Jerome as author-translator of the full Vulgate New Testament

TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
So it appears that it wasn't actually read, but instead only offered to be (subjunctive mood) read.
Click to expand...

We learned from your Cassiodorus repeated translation blunder about "reading into" the text.

You have no authority to override translations, like that of John Moorhead, by your private Latin analysis.

Steven Avery said:
3.1 When our little book had been presented to them and read out, their blind eyes found it impossible to endure the light of the truth.
(Victor of Vita: history of the Vandal persecution; Translated by John Moorhead, Liverpool Press 1992)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
We learned from your Cassiodorus repeated translation blunder about "reading into" the text.

You have no authority to override translations, like that of John Moorhead, by your private Latin analysis.
Click to expand...
No "private analysis" from Google translate. The Moorhead translation is plainly just his own paraphrase in introducing the spurious word "and," and in ignoring the Latin verb tenses.
 
Arians and Vandals of the 4th-6th Centuries: Annotated translations of the historical works by Bishops Victor of Vita (Historia Persecutionis ... religious works by Bishop Victor of Cartenna [Annotated] (2007)
https://books.google.com/books?id=ETcTEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA97

Here is
John R. C. Martyn (1934-2019)

BOOK FOUR VICTOR OF VITA
Chapter 1: False Accusations by the Arians
When this poor book of mine was being read, the light of truth was brought before them, but they could in no way put up with it with their blind eyes
Click to expand...

The idea that nothing was read is a non-starter, desperation, wrenching the context.
 
Steven Avery said:
Arians and Vandals of the 4th-6th Centuries: Annotated translations of the historical works by Bishops Victor of Vita (Historia Persecutionis ... religious works by Bishop Victor of Cartenna [Annotated] (2007)
https://books.google.com/books?id=ETcTEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA97

Here is
John R. C. Martyn (1934-2019)



The idea that nothing was read is a non-starter, desperation, wrenching the context.
Click to expand...
Another translation or paraphrase has it "Our book being put up and perused....." However, I think many translators were not aware of the significance of the subjunctive tense here, which google translate faithfully reproduces. I don't believe there is any evidence from this single remark that the Johannine Comma was "accepted as part of the bible" by the Arians, as your pro-Comma Trinitarian authors fancifully (absurdly) suggest.
 
cjab said:
and in ignoring the Latin verb tenses.
Click to expand...

legeretur
is often used when something is read (context is king), so you will need a professional Latin translator, or at the very least someone with recognized strong skills in Latin, if you want to make a case. (Maybe try the Textkit forum, they were helpful with Eugenius Bulgaris.)

(Remember how TNC earlier blundered again and again on the Latin of Cassiodorus.)

A History of the Councils of the Church (1883)
Volume III
AD 431 to AD 451
Karl Josef von Hefele (1809-1893)
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/1/items/historyofcouncil03hefeuoft/historyofcouncil03hefeuoft.pdf

* Hardouin, t. ii. p. 126 ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 674, where, at the words :
Et cum legeretur epistola sancte memoriae Cyrilli,
it should be noted that that which follows took place at Chalcedon.
Click to expand...

Put into Google translate

And when the letter of the holy memory of Cyril was read,
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
legeretur
is often used when something is read (context is king), so you will need a professional Latin translator, or at the very least someone with recognized strong skills in Latin, if you want to make a case. (Maybe try the Textkit forum, they were helpful with Eugenius Bulgaris.)

(Remember how TNC earlier blundered again and again on the Latin of Cassiodorus.)

A History of the Councils of the Church (1883)
Volume III
AD 431 to AD 451
Karl Josef von Hefele (1809-1893)
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/1/items/historyofcouncil03hefeuoft/historyofcouncil03hefeuoft.pdf



Put into Google translate

And when the letter of the holy memory of Cyril was read,
Click to expand...
I believe the pedantry of the English subjunctive is frequently not employed by translators in favor of a concise style. After all, there is no subjunctive as such in English. Other verbs are required to be introduced to give it pedantic effect.

Thus, pedantically,

And when the letter of the holy memory of Cyril would be read,

But stylistically as per google translate. Above there is only one verb, and the (simple) subjunctive mood is relatable to "when," and so doesn't need to be pendantically articulated by additional words. It can be left implied by "when."

But in the Victor of Vita case, there are two verbs. The subjunctive mood is also relatable to oblatus, a past participle, which here emphasizes the hypothetical in whether the book was read at all, and so requires subjunctive-mood-specific verbiage to convey an accurate meaning i.e. "offered to be read" etc.

TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Context is missing for a start.

Here's Karl Halm's 1879 text, Page 40, below.

LIBER TERTIVS.​
​
[I.] Qui cum noster libellus legeretur oblatus, veritatis lumen nequaquam sufferre caecis oculis potuerunt, insanientes vocibus inferendis graviterque ferentes, quare nos nomine nostro catholicos dixerimus. Statimque mentientes suggerunt regi de nobis, eo quod strepitum fecerimus audientiam fugientes. Qui eadem hora accensus et credens [2.] mendacio festinavit facere quod volebat. Et iam conscriptum decretum habens et occulte cum eodem decreto per diversas provincias suos homines dirigens episcopis Carthagine positis una die universae Africae ecclesias clausit universamque substantiam episcoporum et ecclesiarum suis episcopis munere condonavit. Nesciens quoque quid loqueretur neque de quibus adfirmabat, legem, quam dudum Christiani imperatores nostri contra eos et contra alios haereticos pro honorificentia ecclesiae catholicae dederant, adversum nos illi proponere non erubuerunt, addentes multa de suis, sicut placuit tyrannicae potestati. Haec est enim series datae et propositae legis.​
​
FOOTNOTES: ​
2 Cumque noster p​
oblatus mei: legeretur, oblatum ver. lumen ed. Ruin.​
​

And the Latin word for John Moorhead's "read out" is "legeretur" which is in the subjunctive mood, which means: "the mood of a verb expressing an action or state which is hypothetical or anticipated rather than actual".

I cannot find "and" (usually "et") in the Latin text of Halm above, as in John Moorhead's "presented to them and read out". This is his paraphrase, which I don't have a major problem with.

I would render 3.1.1(a) this way:

[I.] Qui cum noster libellus legeretur oblatus, veritatis lumen nequaquam sufferre caecis oculis potuerunt​
​
"Who, when it was offered to them that our little book might be read..."​
​
Google Translate: "Those who, when our booklet was offered to be read..."​

According to the footnote, for "oblatus" (which means "offered" or "presented" "submitted for peer review") it appears to have a variant reading "oblatum" which looks like it could be construed with the words "veritas lumen" etc following, rather than the preceding clause "noster libellus legeretur".

So there are several possible alternative readings:

[I.] Qui cum noster libellus legeretur oblatus👉,👈 veritatis lumen nequaquam sufferre caecis oculis potuerunt​

Google Translate modified: "Those who, when our booklet was offered to be read, could not suffer the light of truth with their blind eyes..."​
​
[I.] Qui cum noster libellus legeretur👉,👈 oblatus veritatis lumen nequaquam sufferre caecis oculis potuerunt​
​
According to sense or meaning, not exact word order: "Who, when our little book might be read, they having blind eyes could not bear the light of truth that was offered to them..."​
​
[I.] Qui cum noster libellus legeretur, 👉oblatum👈 veritatis lumen nequaquam sufferre caecis oculis potuerunt​
​
Google Translate modified: "Who, when our little book might be read, could not suffer the light of truth offered to their blind eyes..."​

So it appears that it wasn't actually read, but instead only offered to be (subjunctive mood) read.

Cjab, appears to be vindicated upon a closer examination. I could be wrong, but it's up to Avery INC to prove it so conclusively and comprehensively if they think it is. So, I submit this for peer review ;).
Click to expand...
Do you happen to know what justifies the change of "Qui cum noster" to "Cumque noster" in the footnote?
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
I believe the pedantry of the English subjunctive is frequently not employed by translators in favor of a concise style. After all, there is no subjunctive as such in English. Other verbs are required to be introduced to give it pedantic effect.

Thus, pedantically,

And when the letter of the holy memory of Cyril would be read,

But stylistically as per google translate. Above there is only one verb, and the (simple) subjunctive mood is relatable to "when," and so doesn't need to be pendantically articulated by additional words. It can be left implied by "when."

But in the Victor of Vita case, there are two verbs. The subjunctive mood is also relatable to oblatus, a past participle, which here emphasizes the hypothetical in whether the book was read at all, and so requires subjunctive-mood-specific verbiage to convey an accurate meaning i.e. "offered to be read" etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Subjunctive mood "legeretur" plus "oblatus" are key in this context.

He offered to read it, but they rejected the offer.

Point still stands.

cjab said:
Do you happen to know what justifies the change of "Qui cum noster" to "Cumque noster" in the footnote?
Click to expand...

No sorry.

The Preface may have information and/or a key for the manuscripts etc.
 
Steven Avery said:
And what they wrote represented the Orthodox/Nicean side. There were 461 signatories coming into the Conference from tha side affirming the heavenly witnesses as “clearer than the light”.

The heavenly witnesses was highlighted as their key doctrinal verse, and was accepted as Scripture on all sides. The “Arians”, however, did not accept the Orthodox argument, they properly accepted the Scripture.
Click to expand...
I was going to give your post a like, but the last sentence isn't clear. If you were to rewrite it what would it say?
 
BJ Bear said:
I was going to give your post a like, but the last sentence isn't clear. If you were to rewrite it what would it say?
Click to expand...

The "Arians" .. the Hunneric side .. (properly) accepted the heavenly witnesses verse was in fact scripture, but did not like the way the Orthodox had interpreted the verse.. e.g.

"the Holy Spirit is of one divinity with the Father and the Son"

One account uses the phrase "parity of divinity".

Since many interpreters have seen the verse as a unity of will and consent, rather than substance, their position makes some sense, especially if the goal of the one substance view is to morph the Holy Spirit into a distinct person "coequal, coeternal, consubstantial..".
 
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Exactly. Subjunctive mood "legeretur" plus "oblatus" are key in this context.
He offered to read it, but they rejected the offer.
Point still stands.
No sorry.
The Preface may have information and/or a key for the manuscripts etc.
Click to expand...

And I notice you have not marshaled any actual Latin expertise, or even a Latin forum, to support your alternate translate.
 
Steven Avery said:
The "Arians" .. the Hunneric side .. (properly) accepted the heavenly witnesses verse was in fact scripture, but did not like the way the Orthodox had interpreted the verse.. e.g.

"the Holy Spirit is of one divinity with the Father and the Son"

One account uses the phrase "parity of divinity".

Since many interpreters have seen the verse as a unity of will and consent, rather than substance, their position makes some sense, especially if the goal of the one substance view is to morph the Holy Spirit into a distinct person "coequal, coeternal, consubstantial..".
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top