Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Synoptic-L] the meaning of "al hol[y] lyueande" and antiquity ofa reading in the PG

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... The confusion I was referring to was the confusion I and no doubt other list members had when reading this thread. We had one member place great emphasis
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 9 12:10 AM
      At 01:41 AM 6/9/00 -0400, l. j. swain wrote:
      >"Stephen C. Carlson" wrote:
      >> OK, I think there's been some confusion in this thread on what
      >> Peter's confession in Matt 16:16 actually is.
      >>
      >> The Vulgate text at Matt 16:16 (on-line unbounded Bible version)
      >> for Peter's confession is: TU ES CHRISTUS FILIUS DEI VIVI ("You are
      >> the Christ, the son of the living God."), which corresponds to the
      >> best Greek text. For some reason, this verse is being quoted in
      >> this thread with "..." in place of CHRISTUS. When the CHRISTUS
      >> is restored, I would submit that the supposition that the Pepysian
      >> Harmony tracks the Vulgate here is not well-founded.
      >>
      >I wasn't aware of any confusion. The person who began this thread
      >stated that the word "lyueande" meant land, and al-hol(y) meant the
      >whole of. Jeffrey Gibson pointed out that in fact "lyueande" is the
      >Middle English participle of the verb "libban" to live, and in this
      >phrase corresponds to the use of the Latin adjective "vivi", a clause I
      >might add parenthetically unique to Matthew. So I'm not quite certain
      >where the "confusion" enters.

      The confusion I was referring to was the confusion I and no doubt
      other list members had when reading this thread. We had one member
      place great emphasis on the lack of the word "Christ" in the PH.
      The response was that the PH was merely dependent on the Vulgate,
      which was quoted as "TU ES ... FILIUS DEI VIVI," with the CHRISTUS
      being elided. I was confused into thinking that the lack of the
      word Christ was a Vulgate feature that satisfactorially accounts
      for the PH. Unfortunately, when I looked up the Vulgate reading,
      I found that CHRISTUS is indeed present and should be quoted as such.

      > But allow me to press you somewhat. As
      >you yourself note toward the end of this note, the PH combines (and
      >excises) various elements of the four gospels. So are there any
      >elements not found in the four here that lead you to conclude that that
      >the PH does not track the Vulgate here? Are rather do you find his
      >methods overall, or in this case in particular, inconsistent with a
      >harmonizer's (or a Gospel writer--that is if Matthew can expand or
      >contract Markan material, why can not the writer of the PH expand or
      >contract gospel material?)usual methods? You yourself provide some
      >evidence of a Greek tradition which omits the "Christos", is it so far
      >fetched that a Latin tradition existed also? (more of that in a moment)
      >Setting aside for the moment these issues as well as the question of
      >order and section heading corresponding to the medieval Vulgate (and
      >Greek)Eusebian canon tables, what evidence or reasoning do you offer
      >that the contention that the PH in fact does track the Vulgate not be
      >well-founded?

      The Vulgate, neither at Matt 16:16 nor John 6:69, does not support
      the omission of "Christ" nor the inclusion of "holy." If you know of
      a Vulgate (not Old Latin) MS that supports either of these points,
      I'd like to know what it is. For example, John 6:70 [69] in the
      Vulgate is TU ES CHRISTUS FILIUS DEI, but b, an Old Latin version,
      omits CHRISTUS, and Old Latin d supports the inclusion of "holy."

      >> Shem-Tov's Hebrew Matthew, ed. Howard, has: )TH M$YX L(Z QRYS+//W
      >> BN )LQYM HYYM SB)TH BNH H(WLM ("You are the Messiah, that is Cristo,
      >> the son of the living God, who has come into this world"). All MSS
      >> collated by Howard have M$YX (or HM$YX), which means (the) Messiah.
      >
      >Fascinating. The learned colleague who began this thread stated, and I
      >quote: "the HMt seemed to omit "the Messiah" (as evidenced in the
      >comment by Shem Tob)." But you're informing us that every mss Howard
      >collated of the HMt has M$YX or variant, i. e. "messiah". Interesting
      >indeed.

      Perhaps the learned colleague was misled by Howard's apparatus, which
      shows that MS H omits L(Z QRYS+//W, a gloss of M$YX into Catalan.

      >> Tischendorf cites a patristic variant that omits "the Christ" from
      >> Peter's confession: the Pseudo-Clementine Homily XVII, 18 ... SU EI
      >> hO hUIOS TOU ZWNTOS QEOU ("You are the son of the living God.").
      >>
      >I wasn't previously aware of this tradition. But I am aware of several
      >medieval Vulgate mss which reflect the same tradition, including those
      >of a nice early English translation known as the West Saxon Gospels.
      >The latter read for Mt. 16.16: (th for eth and thorn)tha andswarode him
      >petras thu eart thaes lyfigendes godes sunu.

      Bruce M. Metzger, THE EARLY VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: Their Origin,
      Transmission & Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977) at p. 454
      explains that the "question of the textual affinities of the Anglo-Saxon
      version is difficult to answer." Metzger states that this version has
      an Irish-type Vulgate strain and a "large amount of continuing strains
      of Old Latin." Metzger also cites Curt Peters who proposed that the
      "Anglo-Saxon version preserves a Tatianic element via the Old Latin."

      Thus, your citation of West Saxon Gospels does not really demonstrate
      the influence of the Latin Vulgate on this part of the PH. Rather,
      we find that this version preserves harmonistic and Old Latin readings.
      Since the PH is a harmony (and since many of the harmonies preserve
      Old Lating readings), the affinity between this version and the PH
      is not surprising, because both diverge from the Vulgate. Therefore,
      this version does not support the conclusion that the Vulgate influenced
      the PH here.

      > So here we have in
      >ENGLISH, translating from a VULGATE not far removed from either time or
      >place of the PH, the very rendering of this verse which is now under
      >consideration. I find this rather compelling, Latin Vulgate and English
      >mss in England in the late medieval period which have this rendering.

      A word on the "English" connection: Middle English, the language of the
      PH, is quite a bit different from West Saxon. Furthermore, it has been
      demonstrated that the archetype of the PH is an Old French gospel harmony.
      Petersen in H. Koester, ANCIENT CHRISTIAN GOSPELS: Their History and
      Development (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1960) at p.418. This renders the
      Old English MSS rather less compelling.

      >Suggestive indeed. But even more so is the fact that Novatian, Hilary,
      >and Ambrose, to name a few, cite this verse with this reading. I have
      >asked before and have received no answer regarding the PH: is it
      >possible that patristic commentary and glosses on biblical and patristic
      >texts have influenced the harmonizers choices. I would suggest given
      >this evidence that the answer is a positive one.

      Novatian, Hilary, and Ambrose all flourished before Jerome, so their
      citations are not support for a Vulgate rendering. Rather, their
      citations are evidence of Old Latin readings. I do not deny the
      influence of the Old Latin version(s) on the Western harmonistic
      tradition(s). I do dispute the Vulgate as the model for the PH's
      rendering here. Please note that all medieval harmonies have been
      Vulgatized to more or less extent, but our focus here is on a
      non-Vulgate reading in Peter's confession.

      >> Back to Pepysian Harmony, which reads: "Thou arte Goddes son, al
      >> hol[y] lyueande." ("You are the son of the all-holy living God.")
      >> It therefore looks like the PH has combined elements from the
      >> Matthean (lyueande) and Johannine (al hol[y]) confessions. The
      >> lack of "Christ," though interesting, is not unparalleled -- it
      >> is found in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, which I understand
      >> is already known to have contacts with the harmonistic tradition.
      >>
      >Which is: a) what one expects a harmony to do b) the lack of "Christ" is
      >really not only paralleled, but not uncommon, in England, in Latin and
      >in English, not long before the PH was written as well as used in Latin
      >by certain patristic writers. Further, as you pointed out, the
      >Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, which also contain this reading, are third
      >century and known to the "harmonizers" of later centuries. In short, it
      >is quite likely given all this that the PH is NOT preserving some
      >pre-canonical, primary stratum of Christian tradition but rather is a
      >late medieval harmony drawing on Latin sources for a not untypical
      >reading of the text which is the contention which began this whole
      >discussion. ANd I come back to your point at the beginning, what
      >evidence have you to suggest that the PH is not following the Vulgate
      >here, at least the Vulgate that he knew?

      To clear up some other confusion, I do not argue that the PH or any
      other harmony preserves a "pre-canonical, primary stratum of Christian
      tradition." That is ridiculous--a harmony by its very nature presupposes
      texts to be harmonized. Rather, I am arguing the non-controversial
      position that the PH (and other harmonies) do occasionally preserve
      pre-Vulgate readings, and Peter's confession is but one example.

      Stephen Carlson
      --
      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
      Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.