Jump to content

Talk:Frankfurt silver inscription

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 14:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Renerpho (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Renerpho (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Fascinating piece of archaeology. Hook facts are interesting and cited. Article is new enough and long enough, neutral. Earwig does not show any concerns, though AGF on German references.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Chris! To the user who promotes to the queue: I don't have strong preferences for one hook over the others; whatever best fits for the day. :) Renerpho (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context of early Bible translations

[edit]

I am looking for reliable sources that talk specifically about the Latin translation of Philippians 2:10–11 (QVONIAM IHS XR OMNES(T) GENVA FLECTENT CAELESTES TERRESTRES ET INFERI ET OMNIS LINGVA CONFITEATVR, vs. the later Vulgate translation ut in nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur caelestium et terrestrium et infernorum, et omnis lingua confiteatur). This seems significant in the context of early Latin translations of the Bible. Isn't this one of the earliest known fragments of the New Testament in Latin? If anyone finds sources that discuss this, please comment.

Our article about Vetus Latina states that Vetus Latina ("Old Latin" in Latin) [...] is the collective name given to the Latin translations of biblical texts (both Old Testament and New Testament) that preceded the Vulgate (the Latin translation produced by Jerome in the late 4th century). [...] The Vetus Latina manuscripts that are preserved today are dated from AD 350 to the 13th century. (my emphasis) Renerpho (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion is happening at Talk:Vetus Latina manuscripts#Frankfurt silver inscription. Renerpho (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Scholz partially answers my question in the interview with him that was published on December 16th.[2]; quote (my translation from German): it must now be examined whether the Latin version of Paul's letter to the Philippians is the oldest source for it to date. The other candidate, Papyrus 16, a Greek manuscript, is paleographically assigned to the late 3rd century. I don't know how reliable, and how precise, that dating is.
Another question that I haven't seen discussed very clearly in any of the available sources: When is the amulet thought to have been created, relative to the time of the burial? Was it concurrent (created around the time of death), or did the amulet exist long before it was buried? The writing is independently dated to the 3rd century, which puts some limits on it... Renerpho (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]