>> That's assuming the copies are in the original language. If not
>> you've got mistranslations on top of that.
>
>They are in the original language; you don't translate the Abiding
>Book. Well, there's bound to be some weird protestant-type sect
>somewhere that does such a thing, but they're on the fringes already.
>It's like the medieval Bible always being in Latin, or the medieval
>Koran always being in classical Arabic. In fact, writing in the
>vernacular *at all* is considered a pretty nutty thing to do in the
>West.
The Bible wasn't originally written in Latin. The New Testament was a Greek translation from Aramaic, the language of the disciples. The Old Testament was originally Hebrew. Nor was Church Latin the same language as Roman Latin.
That's why I wasn't sure one way or the other.
It also means there are a reasonable number of scholars who are literate in the original language - as you suggest Brithini.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail