Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1 Cor. 1:23 Vulgate from Peshitta
#1
I always thought that Vulgate was translated from Greek text.
Pronunciations/meanings "Armaya"/"Aramaya" from one Aramaic word.
Greeks have it Helleni but Vulgate had Gentibus.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://mymemory.translated.net/t/Latin/English/gentibus">http://mymemory.translated.net/t/Latin/English/gentibus</a><!-- m -->

Looks like Vulgate was translated from Peshitta text, at least 1 Cor.

1Corinthians 1:23 - nos autem pr?dicamus Christum crucifixum: Iud?is quidem scandalum, Gentibus autem stultitiam,

Lamsa translated it
1Corinthians 1:23 - But we preach Christ crucified, which is a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Syrians.

Dr. James Murdock
1Corinthians 1:23 - But we preach Messiah as crucified; [which is] a stumbling-block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles;

And when I paste Greek text, the website gives:
General Error
SQL ERROR [ mysql4 ]

Incorrect string value: '\xE1\xBC\xA1\xCE\xBC\xCE...' for column 'post_text' at row 1 [1366]

An SQL error occurred while fetching this page. Please contact the Board Administrator if this problem persists.
Reply
#2
php (pearl scripting language) is very bad ad supporting unicode.
Reply
#3
Armayo/ Armaye does not mean 'syrian'. It is simply wrong according to dictionaries. But as you said yourselves, you should not translate using dictonaries, right? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Syrians, were in the beginning, when Christianity started which was mainly jews, the 'opposite' of jews. They were neighbours of Isra?l. So, Syrian became synonymous to 'gentile/pagan'. Later on, it reversed. When Syrians were mostly christians, and the same applied to Greeks, they needed other words for distinction.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2630&p=15834&hilit=armoye#p15834">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2630&p=15834&hilit=armoye#p15834</a><!-- l -->
Reply
#4
This is why original is important.
I agree that Syrians were Gentiles but
but in this case Corinth is in Greece and Greeks are
the case here. I think Latin translator knew more than us and
he did not translate from Greek as it is evident.

The only exception here can be some later revision.
Reply
#5
On the other side
Matthew 4:1 - Tunc Iesus ductus est in desertum a Spiritu, ut tentaretur a diabolo.
Here Iesus is of Greek origin.
Reply
#6
IPOstapyuk Wrote:On the other side
Matthew 4:1 - Tunc Iesus ductus est in desertum a Spiritu, ut tentaretur a diabolo.
Here Iesus is of Greek origin.

You know, I believe that studying textual source is a very incomplete research, still today.
Somebody who studied Greek and Latin told me that Jerome, even translated Greek grammatical errors to Latin.

Also, he does not seem to translate from the Alexandrian source but Byzantine.
That he would use a Syriac source, looks unlikely as he could not read that. He would have translated it to Hebrew first.

I just think he discovered an 'ethnic' inconsistancy in the NT, (everywhere were Greeks, even in the Middle-East??). It looked madness to him so he made it 'Gentile'.
Reply
#7
Quote:You know, I believe that studying textual source is a very incomplete research, still today.
I agree but this incomplete research has proofs too.
I am more linguistic than historical or theological person.
The history is very biased and it is difficult to find truth.
Also one person told me that New Testament (all or part - I do not remember) was written
in Latin since it was imperial language of the time.
So, I decided to make extra checking into Vulgate from where it derived - all or parts.
Reply
#8
IPOstapyuk Wrote:
Quote:You know, I believe that studying textual source is a very incomplete research, still today.
I agree but this incomplete research has proofs too.
I am more linguistic than historical or theological person.
The history is very biased and it is difficult to find truth.
Also one person told me that New Testament (all or part - I do not remember) was written
in Latin since it was imperial language of the time.
So, I decided to make extra checking into Vulgate from where it derived - all or parts.


There are also people who say that the earth is flat or that moon travel is impossible and faked, and they also have proofs for it <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Did you already make a conclusion for the vulgate? And the old Latin? From what was it derived?
Reply
#9
Quote:Did you already make a conclusion for the vulgate? And the old Latin? From what was it derived?
No. But I plan to personally investigate this topic later.If you have some good information, please share.
Reply
#10
I don't have special info, just what I wrote. Good luck with it.

This link was already mentioned here
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://archive.org/stream/cu31924092359680#page/n5/mode/2up">http://archive.org/stream/cu31924092359 ... 5/mode/2up</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#11
Thanks for the link.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)