1. Cor. 6:9-10

[Michael Erwin]

Well, is the Gothic translation a translation of (A) the ideal Greek  
text as reconstructed by modern scholars (B) the ideal Greek text as  
understood by Wulfila or (G) the local Greek text from the Balkans.  
I'm inclined towards a mix of (G) with Wulfila relying on local Greek  
text-traditions and a bit of (B) with Wulfila cross-checking against  
other well-regarded Greek and Latin texts. Particularly the Greek  
texts of the school of Lucian. It's possible that one of the Greek  
texts included the same peculiarities as the Gothic version.

I've read that arsenokoites is a reference to Leviticus 18 and one  
other chapter. Since we don't have Leviticus, we don't have Wulfila's  
translation of those passages either.

However, it's possible that the omission comes from the translation  
instead of the Greek source. I suppose that Gothic culture may have  
worked with different categories regarding sex, and possibly perjury,  
slavery and the rest of the list, that the term hors, or the list as  
a whole, might cover the missing words, or cover Wulfila's  
understanding of the intent of the missing words.

Suppose we have a list that includes:

A,
B,
G,
D,
E.

And we have words which mean

A,
B or G,
G or Q,
D,
A or E.

And Q is not in the list. In this case, isn't it better to drop "G or  
Q" and rely on "B or G" to cover the missing word? That's one way the  
omission could be deliberate, whether or not one of the sources drops  
the term.

I'd end up translating 1 Cor. 6-9: "... nih horos nih galiugam  
skalkinondans nih horos nih horos nih ..." Maybe this one does need  
more exact words. Kalkjo (f) suggests *kalkeis (m) (or phrases such  
as wair-*kalkeis and, to the shame of mankind, magus-*kalkeis) but  
inventions pose several problems.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gothic-l/attachments/20071203/b8d0b8bd/attachment.htm>