Corpus-Paul

["James Ernest" <jdemail AT charter.net>]

Thanks, noted, and interesting.

... History of translation is usually interesting to me, though I guess
at this point I'm veering off-topic: Lamsa, I believe, translated the
Syriac version, not the Greek NT. Wycliffe's version, according to Jack
Lewis's ABD article, is "a stiff literal translation from inferior Latin
texts whose exact identify is unknown" (ABD 6:830)--at this point
apparently not the Vulgate, which has "quia nihil commune per ipsum nisi
ei qui existimat quid commune esse illi commune est" (because nothing is
unclean in itself, except that to the person who thinks something to be
unclean, to him it is unclean).

James

-----Original Message-----
From: corpus-paul-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:corpus-paul-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of
AF3506 AT aol.com
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 8:46 PM
To: corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [Corpus-Paul] Re: Romans 14:14


James Ernest wrote: <<di' au)tou= can't mean "for him". And anyway, I'd
guess that thevariant autou is not au)tou= but au(tou=, merely an
alternative spellingof the reflexive pronoun, because "nothing is common
through him"doesn't make sense here.>> 

I want to clarify one small point. I didn't come up with the translation
"thru him" by myself. Some translations have "him" instead of "it." For
example, Wycliffe's has: "that no thing is vnclene bi hym" the Lamsa
translation has: "For I know and have confidence in the Lord Jesus, that
nothing unclean comes from him;". So I thought that perhaps the "him"
either referred to Christ or to the brother of verse 13. I'm not writing
this to debate, but just to point out that I didn't originate that
particular rendering. 

Albert