You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

thomblake comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 25, chapter 96 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: NancyLebovitz 25 July 2013 04:36AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (524)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Petruchio 25 July 2013 03:11:50PM 3 points [-]

I am confused.

The particular Bible passage was written in Greek a solid millennia before Hogwarts was built, it was available in Latin at least since the 4th century (Latin being the language of the educated post-Roman Empire, and the language which magic seems to be based off of), and, according to a quick Wikipedia search, translated into Old English by the Venerable Bede in the 7th century.

Comment author: thomblake 25 July 2013 03:34:27PM 3 points [-]

according to a quick Wikipedia search, translated into Old English by the Venerable Bede in the 7th century.

You may be thinking of the Gospel of John, which Bede translated shortly before his death. As far as I can tell, there was never an Old English translation of 1 Corinthians, and if there was it was not well-known.

Comment author: TimS 26 July 2013 01:37:10AM 2 points [-]

I would be surprised to discover an Old English translation of any part of the Bible. The major theological movement to translate the Gospels into the vernacular (Lutherian Reformation) post-dates Old English by several centuries.

Comment author: Vaniver 27 July 2013 04:54:23AM *  2 points [-]

I would be surprised to discover an Old English translation of any part of the Bible.

Huh? thomblake just mentioned such a translation (though it's incomplete), and it's easy to verify on wiki or elsewhere.

Comment author: TimS 27 July 2013 06:24:17PM 2 points [-]

We can steelman my post to say we shouldn't expect many translations given the theological positions, or we can believe TimS_yesterday failed reading comprehension.

I'm putting my probability mass on that latter. Sorry, thomblake.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 29 July 2013 02:02:35AM 0 points [-]

Well, the Vulgar Latin translation of the Bible was itself in the vernacular at the time it was translated.