Cam42 Posted March 15, 2005 Posted March 15, 2005 [quote]Yes, let's make sure that we use the proper translation....how about the Vulgate, it is the earliest complete translation of the Canon, available.[/quote] The Codex Vaticanus and the Vulgate are synonomous..... Codex Vaticanus, a Greek manuscript, the most important of all the manuscripts of Holy Scripture. It is so called because it belongs to the Vatican Library (Codex Vaticanus, 1209). [b]This codex is a quarto volume written in uncial letters of the fourth century[/b], on folios of fine parchment bound in quinterns. Each page is divided into three columns of forty lines each, with from sixteen to eighteen letters to a line, except in the poetical books, where, owing to the stichometric division of the lines, there are but two columns to a page. The Vulgate: [quote]A second period extends from his sojourn in Rome to the beginning of the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew (382-390). During this period the exegetical vocation of St. Jerome asserted itself under the influence of Pope Damasus, and took definite shape when the opposition of the ecclesiastics of Rome compelled the caustic Dalmatian to renounce ecclesiastical advancement and retire to Bethlehem. In 384 we have the correction of the Latin version of the Four Gospels; in 385, the Epistles of St. Paul; in 384, a first revision of the Latin Psalms according to the accepted text of the Septuagint (Roman Psalter); in 384, the revision of the Latin version of the Book of Job, after the accepted version of the Septuagint; between 386 and 391 a second revision of the Latin Psalter, this time according to the text of the "Hexapla" of Origen (Gallican Psalter, embodied in the Vulgate). It is doubtful whether he revised the entire version of the Old Testament according to the Greek of the Septuagint. In 382-383 "Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi" and "De perpetua Virginitate B. Mariae; adversus Helvidium". In 387-388, commentaries on the Epistles to Philemon, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to Titus; and in 389-390, on Ecclesiastes. Between 390 and 405, St. Jerome gave all his attention to the translation of the Old Testament according to the Hebrew, but this work alternated with many others. Between 390-394 he translated the Books of Samuel and of Kings, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Esdras, and Paralipomena......[b]in 398[/b], revision of the remainder of the Latin version of the New Testament, and about that time commentaries on chapters xiii-xxiii of Isaias (Catholic Encyclopedia)[/quote] Notice the dates....4th century. The Codex Vaticanus, 4th century & The Vulgate 4th century. Synonomous. So, now that I have proven that the Codex Vaticanus is of the same timeframe as the Vulgate....as far as the Codex Sinaticus, it is commonly accepted that it dates to the 5th century, so that is way off base. However, this question needs answering....Aren't these translations all too new for you? You consider the Codex Vaticanus to be authoritative, you have said so on other threads. It is 400 years after the death of Christ. A website that you list as authoratative uses the Textus Receptus. That dates to the 1550's. A mere child in your eyes. I would think that you have no legs to stand on at this point. What course of scripture are you using as baisis? KJV, Vulgate, Luther, Seagond? The Vulgate is the authoratative version....you cannot argue against that. Deal with this here, not anywhere else. Stay within each thread, don't cross over. Cam
LittleLes Posted March 15, 2005 Author Posted March 15, 2005 (edited) No, CAM. The Codex Vaticanus and Vulgate are not synonomus. For example, the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaticus do not contain the account of the woman taken in adultery, John 8. You tell us that the Vulgate does. Neither codexies change the Apostles' and brothers of Jesus' wives into Christian sisters. Neither has Tobias wait those three nights to consumate his marriage to prove the exclusively procreative reason for sex, as Jerome does. If you demand evidence, compare these passages in the Douay Rheims and NAB on line. And, of course, none of the three contain the writing of the early church fathers. LittleLes Edited March 15, 2005 by LittleLes
Cam42 Posted March 15, 2005 Posted March 15, 2005 [quote]The Codex Vaticanus and Vulgate are not synonomus.[/quote] But they do date from the same timeframe, so using your skewed methodology, they are. They are from the same time. One is not earlier than the other. Proven. Again, how can you accept either, they are too new. We need writings from the day after Christ died, in order for you to accept them. Aren't these translations all too new for you? Cam
Cam42 Posted March 15, 2005 Posted March 15, 2005 BTW, the Codex Vaticanus is not complete, it is lacking some very important books of the Bible. the Old Testament text lacks the following passages: Gen., i-xlvi,28; II Kings, ii,5-7,10-13; Pss. cv,27-cxxxvii, 6. The order of the books of the Old Testament is as follows: Genesis to Second Paralipomenon, First and second Esdras, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles, Job, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the Minor Prophets from Osee to Malachi, Isaias, Jeremias, Baruch, Lamentations and Epistle of Jeremias, Ezechiel, Daniel. The order of the New Testament books is as follows: Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Catholic Epistles, St. Paul to the Romans, Corinthians (I-II), Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalonians (I-II), Hebrews. This would hardly constitute a full canon. It is not. No one regards the Codex Vaticanus to be that, except of course, you. (Hint, notice the missing books.....there are bunch.) My assertion still stands, the Vulgate, of the same time period, is the Vulgate. [quote]....the Vulgate, it is the earliest [b]complete translation of the Canon[/b], available.[/quote] Cam
LittleLes Posted March 16, 2005 Author Posted March 16, 2005 The Vulgate is a flawed translation. See my post (today) quoting Metzger, under Did Jesus found a church. LittleLes
Cam42 Posted March 16, 2005 Posted March 16, 2005 [quote]The Vulgate is a flawed translation. See my post (today) quoting Metzger, under Did Jesus found a church.[/quote] Wrong. Cam
LittleLes Posted March 17, 2005 Author Posted March 17, 2005 Thanks for the short post. In error, of course, but thankfully short. Lets compare the Vulgate with the NAB. Douay-Rheims - English translation of the Vulgate. 1 Cor 9:5 "Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister as well as the rest of the apostles and bretheren of the Lord and Cephas?" US Catholic Bishops - New American Bible, 1 Cor 9:5 "Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas?" I guess if you are pushing virginity, those wives have to really be sisters. LittleLes
Recommended Posts