User talk:Rwflammang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I saw you've just started an account here and would like to welcome you and give you some unsolicited advice :-)

The most important thing is not to worry about getting things wrong. As a beginner it's best to dive right in and start editing articles on your favorite subjects. Don't get bogged down in style guides or policies - just do what other people seem to be doing and what seems sensible to you - you'll pick things up as you go along.

If you need any help feel free to ask me a question by editing my talk page. I've been here a couple of years and I'm an "admin" so I can probably help you out if you run into difficulty. Haukur 22:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Testing 1 2 3

aa bbb cccc xx yyy zzzz.

[edit] Some resources I've translated for reference on WP

Jerome completed his version of the Bible, the Latin Vulgate in 405. In addition to the sacred text, the Vulgate manuscripts included prologues by Jerome. For ten centuries, these prologues were part of every Bible in the western Church, and through these prologues many western Christians received their first exposure to the concept of apocrypha.

The Vulgate manuscripts were divided into Old and New Testaments only; there was no Apocrypha section. But the prologues clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal. In the prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, which is often called the Prologus Galeatus, Jerome wrote,

whatever is outside of these [i.e., the books translated from the Hebrew] is to be put aside among the apocrypha. Therefore Wisdom, which is titled "of Solomon" by the public, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith and Tobias and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of the Machabees I found in Hebrew. The second is Greek...

In the prologue to Esdras he wrote

Let no-one be shaken that one book is published by us, nor let him be distracted by the dreams of the third and fourth book of the apocrypha; because among the Hebrews Esdras and Nehemias are pressed into one volume, and what are not held among them and are not from the twenty-four old ones [i.e., the books of the Tanakh] are to be thrown far away.

In his prologue to the books of Solomon, he mentioned "... the book of Jesus son of Sirach and another pseudepigraphos, which is titled the Wisdom of Solomon". He says of these two books,

As, therefore, the Church does indeed read Judith and Tobias and the books of the Machabees, but has not received them among the canonical scriptures, so too let her read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to strengthen the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.

Although he mentions the book of Baruch in his prologue to Jeremias, he does not explicitly refer to it as an apocryphon, but he does mention that "it is neither read nor held among the Hebrews".

Although Jerome described these books as apocrypha, he also referred to them as scriptures in these same prologues. He clearly did not consider the words scriptural and apocryphal to be mutually exclusive.

I like what you have written here. Wouldn't this do well in an article somewhere?  - Cestus Cd 05:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long Mark Curls

Dear RW Flammang,
Would it be possible for you to insert the long mark curls in the Table of Books at LXX? I have discovered that a brilliant historian, insightful political writer, and marvelous professor of Greek has a series on learning Greek, which I plan soon to purchase. Thus I have no idea where go those little long marks that my Unicode table calls yppogegrammeni ("underwriting"?). Wyeson 02:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know how to do this. Rwflammang 12:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Do you know Greek? If you know of any LXX book-titles that might have the yppogrammeni and with which letters each would go, please let me know and I will try putting them in. (I expect there would be only a few titles, since Semitic names of prophets likely would not have them.) This would make an interesting additional detail of pronunciation.
Also are you familiar with Classical myths? If you are, I am looking for a myth that discussed the "theogamy," a marriage of Zeus with Earth that explains how mind came into matter. This metaphor may have been refashioned in Christianity to describe Christian reunification with God. Thanks in advance for anything you might be able to share. Wyeson 02:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Latin Psalters

Main article: Latin Psalters

[edit] Schema of Saint Pius X

The following canticles are used in this schema:

  • Audite verbum Domini; Ier 31, 10-14
  • Benedicite omnia; Dan 3,57-88
  • Benedictus Dominus; Lc 1, 68-79
  • Benedictus es; 1 Chr 29,10-13
  • Incipite Domino; Iudt 16,2;16-20
  • Magnificat; Lc 1,46-55
  • Magnus es; Tob 13,1-10
  • Miserere nostri; Eccli 36, 1-16
  • Nunc dimittis; Lc 2,29-32
  • Vere tu es; Is 45, 15-26

The schema is:

Hour Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Matins, Nocturn I 1; 2; 3; 13; 14; 16; 34i; 34ii; 34iii 44i; 44ii; 45 61;65i; 65ii 77i; 77ii; 77iii 104i; 104ii; 104iii
Matins, Nocturn II 8; 9i; 9ii 17i; 17ii; 17iii 36i; 36ii; 36iii 47; 48i; 48ii; 67i; 67ii; 67iii 77iv; 77v; 77vi 105i; 105ii; 105iii
Matins, Nocturn III 9iii; 9Biv; 10 19; 20; 29 37i; 37ii; 38 49i; 49ii; 68i; 68ii; 68iii 78; 80; 82 106i; 106ii; 106iii
Lauds 92; 99; 62; Benedicite omnia; 148; 46; 5; 28; Benedictus es; 116 95; 42; 66; Magnus es; 134 96; 64; 100; Incipite Domino; 145 97; 89; 35; Audite verbum Domini; 146 98; 142; 84; Vere tu es; 147 149; 91; 63; Miserere nostri; 150
Prime 117; 118i; 118ii; 23; 18i; 18ii; 24i; 24ii; 24iii; 25; 51; 52 22; 71i; 71ii 21i; 21ii; 21iii 93i; 93ii; 107
Terce 118iii; 118iv; 118v 26i; 26ii; 27 39i; 39ii; 39iii 53; 54i; 54ii 72i; 72ii; 72iii 79i; 79ii; 81 101i; 101ii; 101iii
Sext 118vi; 118vii; 118viii 30i; 30ii; 30iii; 40; 41i; 41ii 55; 56; 57 73i; 73ii; 73iii 83i; 83ii; 86 103i; 103ii; 103iii
None 118ix; 118x; 118xi 31; 32i; 32ii 43i; 43ii; 43iii 58i; 58ii; 59 74; 75i; 75ii 88i; 88ii; 88iii 108i; 108ii; 108iii
Vespers 109; 110; 111; 112; 113; 114; 115; 119; 120; 121; 122; 123; 124; 125; 126; 127; 128; 129; 130; 131; 132; 135i; 135ii; 136; 137 138i; 138ii; 139; 140; 141 143i; 143ii; 144i; 144ii; 144iii
Compline 4; 90; 133; 6; 7i; 7ii 11; 12; 15; 33i; 33ii; 60 69; 70i; 70ii 76i; 76ii; 85 87; 102i; 102ii

[edit] Next

And for my next trick...

[edit] St Jane Frances etc.

I am very reluctant to undertake the task you suggest, because, while I had and have to hand the text of the decree I cited, which accompanies the liturgical texts to use on the, I think, eleven new memorials added with the publication of the 2002 Roman Missal, I would logically have to add a note also to each of these, and I would have to seek out similar documents to quote in notes on still later additions to the calendar, such as the obligatory memorial of Saint Pio of Pietralcina, the extension to the whole (Latin-Rite) world of Our Lady of Guadalupe and Saint Juan Diego as optional memorials, and maybe more. Besides, such notes would complicate the article, and belong rather to articles on the saints or mysteries in question. In the calendar article, they would be of no interest within a few years.Lima 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For now, I have corrected the wrong information that was given in Jane Frances de Chantal. You could, of course, yourself add the footnote you desire to Roman Catholic calendar of saints‎. Lima 05:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masoretic Text

You have, quite correctly, pointed out the anachronism in talking of the "Masoretic Text" in the context of the Septuagint and Vulgate. However, as I am sure you are aware, the use of "MT" as a textual identifier is quite common in published scholarship. The point I suppose being that the Masoretes may have invented a system of notation marks to record the vocalisation of a Hebrew consonantal text, but the actual vocalisations that they recorded by this means were already ancient when they did so. Indeed it appears to be widely accepted that the consonantal Hebrew text of the time of Jerome - which we know to be very stable in transmission, was accompanied by an equivalently stable tramsmission of the associated vocalisation. So what do you call this late antique "Hebrew Bible in consonantal text + vocalisation". In so far as the consonants and vowel transmitted for this text are the same as those subsequently transmitted by the Masoretes, does it matter that the marks on the page look different? TomHennell 20:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm not sure what this missing text should be called. Presumably, it should be what the experts call it, whatever that is. What I have called it in the past is "the Hebrew Bible", or the "current [time provided by context] Hebrew text", or even simply "the Tanakh". Not very exact, but at least not incorrect. I do not know whether more precision is possible, although it is certainly desirable. Best regards, Rwflammang 17:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomHennell"

I think the experts tend to call it the "MT". Sorry. It certainly cannot be denoted the "Tanakh" or the "Hebrew Bible", as that should also cover the Hebrew recension that underlies the LXX (of which an amount has been recovered at Qumran). I have seen it called "proto-MT" in the context of Qumran, but then that suggests a pre-stage, whereas the claim is made (with apprent justification) that a stable Hebrew Bible "vocalisation tradition + consonantal text" already existed in the time of Jerome (and is witnessed otherwise in Aquila etc), that would subsequently be transmitted with very little degradation on to the Masoretes. TomHennell 18:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have a reference to scholars calling this missing text "MT" in any sort of formal document (i.e., not an informal colloquium or chat room), please let me know. Rwflammang 18:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomHennell"

In "The New Jerome Biblical Commentary"

article by K.G O'Connel on the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament

para 12 "A frequent standard of reference will be the MT. This term refers to the fixed consonantal Hebr and Aram texts established about the end of the 1st cent AD and carefully transmitted into the medievel period".

also see paras 36 and 37.

Geza Vermes "An Introduction to the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls" chap 8: starts by referring to the proto-Masoretic text as being found at Qumaran, but after a couple of pages he shortens this consistently to "Masoretic" and "anti-Masoretic" readings.

[edit] Biblical canon

According to the edit history, you inserted a claim that the Bryennios manuscript includes an NT canon? Are you sure you wanted to do that? 75.14.208.130 19:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I surely hope I didn't call it a canon. It is a list of books of the Bible according to my secondary source, "according to the order of John Chrysostom". That would include a 27 book NT, as well as (an extremely unusual) 27-book OT. See the external links at Codex Hierosolymitanus, namely here. Rwflammang 13:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't know the details, but the NT list and OT list must be unrelated, otherwise that would be a possible candidate for earliest NT list as well. 75.0.10.3 18:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I have not read Audet's paper, so I should refrain from comment, but frankly I find the idea that this 11th century Greek document reflects a 1st century canon absurd, either for the NT or the OT. I need to find a reputable source that comes out and says this though. Since the secondary sources, however, call it a synopsis of the Bible (not a canon), I would imagine that the OT and the NT synopses were both written by the same author, especially since mirabile dictu they both contain the same number of books.
I have read Audet's paper, but some two decades ago. Good reference libraries will have JTS in bound archive or microfiche/microfilm. Sundberg [1] credits him with the proposal that the Bryennios OT list is the oldest extant Christian list. I don't recall ever seeing anyone propose anything about the Bryennios NT list, assuming such a thing exists. I would suspect that Metzger's book (Canon of the New Testament) would mention it at least in passing, but I don't recall. 75.14.223.232 06:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A thought just occured to me: Audet's "Bryennios List" and "a synopsis of the Old and New Testaments in the order given by St. Chrysostom" [2] may not be the same thing. 75.14.223.232 08:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leap year

When numbering individual days of the month, the Romans used shorthand expressions such as "ante diem" + number which are hard to parse according to theoretical grammar, but nevertheless must not be "corrected" into phrases which the Romans didn't use. AnonMoos 18:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please cite a source. All of my sources (Cassells, Minkova, and Wilson's Essentials of Latin Grammar) put kalendas in the accusative, since it is governed by (an often implied) ante. Rwflammang 19:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not actually the main issue -- the main issue is that you changed "ante diem sextum" to "dies sextus ante", which may be better theoretical grammar, but is not what the Romans actually said. AnonMoos 21:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the calends accusative issue is the main one. The idiomatic use of ante to mean "on" versus using some other form, like the ablative of time, is a non issue. The Romans did use a variety of forms: undecimo ante Kalendas Apriles, ante diem decimum Kalendas Apriles, undecimo Kalendas Aprilis. See [3] and numerous other references. Since the English sentence in the article uses the date as predicate, I would suggest using a nominative form, sextus Kalendas Martias, but I can see some value in using the ante form too, since in Latin the whole ante phrase is sometimes used as one long indeclinable noun, Ex ante diem quartum decimum Kalendas Apriles hoc disputabamus.

You can suggest using the nominative case of the ordinal number word in the "ante diem" + number construction all you want, but the ancient Romans have dead for a while now, so it's a little too late for such a reform proposal. Meanwhile, it remains reasonably clear that the ancient Romans ACTUALLY used the accusative case of the number word in the "ante diem" + number construction... AnonMoos 20:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not a reform proposal. The long dead Romans you invoke ACTUALLY used a variety of forms, as you would know if you had read the reference I cited. Your preferred form is only one of them. And while the L&S reference mentions using a.d.' idiom' as the object of a preposition, it does not mention its use as a predicate. Perhaps you can cite an example of a long dead Roman using a date as a predicate. If so, I'd like to hear about it. Rwflammang 19:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Blessed Francis Xavier Seelos. Hi I see you deleted the image of the Shrine of Blessed Francis Xavier Seelos.Can you help me to resize it so it can be used.I find all the tech jargon to complecated.To I have to resize it before I upload it?The wiki says that it resizes automatically to the right size so I find it out of my depth to know how to put on photos.I have many more of Catholic Historical interest,but its not worth uploading them until I understand how to get them sized properly.Thanks for your help in this matter Rosenthalenglish 20:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Blessed Francis Xavier Seelos Thank you for trying to sort out the problem.I pray that you find the answer and we can then upload some more very interesting and historically significent Catholic photos. Rosenthalenglish 20:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protestant POV pushing at Template:Books of the Old Testament

Just thought you might be interested in User:Alastair Haines attempts to push a Protestant POV at Template:Books of the Old Testament, see for example [4]. 75.14.208.224 19:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Books included in first KJV edition

Your recent edit to Biblical apocrypha leaves the article saying that the 1st edition of the KJV did NOT include the apocrypha, and a sentence stating that later editions DID include it has been deleted. Is this what you meant to say? I don't know whether the very 1st edition included the deuterocanonicals or not, but I know many (most?) later versions did through the 1800s. I think your edit may have been a typo, so please check and see if this is what you meant to say. Thanks. Timotheos 13:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Good change -- now it's very clear. Thanks! Timotheos 18:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LXX

Thanks for your talkpage comment, Rwflammang. Although it's not perfect, the article certainly has come a long way. —Hanina —Preceding comment was added at 04:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nova Vulgata

I don't see why one would want to retain the old setup that treats the New Vulgate as an edition of the (hieronymian) Vulgate, as are the ones you quoted: Clementine and Stuttgart. It points to a lack of understanding of the nature of the Nova Vulgata.

The new Vulgate is definitely not a critical edition of the (old) Vulgate (you used the word "emendation"): that job has been done by the monks of St. Jerome's Abbey in Rome:

Biblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem, iussu Pii PP. XI, Pii PP. XII, Ioannis PP. XXIII, Pauli PP. VI, Ioannis Pauli PP. II, cura et studio monachorum Abbatiae Pontificiae Sancti Hieronymi in Urbe Ordinis Sancti Benedicti edita. [with the publication of Maccabees (1995) the Old Testament was completed; I'm not sure how the work on the NT proceeds].

Unfortunately, the new Latin translation from the original bible texts has been called Nova Vulgata. The name seems to imply a link with the previous editions of the Vulgate, as you erroneously assume. In fact, Nova Vulgata simply means a new common translation; it serves as reference text for Roman Catholics in worship and teaching.

Dampinograaf (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hypsistarian

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hypsistarian, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Hypsistarians. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)