Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A Stupid Question? Latin Or Armenian New Testaments?
#1
Shlama Friends,

I'm wondering if anyone here can tell me if there once was a New Testament in either Latin, or in Armenian, that is as ancient as the P'shitta N.T.?

I've read some about both of these translations but I know very little about either of them.

It would make sense that the Latin New Testament COULD be very ancient, and ditto for the Armenian, as very likely it came from the Syriac P'shitta.

Do these New Testaments still actually exist, does anyone here know?

If I should not have posted this question, or whatever, feel free to remove it.
No problem with me if that happens.

Thanks for your help.

Shlama, Albion
Reply
#2
Hey Albion,

Yes, absolutely - the Latin Vulgate is very old, made by Jerome. There were some Old Latin versions before he made his masterful translation from the Greek.

The Armenian was translated from the Peshitta very early on as well, and was later standardized to the Greek version like that of the Syriac (Monophysite) Church, the Peshitto. The Armenian also contains other books in their canon, from what I remember.

Both are very old, as these people were among the early converts to the faith.
Reply
#3
Albion Wrote:Shlama Friends,
I'm wondering if anyone here can tell me if there once was a New Testament in either Latin, or in Armenian, that is as ancient as the P'shitta N.T.?
[..]
Do these New Testaments still actually exist, does anyone here know?

Shlama Albion,

Here is what Bruce Metzger (http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obi...293454.ece) and Bart Ehrman wrote in "The Text of the New Testament Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" about Old Latin (Vetus Latina):

"When and where it was that the earliest attempts were made to translate the Bible into Latin has been much disputed. In the opinion of most scholars today, the Gospels were first rendered into Latin during the last quarter of the second century in North Africa, where Carthage had become enamored of Roman culture. Not long afterward, translations were also made in Italy, Gaul, and elsewhere. The wooden and literalistic style that characterizes many of these renderings suggests that early copies were made in the form of interlinear renderings of the Greek.

During the third century, many Old Latin versions circulated in North Africa and Europe, including distinctive versions that were current in Italy, Gaul, and Spain. Divergent renderings of the same passage (e.g. at Luke 24.4-5 there are at least 27 variant reading in the Old Latin manuscripts that have survived) bear out Jerome's complaint to Pope Damasus that there were almost as many versions as manuscripts (tot enim sunt exemplaria paene quot codices).

No codex of the entire Old Latin Bible is extant. The Gospels are represented by about 32 mutilated manuscripts, besides a number of fragments. (..) These witnesses date from the fourth century to the thirteenth century, thus proving that the Old Latin version was still copied long after it had gone out of general use."

Philip Burton wrote a scholarly book about Old Latin Gospels, I believe it contains a lot of his doctoral dissertation. In his book Burton tries to answer the question if there was one Old Latin version or rather many differing translations (of course from Greek, I do not think he even considered possibility of translating from Peshitta into Latin). A review <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Burton2001rev1.html">http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Burton2001rev1.html</a><!-- m --> summarizes some conclusions.

Hope it helps with the Latin part of your question,
Jerzy
Reply
#4
Dear Jerzy,

Thanks for your post.

I got interested in the Old Latin Version after watching 'The Passion of the Christ' (again) and reading that it's likely that Pontus Pilate became a Believer in Yeshua later in his life.

I don't know if this is true about Pilate or not, but there must have been a Latin version of The New Testament for people like Pilate who spoke and read Latin to learn about Messiah from.

I also learned that the Professor who designed "the Aramaic" for 'The Passion of the Christ' movie "created" his own "Aramaic", supplemented with Hebrew, where the Aramaic word, or words, wasn't known.

I've heard that folks that speak Syriac can actually understand very little of this movies "Aramaic".

Shlama, Albion
Reply
#5
Shlama,

Interesting.

Believe it or not, sometimes you can find early Armenian New Testament manuscripts and pages on ebay! <!-- sConfusedhocked: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/shocked.gif" alt="Confusedhocked:" title="Shocked" /><!-- sConfusedhocked: --> I get on ebay at least every two days searching for manuscripts that someone might be selling. I have found some good stuff but I've never purchased any Armenian or Latin.
Reply
#6
Paul Younan Wrote:Hey Albion,

Yes, absolutely - the Latin Vulgate is very old, made by Jerome. There were some Old Latin versions before he made his masterful translation from the Greek.

Could Jerome have been using Peshitta in his translation? Or maybe had access to some texts based on Peshitta? "The missing of the bride" in Mt 25,1 suggests that to me. It was noticed by somebody in this thread:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicpeshitta.proboards49.com/index.cgi?board=aramaic&action=display&thread=1155416403">http://aramaicpeshitta.proboards49.com/ ... 1155416403</a><!-- m --> The bride, present in Peshitta and Vulgate, is missing from all early Greek manuscripts (Bezae's diglot being the only exception, interestingly). Wondering if there are more such hints in Old Latin. Interesting indeed.

Jerzy
Reply
#7
Dear Enarxe,

Check out this Latin/English New Testament.........it's the oldest such N.T. in print I think.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.lulu.com/content/151358">http://www.lulu.com/content/151358</a><!-- m -->

Shlama, Albion



enarxe Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:Hey Albion,

Yes, absolutely - the Latin Vulgate is very old, made by Jerome. There were some Old Latin versions before he made his masterful translation from the Greek.

Could Jerome have been using Peshitta in his translation? Or maybe had access to some texts based on Peshitta? "The missing of the bride" in Mt 25,1 suggests that to me. It was noticed by somebody in this thread:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicpeshitta.proboards49.com/index.cgi?board=aramaic&action=display&thread=1155416403">http://aramaicpeshitta.proboards49.com/ ... 1155416403</a><!-- m --> The bride, present in Peshitta and Vulgate, is missing from all early Greek manuscripts (Bezae's diglot being the only exception, interestingly). Wondering if there are more such hints in Old Latin. Interesting indeed.

Jerzy
Reply
#8
Albion Wrote:Check out this Latin/English New Testament.........it's the oldest such N.T. in print I think.
Thank you Albion for the link, I appreciate it. I have checked that verse in Latin Vulgate, NA and Bezae scans from reltech before posting. Do you think I would buy a translation of a translation of a translation ? It happens that I have an electronic text of Douay-Rheims from <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1581">http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1581</a><!-- m --> as well as electronic form of this in some Bible programs. But .. I'd rather spend my time reading other versions or go directly to Latin. Is there something special in that lulu book that I would be missing?
Peace,
Jerzy
Reply
#9
Dear Enarxe,

Did you read these reviews:


Fills a longstanding void in Catholic Bible studies 25 Feb 2006 (updated 25 Feb 2006)
by jherrick

Any other Bible you may see on the market calling itself "Douay-Rheims" is likely to be not the 16th-century original, but a complete retranslation by Bishop Richard Challoner from the mid-18th century. Dr. von Peters has done a great service to Catholic Bible study by reprinting the authentic Rheims and Douay versions, which are the most accurate translation of the Latin Vulgate ever made and have been unavailable for so long. The last officially published edition of the original three-volume Douay-Rheims Bible was a facsimile reprint by Scolar Press in the mid-1970's. But the most helpful thing Dr. von Peters has done is to modernize the spelling, which was such an obstacle to reading the photoreproductions of the 1582 edition. He has been careful not to change any words or repunctuate the sentences; only the archaic spellings have been revised to make them more legible to the modern reader.
That said, it is not strictly true that nothing like this has ever been done before. In 1833, Jonathan Leavitt republished with modernized spelling the Rheims New Testament, solely as a companion piece to a two-volume tirade against both the Rheims translation and the teachings of the Catholic Church, written in 1589 by the Protestant polemicist William Fulke. Leavitt's edition was unsatisfactory, however, because of its small, cramped typesetting and occasional omissions (not to mention its antagonistic motivation and the fact that it is long out of print anyway). Dr. von Peters' edition is a vast improvement, attractively set on the page and inviting to the eye. [The Douay Old Testament has never been published before with the spelling modernized, and I am looking forward eagerly to the print version of Dr. von Peters' edition of the Douay whenever it is made available.]
Although the misspelling of "Foreword" as "Forward" at the very beginning of this volume may not inspire confidence, I can say thankfully that the sacred text itself has been much more conscientiously rendered. (I would strongly disagree, however, with the substitution of "corruption" for "correption," a Latin cognate meaning "rebuke" or "reproof," in 1 Cor. 10:11.) This New Testament, along with the forthcoming Douay Old Testament, is an essential addition to the library of any English-speaking Catholic who takes the study of Sacred Scripture seriously. The copious commentary of the Rheims Fathers is a wealth of exegesis and apologetics, and the translation's faithfulness to the Vulgate cannot be surpassed.
28 Jan 2006 (updated 28 Jan 2006)


by apologist
This is a very nice New Testament, and in my opinion well worth the price. It would make a great Catholic study Bible.


The Original and True Rheims New Testament of Anno Domini 1582 11 Dec 2005 (updated 13 Dec 2005)
by apologiadefide


I highly recommend this work by Dr. William von Peters. Due to it being out of print, and facsimiles rare, many people for many years have desired to read and study the original, unrevised Douay Rheims Bible. Dr. von Peters has taken the original 423 year old text of the 1582 A.D. Rheims New Testament and completely retyped it in a larger, modern font. He has also updated the archaic word spellings that posed somewhat of an obstacle when reading the older text. I want to make it clear that this is not a revised version of the Rheims New Testament like the Challoner Revision of 1750 or the Confraternity Version of 1941. This is the original, untouched, and ???most literal English translation from the Latin??? 1582 A.D. Rheims New Testament. This volume also contains all of the original notes and annotations that were not retained in the abovementioned revisions. They contain a treasure-trove of commentary and exegesis.
I would also like to praise lulu.com for fast, quality service. From the time I ordered it to the time it reached my front door, it only took 4 days. The book itself is of high quality, also. Tight, clean pages and sharp, clear print. Thank you, Dr. von Peters and thank you, lulu.com!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albion here again.

Otherwise, I'm not qualified to answer any questions about Latin New Testaments.

I do know a little about Aramaic/English translations of the P'shitta N.T., but I know next to nothing about Latin/English New Testaments.

And I do have a copy of the Douay Rheims New Testament. Everywhere the P'shitta N.T.(or the Greek to English N.T.) would use the word 'repent', or 'repentence', the Douay Rheims N.T. use's "Penance"......which I find strange, but I'm not Roman Catholic either.

I mean "repent" is a whole different idea than "penance" (in my mind).

One COULD DO penance, and NOT BE repentent, it seems to me.

But I'm speaking about a New Testament that I don't know, like I know the English translation of the P'shitta N.T.

I hope that this helps you in some way Enarxe.

Shlama, Albion
Reply
#10
Albion Wrote:Dear Enarxe,
Did you read these reviews:
Fills a longstanding void in Catholic Bible studies 25 Feb 2006 (updated 25 Feb 2006)
by jherrick

No, I did not read those, I was never that interested in DR and I'm not a specialist in Vulgate, just happen to know a couple of Latin words allowing me to read it if I need to.

Albion Wrote:I hope that this helps you in some way Enarxe.

Yes, thanks, good to know. But surely I'm not going to spend a penny on it. It is to me yet another edition of a translation of a translation of a translation. The electronic version of old Challoner's edition works fine as an "English index on Vulgate text".

BTW, here is what it says in Project Guttenberg's e-text of DR
"In 1749 Dr. Richard Challoner began a major revision of the Douay and
Rheims texts, the spellings and phrasing of which had become increasingly
archaic in the almost two centuries since the translations were first
produced. He modernized the diction and introduced a more fluid style,
while faithfully maintaining the accuracy of Dr. Martin's texts. This
revision became the 'de facto' standard text for English speaking
Catholics until the twentieth century. It is still highly regarded by
many for its style, although it is now rarely used for liturgical
purposes. The notes included in this electronic edition are generally
attributed to Bishop Challoner."

I think that would be enough from both of us about DR, none of us is an expert in this old Catholic English translation of Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Let's go back to Peshitta. I will have many questions to you (and others) about different Syriac NT editions.

Going back to your original question, today I have found another little hint that Vulgate and Peshitta might be closer to each other than Vulgate is to any manuscript from the Greek mess. In John 4,1 Peshitta and Vulgate have "Iesous" while in most Zorban mss there is "Kurios". Bezae follows Vulgate (as was also the case with Mt 25,1). Synaiticus has "Iesous" as well (actually, "I-C" abbreviation). Interested reader could check this in W Willker's TVU 38 (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John.pdf">http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John.pdf</a><!-- m -->). It would be interesting to actually compare the "variant-distance" between Vulgate, Peshitta and all the "Greek players". Seems like a nice little analysis project. If the conjecture about closer connection between Vulgate and Peshitta turned out to be true, I might reconsider Dr von Peters work.

Shlama,
Jerzy
Reply
#11
Dear Jerzy,

Good to hear from you! I have noticed quite a few places in the NT where the Vulgate agrees with the Peshitta and the Greek texts do not. The Vulgate appears to have been translated either from a different Greek text no longer found, or possibly was compared to The Peshitta and revised according to it in many places.

It seems to be closer to The Peshitta than extant Greek manuscripts, generally.

I have also purchased a book by Dr. Lee Woodard, Kodex W -Old and Holy, in which he presents abundant evidence that Codex Washingtonensis is a first century Greek Uncial Gospels manuscript, dated and signed in many places in very small Herodian Aramaic script. Even the place of writing is written in Aramaic in each of the 4 Gospels. He has photos in the book of every one of these Aramaic inscriptions. It is really impressive! I believe he has found an authorized translation of the original Aramaic Gospels, signed by Matti, Marqus, Luqa & Yokhannan, with Barnabas signing as one of the scribes!

Do a google on the title. Fascinating stuff! There is a web site with the entire codex in photocopy, so you can examine and find the signatures yourself, but you really need to read his book to see how he found what no Greek NT scholar ever saw in this manuscript- the actual dates of the writing of each Greek Gospel, all in the first century, using Roman dates!

One more thing about Codex W. Its Greek text defies all classification. It seems to shift from one text to another to another unpredictably, verse to verse, and departs from all Greek texts in many places, which is exactly how I would describe The Peshitta, from my experience translating it in its entirety.


Burkta w'Shlama,

Dave
Reply
#12
Shlama Dave,

My first question:

Do you believe that "the original autographs" were IN GREEK?

Is this what you are saying?

My next question.

Why would ANY Jewish Believer in Yeshua, have *a Greek goddess* ('Athena'), as his PERSONAL SEAL?

I find this to automatically cast doubt on 'Kodex W'.

Could you please explain this to me?

Thanks, Albion
Reply
#13
Shlama Dave,

Fascinating!

Isn't "Athenah" (athenos) an Aramaicized form of the Greek "Athens" (the city)?
Reply
#14
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.washington-codex.org/">http://www.washington-codex.org/</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#15
Shlama,

What would you say the script is on these seals? Particularly the one shown for Luke? <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.washington-codex.org/images/atnh.jpg">http://www.washington-codex.org/images/atnh.jpg</a><!-- m -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)