Disputatio:Biblia Duacensia

I take "idcirco est translatio firmissima anglice" to mean "and therefore is the strongest translation written in english". Just for my edification...how can something translated from the vulgate be the strongest translation? Or did you mean something else by that?--Ioshus...ummm...a few minutes before Alex's post.

Sorry, I meant the most reliable non-dilluted version in English, because many versions adapt the words to be "modern". Or remove words such as Hell (NIV edition). So if you can find a better word I'd be glad to use it. Thanks, Alexanderr 02:38, 21 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for clarification.--Ioshus Rocchio 02:42, 21 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm still looking for a better word if one is available...firmissima seems a bit...odd. But what I meant is that it is the full body of the text and hasn't been adapted such as the also catholic NAB version. Alexanderr 02:44, 21 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See how it looks now.--Ioshus Rocchio 02:51, 21 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks alright but then again I'm a bit thrown off by the "purgationibus" and "purissma" right next to each other. They seem to mean slightly opposite things unless you are saying that the style has been purged clean...as you can see my latin understanding isn't great. Can you explain the clause? Also the other thing that concerns me is the "quod" bit, because while I'm not sure how normal latin authors brains worked I seem to be focusing more on the "in two volumes bit" and think that the "which" in the sentence should be plural... Anyways those are just my thoughts, Alexanderr 02:57, 21 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, it says, "least influenced by refinements of the pen" (most pure with respect to refinements of the pen, literally). And no, they pretty much mean the same thing. Purgare is to cleansee fully, and pure is without taint... Here though purgatio means refinement. As for the quod, I was still taking the neuter Novum Testamentum as the antecedent.--Ioshus Rocchio 04:25, 21 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right to take Novum Testamentum as the antecedent, however even if I were writing it in English I'd probably say "which were annotated"...but I guess that is just mean. Anyways, thank you for your help :) Alexanderr 04:29, 21 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above discussion is about the clause I've just removed. Being translated from the Vulgate would normally lead to this text's being less accurate than one based on the original languages; in any case it wouldn't ensure better or purer English. If the Douai Bible has any of those qualities, they would need citation. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:39, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Less accurate? Not necessarily so. The Vulgate was translated into Latin by someone with a familiarity with Greek as a living idiom - a privilege not enjoyed by more recent translators! Also the DR was translated from the Latin but WITH reference to the original languages - pretty much as the AV was - but the DR is just more honest. It is regarded as being the most LITERAL Englih translation. [Anon]

Well, fine, but that's still the kind of view that needs to be supported by a citation or three ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:37, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)[reply]