Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:59:57.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Latin textual basis of Genesis A

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Paul G. Remley
Paul G. Remley
Affiliation:
The University of Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Received scholarly opinion regards Genesis A as an Old English versification of the Latin text of Genesis in Jerome's Vulgate revision of the bible. This view has prevailed in modern editions of the poem, which normally print a critical text of the Vulgate Genesis in their apparatus. The textual basis of Genesis A is perhaps ‘vulgate’ in character in so far as the poem renders Genesis readings that were commonly known in Anglo-Saxon England, but the identification of this base text with that of the Hieronymian Vulgate remains an untested hypothesis. Ten years ago A. N. Doane printed a list of readings in the Old English text which show affinity with the ancient versions of Genesis that emerged before the completion of Jerome's translation, readings associted with the Vetus Latina or Old Latin bible. Doane did not, however, challenge the long-standing belief that Genesis A follows a single, lost exemplar that contained in all essentials the text established by Jerome. The present study attempts to survey, without any preconceptions, all the details in the poem that might derive from Latin sources; its intention is to make a first step towards the recovery of the Latin textual basis of Genesis A.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anglo-Saxon England , Volume 17 , December 1988 , pp. 163 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 An early comparative study by Ebert, A., ‘Zur angelsächsischen Genesis’, Anglia 5 (1882), 124–33, at 124, assumes that the Latin source of Genesis A is ‘selbstverständlich [die] Vulgata’.Google ScholarThis assumption underlies numerous critical summaries of the poem, though in A New Critical History of Old English Literature (New York, 1986), at pp. 207–9,Google ScholarGreenfield, S. B. and Calder, D. G. do not reproduce the reference to ‘additions to and changes from the Vulgate text’ that appeared in Greenfield's earlier Critical History (New York, 1965), at p. 148.Google Scholar

2 The edition of F. Holthausen, Die ältere Genesis (Heidelberg, 1914) supplies a Vulgate text of Genesis at the foot of each page. A. N. Doane, in Genesis A: a New Edition (Madison, Wisc., 1978) prints a convenient Latin running text of individual verses from the Vulgate (with an uneven selection of non-Vulgate variants) on pages facing the corresponding lines of Old English. An excerpt of the Genesis A account of Abraham and Isaac in Bright's Old English Grammar and Reader, ed. F. G. Cassidy and R. N. Ringler, 3rd edn (New York, 1971), at pp. 289–95, includes the Vulgate text of Gen. XXII.

3 The terms ‘textual basis’ and ‘base text’ refer to an archetypal group of readings corresponding in point of detail to those parts of Genesis A that derive from a Latin source (in most cases, the text of Gen. I–XXII). The authorship, date and unity of Genesis A and the probability that the exemplary series of readings behind it once existed in a single manuscript are peripheral concerns here, but no evidence has been found to contradict Doane's view (Genesis A, pp. 36–7 and 61) that the received text of Genesis A in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius II (?Christ Church, Canterbury, s. x/xi) represents a late, defective copy of a unified work by one poet (Doane places his florescence c. 650–900) who sought to render faithfully a single Latin text of Genesis in Old English verse. Even if early theories of multiple authorship over many years (Ibid. pp. 39–40) were vindicated, they would not affect either the textual findings of this study or its conclusion that discernible principles influenced the choices of readings that constitute the base text.

4 Genesis A, p. 60. Doane concedes that his groundbreaking selection of Old Latin parallels is uncritical in so far as readings are taken ‘without discrimination as to their origin’ (p. 59, n. 51) from Genesis, ed. B. Fischer, Vetus Latina 2 (Freiburg, 1951–4).

5 He concludes (Genesis A, p. 59) that the ‘biblical text behind Genesis A appears to be a Vulgate of a fairly pure Roman or Gregorian type, predominantly Jeromian, with some admixture of Old Latin elements’.

6 Textual questions have been largely ignored in the continuing debate concerning the poet's knowledge and use of non-biblical Latin texts (patristic exegesis, liturgical and homiletic sources) initiated by the study of Huppé, B. F., Doctrine and Poetry: Augustine's Influence on Old English Poetry (Albany, NY, 1959), pp. 131–216. Doane doubts many of Huppé's assertions (Genesis A, pp. 42–3), but his own commentary draws frequently and perhaps excessively on topics of patristic exegesis. The ‘exegetical’ approach to the poem has been criticized byGoogle ScholarBoyd, N., ‘Doctrine and Criticism: a Revaluation of Genesis A’, NM 83 (1982), 230–8.Google Scholar

7 For a general introduction to the scriptural resources consulted in the preparation of this article, see the first two volumes of The Cambridge History of the Bible: From the Beginnings to Jerome, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and C.F. Evans (Cambridge, 1970), chs. 5–7 and 16–18, and The West from the Fathers to the Reformation, ed. G. W. H. Lampe (Cambridge, 1969), chs. 1–5.

8 According to legend this translation was prepared for use in the royal library at Alexandria by seventy Jewish scholars (whence the name Septuagint, or ‘seventy’) at the command of Ptolemy II. Historically it served the needs of the Jews of Mediterranean regions after the Diaspora and was codified under the authority of the synagogues. Christian commentators championed the scriptural authority of the Septuagint from the first century onwards. For a recent study and additional references, see Walters, P., The Text of the Septuagint: its Corruptions and their Emendation, ed. Gooding, D. W. (Cambridge, 1973).Google Scholar

9 H. D. F. Sparks, ‘Jerome as a Biblical Scholar’, The Cambridge History of the Bible 1, ed. Ackroyd and Evans, 510–41, at 516.

10 For discussion of the many problems associated with the Old Latin bible,see Billen, A. V., The Old Latin Texts of the Heptateuch (Cambridge, 1927) and the review byGoogle ScholarBurkitt, F. C., JTS 29 (1928), 140–6;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSparks, H. F. D., ‘The Latin Bible’, The Bible in its Ancient and English Versions, ed. Robinson, H. W. (Oxford, 1940), pp. 100–27, at 100–10;Google ScholarRoberts, B. J., The Old Testament Text and Versions (Cardiff, 1951), pp. 237–46;Google ScholarFischer, B., ‘Bibelausgaben des frühen Mittelalters’, SettSpol 10 (Spoleto, 1963), 519–600; andGoogle ScholarWürthwein, E., Der Text des Alten Testaments, 4th edn (Stuttgart, 1973), pp. 90–3.Google ScholarSee also von Dobschütz, E., ‘A Collection of Old Latin Bible Quotations: Somnium Neronis’, JTS 16 (1915), 1–27, andCrossRefGoogle ScholarBischoff, B., ‘Neue Materialien zum Bestand und zur Geschichte der altlateinischen Bibelübersetzungen‘, Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, 6 vols., Studi e testi 121–6 (Vatican City, 1946) 1, 407–36.Google Scholar

11 Genesis, ed. Fischer, is the cornerstone of a continuing project to reconstruct critically the entire text of the Old Latin bible now under the supervision of a team of scholars at the Vetus-Latina-Institut at Beuron. As a rule, the term Vetus Latina will refer here to the readings (including interlinear variants) printed in the critical edition while the phrase ‘Old Latin (bible)’ refers more generally to the lost text which Fischer and his successors seek to recover and its extant primary (manuscript) and secondary (patristic) witnesses.

12 See Süss, W., Studien zur lateinischen Bibel, 1: Augustin's Locutiones und das Problem der lateinischen Bibelsprache, Acta et commentationes B29.4 (Tartu, 1932), andGoogle ScholarBurkitt, F. C., ‘St Augustine's Bible and the Itala’, JTS 11 (1910), 258–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Since the publication of a partially reconstructed Old Latin biblical text by Sabatier, P., Bibliorum sacrorum latinae versiones antiquae, seu Vetus Italica, 3 vols. (Rheims, 1743–1749), the term ‘Itala’ has been frequently if imprecisely used as a synonym for ‘Old Latin bible’. See, e.g., the vocabulary study byGoogle ScholarRönsch, H., Itala und Vulgata, 2nd edn (Marburg, 1875). The assertion ofGoogle ScholarBurkitt, F. C., The Old Latin and the Itala, Texts and Stud. 4.3 (Cambridge, 1896), 55–65 (cf. Burkitt, as cited above, n. 12), that the Itala mentioned by Augustine is in fact the Vulgate, typifies the arguments that have exacerbated the terminological confusion surrounding the Italian textual type.Google Scholar

14 Genesis, ed. Fischer, pp. 14*–22*.

15 See below, pp. 180–2.

16 Doane, confirming earlier observations of Grein, Holthausen, Klaeber and others, states that ‘the poet has systematically, virtually phrase by phrase, reproduced in traditional poetry the essential meaning of the Latin Genesis which he had before him as he worked. The paraphrase is nearly complete and continuous up to Genesis 22.13’ (Genesis A, ed. Doane, p. 61).

17 ‘Overall, the ratio of omitted whole biblical verses to those represented is two to five. In most chapters the actual ratio of omissions is considerably lower… [and] almost everything is represented’ (ibid. p. 63).

18 Citations of the Vulgate (siglum H) follow Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, ed. R. Weber, 2nd edn, 2 vols, (Stuttgart, 1975). Readings of the Old Latin Genesis normally derive from Genesis, ed. Fischer.

19 Gen A 157b–65a: ‘The lord of angels commanded by his word that the waters which now hold their course beneath the heavens should draw [lit. ‘be’] together, he ordained a place [for them]; then the water beneath the heavens immediately stood together as the holy one ordered, when sea was divided from land. Then the guardian of life, protector of hosts, saw the dry region widely revealed.‘ Quotations of Genesis A derive from Doane's edition with occasional addition of punctuation and capitalized letters. Abbreviations used in citations of Old English texts are those set out by Mitchell, B. et al. , ‘Short Titles of Old English Texts’, ASE 4 (1975), 207–21, with addenda and corrigenda in ASE 8 (1979), at 331–3.Google Scholar

20 For early witnesses to the Old Latin text of Gen. I.9, see Genesis, ed. Fischer, pp. 12–14 and 530. Previously unrecorded Anglo-Latin citations of the first part of the Old Latin text (reading ‘Congregetur aqua in congregationem unam… ’) appear in two works by Bede: In proverbia Salomonis 1.V.14 (CCSL 119B, 50) and In epistolas septem catholicas iii.5 ( CCSL 121, 277).

21 In addition to exhibiting congruence of vocabulary. GenA 157b–65a may reflect a shift from past to present subjunctive and perfect tense. The expanded text of the verse, which derives from Hebrew scripture, enters western tradition in Old Latin translations of the Septuagint. Both Greek and Latin texts lose the latter part of the verse as a result of scribal influence, i.e. presumed homoioteleuton; see Skinner, J., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, 2nd edn, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh, 1930), pp. 22–3, and Roberts, The Old Testament Text and Versions, p. 96.Google Scholar

22

23 Auct. F. 4. 32, 29ra 17–22 (omitting incipit). The diplomatic transcription supplied here (with additions in italics) is based on the unpaginated facsimile edition of the manuscript, St Dunstan's Classbook from Glastonbury: Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Auct. F. 4. 32, ed. R. W. Hunt, Umbrae codicum occidentalium 4 (Amsterdam, 1962); see also Hunt's introductory comments at pp. x–xii. For a critical text and discussion, see Fischer, B., ‘Die Lesungen der römischen Ostervigil unter Gregor der Grosse’, Colligere fragmenta: Festschrift Alban Dold, ed. Fischer, B. and Fiala, V., Texte und Arbeiten [s.s.] 2 (Beuron, 1952), 144–59. The Welsh scribe of Auct. F. 4.32 supplies a transliterated Greek text, revised intelligently at several points to reflect Old Latin usage, which accompanies the Latin lessons in adjacent columns (Fischer, ‘Die Lesungen’, p. 155 with n. 1). See also A. Rahlfs, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, Königliche Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse: Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens 2 (Berlin, 1914), 165, and H. Schneider, Die altateinischen biblischen Cantica, Texte und Arbeiten 1.29–30 (Beuron, 1938), 68–70.Google Scholar

24 See Genesis A, ed. Doane, p. 60. On the origins of the binding legend (or akedah), see van Seters, J., Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven, 1975), pp. 227–40.Google Scholar

25 The text in Auct. F. 4. 32 reads: ‘et dixit accipe filium tuum dilectum quem diligis isac et uade in terra excelsa et offers illum ibi holochaustum in unum montem quem tibi dixero’ (34va5–9). The Old Latin text of Gen. XXII.2 is treated by Billen, The Old Latin Texts, p. 195 with pp. 69, 105, 128, 133, 137, 142, 151 and 200.

26 Gen A 2855a: ‘a ridge of that high land’. See Rosier, J., ‘Hrincg in Genesis A’, Anglia 88 (1970), 334–6, for the translation of hrincg as a scribal corruption of hrycg. Doane (Genesis A, pp. 60 and 322) correctly notes the probable Old Latin origin of the phrase ‘hean landes’, but argues inconsistently that hrincg shows the influence of Vulgate ‘terram visionis’.Google Scholar

27 Ex 385b (ASPR 1, 102). This and all subsequent citations of possible reflexes of Old Latin scripture in Old English verse, unless otherwise noted, have not been exhibited previously.

28 Jerome, Hebraicae quaestiones in libro Geneseos XXII.2 (CCSL 72, 26). On the Moriah crux, see further Bede, De templo 1 (CCSL 119A, 159, lines 475–7) and Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, pp. 328–9.

29 Gen A 2903–4a: ‘And he shackled the feet and hands of his son.’

30 Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, p. 330, and A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. F. Brown et al., corrected impression (Oxford, 1959), p 785, s v דקע. Citations of the Hebrew Genesis refer to the text prepared by Eissfeldt, O. for Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. Elliger, K. and Rudolph, W., rev. edn (Stuttgart, 1976–1977).Google Scholar

31 See Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R., A Greek–English Lexicon, new edn by Jones, H. S. (Oxford, 1968), s.v. συμποδ⋯ζω.Google Scholar

32 Auct. F. 4. 32 reads ‘alligauit pedes isac filio suo’ (35ra15); cf. Genesis, ed. Fischer, pp. 234–5. A similar reading would account for the Old English text as fet bears alliteration and ‘and honda’ may have been added to fill out the line. The collocation ‘fet and honda’ does not occur elsewhere in Old English verse; gefeterian, moreover, alliterates with fote (translating Lat. pede) in PPs LXV. 5. The phrasing of this detail in Genesis A thus does not employ standard Old English poetic diction and fet quite possibly renders a Latin term.

33 De Abraham 1.lxxv (CSEL 32.1, 551). Fischer (supplement to Genesis, pp. 557–8) supports his inclusion of the variant with two additional passages: Zeno, Tractatus i.xliii.2.5 (‘alligat manus… Pedes quoque constringit… ’) and i.lix.3.6 (‘manus…pedem… destringit’), now ed. CCSL 22, 115 and 135; cf. also a previously unrecorded witness to the Old Latin text of Gen. XXII.9 in Quodvultdeus, De quattuor virtutibus caritatis VII.ii.5 (CCSL 60, 372): ‘manus filio ligat, imponit eum in ara supra ligna.’

34 Gen A 2878–9: ‘[Abraham] saw a high hill towering just as the prince of heaven told (sægde) him before.’ Forms of dicere (reflecting use of in the Septuagint rather than the variant δε⋯κνυμι) appear in Auct. F. 4.32 at 34va9(Gen XXII.2 dixero), 34va17 and 35 ra 11 (XXII.3 and 9 dixerat) where the Vulgate prefers semantically imperative monstravero, praeceperat and ostenderat. Similar readings (e.g. XXII.3 dixit) occur in the I text of the Vetus Latina.

35 Gen A 2881b and 2887a, both following Gen. XXII.5 (cf. Auct. F. 4. 32, 34va21–2, and the I text of the Vetus Latina).

36 Gen A 2864a ‘nihtreste ofgeaf and Vulgate ‘de nocte consurgens’ against Old Latin ‘exsurgens… mane’ (I) in Gen. XXII.3, and 2926b–7a ‘bewlat… ofer exle’ and ‘viditque post tergum’ against vidit (I) in XXII.13 (cf. 2564b ‘under bæc beseah’ and Vulgate variant ‘respiciens… postergum‘ in XIX.26).

37 With readings from Lyons 403 printed in Pentateuchi versio Latina antiquissima e codice Lugdunensi, ed. U. Robert (Paris, 1881), at pp. 129–31, cf. Old English renderings of Gen. XVII.1 (Gen A 2308a ‘duguðum stepe’ and Old Latin ‘prospere age’ against Vulgate ambula), and, in Gen. XIX, verses 5 (2460b ‘hæman wolden’ and ‘coitum faciamus’ against cognoscamus; cf. Genesis A, ed. Doane, p. 60), 7 (2471b–2 ‘fremmen… yfel ylda bearnum’ and ‘malefacere viris’ against ‘malum hoc facere’), 10 (2488b–9a) ‘abrugdon in under edoras’ and ‘adtraxerunt… in domum’ against ‘introduxerunt’) and 23 (2540b–1 ‘up… eode’ and ‘ortus est’ against ‘egressus est’). The readings of Lyons 403 are of the Spanish (S) textual type (Genesis, ed. Fischer, pp. 5*–7* and 17*–18*).

38 See Fischer (Genesis, pp. 7*–10*). Cf readings in Gen. XIII.2 (Gen A 1877b ceapas and Old Latin pecoribus against Vulgate possessione) and xv.7 (2202 ‘of caldea ceastre’ and 2208a sceatas and ‘de regione Chaldaeorum’ against ‘de Ur Chaldeorum’: cf. also Genesis A, ed. Doane, p. 60 for Gen A 1730b ‘ofer caldea folc’, possibly following an Old Latin form of Gen. XI.31).

39 The fragmentary leaf London, British Library, Papyrus 2052 (see Genesis, ed. Fischer, pp. 12*–13*) completes the manuscript record for the Old Latin text of Gen. I–XXII. Verbal correspondence between the Adamic and Noachic genealogical material in Pap. 2052 and Genesis A is restricted to common readings attested for both the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate.

40 The fundamental research in the area appears in three studies by H. Glunz, Die lateinische Vorlage der westsähchsischen Evangelienversion, Beiträge zur englischen Philologie 9 (Leipzig, 1928); Britannien und Bibeltext. Der Vulgatatext der Evangelien in seinem Verhältnis zur irischangelsächsischen Kultur des Frühmittelalters, Kölner anglistische Arbeiten 12 (Leipzig, 1930); and History of the Vulgate in England from Alcuin to Roger Bacon (Cambridge, 1933).

41 On the development of early medieval ‘mixed’ texts, see Berger, S., Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du moyen âge (Paris 1893), pp. 1–60, and Sparks, ‘The Latin Bible’, pp. 106–7: for a discussion of heterogeneous texts of early Irish bibles.Google Scholarsee Doyle, P., ‘The Latin Bible in Ireland: its Origins and Growth’, Biblical Studies: the Medieval Irish Contribution, ed. McNamara, M., Proc. of the Irish Biblical Assoc. I (Dublin, 1976), 30–45.Google Scholar

42 Gen A 173b–4; Doane (Genesis A, p. 114) erroneously prints adiutorem, a reading he found (albeit as a locus desperandus) in the Vatican text of the Vulgate Genesis, Biblia sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem I: librum Genesis, ed. H. Quentin (Rome, 1926), at Gen. II.18. Biblica sacra, ed. Weber, restores adiutorium, the reading preferred, e.g., by Bede, Adnotationes in principium Genesis 1.ii. 18 (CCSL 118A, 53); the same reading would account for Old English prose Gen II.18 fultum.

43 On the problem of rendering the reference to Eve in the Hebrew with either an abstract or concrete term, see Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, p. 67; cf. A Hebrew and English Lexicon, ed. Brown et al., p. 740, s.v. דזע.

44 Gen A 177b–8a: ‘[God] extracted a rib from [Adam's] side.’

45 De natura et origine animae 1.xviii.29 (CSEL 60, 330). Augustine explicitly adverts to the authority of scripture (‘cum scriptum sit’); Fischer (Genesis, p. 51) lists other Old Latin citations of the verse with forms of detrahere and similar verbs. For the use of forms of OE ateon in glosses of verbs in -trahere, see, e.g., OccGl 49 776 (detrahere), PsGl(DFIJ) cxviii. 131 (adtrahere) etc.

46 The phrase ‘genam him an rib of þa sidan’ also appears as a caption in Junius 11 (Scrib 2.9.1.9.3) and an Old Latin form of the verse (including the phrase de [or ex] latere) would account for the prose translation ‘genam he an rib of his sidan’ in Gen II. 21 and an identical quotation at ÆCHom I Thorpe 1 14.20–1.

47 Gen A 183b–5a: ‘God created a noble woman, he put a spirit in [her], an immortal soul’; see Genesis A, ed. Doane, pp. 236–7. F. Biggs argues convincingly that a simile in the next half line (Gen A 185b ‘englum gelice’) reflects the influence of a Latin phrase ‘sicut angeli’ (Isidore and pseudo-Bede) or one of several equivalent expressions found elsewhere in patristic exegesis: ‘“Englum Gelice”: Elene line 1320 and Genesis A line 185’, NM 86 (1985), 447–52.

48 See esp. Ambrose, De paradiso L (CSEL 32, 307) ‘non anima ex anima, sed: os de ossibus… et caro de carne’ and Augustine (as cited above, n. 45), ‘quod dicere debuerit Adam: anirr a ex anima mea, vel, spiritus de spiritu meo’.

49 Matter corresponding to Gen. II.24–III.7 (include an account of the fall) appears in Junius 11 in the sequence of apocryphal and canonical Genesis material known as Genesis B; see Genesis A, ed. Doane, pp. 4–11 and 239–40, and Greenfield and Calder, A New Critical History, pp. 207 and 209–12.

50 Doane (Genesis A, p. 59) claims the reading exclusively for the Vulgate, but Fischer's inclusion of ‘post meridiem’ as an interlinear variant shows that it may be regarded as a common reading.

51 Gen A 869–71: ‘A guilty, injured conscieṅce is grievously dangerous to me in spirit; I do not dare go forth before your presence. I am completely naked’, following Doane (Genesis A, p. 241).

52 Expositio de psalmo CXVIII 1.XV.2 (CSEL 62, 15); italics added. The sole egregious term in the Latin text, confusus, may throw some light on the unusual collocation of mine (‘memory’, ‘conscience’) and sceaðen (‘harmed’, ‘disrupted’), apparently describing Adam's mental turmoil. The previously unremarked phrase ‘sceð(ð)eð on mode’ occurs as a textual variant in Bede(OCa) 86.34 with reference to original sin and diabolical temptation (see below, n. 54).

53 The original manuscript pointing fails, a point added after þinum by a corrector lacks authority, and bearm, brade and eorðan all seem to be in the accusative singular. See facsimile in Tie Cædmon Manuscript of Anglo-Saxon Biblical Poetry: Junius XI in the Bodleian Library, ed. I. Gollancz (London, 1927), at pp. 42–3, and discussion with review of earlier scholarship by Doane (Genesis A, pp. 243–4).

54 The emendation appears in ASPRi, at 30, line 906b. This solution ignores the scribe's deliberate correction to werg (‘accursed’). The prose Bede three times (86.29, 86.34 and 88.7) employs the phrase ‘se weriga gast’ (‘the accursed spirit’) in translating Gregory's remarks (quoted in Historia ecclesiastica 1.XXVii.9) on the serpent, original sin and the devil (‘malignus spiritus’). The alteration in ASPR of brade to bradre (907b) does create a reading, ‘bearm… eorðan’ (907), which is a plausible systematic variant of ‘eorðan bearm’ (Gen A 1488b; cf. Beo 1137a ‘foldan bearm’), but this is a misleading felicity of diction.

55 See Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, pp. 78–9, and A Hebrew and English Lexicon, ed. Brown et al., p. 161, s.v. װחג The word occurs only once elsewhere in the Old Testament, at Lev. XI.42.

56 Adnotationes in principium Genesis I.iii.14 (CCSL 118A, 65). An exegetical interpretation of pectus and venter which stressed the opposition of intellect and libido provided the Old Latin form of this verse with a wide circulation; the quotation from Bede continues, ‘Repit autem pectore cum terrenas hominibus, quos sua membra facere desiderat, cogitationes suggerit. Repit et uentre cum eos ingluuie superatos in aestum libidinis excitat.’ Bede's synthetic exegesis has affinities with the commentaries of Ambrose, Augustine and Isidore (see notes by C. Jones in the edition cited) but the form in which he cites the African text (K) of Gen. III. 14 is not derived directly from these sources and suggests that he knew the Old Latin text at first hand.

57 CP(H) 311.1. The Gregorian original is identical in form to that cited by Bede. For additional evidence for the circulation of the verse in secondary works known in Anglo-Saxon England, see previously unnoticed loci in Wigbod, Quaestiones super librum Genesis (PL 96, col. 1163, following Jerome), and Hrabanus Maurus, In Genesim 1.18 (PL 107, col. 495, following Bede).

58 The dual terminology of the emended Old English text closely resembles the Greek text in its inclusion of a single possessive (þinum, cf. Greek σοû) with breostum and none with bearme; cf Ambrose, De fuga saeculi xlii (CSEL 32.2, 196), for the single possessive in an Old Latin text. The collocation occurs also in a martyrological allusion to John the Evangelist (Mart 1 (27 Dec.) Herz 8.17–18), who reclines ‘on þæs hælendes bearme ond ofer his breost’; cf Lat. ‘super pectus Magistri’ (Isidore, De ortu et obitu patrum lxxii: PL 83, col. 151) and, for Anglo-Latin use of a lost source of the tradition, see Aldhelmi opera, ed. R. Ehwald, MGH Auct. antiq. 15 (Berlin, 1919), 254 and 372 (esp. Carmen de virginitate 462: ‘Pectore de sacro sorbebat …’). The collocation of wamb and breost (as in Alfred's translation) is found in PsGl(CGJ ) XXI. 10 (translating Latin ‘ex utero… ab uberibus’ in ps. XXI.10).

59 This emendation and the proposed scheme of line-division find independent support (without recourse to the Latin text) most recently in Doane's commentary (Genesis A, pp. 243–4, corroborating the earlier analyses of Kock and others), which translates, ‘You must forever, accursed, on your breast, on your belly, tread broad earth.’

60 For abbreviation of e by a supralinear stroke and examples of loss of final e, see The Cædmon Manuscript, ed. Gollancz, p. xxvii.

61 For the translation of ambulare by tredan in Old English verse, see PPs CIII.4 (for ps. CIII.3).

62 Gen A 912b–13a: ‘and [woman] will tread on your accursed head with her feet’, taking wif (911b) as subject.

63 Contrast, in the Vulgate-based prose Gen. III.15, ‘heo tobrytt ðin heafod’. For the use of tredan in translations of forms of calcare (or conculcare ), see (in verse) PPs LV.1 (following ps. LV.2) and (in prose and glosses) ÆGram 137.10, HomS 28 DOE 93, HlGlOliph c.46, LibSc 121.8, MonCaKorh(DV) 13.2, MtGl(Ru1) V.13 and VII.6 and PsGl(E) XC.13.

64 Gen A 923–4: ‘With crying and groaning [and] with much grief [you shall] bring sons and daughters into the world.’

65 For the collocation of wop (or [be] wepan) and heaf (or heof [i ] an), see (in verse) Guth A 615b–16a, GuthB 1047b, J Day II 90b and Msol 467b–8a and (in prose and glosses) ÆCHom I Thorpe XI 180.15 and II Godden XXVII. 128, ÆHomM 5 Assm VI.63–4 and 8 Assm III.546, ApT 8.25 and 10.4, BlHom 85.28, 115.15 and 219.9, GD 216.21, 243.2–3, 246.8, 258.7–8 and 282.25 (and cf. GD (CO against H) 125.12–14 and 140.20), HomS 23.81, HomU 12 Först 18.13, 32 183.1–2 and 55 398.36, LS 34.66, OrBately 89.18, VercHom II.12; PsGl(I) XXXIV.14, PsThorpe XLVI.1, MtGl(Ru1) II.18, Lk(WSCp) VII.32 and VIII.52, Jn (WSCp) XVI.20 and LibSc 26.6, 26.16, 29.15 and 171.8.

66 For wop as a gloss of gemitus, see PSG (I) XXXVII. 10. The divergent readings emerge as a result of hendiadys in the Hebrew text, where a phrase with a literal meaning ‘your pains and your pregnancy’ denotes ‘the pains that result from your pregnancy’; see Genesis, ed. E. A. Speiser, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY, 1964), p. 24. Previously unrecorded reminiscences of the Old Latin text of Gen. III.16 occur in Petrus Chrysologus, Sermones LXIII.iii.77 and LXXXVII.v.66–7(CCSL 24A, 376 and 538–9), Quodvultdeus, Sermo de symbolo III.i.2 (CCSL 60, 349) and Gregory I, Epistula XI.xxxiv.8 (CCSL 140A, 922).

67 ‘Þu scealt wæpnedmen wesan on geweald’ (Gen A 919b–20a) clearly agrees with Vulgate ‘sub viri potestate eris’ (Gen. III. 16) against Old Latin ‘(erit) conversio tua ad virum tuum’; see Genesis A, ed. Doane, at p. 59, and cf. R. Bergmeier, ‘Zur Septuagintaübersetzung von Genesis 3, 16’, Zeitschrif für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 79 (1967), 77–9. Insular Latin witnesses to mixed texts of the verse occur in Lebor Gabála Erenn I.V, ed. R. A. S. Macalister, 5 vols., Irish Texts Soc. 34–5, 39, 41 and 44 (Dublin, 1938–56) 1, 18, and Sedulius Scottus, In epistolam I ad Corinthos xiv (PL 105, col, 157), but neither witness agrees precisely with the passage in Genesis A.

68 The bible, for example, never explicitly states that the forbidden fruit was an apple, that Adam and Eve hid beneath a single tree, or that they were guilty of sin and knew of it themselves, and yet frequent Latin additions such as ‘poma’, ‘sub arbore’ and ‘cognoverunt peccatum’ are found attached to or interpolated in quotations of versions of Gen. III.8–11 among witnesses to the Vetus Latina. Gen A 880a ‘æppel’, 859a ‘under beamsceade’ and the apparently Latinate phrase 857a ‘wiste forworhte’ could reflect either Latin textual influence (the syntax would seem to support this) or witness a more general, devotional familiarity with traditions of the fall.

69 Gen A 2765–7: ‘…[Abraham's] son by that woman [Sarah], whom the prince of angels [God] had named Isaac’ Doane (Genesis A, p. 214) notes in the same episode the syntactic alignment of Gen A 2773b–5a ‘Abraham hæfde / wintra hunteontig þa him wif sunu… gebær’ and Old Latin ‘Abraham… erat annorum centum quando genuit Isaac’ (I) in Gen. XXI. 5 (the Vulgate text omits the name and recasts the syntax).

70 The verse division between the unnumbered texts of Gen XXII.2 and 3 in Codex Amiatinus (see below, p. 184, n. 99), is also classified as minor in Genesis, ed. Quentin (under verses).

71 The Vetus Latina fails entirely in Gen. VII.19, VIII.17, IX.7 and XXI.24. The collocation of Gen A 1474a ‘grene blædæ:’, 1517a ælgrene and 2551a grenes recalls Vulgate diction in Gen. VIII.II ‘virentibus foliis’, IX.3 and XIX.25 virentia against Old Latin folium, pabuli and ‘quae nascebantur’ and Gen A 1864 ‘wræc witeswingum’ suggests Vulgate flagellavit (Gen. XII. 17). But the Old Latin record is deficient in all these verses.

72 Typically Old Latin forms of names in Genesis A include 1066b Malalehel, 1551b Cham, 1628a †Nebroðdes† (Junius 11: ‘ne breðer’), 1723a Sarra, 1736b Carran and 1799b Bethlem, against Vulgate Maviahel, Ham, Nemrod, Sarai, Haran and Bethel (in Gen. IV. 18, IX. 18, X.8, XI.29, XI.31 and XII.8). Onomastic concurrence with the Vulgate against the Italian text-type of the Vetus Latina occurs in Gen. IV.18 (Gen A 1067a larede against Old Latin Gaidad), VIII.4 (1423b Armenia against Ararat) and XIV. 13 (2027a Aner against Aunan); cf. Genesis A, ed. Doane, pp. 59–60. For a recent study of a chronological reference with a mixed Latin background, see F. M. Biggs, ‘The Age of lared: Genesis A (lines 1184 and 1192)’, N&Q ns 30(1983), 290–1.

73 Cf. Boyd, ‘Doctrine and Criticism’, p. 233 (on Gen. V.24), and note that Gen A 1248a ‘beam godes’ clearly derives from Vulgate and frequent Old Latin (following Greek and Massoretic scripture) ‘filii dei’ rather than the critical reading of the Vetus Latina (E) ‘angeli dei’ at Gen. VI.2. (In Genesis A, ed. Doane, p. 59, the former reading is incorrectly claimed exclusively for the Vulgate).

74 E.g., in Gen. IV.12 (Gen A 1015b ‘seleð þe wæstmas’ and Vulgate ‘dabit tibi fructus’ against ‘Vetus Latina [I] ‘… virtutem suam dare tibi’), IV.16 (1052a eastlandum and ‘ad orientalem plagam’ against ‘contra Edem’), VIII.I (1412b–13a ‘ongan lytligan’ and ‘inminutae sunt’ against cessavit), IX.24 (1588b ‘of slæpe onbrægd’ and evigilans against ‘sobrius factus est’), X.8 (1632b ‘mægen and strengo’ and ‘potens’ against ‘gigans’), XIV.22 (2141b agendfrea and possessorem against deum), XV.2 (2183a freobearnum and liberis against filiis) and XIX.I (2428a æt burhgeate’ and ‘in foribus civitatis’ against ‘ad portam Sodomorum’).

75 E.g., in Gen. IV.12 (Gen A 1019a ‘arleas of earde’ and 1039a ‘freomagum feor’ and Vulgate ‘vagus et profugus’ against Vetus Latina [E] ‘gemens et tremens’), VII.2 (1337 ‘þara…lifige’ and animantibus against pecoribus), XIX.I (2432b–2442a ‘eode…hnah’ and ‘ivit …adoravitque pronus’ against ‘exsurrexit… in faciem’), XIX.II (2493a blind and caecitate against orbitate) and XIX. 12 (2503a ‘of þysse leodbyrig’ and ‘de urbe hac’ against ‘de hoc loco’).

76 Note, e.g., the choices of poetic terms for living things in the rendering of Gen. 1.28 (Gen A 201b feoh and Old Latin pecorum against Vulgate animantibus), VI.7 (1299a feoh and pecus against animantia) and XIII.2 (1877b ceapas; see above, n. 38); but cf. also above, n. 75, and possible mixed readings at 2033 lifigende, 1297b ‘cucra wuhta’ and 1311a cwiclifigendra.

77 Doane (Genesis A, p. 60) notes, for Gen. IV.2, Gen A 972 ‘eorðan… tilode’ [sc. Cain] and Old Latin ‘operabatur terram’ against Vulgate ‘Cain agricola’, to which may be added readings in Gen. IV.5 (980a ‘hefig æt heortan’ and contristatus against iratus (but cf. 979b torn and 982a yrre)), IV.11 (1016b ‘wældreore swealh’ and ‘haus[er]it sanguinem’ against ‘suscepit sanguinem’) and IV. 15 (1042b ‘seofonfeald wracu’ and ‘septies vindictam’ (or ‘septem vindictas’) against ‘septuplum punietur’).

78 E.g., in Gen. XI.8, Gen A 1699b–701a ‘… bu / stiðlic stantorr and seo steape burh / samod…’ and Vetus Latina (I) ‘civitatem et turrem’ against Vulgate ‘civitatem’ (but cf. Gen. XI.5 ‘civitatem et turrem’ in Old Latin and Vulgate).

79 The description of the closing of the ark (Gen A 1363–4a: ‘Him on hoh beleac heofonrices weard / merehuses muð’, i.e. ‘the guardian of the heavenly kingdom closed the mouth of the sea-house behind him [sc. Noah]’) corroborates a very rare variant in the Vetus Latina text of Gen. VII. 16: ‘clausit dominus deus deforis ostium arcae’ (attested in Origen, Homilia in Genesim ii. 1, trans. Rufinus: PG 12, cols. 163–4; cf. Gen. VI. 16 ‘ostium… arcae’ in both Old Latin and Vulgate). The characteristically Germanic circumlocution ‘merehuses muð’ in fact provides a remarkably literal translation of the variant Greek reading τ⋯ν ϑύραν κιβωτοû. Doane (Genesis A, p. 60) notes examples of semantic and syntactic agreement in Gen. VI.9 (Gen A 1285b ‘nergende leof’ and Old Latin ‘placuit Deo’ against Vulgate ‘cum deo ambulavit’), VI.14 (1304a reste and nidos against mansiunculas), VIII.7 (1436–7 ‘fandode… hwæðer sincende sæflod’ and ‘videret utrum cessasset aqua’ with no Vulgate equivalent), VIII.9 (1456b–7 ‘no hweðere reste fand… fotum’ and ‘non inveniens… requiem pedibus’ against ‘cum non invenisset ubi requiesceret pes’), to which may be added Gen. VI.7 (see above, n. 76), VI.II (1293b ‘synnum gehladene’ and 1294a ‘widlum gewemde‘ and ‘repleta est… iniquitatibus’ against ‘repleta est … iniquitate’), VIII.4 (1421b gesæt and sedit against requievit) and VIII.11 (1427b ‘gewat fleogan eft’ and ‘reversa est’ against venit).

80 In rendering God's commandment to Noah at Gen. IX.4 (Gen A 1518–20: ‘næfre ge mid blode beodgereordu / unarlice eowre þicgeað, / besmiten mid synne sawldreore’) the compound sawldreore (‘with blood of the soul’; cf Beo 2693a for the compound and ÆLet Fehr 223.16–20 on the prohibition) corresponds semantically to Old Latin ‘in (var. cum) sanguine animae’ (L); cf. also readings in Gen. IX.2 (1516b ‘on geweald geseald’ and Old Latin ‘dedi … sub potestate’ against Vulgate ‘manui … traditi sunt’), IX.6 (1523a ‘aldor oðþringeð’ (cf. Fort 49b ‘ealdor oþþringeð’ and Sea 71b ‘feorh oðþringeð’) and ‘effundetur anima’ against ‘fundetur sanguis’).

81 See Reuschenbach, F., Hieronymus als Übersetzer der Genesis (Limburg, 1948), and, on Jerome's use of the Old Latin bible, the second part of Reuschenbach's unpublished dissertation of the same title (Freiburg, 1942);Google Scholarsee also Burkitt, F. C., ‘Notes on Genesis in the Latin Vulgate’, RB 39 (1927), 251–61.Google Scholar

82 See the useful summary by Sparks (‘The Latin Bible’, pp. 115–21).

83 H. Gneuss lists manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon origin or provenance containing relevant Genesis material in ‘A Preliminary List of Manuscripts Written or Owned in England up to 1100’, ASE 9 (1981), 1–60, under nos. 20, 159, 168, 194, 230, 271, 541, 544, 588, 601, 716, 720, 728, 730, 736, 772 and 845. For presumably lost pre-Conquest manuscripts, including a discrete copy of a Librum heptaticum Moysi and Isidorian or pseudo-Isidorian commentaries on Genesis and the Old Testament, see M. Lapidge, ‘Surviving Booklists from Anglo-Saxon England‘, Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England: Studies presented to Peter Clemoes, ed. M. Lapidge and H. Gneuss, pp. 33–89, at 66, 70 and 77–8 (under nos. X.46, XI.33 and XIII.23, 36 and 46).

84 De metris ii (Aldhelmi opera, ed. Ehwald, p. 63), citing Gen. VI.16.

85 ibid, (see comments of Ehwald ad loc.). The fact that Aldhelm's Old Latin readings otherwise derive largely from Gen. XLIX further indicates the limitations of his knowledge of the Old Latin Genesis.

86 See Jones, C. W., ‘Some Introductory Remarks on Bede's Commentary on Genesis’, Sacris Erudiri 19 (1969–70), 115–98. Now, nearly twenty years after the appearance of Jones's excellent edition of Bede's Adnotationes (CCSL 118A), the work has received an appreciation byCrossRefGoogle ScholarMcClure, J., ‘Bede's Notes on Genesis and the Training of the Anglo-Saxon Clergy’, The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley, ed. Walsh, K. and Wood, D. (Oxford, 1985), pp. 17–30.Google Scholar

87 See Ibid. pp. 24–5. To the citations of Bede in the Vetus Latina add two citations of the Old Latin text of Gen. 1.4 and 1.16 noted in Venerabilis Bedae opera historica, ed. C. Plummer, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1896)11, 393, and the quotations of Gen. 1.9 cited above, n. 20. For Bede's secondary knowledge of Old Latin texts, see Adn. inprinc. Gen. II.iv.7, where he cites both Hebrew text and antiqua translatio but borrows the entire discussion from Augustine, and section II.v. 5 of the same work, where he cites the Septuagint yet quotes Augustine extensively (CCSL 118A, 75–6 and 94–5.

88 See Fischer, B., ‘Die Alkuin-Bibeln’, in his Lateinische Bibelhandschriften im Früben Mittelalter, Aus der Geschichte der lateinische Bibel 11 (Freiburg, 1985, pp. 203–403.Google Scholar

89 Alfred the Great: Asser's ‘Life of King Alfred’ and other Contemporary Sources, trans. S. Keynes and M. Lapidge (Harmondsworth, 1983), pp. 53, 258 and 273, and cf. above, p. 175.

90 The following comments depart from the view of Glunz, History of the Vulgate P. 13, who states that mixed insular and Frankish texts emerged as ‘mere chance products of the copying of the originals, whether these contained the Vulgate or a pre-Jeromian text… [Scribes] simply took over the text from any available source, without ever inquiring to what extent it was correct or corrupt.’

91 For discussion of similar collections of readings in European liturgical monuments down to the Carolingian period, see Fischer, ‘Die Lesungen’, pp. 154–9.

92 Ordines xxiii.26–7: ‘Et ascendit lector in ambonem et legit lectionem grecam. Sequitur In principio…’ and xxviii(App.), sec. 2 (for the sabbath): ‘Subdiaconus vero statim exuit se planeta, ascendens in ammone et legens non dicit: Lectio libri Genesis, sed inchoat ita: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram; nam et reliquae omnes sic inchoantur. In primis greca legitur, deinde statim ab alio latina’ (note use of the Old Latin text of Gen. I.1); full texts are printed in Les ‘ordines romani’ du haut moyen âge, ed. M. Andrieu, 5 vols., Spicilegium sacrum lovaniense: études et documents 11, 23–4, 28 and 29 (Louvain, 1931–61) III, 272 and 412. See also ordo XXXB.41 (Ibid. III, 472): ‘Deinde secuntur lections… tam grece quam latine, sicut ordinem habent.’

93 These are precisely the chapters of Genesis in which the most important Old Latin reminiscences in Genesis A have been observed. The comparative research of Bernal, J. R., ‘Lecturas y oraciones en la vigilia pascual Hispana’, Hispania Sacra 17 (1964), 283–347, at 308–18, demonstrates that the only known liturgical rites that prescribe all of these Genesis lessons for the Easter vigil are of Spanish origin. Genesis readings of course find many liturgical contexts apart from the Easter vigil. Pentecostal readings in Gen. I and XXII are listed by Fischer, ‘Die Lesungen’, p. 155. In ‘Ambrosian’ liturgy a modified form of Gen. III.8–11 (God's confrontation of Adam and Eve) is used as psalmellus and Gen. XXII is excerpted as a lesson for the Quadragesimal; see Manuale Ambrosianum ex codice saec. XI ed. M. Magistretti, 2 vols., Monumenta veteris liturgiae Ambrosianae 2 (Milan, 1904–5) 11, 126 and 139.Google Scholar

94 For a sceptical critique of the evidence, see The Old English Exodus, ed. E. B. Irving, Jr, Yale Stud. in Eng. 122 (New Haven, 1953), 4–15.

95 It is almost certain that lessons from Gen. I–II and XXII would have appeared in Anglo-Saxon liturgical rites for the Easter vigil (Bernal, ‘Lecturas y oraciones’, p. 310, finds that these readings so occur in eight distinct eastern and western rites), and to these may perhaps be added, at the very least, the account of the flood. Alcuin specifies Gen. I.1–II.2 (creation), v.31-VIII.21 (flood) and XXII. 1–19 (Abraham and Isaac) as lessons for the Easter vigil; see Wilmart, A., ‘Le lectionnaire d'Alcuin’, Ephemerides Liturgicae 51 (1937), 136–97, at 156; for corroborating evidence and discussion,Google Scholarsee also Wilmart, , ‘Le Comes de Murbach‘, RB 30 (1913), 25–69, andGoogle ScholarRanke, E. C., Das kirchliche Pericopensystem aus den ältesten Urkunden der römischen Liturgie (Berlin, 1847), pp. 342 and 360.Google Scholar

96 A continuous text of Genesis I–XXII that had been harmonized with liturgical lessons would be particularly useful for the prescribed reading of sequential excerpts from the whole text of the Heptateuch specified in early medieval liturgy for days in the Temporale with three nocturns until the close of the Easter season; see A. Hughes, Medieval Manuscripts for Mass and Office: a Guide to their Organization and Terminology (Toronto, 1982), p. 61; M. McC. Gatch, ‘The Office in late Anglo-Saxon Monasticism’, Learning and Literature, ed. Lapidge and Gneuss, pp. 341–62, at 354–5. Such a compilation would be ‘conservative’ in the sense that it sought to recover original readings of the early Latin liturgy and of the Septuagint to the exclusion of ‘new’ readings from Jerome.

97 Critics have generally assumed that Genesis A is incomplete in its present state, but the fact that it renders only Gen. I-XXII, the most commonly cited part of the book in liturgical usage, could equally well support the impression that the first part of Genesis maintained a special status in Anglo-Saxon England. Among the writings of Bede, of a total of sixty-four citations of Genesis in all of the scientific writings, only one is taken from a chapter after Gen. xxv (see index to CCSL 123c at 705–6). Only six of the fifty citations of Bede quoted in the apparatus of the Vetus Latina occur after Gen. XXIII. Ælfric translated only the first half of Genesis into Old English prose: ‘ic ne þorfte na mare awendan þære bec buton to Isaace, Abrahames suna, for þam þe sum oðer man þe hæfde awend fram Isaace þa boc oþ ende’ (GenPref 4–6). No such independent witness to the latter half of Genesis has survived; perhaps Ælfric had in fact translated only that part of the book which his correspondent had requested and his disclaimer serves a rhetorical purpose.

98 For these fragments, see above, pp. 170–1, with nn. 37–9.

99 Glunz dates the turning point in insular scriptural history to ‘shortly after A.D. 800’, when ‘the new epoch of the Vulgate history so differs from the earlier period that the later medieval text can on no account be compared with the various groups of the text in the earlier centuries’ (History of the Vulgate, pp. 1–23, at 3 and 23). The transition may be placed more precisely with the completion of three complete Vulgate bibles at Jarrow or Wearmouth during the abbacy of Ceolfrith (689–716), but the quality of the Vulgate text in these books (witnessed now by Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Amiatino I (Codex Amiatinus) and the fragments of London, British Library, Add. 37777 and 45025) varies greatly; see Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, pp. 37–8. Glunz's own research (see below, n. 106) has shown that mixed texts circulated throughout the ninth century and survived the Norman Conquest.

100 The physical separability of Genesis leaves has badly limited the number of surviving Anglo-Saxon witnesses. The only extant pre-Conquest manuscript other than Amiatino I that preserves a nearly complete text of the Old Testament, London, British Library, Royal I. E. VII and VIII (Christ Church, Canterbury, s. xex) lacks the folios containing Gen. I.1–XXIX. 35. With the possible exception of the excerpts in Auct. F. 4. 32, there is quite simply no continuous Old Latin or mixed text of Genesis of insular provenance known at present that might be compared with the readings discussed here.

101 Fidelity to the readings of Greek scripture (presumably a result of intermediary Old Latin influence) is perhaps the most notable quality of the readings witnessed by Genesis A. Comparison of the readings listed below (Appendix) with the Septuagint and with patristic citations printed in the apparatus of Genesis, ed. Fischer, reveals that about 70 per cent stand closer to the Greek text than to the Vulgate and about 50 per cent receive independent witness among the writings of such early Greek-speaking writers as Tertullian and Rufinus. Among other patristic authors, the readings show the greatest affinity to the Old Latin text quoted by Ambrose (siglum M in the Vetus Latina), who cites nearly 60 per cent of them, including several rare or apparently unique readings. Nearly 50 per cent occur in the writings of Augustine, but less than 25 per cent are recorded by Jerome in his pre-Vulgate citations. These preliminary figures, which may change with the rejection of individual cases or the discovery of new examples (though this is unlikely to alter the relative position of the stated categories), take account of all examples cited above (omitting forms of names and chronological references) and possible Old Latin readings listed below (Appendix) at Gen. III.8, IV.25, IX.21, XII.1, XIV.11 (if 1994a orlegceap is taken as a kenning, ‘battle-beasts‘, corresponding to Old Latin equitatum), XVI.7, XIX.4, XIX.30, XX.14 and XXI.1 (but cf. 2762b wordbeot and Vulgate promiserat).

102 See Appendix; there are other points at which Genesis A agrees with the Vulgate against the 1 text of the Vetus Latina: see above, pp. 170, n. 36, and 178, n. 74.

103 See above, pp. 170–1, n. 37, and pp. 182–3, 93

104 On the insular ‘Irish’ text-type, see Glunz, Die lateinische Vorlage, pp. 63–90, and Britannien und Bibeltext, pp. 53–88. J. Kenney remarks that in genuine Irish biblical texts ‘the Old Latin element is abnormally large even among “mixed” texts. It is irregular in its distribution: the readings sometimes succeed each other in quick succession, sometimes are almost entirely absent for many pages‘ (The Sources for the Early History of Ireland: an Introduction and Guide (New York, 1929), p. 626). The received text of Genesis A embodies one certain Irish gloss naming Noah‘s sons’ wives (Gen A 1547–8: ‘nemde wæron Percoba Olla Olliua Olliuani’); see Lebor Gabála Érenn, ed. Macalister 1, 211–13, and recent discussion by Bammesberger, A., ’Hidden Glosses in Manuscripts of Old English Poetry‘, ASE 13 (1984), 43–9, at 44–7.Google Scholar

105 An early survey of evidence for Old Latin scripture in the early Celtic churches, which is badly in need of revision, appears in Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland, ed. A. W. Haddan and W. Stubbs, 3 vols, in 4 (Oxford, 1869–78) 1, 170–98.

106 Manuscripts cited by Glunz, History of the Vulgate, pp. 63–9, as sources for the ‘Irish‘ text-type include London, British Library, Royal I. A. XVIII (Britanny, s. ix/x; provenance St Augustine's, Canterbury), BL Royal I. D. III (Rochester s. xi), BL Add. 9381 (Cornwall, s. ix/x), Hereford, Cathedral Library, P. i. 2 (Wales, s. viiiex; provenance Hereford), and Cambridge, Pembroke College 302 (?Canterbury, s. ximed; provenance Hereford). It is clear that a corpus of common insular mixed scripture had appeared by the ninth century. The whole question deserves further consideration, especially with respect to books other than the psalms and gospels.