posted 03-05-12 03:28 AM ET (US)
The Vulgate is a Latin version of the Holy Bible, and largely the result of the labors of St Jerome (Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus), who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382 A.D. to make a revision of the old Latin translations. By the 13th century this revision had come to be called the versio vulgata, that is, the "commonly used translation", and ultimately it became the definitive and officially promulgated Latin version of the Holy Bible in the Catholic Church.It states that the Vulgate was a revision of old Latin translations. Modern research has shown the New Testament books were mostly written in the later part of the 1st century AD and the start of the 2nd century AD. And Christianity didn't spread west instantly. This means that almost as soon as Christianity became more popular in the west the first latin translations appeared. The original New Testament was mostly written in Hebrew or Greek, and in case of Hebrew Greek translations were made. Seems reasonable, since the east had a long greek history, whereas roman history in the east was still relative new.
Saint Jerome had been commissioned by Pope Damasus to revise the Old Latin text of the four Gospels from the best Greek texts, and by the time of Damasus' death in 384 A.D. he had thoroughly completed this task, together with a more cursory revision from the Greek Septuagint of the Old Latin text of the Psalms.This rather supports my previous part. They were just not satisfied with the current translations, and redid from more original text. The same happened to the Dutch bible quite recently and probably with many other language versions of the bible.
After the death of the Pope, St. Jerome who had been the Pope's secretary, settled in Bethlehem, where he produced a new version of the Psalms, translated from the Hexaplar revision of the Septuagint. But from 390 to 405 A.D., St. Jerome translated anew all 39 books in the Hebrew Bible, including a further, third, version of the Psalms, which survives in a very few Vulgate manuscripts. This new translation of the Psalms was labelled by him as "iuxta Hebraeos" (i.e. "close to the Hebrews", "immediately following the Hebrews"), but it was not ultimately used in the Vulgate. The translations of the other 38 books were used, however, and so the Vulgate is usually credited to have been the first translation of the Old Testament into Latin directly from the Hebrew Tanakh, rather than the Greek Septuagint.Instead of using the translated greek versions (which could very well hold mistakes or wrong translations, which was not uncommon for books in this time, even without translating. There was no backspace or delete :P), he used the Hebrew source text, which would reduce the amount of copied mistakes.
[This message has been edited by Thompsoncs (edited 03-07-2012 @ 10:01 AM).]
The Vulgate has a compound text that is not entirely the work of Jerome.Wiki[2] Its components include:
Jerome's independent translation from the Hebrew: the books of the Hebrew Bible, usually not including his translation of the Psalms. This was completed in 405.
Translation from the Greek of Theodotion by Jerome: The three additions to the Book of Daniel; Song of the Three Children, Story of Susanna, and The Idol Bel and the Dragon. The Song of the Three Children was retained within the narrative of Daniel, the other two additions Jerome moved to the end of the book.
Translation from the Septuagint by Jerome: the Rest of Esther. Jerome gathered all these additions together at the end of the book of Esther.
Translation from the Hexaplar Septuagint by Jerome: his Gallican version of the Book of Psalms. Jerome's Hexaplaric revisions of other books of Old Testament continued to circulate in Italy for several centuries, but only Job and fragments of other books survive.
Free translation by Jerome from a secondary Aramaic version: Tobias and Judith.
Revision by Jerome of the Old Latin, corrected with reference to the oldest Greek manuscripts available: the Gospels.
Old Latin, more or less revised by a person or persons unknown: Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, 3 Esdras,[3] Acts, Epistles, and the Apocalypse.
Old Latin, wholly unrevised: Epistle to the Laodiceans, Prayer of Manasses, 4 Esdras, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.
[This message has been edited by Thompsoncs (edited 03-07-2012 @ 01:18 PM).]
[This message has been edited by Suppiluliuma (edited 03-07-2012 @ 01:13 PM).]
[This message has been edited by Thompsoncs (edited 03-07-2012 @ 01:24 PM).]
Why the hell would they try to make latin the main language if that was true.It is as if you aren't reading what I write. The Latin colonisation of Western Europe came after the Greek Colonisation. The Greek colonies had been thriving in Western Europe since 900BC. Western Europeans at the time were drawn to these cities because none existed like them before. The Religion of the Pagan Greeks had spread throughout Western Europe and we see close ties with Germanic Gods and the Gods of Olympus. There was also trade, agriculture and other exchanges that occurred. Greek was a well known language making a lingua franca of antiquity. But when Rome expanded the Latin colonists initially entered Greek cities. They took over existing cities and made Helots out of the local Greek populace. They also reduced their numbers by systematic slaughter. The period of 100BC-285AD was when the seeds for the Latin Language were laid in Western Europe.
[This message has been edited by ephestion (edited 03-07-2012 @ 05:23 PM).]
It is as if you aren't reading what I write. The Latin colonisation of Western Europe came after the Greek Colonisation. The Greek colonies had been thriving in Western Europe since 900BC. Western Europeans at the time were drawn to these cities because none existed like them before. The Religion of the Pagan Greeks had spread throughout Western Europe and we see close ties with Germanic Gods and the Gods of Olympus. There was also trade, agriculture and other exchanges that occurred. Greek was a well known language making a lingua franca of antiquity. But when Rome expanded the Latin colonists initially entered Greek cities. They took over existing cities and made Helots out of the local Greek populace. They also reduced their numbers by systematic slaughter. The period of 100BC-285AD was when the seeds for the Latin Language were laid in Western Europe.Maybe you should read a bit more of what I say. Whereas I attack and react on your arguments, you just repeat about the same again and declare my at least reasonably supported opinion as bollocks.
The actual adaptation of Latin as a Lingua Franca needed a considerable amount of time before it could have a reasonable population speaking it. Those initial small colonies of Rome were very small at the start. In some cases only garrisons existed. But between 285-700AD the demographics changed in the West. The small colonies now became considerably larger. The increase in their size created also an increase in Latin speakers.True, but that doesn't mean that Greek was the language before it. Their native tongue would have endured for quite a while, but especially the traders and ruling class would quickly have adopted latin.
The Christian Church was still using Greek up until 700AD. So all the churches that sprouted in the West were still using Greek liturgy. But as I stated before, around 600AD the Latin text was introduced into the Western Church. This could mean several things. That there was now a need for Latin texts in the West because of sheer numbers of speakers, the number of Greek speakers diminished, there was a powerplay between Rome and Constantinople and using Latin could help create a new sphere of religious influence. Probably all three contributed to the reason why Latin was later adopted in 600AD. Although it would be important to highlight that even when Latin became a lingua Franca of the West, Theodoric the Goth spoke Greek. Many Gauls and others are documented as being Hellenised especially those that drifted towards the Black Sea. So Greek still remained an important language, you could say it was the Lingua Franca of the empire even after the adaptation of Latin in the West.I would like to see prove of that, if the church in the west used greek texst in the early stage that was more due to a lack of enough and proper latin translations. And the Vulgata we talked about previously was made far before 700 AD. Same for the fact that Theodoric spoke Greek. I can well imagine he spoke Greek, but that doesn't mean it was his primary used language, which was probably Latin, since that was the language in Italy. How many Gauls did go towards the east? I only know of a period of invasions around the time of the succesor wars of the Diadochi, who mostly settled in Galatia (hence it's name).
Then you have the fact that between 1453AD-1800 the majority of learning from books came from Latins in the West. They would use Greek books translated into Latin and pass them onto others. Greece had disappeared under the Ottomans for 400 years. So Latinisation really took off during this period and is where most of the Romance languages derive.It's true that most of early 'science'-as far as you can call it real science- was either Greek or Eastern (at least for the west, their was no contact with China at this moment). But the Romans delivered their fair share of histories, technical innovations, military tactics, rhetorics and such. We know for sure that men like Cicero, Cato, Brutus, Caesar and many such wrote in Latin.
Maybe you should read a bit more of what I say. Whereas I attack and react on your arguments, you just repeat about the same again and declare my at least reasonably supported opinion as bollocks.You are throwing in too many things into your arguments that would require volumes of references and books to correct. It is not that I am ignoring or dismissing what you are saying it is just that your education is on a different rail of thought.
Yes romans conquered after greeks, but conquered far more than the greeks. Which colonies will these thriving cities be? Sicily can is indeed quite a bit helenized, but in southern Italy their language influence was small, since the people there spoke Osco-Umbrian or Latin. Massilia is a large colony, but it's area of direct rule wasn't really big and it's influence would not have reached further than at best central Gaul and certainly didn't reach the Belgae and Germanics. Then you Emporion, but there it comes to and end. Of course smaller colonies existed, but their influence wasn't as big as you suggest.The Greeks didn't conquer the West they passively colonised for the most part. Sicily remained a Hellenic kingdom throughout the entire lifespan of Imperial Rome. It kept a Greek king and the coinage was all still minted in Greek. Neapolis in Italy was another major colony of Greece and it too retained it's own Greek mint for coinage. The populace of Southern Italy was entirely Hellenised between 1200-500BC. Marsielle in France was another major city which thrived in Antiquity. Hispania was another colony in Spain which also thrived. Greek pots, coinage and other artifacts were found throughout the West. These probably came from Southern France and Spain.
The oldest city within modern France, Marseille, was founded around 600 BCE by Greeks from the Asia Minor city of Phocaea (as mentioned by Thucydides Bk1,13, Strabo, Athenaeus and Justin) as a trading post or emporion under the name Μα σ σ α λ ί α (Massalia). [1] [2]
A foundation myth reported by Aristotle in the 4th century BCE as well as by Latin authors, recounts how the Phocaean Protis (or Euxenus) married Gyptis (or Petta), the daughter of a local Segobriges king called Nannus, thus giving him the right to receive a piece of land where he was able to found a city.[2] [3] [4] The contours of the Greek city have been partially excavated in several neighborhoods. [5] [6] The Phocaean Greeks introduced the cult of Artemis, as in their other colonies. [7]
It is thought that contacts started even earlier however, as Ionian Greeks traded in the Western Mediterranean and Spain, but only very little remains from that earlier period.[1] Contacts developed undisputedly from 600 BCE, between the Celts and Celto-Ligurans and the Greeks in the city of Marseille and their other colonies such as Agde, Nice, Antibes, Monaco, Emporiae and Rhoda. [1] [8] The Greeks from Phocaea also founded settlements in the island of Corsica, such as at Alalia. [9] From Massalia, the Phocaean Greeks also founded cities in northeastern Spain such as Emporiae and Rhoda.
Before the Greeks came to pre-eminence in the Gulf of Lion, trade was mainly handled by Etruscans and Carthaginians.[9] The Greeks of Massalia had recurrent conflicts with Gauls and Ligurians of the region [10], and engaged in naval battles against Carthaginians in the late 6th century (Thucydides 1.13) and probably in 490 BCE, and soon entered into a treaty with Rome. [7]
According to Charles Ebel, writing in the 1960s, "Massalia was not an isolated Greek city, but had developed an Empire of its own along the coast of southern Gaul by the fourth century".[11] But the idea of a Massalian "empire" is no longer credible in the light of recent archaeological evidence, which shows that Massalia never even had a very large chora (agricultural territory under its direct control). [12] Greek Marseille eventually became a centre of culture which drew some Roman parents to send their children there to be educated. According to earlier views, a purported hellenization of Southern France prior to the Roman Conquest of Transalpine Gaul is thought to have been largely due to the influence of Massalia. [13] [14] However, more recent scholarship has shown that the idea of Hellenization was illusory (and that the concept itself is seriously flawed). The power and cultural influence of Massalia have been called into question by demonstrating the limited territorial control of the city and showing the distinctive cultures of indigenous societies. Local Gauls were not philhellenes who wanted to imitate Greek culture, but peoples who selectively consumed a very limited range of Greek objects (mostly wine and drinking ceramics) that they incorporated into their own cultural practices according to their own systems of value
I would like to see prove of that, if the church in the west used greek texst in the early stage that was more due to a lack of enough and proper latin translations. And the Vulgata we talked about previously was made far before 700 AD. Same for the fact that Theodoric spoke Greek. I can well imagine he spoke Greek, but that doesn't mean it was his primary used language, which was probably Latin, since that was the language in Italy. How many Gauls did go towards the east? I only know of a period of invasions around the time of the succesor wars of the Diadochi, who mostly settled in Galatia (hence it's name).The early church did use Greek.
The extensive use of the Greek in the Roman Liturgy has continued up to the present, in theory; it was used extensively on a regular basis during the Papal Mass, which has not been celebrated for some time. The continuous use of Greek in the Roman Liturgy came to be replaced in part by Latin by the reign of Pope Saint Damasus I
The first area is that of biblical translation, as Augustine, at once praising Jerome’s “careful effort” in Greek commentary, unflinchingly calls on him to give “the very weightiest authority” to the Septuagint over the Hebrew texts, “without any controversy” (28.2). The implication is that Jerome’s insistence on translating the Hebrew is misguided and requires correction. The second area is citation of Origen, a favorite Father of Jerome’s, whose heretical views render questionable his inclusion in an account of “famous men”; thus Augustine requests Jerome “inform us of his mistakes,” even going so far as to “ask that... you publish” an entire book on heretical teachings (40.9)! The question lingers in the air, whether Jerome’s beloved and oft-cited theologian renders his own views problematic.
Which of course returns to the primary challenge: the frightful notion that Jerome “undertook the defense of a lie” (28.3) such that “the authority of the divine scriptures is crumbling” (28.5). In the next letter Augustine moves from humble questions to actual exegesis, articulating the issue of “the sacraments of the Jews” (40.4) and its resolution in the New Testament. In the boldest move of any of the letters, Augustine calls on Jerome to “take up genuine and truly Christian severity with love to correct and emend that work, and sing, as they say, a palinodian” (that is, issue a formal retraction of his previous position; 40.7). However roundabout or poetic the composition, Augustine of Hippo has rebuked Jerome of Bethlehem.
You almost seem to think that rome was a puppet state of the greeks that only got so powerful, because Greeks and Macedonians were fighting amongs themselves. That truly goes against the great achievements of the Romans, especially their success in making former enemies fight with them as allies in new wars. They conquered Italy, drove the Greeks out, even though Pyrrhus tried to stop them with a large greek army. They defeated the great Carthaginian empire on their own even though Macedon did try to stab rome in the back. By then they already became a superpower, with an advanced and experienced military. The Macedonians fielded a professional army at Pydna, that was larger than the roman army, yet were soundly defeated. Pydna and Cynoscephalae are by some seen as the victories of the manipular/cohort system over the phalanx. The truth is that the phalanx system was not fit to fight against a roman legion. The phalanx fought in one big line, with little room for changes, whereas the romans had tacticle abilities and reserves.I believe that the psyche of the early Romans was that they felt to be Greeks. Even if many towns nearby and the laity were Latin speakers. They considered Greek education as the most highly sought after thing. There was little to distinguish the Roman from the Greek. Rome was just as much a Hellenistic state as was Carthage, Alexandria, Parthia, Bactria. But unlike those places the intermingling of Greek and the local populace created a very strong bond almost an extension of Greece itself. When the Latins took over Rome they continued to be educated in Greek. The majority of their inventions and achievements were derived from that education. Because the Greeks never united as an empire and kept independent small kingdoms it made it very easy for one Rome to pick off one city at a time. The Greeks despised the idea of a central monarch ruling an empire. They believed each city was free and unique based on their well entrenched ideas of Democracy. Rome didn't march against all of the Hellenistic kingdoms it marched on one city at a time. It took 3 Generals to contain Spartacus, and more to deal with Mithridates. One city vs an ever increasing empire of cities. But when Diocletian(being a Greek) partitioned the empire in 285AD he essentially restored the dominion of Magna Gracia. Constantine making the official religion Christian for the empire caused it to spread even faster than it had done. Because of the great influences the Greeks had throughout Western Europe the Bible in it's Greek form was able to piggy back the armies of Rome into many regions East and West. If it wasn't for the Roman empire and the Greek language the Bible may have not been as successful as it was.
I live in a British colony that took over Australia. I have seen what it takes first hand. I guess I know how long it takes for a colony to take roots.You didn't start this colony, right? So you don't really know how long it takes. Some colonies takes longer than others to take roots. Just by saying one did, doesn't mean all did.
Rome, nor Carthage nor Parthia were Hellenistic, they were strongly 'Hellenized' (just as some contries are Westernized but that doesn't mean that they are part of the 'western countries') but that's different from Hellenistic. Those three states did have a very strong greek cultural influence but they didn't have a greek or greek descendant ruling class, so they can't be counted as hellenistic. In Carthage we see the fusion of the Phoenician and the Hellenistic cultures, while in Parthia under the Arsacids we see the fusion of the Persian and Hellenistic cultures. In Rome (and Italy in general) however maybe the influence of the Greek Culture felt stronger maybe because of it's geographic position near Magna Graecia, and the lack of other nearby complex urban societies (Greek culture also influenced the Etruscans before rome was the Pre-eminent state in central Italy).Quoted from ephestion:
Rome was just as much a Hellenistic state as was Carthage, Alexandria, Parthia, Bactria
[This message has been edited by Thompsoncs (edited 03-09-2012 @ 03:56 PM).]
Copyright © 1997–2024 HeavenGames LLC. All rights reserved.
v2.5.0