Scholasticism

[Slappo]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1854582' date='May 1 2009, 01:34 PM']It seems that a very talented translator could bring more out of the Summa in English than in the original Latin, but I'm no expert of linguistics.[/quote]



Many clauses in Latin have no English translation that can actually match their meaning. Also the ability to place emphasis in Latin is far superior to the abilities of the English language.

Latin has a pretty extensive vocabulary too with something like 23 different ways to say kill

EDIT: Most of the reason that Latin can place better emphasis then English is because English uses a strict word order whereas in Latin you can adjust the word order to fit the emphasis desired.


I don't really know of anything that is better to be read translated then in it's original language.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Slappo

[kafka]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1855435' date='May 2 2009, 11:44 AM']I don't really know of anything that is better to be read translated then in it's original language.[/quote]
an argument could be made that in theory a translation of the Bible could in some sense be 'better' than an original (or previous translation), because of the charism of inspiration as well as the Providential evolution translations undergo through time, yet that is not for this thread.

[Resurrexi]

Reading the Bible in the original languages is much better than reading it in translation since one can best understand the meaning which the human author intended that way.

[kafka]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1855666' date='May 2 2009, 04:13 PM']

Reading the Bible in the original languages is much better than reading it in translation since one can best understand the meaning which the human author intended that way.[/quote]
so why is then that God has permitted all the original manuscripts to be lost?

Perhaps one reason is that so they not become objects of worship.

Another reason is perhaps the literal or plain level of meaning is best expressed in the original manuscripts however in my opinion the depth of the spiritual level of meaning of God's inspired and infallible Word cannot be fully expressed or contained within any one edition or any one language of the Bible. What is asserted and expressed in the God's Word transcends all editions and all languages. So one edition may express a truth better than another. And all translations and all editions of the Bibles of all times perhaps could only fully express God's Word.

Please note that some of the above is speculative/theological opinion.

Edited May 2, 2009 by kafka

[Noel's angel]

Edit.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Noel's angel

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='kafka' post='1855702' date='May 2 2009, 03:08 PM']Perhaps one reason is that so they not become objects of worship.[/quote]
In the Churches of the East the Bible (and the Gospels in particular) are objects of worship. I venerate the four Gospels every Sunday when they are carried in procession by the priest at the little entrance.

[Aloysius]

as you know, the West tends to make a distinction in the English language between "worship" and "veneration"; which is made in the Latin with "latria" vs. "dulia"... there should be no "latria" offered to the books of the scriptures themselves.

[kafka]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1855853' date='May 2 2009, 08:00 PM']as you know, the West tends to make a distinction in the English language between "worship" and "veneration"; which is made in the Latin with "latria" vs. "dulia"... there should be no "latria" offered to the books of the scriptures themselves.[/quote]
thank you.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1855853' date='May 2 2009, 06:00 PM']as you know, the West tends to make a distinction in the English language between "worship" and "veneration"; which is made in the Latin with "latria" vs. "dulia"... there should be no "latria" offered to the books of the scriptures themselves.[/quote]
Actually, modern English, not the West, distinguishes between the words [i]worship[/i] and [i]veneration[/i].

The word [i]worship[/i] really just means "worthy of honor," and historically speaking it is a broader term that can be used in connection with either [i]adoration[/i] ([i]latria[/i]) or [i]veneration[/i] ([i]proskynesis[/i]), which are more specific terms.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Apotheoun

[kafka]

this is just brilliant now we are going to get into semantics.

I was originally referring to the avoidance of worshiping the actual original manuscripts as a sort of idol. God permitted them to be lost so that we would not worship the actual concrete object itself because of its nature as being the original peice of paper containing the writings of the Sacred Writers.

Does charity and good will and one mind even exist among Catholics let alone Christians anymore?

Edited May 3, 2009 by kafka

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1855874' date='May 2 2009, 09:11 PM']Actually, modern English, not the West, distinguishes between the words [i]worship[/i] and [i]veneration[/i].

The word [i]worship[/i] really just means "worthy of honor," and historically speaking it is a broader term that can be used in connection with either [i]adoration[/i] ([i]latria[/i]) or [i]veneration[/i] ([i]proskynesis[/i]), which are more specific terms.[/quote]
yes, but whereas the English Speaking Western Church has long ago conceded the distinction within those two words and now refuses to use the term "worship" to refer to something which gives only dulia or proskynesis, the English Speaking Eastern Church does not and continues to use the word "worship" to refer to both.

kafka's point is basically that the Scriptures in Christianity are not meant to hold the same place that the Classical Arabic version of the Koran holds within Islam.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1855892' date='May 2 2009, 06:25 PM']kafka's point is basically that the Scriptures in Christianity are not meant to hold the same place that the Classical Arabic version of the Koran holds within Islam.[/quote]
I do not agree. The Second Council of Nicaea accords [i]proskynesis[/i] to the Sacred Scriptures.

So even though Muslims may offer reverence of a sort to the Qur'an, Islam remains iconoclastic, while Christianity embraces icons as real manifestations of divine grace (energy).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='kafka' post='1855888' date='May 2 2009, 06:20 PM']I was originally referring to the avoidance of worshiping the actual original manuscripts as a sort of idol. God permitted them to be lost so that we would not worship the actual concrete object itself because of its nature as being the original peice of paper containing the writings of the Sacred Writers.[/quote]
If they still existed I would worship them as icons of Christ's presence in His Church, but -- of course -- Eastern Christians already do that with the extant copies of the scriptures, some of which date to the early and mid 2nd century.

[Aloysius]

I think kafka's use of the word "worship" was not even necessarily theological, actually (if I do presume to speak for him, he can correct me if I'm wrong)... what I mean by "the way the Koran is used in Islam", I do not mean the honor they accord it, but the legalism created by their adherence to the text only in that specific language... "worship" can have that type of sense too, to say someone "worships" something, you know.

proskynesis/veneration/dulia is certainly due to the scriptures in any version that the Church gives them to us. latria is not, and most English Speaking people tend to rigidly define the word "worship" to mean only "latria"

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1855910' date='May 2 2009, 06:43 PM']I think kafka's use of the word "worship" was not even necessarily theological, actually (if I do presume to speak for him, he can correct me if I'm wrong)... what I mean by "the way the Koran is used in Islam", I do not mean the honor they accord it, but the legalism created by their adherence to the text only in that specific language... "worship" can have that type of sense too, to say someone "worships" something, you know.[/quote]
Although the Sacred Scriptures can be translated into any language: only the original Greek New Testament is authoritative, and the Church Fathers would hold that only the LXX Old Testament is authoritative as well, because it is the Old Testament text quoted by the New Testament authors, who acted under the energy of divine inspiration.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Apotheoun