Timeline for Why John 1:1 in (DRB)(Douay-Rheims Bible) is not literal translation from the Latin Vulgate?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
35 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 24, 2022 at 14:06 | history | edited | oldhermit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 28 characters in body
|
| Nov 6, 2021 at 18:29 | comment | added | oldhermit | Percisely how do you feel Acts 28:6 is a "counter" to these well established rules of Greek Grammer? | |
| Nov 6, 2021 at 16:44 | comment | added | Hjan | Counter example to these “rules”: in the last part of Acts 28:6, theos has no article and is translated as ‘a god’. | |
| May 21, 2020 at 23:55 | history | edited | oldhermit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 44 characters in body
|
| May 16, 2020 at 19:22 | history | edited | oldhermit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Apr 20, 2020 at 12:32 | comment | added | user35499 | How can the word be with God and at the same time be that God? | |
| Mar 26, 2020 at 13:55 | comment | added | T.E.D. | @curiousdannii - That's arguably true, in that the question was asking about Douay-Rheims, which was in fact a translation of the Vulgate into English. However, this answer author seemed to feel there was a deeper question being asked (what the correct translation is, period), and the OQ seems to have endorsed this view by accepting the answer. They are the final word on that. So if you have a quibble, it should be with the OQ, who may need to adjust their question text to clarify why this answered it. | |
| Mar 26, 2020 at 10:55 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | I also assumed one could address the elephant in the room: The translation of λόγος as word is missing the point, especially against the backdrop of toho[wa]bohu. | |
| Mar 26, 2020 at 10:35 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | Interesting -- you old Greek skills are better than your Latin skills? But surely you can read some Latin? Oh, and thanks for the grammar refresher. | |
| Mar 26, 2020 at 10:26 | comment | added | curiousdannii♦ | @RussellMcMahon No, the question asks why the DR doesn't match the Vulgate. Answers need to discuss the Vulgate in detail, and should only discuss the Greek if they can demonstrate that the DR's translators choose it over the Vulgate. (Of course it's likely the question is mistaken in saying that the DR doesn't match the Vulgate, as Sola Gratia's answer shows. But you need to actually discuss the Latin to show that!) | |
| Mar 26, 2020 at 9:31 | comment | added | Russell McMahon | @curiousdannii Surely the whole discussion is founded on the Greek source. WHY the Vulgate did as it did may be moot, but what their source material said seems wholly relevant. eg if the source had clearly [tm] said " ... god... word ..." then the answer to why the Vulgate said it would be because that's what the Greek said, and then the "Why does the DRB say xxx" question would have a completely different starting point. No? | |
| Mar 25, 2020 at 22:30 | comment | added | curiousdannii♦ | I don't know Latin, so I can't answer this question. But all the discussion of the Greek is off-topic. | |
| Mar 25, 2020 at 18:45 | comment | added | oldhermit | Point well taken, and thank you for the advice. I have seen a number of copies of the Greek text on John 1:1 but only those I can find online. I have never found a variance on the last clause in any Greek text. If you know where I might find such and example from an ancient text (preferably earlier than the 10th century) I would really appreciate that. Thank you. | |
| Mar 25, 2020 at 18:31 | comment | added | T.E.D. | Upvoted. I'd suggest putting a note at the top summarizing why the Vulgate is not a good source. Its adequately covered later, but something like 14 paragraphs later. Also, it should be noted that what we have in Greek isn't exactly perfect either. They didn't have photocopiers or printing presses back then, so every Greek copy is slightly different from each other. There simply is no one true authoritative source for everything. | |
| Mar 25, 2020 at 16:18 | comment | added | oldhermit | curiousdannil, if you feel I have not adequately addressed the question, perhaps you would be willing to share your ideas on this. I would be most interested in reading your ideas in this topic. | |
| Mar 25, 2020 at 14:43 | comment | added | curiousdannii♦ | The question seems perfectly clear to me: why is the Douay-Rheims not a literal translation from the Latin Vulgate? Why Salah has accepted this when it doesn't attempt to answer that question is a mystery to me. | |
| Mar 25, 2020 at 11:27 | comment | added | oldhermit | Well, Selah, I thought I addressed this fully in my post. Perhaps I am failing to address a specific question you may have. If you would, please state it in the form of a specific question so I can understand precisely what you are wrestling with and I will try to address this more fully. | |
| Mar 25, 2020 at 3:09 | comment | added | salah | @oldhermit perfect answer, perfect post. But I will be more glad if you write clearly about: "... And the Word was a god" from Greek to English, and "... And a god was the Word" from Latin Vulgate to English. | |
| Mar 25, 2020 at 2:48 | history | edited | oldhermit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1214 characters in body
|
| Mar 25, 2020 at 0:52 | comment | added | curiousdannii♦ | If you haven't discussed the Latin text then you can't have written a valid answer to this question. Did the Douay-Rheims translators consider the Vulgate to have an error in this verse and therefore go back to the Greek? Perhaps, but you need to establish that. | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 23:26 | comment | added | salah | @oldhetmit thank you for your interest. | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 23:18 | history | edited | oldhermit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1888 characters in body
|
| Mar 24, 2020 at 23:13 | comment | added | oldhermit | Certainly. Please bear in mind, I am not a Greek scholar so please feel free to investigate my answers with those who are. | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 23:06 | comment | added | salah | @oldhermit valuable comments, could you include them in the answer?. I, also, need you to include: "... And the Word was a god" and your comment on this translation, i.e: ... And the Word was a god. | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 21:59 | comment | added | oldhermit | "A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed..... We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 21:58 | comment | added | oldhermit | That is a fare enough question. Bill Munce makes this observation in identifying the subject from the predicate in the nominative case. "In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject." | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 21:24 | comment | added | Nigel J | You say these are 'rules' but you have not substantiated these 'rules'. Could you supply documentation to show that these are not, just, your 'rules', please. | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 20:39 | comment | added | oldhermit | The prepositional phrase "εν αρχη" for example, does not contain an article, but is still properly translated "in the beginning." The prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον," however, does include the article (τον). Since it would have been grammatically proper not to include it, then the INCLSION of the article here means something. In general, the inclusion of an article in Greek when it is not expected means the writer is being specific. | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 20:39 | comment | added | oldhermit | First, Koine Greek normally drops the article in a prepositional phrase. The absence of the article in a prepositional phrase is normal and doesn't mean anything. It is the INCLUSION of the article in a prepositional phrase that is unusual and thus means something. | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 20:27 | comment | added | oldhermit | The original language of the New Testament is Greek, not Latin. The Latin text is itself merely a translation from the original language. | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 20:25 | comment | added | oldhermit | No. Simply because a noun is anarthrous (not preceded by an article) does not mean it is indefinite. John uses a number of anarthrous nouns in his prologue including θεος yet none are assigned the indefinite article in translation and correctly so. It must also be noted that in Greek there is no such thing as an indefinite article. | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 20:03 | comment | added | salah | @oldhermit you talked about greek grammar but not Latin grammar. We know that DRB is translation to Latin Vulgate. | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 19:59 | comment | added | salah | @oldhermit could it be translated as: "...And the Word was a god"? | |
| Mar 24, 2020 at 19:55 | vote | accept | salah | ||
| Mar 24, 2020 at 19:42 | history | answered | oldhermit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |