Atlantis Online
November 12, 2019, 05:47:00 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Underwater caves off Yucatan yield three old skeletons—remains date to 11,000 B.C.
http://www.edgarcayce.org/am/11,000b.c.yucata.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Timaeus on Atlantis in Eight Parallel Editions

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Timaeus on Atlantis in Eight Parallel Editions  (Read 4087 times)
Danaus
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 188



« Reply #30 on: November 16, 2007, 12:10:56 pm »

@Danaus:
Hm, you think you can find errors in the tradition of the greek text by
examining the Latin translation?
Have you found some errors? Can you demonstrate an example?
This would be interesting.

It's amazingly similar to the Bury transaltion.  Here is a comparison in a Word Document, so you can judge for yourself:
http://gizacalc.freehostia.com/Library/Plato/Timaeus%20-%20Calcidius%20Blitz%20Latin%20vs.%20Bury%20.doc

Since we are comparing 8 editions here, I thought a 9th would be a good idea.

Anyways, there are a couple of Sentences in Bury that do not appear in Calcidius, and a couple of phrases that appear in Calcidius that do not appear in Bury.  Also in the Calcidius, that are a couple of times Socrates responds to Critias saying: "That is True", that do not appear in the Bury version, and vice-versa.

A couple of the new things that appear are:

Timaeus "[21e]...the Saitian word called it Asty" -- Calcidius
-- "there is a certain district called the Saitic" -- Bury
******
"[25b] accordingly the third of the borne universe" -- Calcidius
-- Missing from Bury

********
Additionally, I found an extra word in the digby Calcidius codex, when looking up the 25b statement, which Atalante might find interesting.

http://image.ox.ac.uk/images/bodleian/msdigby23/f015av.jpg
"obtinentium maximaeque parti continentis [tte] dominantium, siquidem tertiae mundi parti, quae Libya dicitur, usque ad Aegyptum imperarunt, Europae uero usque ad Tyrrhenum mare."

In the second line on this page, there is a "tte" (tertiae) before dominantium in this digby codex.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2007, 12:29:46 pm by Danaus » Report Spam   Logged
cicero
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 93

The historical-critical approach to Atlantis


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 16, 2007, 03:49:10 pm »

Anyways, there are a couple of Sentences in Bury that do not appear in Calcidius, and a couple of phrases that appear in Calcidius that do not appear in Bury.  Also in the Calcidius, that are a couple of times Socrates responds to Critias saying: "That is True", that do not appear in the Bury version, and vice-versa.

A couple of the new things that appear are:

Timaeus "[21e]...the Saitian word called it Asty" -- Calcidius
-- "there is a certain district called the Saitic" -- Bury
******
"[25b] accordingly the third of the borne universe" -- Calcidius
-- Missing from Bury

********
Additionally, I found an extra word in the digby Calcidius codex, when looking up the 25b statement, which Atalante might find interesting.

http://image.ox.ac.uk/images/bodleian/msdigby23/f015av.jpg
"obtinentium maximaeque parti continentis [tte] dominantium, siquidem tertiae mundi parti, quae Libya dicitur, usque ad Aegyptum imperarunt, Europae uero usque ad Tyrrhenum mare."

In the second line on this page, there is a "tte" (tertiae) before dominantium in this digby codex.
Ok, some "That is true" do not change too much.
An additional emphasizinjg tertiae also not.

The "Asty": I do not find this in the Word document to be from Calcidius,
but from Diodorus according to this Word document.
And this means: If it appears in Calcidius, it is taken from Diodorus.
And this means: No value.

Facit:
Calcidius provides us with zero information.
So far. Maybe you can try better.
Report Spam   Logged

The historical-critical approach to Atlantis! http://www.atlantis-scout.de/
Danaus
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 188



« Reply #32 on: November 16, 2007, 04:07:36 pm »

hmm... it appears I am mistaken on Asty.
Report Spam   Logged
cicero
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 93

The historical-critical approach to Atlantis


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 16, 2007, 04:15:18 pm »

hmm... it appears I am mistaken on Asty.
Don't worry, maybe this Calcidius provides us with good information
so far not discovered. But this will only be recognizable by someone,
who learned Latin and Old Greek. (as I did, but I have no time, sorry).
Report Spam   Logged

The historical-critical approach to Atlantis! http://www.atlantis-scout.de/
atalante
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 106


« Reply #34 on: November 18, 2007, 10:43:45 am »

The Calcidius translation into Latin is important from the standpoint of text transmission.

Calcidius's translation proves that the underlying Greek manuscript copies did not change "very much" between the 4th century AD and the time when printing press versions replaced manuscripts.

But I disagree with Cicero about the value of Diodorus. 
Report Spam   Logged
cicero
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 93

The historical-critical approach to Atlantis


WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 18, 2007, 10:53:26 am »

...
But I disagree with Cicero about the value of Diodorus. 
Hello atalante,
what is the value of Diodorus in your eyes?
His Atlanteans stories have not very much value for Platos Atlantis,
I fear.
Report Spam   Logged

The historical-critical approach to Atlantis! http://www.atlantis-scout.de/
Mark of Australia
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 703



« Reply #36 on: November 18, 2007, 11:23:08 am »

Hi Atalante ,cicero ,

I think that the old attitude of discrediting any reference to Atlantis that was set down on paper (papyrus etc) AFTER the time of Plato is disingenuous and poor logic .Just because it is on record as having been preserved for our eyes after the time of Plato doesn't necessarily mean that it is actually derived from Plato. Diodorus is the best example , he wrote well after Plato but his 'Atlantians' may be an independent survival of the Atlantis legend by a separate culture. The fact that the 'Atlantis' of Diodorus is quite different from Plato's and revolves around the Amazons seems to me to be telling that it really is a genuine memory of Atlantis by a different culture. It is said that Diodorus was a compiler of stories he heard,just like Herodotus. He may well have heard his account from Carthaginian North Africa where it's known he travelled.
 
 Of course no other story of Atlantis is as detailed as Plato's .But I do think there is very valuable information in Diodorus and other writers that helps to fill out our 'image' of Atlantis. The trick is to figure out which stories are accurate and which are the red herrings.

 I would say Diodorus has the next best account of Atlantis after Plato.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 11:24:00 am by Mark Ponta » Report Spam   Logged
nikas
Guest
« Reply #37 on: November 18, 2007, 11:45:21 am »

Guys, I went through the translations and I am still pulling my hair out. Trash, all of it EXCEPT—Jowett translation, the rest is really TRASH. The worst of all, what’s his name BURY or whatever. What he has done is translating the Modern Greek version (which is horrible in itself) into English or Latin. Please guys just stay way from all of them, except Jowett’s translation. It’s not perfect but it’s paraphrased without loosing vital information. The only essential argument he is confusing is the word Pelagos(Sea) which is used for Ocean, when I have already pointed out that ocean was called Pan-Pelagos(everywhere/everything Sea).
P.S. If you want, I can translate the passage word by word…


 
Report Spam   Logged
Mark of Australia
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 703



« Reply #38 on: November 18, 2007, 12:42:10 pm »

Hi Nikas ,

Long time no see .I will keep that in mind about the translations and try to get a hold of the whole versions by Jowett.I may have already read his translations but just didn't know it was his.
Report Spam   Logged
atalante
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 106


« Reply #39 on: November 18, 2007, 01:42:03 pm »

Cicero,

Nearly all the controversial passages in Plato's Atlantis story involve situations where Plato used nebulous wording in the original Greek.  Even the ancient Greeks were able to read different things into some of the passages.  Nikas's recent post demonstrates that "tearing your hair out" is a normal part of trying to translate the controversial Atlantis passages.

Diodorus, and the Greek historians whom he summarized, saw something important in 24e which is distorted in nearly all modern translations.

Here is my footnoted translation.
2nd part of 24e

But as soon as (*12) the isolated land             hê de nêsos [fem nom sg]  hama
was (a business-client) of Libya (*13),            Libuês [fem gen sg]   ên [imperf ind act 3rd sing]
then (*12) the senior (affair) of Asia occurred.  kai  Asias [fem gen sg]   meizôn [fem nom     
                                                                                                           comparative sg]




footnote *12  This is a "hama...kai" construction in Greek, and therefore the sentence involves two clauses -- (describing two events which occur close together).   Diodorus Siculus, and the historians he summarized, understood this sentence to mean that the Amazons of Libya (i.e. Lake Tritonis) conquered the Atlantes tribes, who lived west of the Amazons, shortly before the Amazons invaded Asia Minor and the Levant (eastern) part of the Mediterranean. 

quote from Perseus-Tufts lexicon entry for "hama" (and more specifically for a "hama...kai" construction):

3. in Prose ha. de . . kai . . , ha. te . . kai . . , ha. . . kai . . may often be translated by no sooner . . than . . , ha. de tauta elege kai apedeiknue Hdt.1.112 ; tauga te hama êgoreue kai pempei 8.5 ; ha. akêkoamen te kai triêrarchous kathistamen D.4.36 ; ha. diallattontai kai tês echthras epilanthanontai Isoc.4.157 .





footnote *13  The verb "to be"  (ên / einai) can take on subtle shifts of meaning when it is used with Genitive case, which occurs in this passage. 

quote from:  http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2331131

 C. einai is frequently modified in sense by the addition of Advbs., or the cases of Nouns without or with Preps.:

II. c. gen., to express descent or extraction, patros d' eim' agathoio Il.21.109 ; haimatos eis agathoio Od. 4.611 , cf. Hdt.3.71, Th.2.71, etc.; poleôs megistês ei X.An.7.3.19 .

b. to express the material of which a thing is made, hê krêpis esti lithôn megalôn consists of . . , Hdt.1.93; tês polios eousês duo pharseôn ib.186; toioutôn ergôn esti hê turannis is made up of . . , Id.5.92.ê, etc.
c. to express the class to which a person or thing belongs, ei gar tôn philôn you are one of them, Ar.Pl.345; etunchane boulês ôn Th.3.70 ; hosoi êsan tôn proterôn stratiôtôn Id.7.44 ; Kritias tôn triakonta ôn X.Mem.1.2.31 ; esti tôn aischrôn it is in the class of disgraceful things, i. e. it is disgraceful, D.2.2.
d. to express that a thing belongs to another, Troian Achaiôn ousan A.Ag. 269 ; to pedion ên men kote Chorasmiôn Hdt.3.117 , etc.: hence, to be of the party of, êsan . . tines men philippou, tines de tou beltistou D.9.56 , cf. 37.53; to be de pendent upon, S.Ant.737, etc.; to be at the mercy of, esti tou legontos, ên phobous legêi Id.OT917 .
e. to express one's duty, business, custom, nature, and the like , outoi gunaikos esti 'tis not a woman's part, A.Ag.940; to epitiman pantos einai D.1.16 ; to de nautikon technês estin is matter of art, requires art, Th.1.142, cf.83.
f. in LXX, to be occupied about, êsan tou thuein 2 Ch.30.17 ; esesthai, c. gen., to be about to, esometha tou sôsai se 2 Ki.10.11 .
endquote
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 09:17:12 pm by atalante » Report Spam   Logged
nikas
Guest
« Reply #40 on: November 18, 2007, 11:05:37 pm »

Oh noooo Atalante is the english translation that made me "bold" not the ancient greek Grin. That I already understand it very easily. I laugh with all of this absourd theories out there. I have pinpointed the location precesily, exactly there were the egyptian priest said would be. The only problem with my theory is that you can't change a thing on what Plato wrote Wink, otherwise it doesn't make sense!!!
Report Spam   Logged
Danaus
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 188



« Reply #41 on: November 19, 2007, 07:28:33 am »

"Trash, all of it EXCEPT—Jowett translation, the rest is really TRASH. The worst of all, what’s his name BURY or whatever.... It’s(Jowett) not perfect but it’s paraphrased without loosing vital information."
-- What is your basis for this statement? 

It is widely known that the Jowett translation is by far the worst of all the translations.  Jowett is paraphrased, as you said, for English readability, where as the Bury translation is very literal and preserves the original sentence structure, as I have previously demonstrated.  Bury is also more modern.

Bury contains mistakes, and maybe in the critical places.  I'm sure if you counted the number of mistakes in both, you would find at least 3x the mistakes in Jowett.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 08:00:25 am by Danaus » Report Spam   Logged
Tom Hebert
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1370


« Reply #42 on: November 19, 2007, 07:35:17 am »

When you look at the major English translations, the ALL say essentially the same thing, and why would that be surprising?  They were translated by professionals, i.e., people with credentials!

So how can one translation be called trash and another a treasure?  How ridiculous!

Report Spam   Logged
Danaus
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 188



« Reply #43 on: November 19, 2007, 07:53:28 am »

When you look at the major English translations, the ALL say essentially the same thing, and why would that be surprising?  They were translated by professionals, i.e., people with credentials!

So how can one translation be called trash and another a treasure?  How ridiculous!

Tom,
You make an excellent point.  We have 8 different translations in this topic... and you're right that the differences are relatively minor.  It would be pretty bold of someone to say: "All 8 translations are wrong, and I'm right". 

Previously, I have studied Jowett vs. Bury vs Calcidius, and I personally don't like that Jowett re-arranges sentences and combines sentences to improve readability; he paraphrases alot, and is also the most fun to read.  The content is nearly identical, though.  It is very rare that the meanings in Jowett are different than these other 8 versions. 

The translation debates are probably limited to 3% of the story, on ambiguous passages, or alternative definition 3 of one word... meaning these schollars were 97%+ accurate.  That is my opinion.
Rich

ps. It would be nice if we walked through the whole story with all 8 translations;  This topic only has 2 paragraphs, which is a good start.  An 8-way comparison would be a nice way to identify the differences, and figure out where alternative meanings are possible.  We could probably get to 99%+ accuracy through that method.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 08:19:09 am by Danaus » Report Spam   Logged
nikas
Guest
« Reply #44 on: November 19, 2007, 09:06:48 am »

"Trash, all of it EXCEPT—Jowett translation, the rest is really TRASH. The worst of all, what’s his name BURY or whatever.... It’s(Jowett) not perfect but it’s paraphrased without loosing vital information."
-- What is your basis for this statement? 

My knowledge, and the ability to read ancient Greek, But to be more efficient; my facts.

Quote
It is widely known that the Jowett translation is by far the worst of all the translations. 


Never heard such a thing, how come then is the most used translation out there?

Quote
Jowett is paraphrased, as you said, for English readability, where as the Bury translation is very literal and preserves the original sentence structure, as I have previously demonstrated.  Bury is also more modern.

Not at all, bury has misinterpreted vital information. And the worst he adds inexistent words?

Quote
Bury contains mistakes, and maybe in the critical places.  I'm sure if you counted the number of mistakes in both, you would find at least 3x the mistakes in Jowett.

That’s not true; I found only one vital mistake on Jowett’s translation the OCEAN word. The rest are because he is paraphrasing without loosing the real meaning of the entire sentence.

You know what?! Let’s go through a sentence translated by both, bury and Jowett.


Quote
Bury 1929
Starting from a distant point in the Atlantic Ocean,



Quote
Jowett 1871
This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean,

Quote
Plato
Exwqen(outside) ormhqeisan(prepared/came with fury/jumped) ek tou(from this) atlantikou(atlantic) pelagous(Sea).

So gentleman where is this distance point Bury is talking about? You see how Jowett paraphrased that perfectly, except that he used the word ocean instead of Sea?
Do you know how wrong is to state “distant point”, giving the impression that Atlantis is far way…


Quote
So how can one translation be called trash and another a treasure?  How ridiculous!

So do you still think it’s a ridiculous claim now Mister  Hebert Huh. I can give you plenty of more examples. There are more where that one came from Wink?!

For your information the Sea of Malta was called Atlantic Sea, the western Sea(Mediterranean) was called Ocean(Oqeanos), and Atlantic was called Pan Pelagos(everything/everywhere Sea.)
« Last Edit: November 19, 2007, 09:12:39 am by nikas » Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy