Talk:Codex Fuldensis

message: Ther exists no official English translation of the Codex Fuldensis Gospel, even in the smallest of parts. Most of the critics of this work have never read it, nor even seen it, let alone in English. Most indeed are quoting earlier authorities without question.  I have read it in both Latin and English, and I believe the voice of authority here should be questioned.
I have been studying the Codex Fuldensis Gospel, as transcibed by
Sievers from the Codex Sangallensis. 
I have read from multiple critiques of the CF Gospel that this is a 
translation into Latin of a Syriac original, by the method of 'Fragment 
Substitution' using a Syriac Gospel set as the source key, and Jerome's 
Vulgate Gospels as the Target key.
Searching, but not finding, even a partial translation into English, and
having developed a skill in Fragment Substitution in English text,
practicing with translations of Ciasca's Latin of the Arabic, I set to
attempt, using Fragment Substution, the translation of Sievers' text
into English.
In my early attempts at FS, using English texts, I observed common
errors in my results, where I failed to notice the omission of a word
or two in the source text, from the source key, so I thus inserted the
equivalent 'foreign' word into  the target text. Also, there were
occasions where a text suture did not match any source key, and my
approximation to a match produced a repetition across the suture.
Now this is working English to English, both texts being my native
tongue, and yet I could easily make such errors.
Syriac is a Semitic Language whose syntax is grossly foreign to Latin.
The source keys and the target keys would have been a very poor match,
and the translated text would thus, as is the English of the Arabic,
littered with the sort of errors I have reported.
What I found, in translating the CF Gospel into English, was a TOTAL
lack of these errors in the source text. Such of such errors in the
target text are of my own making, and in the first approximation to a
translation, they were not few. Subsequent filtering processes have
reduced these errors, but they still yet turn up.
Thus I am convinced that this text was not translated from a Syriac
original, but was composed, or compiled in LATIN.
Yes, the source text very closely resembles that of Jerome. Indeed, for
over 99%, it is word for word, if not letter for letter, the same. But
yet there are differences which cannot be blamed on error or deliberate
mutation. Most commonly a word following a preposition, in the CF text is
in the ablative case, whereas in Jerome's text, the accusative is used.
In Jerome's time, the ablative case was falling into dissuse, so the
strange occurrances of the ablative case indicates to me that this text
is older than Jerome's, and thus depends on a Latin Gospel set which
Jerome used as a linguistic model for his new translation from the
Greek. Indeed it seems to me that for the most part, Jerome only very
lightly  edited the wording of the Latin text he was using as a model.
What Jerome may also have done is to re-arrange the sequence of blocks
of text to match the Greek sources he was consulting.  For ALL writers
say that Tatian, (some say Ammonius) 'Took verses in sequence from
Matthew, and incorporated or substituted as was appropriate, verses from
the remaining three gospels'  Now there is no hint in the text of
Matthew which suggests that a better match is achieved by varying the
sequence of blocks of Matthean text, so I am inclined to believe that
the sequence of the Matthean text found in the CF gospel, is the
sequence found in the Vetus Latina that Tatian, or Ammonius was using as
a matrix upon which to build the harmony.
Further, Victor, Bishop of Capua, in his preface to this gospel,
apportions the name 'Diapente', from five, to this work, implying a
fifth source. It is CLEAR that this gospel is only very loosely
dependant on the work witnessed by Ephrem Syrus, as the major blocks of
text are not only in a different order, but some blocks seen by Ephrem
are not present, and present are some he saw not. Victor was not, as
imputed by some a poor scholar of Latin and Greek, indeed, he was well
skilled in Classical Latin and Greek, and would not have so erred by
accident. He thus plainly says 'From Five' and must be taken seriously,
and the implication is that this CF gospel is a 'new' compilation, taken
from Latin gospels, using the old Syriac Diatessaron as an outline
guide.
If this was the work of Tatian as Victor suspects, or of Ammonius as
Eusebius suspects, then the vorlager gospels would have to be the VL of
Carthage, reported about AD 200.
On my web-site, I offer an English translation of this gospel, which is
relatively unrefined, in three columns, reflecting the two columns that
Sievers transcribes, with the Latin and Saxon, (Old High German),
columns present, and my English placed between them, with interactive
cross-references to Jerome's Gospels.
I would welcome educated criticism thereof. 
My conclusions can be easily verified by studying my work.
For those who wish to get an appreciation of the English, I offer an
eBook version absolutely free to download and circulate, but not to
print, accessible from the index page.
My home page can be found at:
<http://www.btinternet.com/~daveat168>
(edited 18/Nov/2008)
BT have closed the websites which they allocated, so now I no longer have a web site.
However, I do post my work on Archive.org, and you can find my work on various subjects, including this at:
https://archive.org/details/@daveat168
Mon 8 Feb 2021. 2A00:23C6:408B:EB01:747F:4692:2E94:3914 (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for posting this.  I consider it to be a significant achievement.  Repentance 15:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Codex Fuldensis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090826085959/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/umlauts.html to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/umlauts.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm not sure what this means. What is Eastern Frankish? I suppose it is a High Franconian dialect, i.e., a dialect of OHG. Or is it a variety of Low Franconian? Are there really three languages here or just two? Srnec (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Old High German, Eastern Frankish and Old Saxon"