Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:40:24.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Translation of Oϒn in the Old Latin Gospels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

D. C. Parker
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This study became necessary in the course of my work on Codex Bezae. I wished to ascertain the degree of consistency with which the version used one Latin word to translate one Greek one, in order to find differences between the Mss, to assess their usefulness in supporting Greek readings, and to place the relation between the two columns of Codex Bezae in a new light. The advantages in choosing οὖν were, first its frequency, second its insignificance, with the implication that a reviser would pay little or no attention to it. The disadvantage is that it is not used uniformly, being shunned by Mark but embraced by John.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , April 1985 , pp. 252 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

Notes

[1] Moulton, W. F. and Geden, A. S., A Concordance to the Greek Testament etc., 2nd edition (Edinburgh, 1899).Google Scholar

[2] Yoder, J. D., Concordance to the distinctive Greek text of Codex Bezae, New Testament Tools and Studies Vol. 2 (Leiden, 1961).Google Scholar

[3] Bachmann, H. and Slaby, W. A., Computer-Konkordanz zum N.T. Gr. von Nestle-Aland 26 Auflage und zum Greek New Testament 3rd edition (Berlin, 1977).Google Scholar

[4] Graece, N. T., editio octava critica maior (Leipzig, 1869–1872).Google Scholar

[5] Graece, N. T.secundum textum Westcotto-Hortianum. Euangelium secundum Matthaeum (Oxford, 1940)Google Scholar; secundum Marcum (Oxford, 1935).Google Scholar

[6] Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, Editio octava (Stuttgart, 1973).Google Scholar

[7] Jülicher, A., Itala etc. Matthäus (2), (Berlin 1972)Google Scholar; Marcus (2), (1970)Google Scholar; Lucas (2), (1976)Google Scholar; Johannes, (1963).Google Scholar I have used the system of brackets found therein.

[8] Novum Testamentum etc; Quattuor Euangelia (Oxford 1889–1898).Google Scholar

[9] Stone, R. C., The Language of the Latin Text of Codex Bezae, 2. Index Verborum (University of Illinois, 1946).Google Scholar

[10] Novae Concordantiae Bibliorum Sacrum iuxta Vulgatam Versionem critice editam quas digessit Bonifatius Fischer OSB (Stuttgart, 1977).Google Scholar

[11] Cp. Thiele, Walter, Die lateinischen Texte des 1. Petrusbriefes (Aus der Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel 5) (Freiburg, 1965).Google Scholar He draws attention to the variation of usages between the several text-types of the epistle.

[12] Cf. Thiele, , op. cit.; p. 54Google Scholar, Augustine, on 1 Pt 4.1 for οὖν p. 171Google Scholar, use by V in Rom, 1 & 2 Cor for γάρ. See also the same scholar's Wortschatzuntersuchungen zu den lateinischen Texten der Johannesbriefe (Aus der Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel 2) (Freiburg, 1958)Google Scholar. He says enim is used for δ in free citations (p. 15).

[13] ‘Limitations of Latin in representing Greek’, in Metzger, B. M., The Early Versions of the New Testament (Oxford, 1977) 362–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar (quotation from p. 369). This is a translation of his contribution to A.N.T.F. 5 (Berlin, 1972).Google Scholar

[14] The question is raised by e.g. Kilpatrick, G. D., ‘The Text of the Epistles: the Contribution of Western Witnesses’ in the Festschrift for Professor Aland, , Text Wort Glaube (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 50) (Berlin, 1980)Google Scholar, and by Thiele, W., ‘Probleme der Versio Latina in den Katho-lischen Briefen’, in A.N.T.F. 5, 93–119, 102–13.Google Scholar

[15] Citations of Cyprian are taken from the edition in Corpus Christianorum, Vols. III–IIIA.

[16] Cf. Fischer, , op. cit., 369.Google Scholar

[17] See p. 262 and n. 19, below.

[18] Burkitt, F. C., Evangelion da-Mepharreshe (Cambridge, 1904), Vol. 2, 89.Google Scholar

[19] That οὖν lies behind hakil is described as a ‘general criterion’ by Brock, S. P., ‘Limitations of Syriac in representing Greek’, in Metzger, op. cit., 94Google Scholar. The same writer says elsewhere that ‘the appearance of a formal equivalent between the Greek and Syriac can be very misleading, and … considerable care needs to be exercised in quoting the evidence of the Old Syriac where these particles are concerned.’ ‘The Treatment of Greek Particles in the Old Syriac Gospels, with Special Reference to Luke’, Studies in New Testament Language and Text, ed. Elliott, J. K. (Leiden, 1976) 80–6.Google Scholar Quotation from p. 85.

[20] Eighth edition (Lutterworth, 1939).

[21] See Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London, 1971) 237.Google Scholar

[22] Elliott, J. K., ‘An Examination of Nestle-Aland26 and The Greek New Testament3’, J.T.S. 32 (1981) 19–49.Google Scholar

[23] Nestle-Aland26 (Stuttgart, 1979), Introduction, 55*.

[24] Philology of the Gospels (London, 1898) 75 f.Google Scholar

[25] Ludwig, Traube, Nomina Sacra (Munich, 1906)Google Scholar, contains the relevant material. I hope to set out my own conclusions elsewhere.

[26] There is a brief reference to the relation of Coptic conjunctions with their Greek equivalents in Plumley, J. M., ‘Limitations of Coptic (Sahidic) in representing Greek’, Metzger, The Early Ver-sions, 149.Google Scholar A great deal can also be gathered from Crum, W. E., A Coptic Dictionary (Oxford, 1939).Google Scholar

[27] Scrivener mentions D in connection with l 184, A Full and Exact Collation of about Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels (Cambridge, 1853) lxii.Google Scholar

[28] For the relation of 157 to the bilingual tradition of D, see Hoskier, H. C., ‘Evan. 157 (Rome Vat. Urb. 2)’, II, J. T. S. 14 (1913) 243–5.Google Scholar

[29] The shape of letters in the context can be shown to be a major cause of casual error in the codex.

[30] Findlay, J. A., ‘On Variations in the Text of d and D’, Bulletin of the Bezan Club 9 (02, 1931) 10–11Google Scholar, gives as the total number of discrepancies, 107 in Mt, 106 in Jn, 176 in Lk, 469 in Mk, and 607 in Ac. His theory is that someone assimilated the Greek text to the Latin, but had had enough by the end of Luke. Scrivener, Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis, xxxixGoogle Scholar, claimed to have found a total of 1919 differences – 251 in Mt, 229 in Jn, 428 in Lk, 380 in Mk, and 631 in Ac. My provisional figures are: 103 in Mt, 122 in Jn, 229 in Lk, 343 in Mk, 600 in Ac.

[31] Glaue, Paul, ‘Der älteste Text der geschichtlichen Bücher des NT’ (Z.N.W. 65 (1954) 90–108)Google Scholar, puts forward evidence that Codex Bezae had an ancestor in cursive.

[32] Blass, F., Euangelium secundum Lucam … secundum formam quae videtur Romanam, Lipsiae 1897, ad loc.Google Scholar

[33] A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, translated by Funk, R. W. (Chicago, 1961).Google Scholar

[34] Die Harmonistik im Evangelientext des Codex Cantabrigiensis, T.U. 36, 1913.Google Scholar