. D is probably the oldest manuscript with the most significant size, dating to the 5th or 6th century.
     
  8. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,148
    Likes Received:
    1,309
    Correct. Jerome's Vulgate dates to 382, well after the dates assigned to the oldest of the Western manuscripts.

    The Clementine Vulgate of 1592 became the offical bible of the RCC during the Papacy of Clement VIII.

    And today the New Vulgate (Nova Vulgata) of 1969/1979 is the official bible of the RCC.
     
  9. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192

    Sounds right to me, Dr. Cassidy, though you know far better on this given your education and the fact that I haven't studied it much lately.
     
  10. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    HofG, here is a website about something called by Westcott and Hort the "Western non-interpolations" which can educate you a little more in this area if you are interested: http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/WestNonInterp.html
     
  11. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmm...

    Still doesn't help in what I'm looking for. I found something interesting in some Greek manuscripts, but they came from the 6th century. Interestingly, the Vulgate has the same thing. I was wanting to compare to the Greek manuscripts from which the Latin was taken to see if it was added or not.
     
  12. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    What's the passage? I could see what was in the apparatus of my Vulgate.
     
  13. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    John 3:5

    The NA-27 has a note in Latin, but the NA-24 has the variant in Greek. It has "anagennaO", and it's in two Greek papyri, but it's also in the Latin.

    I'm curious as to whether the Latin texts that Jerome copied from added it, Jerome added it, or if it was genuine in the Greek manuscripts from which the Latin was copied.

    I've preached for years that although John 3:3 is "born from above", John 3:5 teaches the concept of "born again" (as opposed to born from above). Recently, a friend of mine pointed out the footnote in the NA, so I broke it out, and sure enough, there it is!

    But, is it genuine? Or, at least, what are the possibilities that it's genuine?

    FWIW, there is also conjecture, and I don't know which manuscripts that it's based upon, that "water" is also not genuine in this verse. (I disagree with that, but I would like to see the evidence for the argument.)
     
  14. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    The Latin text is solid there, with no other reading in the apparatus. Interesting variant!

    My Textual Commentary on the Greek NT (p. 203, 1975 ed.) says nothing about an anagennaw variant, so I'd guess there is very little evidence for that. However, it does mention a variant with a few Greek mss (corrected aleph, 245, 291, 472, 1009, L26) and various church fathers replacing tou theou with twn ouranwn.

    I'm looking at my genuine 1882 American 1st ed. of the two volume Westcott and Hort (Oh, no, John of Japan, not W & H :eek: ), and their note gives the anagennaw reading as Western. So that is probably where your NA 24 came up with it. But W & H give no Greek mss for the reading, just church fathers. So I'd say John 3:5 in USB, Nestle's and TR is correct.
     
  15. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    If memory serves, it's in papyri 74 & 76. (Both came after Jerome.)

    The NA-27 simply gives the Latin. I don't know about 25 & 26.

    Any idea on what W&H based theirs on?

    So, is the assumption that "born again" is in the Western Greek mss, but not the others, except for the two papyri, since there's no other reading in the Latin?
     
  16. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    I have NA 26, and they don't give the "born again" variation or the Latin.

    Just to be clear, W&H did not include the "born again" variation in their text, only in the apparatus. As you no doubt know, they usually went with Vaticanus or Siniaticus, so I assume that's what they followed in this case. Since they didn't cite any Greek mss for anagennaw, they must have gone mainly with the Vulgate and church fathers to get the variant (shades of Burgon!).

    As to whether it was in the Western Greek mss or not, that too is up in the air IMO. The first Old Latin translator could have misinterpreted or simply been absent minded and made the mistake. (This happens to me all the time when I translate, and my correctors have to help me out.) In that case, other translators could have simply been lazy and followed the mistake of the first guy. I've seen many examples of this in the Japanese translations of the complete Bible. Often every single translation will make the same mistake which has carried over from the Motoyaku ("First translation") of 1870. :type:
     
  17. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm thinking it's also possible that one person saw the idea of "born again" (as opposed to "born from above") in the verse, inserted it as a textual comment, and it later got inserted into the text.

    That's why I wish there were some way to see the older manuscripts.
     
  18. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,208
    Likes Received:
    192
    That's certainly possible.
    Alas, if only....
     

Share This Page

Loading...