Steven Avery
Administrator
Tornau - Cecconi opposite relationship of ulgata and Palatina
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ulgate-and-palatine-editions.2878/#post-12012
The earliest Christians and various groups of strangers in Rome, especially the Jews, spoke a colloquial form of Greek, which was a late xoivq.15 During the 2nd century the Latinization of Christian language and liturgy came to its conclusion, and the first Latin Christian texts (e.g. the Acta Martyrum Scillitanorum) and translations of the Bible were produced.16 As the Shepherd was accepted by many as a canonical book at that time, the older Latin translation Vulgata belongs into this context; and its language and style are indeed reminiscent of the Vetus Latina versions of biblical texts. By contrast, the later Palatina is comparable to Jerome’s roughly contemporary revision of older Latin versions of the Bible in the light of the Hebrew and the Greek in the 4th and 5th centuries.17 Building on the earlier work of J. Haussleiter (1884), I. Mazzini and E. Lorenzini in 1981 analysed the technique of translation of the two Latin versions. According to these scholars in each of the two translations the hands of at least three different translators can be discerned who differred as to their style, methods and fidelity to the Greek original.18 The results of the careful study of Mazzini and Lorenzini deserve reconsideration in the light of the new editions of both Palatina (Vezzoni 1994) and Vulgata.
35 Mohrmann (1961b) p. 95 and p. 105 106.
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ulgate-and-palatine-editions.2878/#post-12012
The earliest Christians and various groups of strangers in Rome, especially the Jews, spoke a colloquial form of Greek, which was a late xoivq.15 During the 2nd century the Latinization of Christian language and liturgy came to its conclusion, and the first Latin Christian texts (e.g. the Acta Martyrum Scillitanorum) and translations of the Bible were produced.16 As the Shepherd was accepted by many as a canonical book at that time, the older Latin translation Vulgata belongs into this context; and its language and style are indeed reminiscent of the Vetus Latina versions of biblical texts. By contrast, the later Palatina is comparable to Jerome’s roughly contemporary revision of older Latin versions of the Bible in the light of the Hebrew and the Greek in the 4th and 5th centuries.17 Building on the earlier work of J. Haussleiter (1884), I. Mazzini and E. Lorenzini in 1981 analysed the technique of translation of the two Latin versions. According to these scholars in each of the two translations the hands of at least three different translators can be discerned who differred as to their style, methods and fidelity to the Greek original.18 The results of the careful study of Mazzini and Lorenzini deserve reconsideration in the light of the new editions of both Palatina (Vezzoni 1994) and Vulgata.
35 Mohrmann (1961b) p. 95 and p. 105 106.
Last edited: