Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Vulgate rendering agrees with Peshitta
#1
It is an interessing missed point, how much the Latin text, agrees with the Peshitta, and not with the Greek rending, of Matthew, for instance.
If Jerome, would know that the Greek, was the original, why would he (clearly) have based his translation, on the Peshitta rendering?

"Do not hang earrings unto dogs..."
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=7&version=VUL#6">http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/ ... sion=VUL#6</a><!-- m -->

"This is my new covenant..." (note the missing word 'new' in the Greek text).
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?translation=vul&book=Mat&chapter=26#28">http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/ ... pter=26#28</a><!-- m -->

Just two samples! I just wish that these facts, would be collected as well...
Reply
#2
There is an old Latin mss that agrees with Paul Younan's rendering of Mark 9:49. Codex Bobiensis IIRC.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bobiensis">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bobiensis</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#3
I think Jerome wrote that he belived that Matthew wrote in "Hebrew" and that he searched for and used that text for his translation of Matthew's Gospel.

Otto
Reply
#4
Shlama all--

This is obviously the next frontier in our Peshitta studies. This is going to be huge because it provides more evidence that "dialektos Hebraidi" refers to Aramaic and not Hebrew by the early church fathers. Jerome's witness here, along with quotes like Vir. Illustr. V, now more aligns with testimony of Hegisippius and his "Syriac Gospels".

Also fitting into the historical time line, we have Origen quoting Peshitta exclusive Hebrews 2:9 about two centuries earlier and we can take Papias' comment on Matti and Origen's quoting of Hebrews as proof that the full 22 book canon came to Rome early (Matti is the first book and Hebrews the last in the East).

The only possible source for Matti 7:6's reading in the Vulgate is the Peshitta, and the Peshitta easily also explains how the Greek stuff from around that same time got it wrong.

Very, very cool! Let's bring on the Latin! <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: -->

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#5
<!-- s:wow: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wow.gif" alt=":wow:" title="Wow" /><!-- s:wow: --> Why didn't we think of this before! Of course - Jerome, Old Latin, Vulgate, it makes perfect sense!

I here's a site for free Vulgate & Latin resources: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.sacredbible.org/">http://www.sacredbible.org/</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#6
EDITED

Quotes from the Latin-English Study Bible: Clementine Vulgate + Catholic Public Domain Version:

{CV 7:6} Nolite dare sanctum canibus: neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos, ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis, et conversi dirumpant vos.
{CPDV 7:6} Do not give what is holy to dogs*, and do not cast your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they may trample them under their feet, and then, turning, they may tear you apart.


Seems the translator here decided to go with the Challoner DRV, instead of translating it literally, as the above Vulgate text is the same one from Blue letter Bible, in the first post.

{CV 26:28} Hic est enim sanguis meus Novi Testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.
{CPDV 26:28} For this is my blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many as a remission of sins.


He got this one right though.

It looks like the translator of this new English version of the Vulgate believes in an Aramaic original, here's what he said in the book of Revelation:

~ Here is an example where the meaning of ???et??? clearly corresponds to the English word ???or???, not to the word ???and???. These first three verses appear to have been added afterward by John???s disciples, when they were translating this book from the original Aramaic, in which John wrote, into Greek.
Reply
#7
Shlama,

Read this link, and see tthe truth about TODAY'S "Vulgate" edition of the NT.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.realdouayrheims.com/#H">http://www.realdouayrheims.com/#H</a><!-- m -->


I would LOVE to have a copy of THIS New Testament!

But Mari comes FIRST! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Shlama, Albion
Reply
#8
Shlama akhi Ablion,

Thanks for the link, I would love to add that Bible to my collection, but eish, those prices are a bit steep, even for the pdf downloads <!-- sConfusedhocked: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/shocked.gif" alt="Confusedhocked:" title="Shocked" /><!-- sConfusedhocked: -->
Reply
#9
Shlama all---

The more I think about this the more excited I get. After all it is a fact of history that the Peshitta-Vulgate connection is ONE WAY, i.e. that the Peshitta reached Rome early but that the Vulgate never penetrated the Persian Empire where the Peshitta was preserved. I can trace it directly from patristic quotes of the Peshitta and testimony from the Church Fathers, and I do this quite extensively in my book "Ruach Qadim: The Path to Life", under "The Ichabod Scenario". It is a remarkably straight historical mechanism from Papias to the Bar Kochba Revolt and the last Jewish Nasi of the Jersalem Rosh Beit Din stepping down in 135.

For the next 60 years after that, we know folks like Hegisippius took the Peshitta to Rome and we know from the Talmud at this time (ca. 125 CE, Mas Shabbath 116a) that versions of Aramaic Gospels with YHWH in them existed in Israel. Then right after Hegisippius we have Origen quoting Peshitta Hebrews 2:9, Eusebius then quotes and confirms Origen in 325 CE, and Jerome himself does his Vulgate ca 380 CE testifying to the Semitic origins of the NT as he does so.

But we also of course know that Jerome in part consulted the previous Latin versions of his time, and in Old Latin (at least it seems so at present) we also see confirmation of readings that could only have come to Rome FROM PESHITTA. To my mind, this approaches the importance of the Gowra Scenario because it is a way to yet again show the Peshitta's extreme antiquity as a source text and, more than that, a well-travelled and powerfully influential source text.

I tell you all the truth. If this can be confirmed, that could be the focus of "Ruach Qadim 3" which BTW I have not had plans for even thnking about until now. Obviously though I am focused on getting Mari out first, but this could be a glimpse of the future, no question.

Here is a pretty good interlinear Vulgate site, with links to our Peshitta as well: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://vulgate.org">http://vulgate.org</a><!-- m -->.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#10
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Here is a pretty good interlinear Vulgate site, with links to our Peshitta as well: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://vulgate.org">http://vulgate.org</a><!-- m -->.

Excellent, I'll bookmark it.
Reply
#11
Really cool website, Andrew! "Ruach Qadim 3" sounds even cooler - especially if it's about this issue!

Also, thanks so much to Albion for sharing that link to The Original Douay-Rheims, and to Distazo for starting this thread to begin with! If it weren't otherwise, I'd just keep-a-shrugging my shoulders at Latin the rest of my life, since it sounds so "vulgar" to me!

Not long ago I received for free from a rummage sale an incredibably thick and gigantic old Catholic bible, containing practically everything one could wonder about the Church's saints and popes, etc. (I think it might be pre-Vatican II). I noticed some Apocraphon in there I never heard of. I was under the impression that this crazy-sounding book was one of them:

"Paralipomenon" - but guess what it really is? <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11472a.htm">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11472a.htm</a><!-- m -->

Ahhh .... so much learning to be done, and so little time to do it in!

Peshitta.org is such a wonderful place! Amen.

~Brother Ryan
Reply
#12
Shlama Akhi Ryan,

As I said, we have to confirm this and see to what extent the correlation exists. I suspect that the real show is going on more in Old Latin stuff but this, to use a phrase from the language, terra incognita.

As it is now, these may be a few footnotes in a future edition of Mari maybe, but the hope is it will be far more. I have had no thought of an RQ3 at all prior to this but it could be big enough to change my mind. Time will tell.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

PS--my publisher on the RQ books is NOT the same man who is dong Mari.
Reply
#13
I know, I didn't take you the wrong way. My point was just the "nice ring" RQ3 *potentially* has to it. Nothing wrong with anthologies, especially in our tiny circle!

BTW - I haven't checked this website out thoroughly yet, so for all I know a cheaper version of Albion's Douay-Rheims might be available on it somewhere (I really don't know), but to make haste here, I was wondering if you've ever come across this site before: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/old_testament_textus_receptus_old_testament_1525.htm">http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/old_ ... t_1525.htm</a><!-- m -->?
Reply
#14
Dear Ryan,

Check out THIS website.......it's the other one that I told you about.....a FIVE VOLUME Douay Rheims Bible:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.churchlatin.com/DouayRheims.aspx">http://www.churchlatin.com/DouayRheims.aspx</a><!-- m -->

It's WAY EXPENSIVE!!

But I'd LOVE to HAVE it! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->


Shlama, Albion




Amatsyah Wrote:I know, I didn't take you the wrong way. My point was just the "nice ring" RQ3 *potentially* has to it. Nothing wrong with anthologies, especially in our tiny circle!

BTW - I haven't checked this website out thoroughly yet, so for all I know a cheaper version of Albion's Douay-Rheims might be available on it somewhere (I really don't know), but to make haste here, I was wondering if you've ever come across this site before: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/old_testament_textus_receptus_old_testament_1525.htm">http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/old_ ... t_1525.htm</a><!-- m -->?
Reply
#15
Quote:For the next 60 years after that, we know folks like Hegisippius took the Peshitta to Rome and we know from the Talmud at this time (ca. 125 CE, Mas Shabbath 116a) that versions of Aramaic Gospels with YHWH in them existed in Israel. Then right after Hegisippius we have Origen quoting Peshitta Hebrews 2:9, Eusebius then quotes and confirms Origen in 325 CE, and Jerome himself does his Vulgate ca 380 CE testifying to the Semitic origins of the NT as he does so.

But we also of course know that Jerome in part consulted the previous Latin versions of his time, and in Old Latin (at least it seems so at present) we also see confirmation of readings that could only have come to Rome FROM PESHITTA. To my mind, this approaches the importance of the Gowra Scenario because it is a way to yet again show the Peshitta's extreme antiquity as a source text and, more than that, a well-travelled and powerfully influential source text.

I tell you all the truth. If this can be confirmed, that could be the focus of "Ruach Qadim 3" which BTW I have not had plans for even thnking about until now. Obviously though I am focused on getting Mari out first, but this could be a glimpse of the future, no question.

Shlama Akhi Andrew:
This is exciting stuff. I've been following the thread and desiring to contribute my two cents worth. First, thank you for drawing attention to this passage in the Talmud which seems to confirm that the holy name YHVH was used in the First Century Peshitta text when written in K'tav Ashuri. It makes sense to me that the Assyrian CoE changed the text by substituting Marya in the place of YHVH, when the Peshitta was transcribed into Estrangelo in the Second Century.

Talmud-Masekhta-Shabbat-116a
Come and hear: The blank spaces above and below, between the sections, between the columns, at the beginning and at the end of the Scroll, defile one's hands. ??? It may be that [when they are] together with the Scroll of the Law they are different. Come and hear: The blank spaces and the Books of the Minim may not be saved from a fire, but they must be burnt in their place, they and the Divine Names occurring in them. Now surely it means the blank portions of a Scroll of the Law? No: the blank spaces in the Books of Minim. Seeing that we may not save the Books of Minim themselves, need their blank spaces be stated? ??? This is its meaning: And the Books of Minim are like blank spaces.

As for Jerome's Vulgate from the Peshitta text, this seems likely, but at this time it is inconclusive. However since Jerome was fluent in Hebrew and Aramaic, it is no stretch that he used the Peshitta in place of the corrupt Greek and extant Latin texts that were circulating at that time.

I haven't dug too deep yet, but I'm interested in seeing where this may lead. If indeed Jerome translated the Hebrew T"NK and the Peshitta New Testament into the Latin Vulgate (BTW-peshitta/simple is roughly equivalent to vulgate/common) then this would mean that the Latin Vulgate is closer to the literary truth of the Peshitta than the Greek Textus Receptus. How interesting!

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)