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

Re: Westcott and Cassiodorus' Fragments of Adumbrationes

Expand Messages
  • TeunisV
    I must confess it is confusing. Multi layered textual criticism: on the gospel of Mark, a commentary of Clemens of Alexandria, the Cassiodorus translation,
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 26, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      I must confess it is confusing.
      Multi layered textual criticism: on the gospel of Mark, a commentary of Clemens of Alexandria, the Cassiodorus translation, Westcott's notes on that translation.
      James, thank you for digging.
      I am not sure Westcott is right with regarding the part as a misplaced passage from some other part of the composition. Is it not a prove of Clemens' jumping style of exegesis? Modern logica does not fit.

      Teunis van Lopik


      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "james_snapp_jr" <voxverax@...> wrote:
      >
      > Wieland,
      >
      > I already got it; thanks for thinking of me though. Sometime I should post a list of TC-related books that are available at Google Books, with summaries of their contents. (Just this week past week, in the course of researching Cassiodorus, I found several interesting books online, including Tischendorf's work on Codex Amiatinus – plus really good images of Amiatinus' picture of Cassiodorus and his book-cupboard (a.k.a. the "Ezra" picture) and the Tabernacle picture.
      >
      > I pursued Bigg's claim about Westcott's rejection of part of Cassiodorus' fragment of Clement's Adumbrationes. After downloading Volume I of the Smith-Wace "Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines" (1877), I turned to p. 563ff., and found what Westcott, in the midst of his entry on Clement of Alexandria, had to say about Cassiodorus' fragment (in column 2 of p. 564):
      >
      > "(c ) The third important fragment of the /Outlines/ consists of a Latin version of notes on detached verses of 1 Peter, Jude, and 1, 2 John, with several insertions, which are probably due in some cases to transpositions in the MS. (e.g. 1 John ii. 1, hae namque primitivae virtutes – audita est, Pott. p. 1009, stands properly in connexion with the line of speculation on Jude 9); and in others to a marginal illustration drawn from some other part of the work (e.g. Jude 24, cum dicit Daniel – confuses est)."
      >
      > "Cassiodorus says (/Inst. Div. Litt./ 8) that Clement wrote some remarks on 1 Peter i., 2 John, and /James/, which were generally subtle, but at times rash ; and that he himself translated them into Latin, with such revision as rendered their teaching more safe. It has generally been supposed, in spite of the difference of range (/James/ for /Jude/) that these Latin notes are the version of Cassiodorus. It seems, however, more probable that the printed notes are mere glosses taken from a /Catena/, and not a substantial work."
      >
      > Then he moves on to discuss the history of the printing of the work.
      >
      > So at first glance it looks like Westcott, when he wrote this entry, held the following views:
      >
      > (1) The entire text preserved by Cassiodorus was probably excerpted from a Catena, not from Clement's Adumbrationes.
      > (2) The fragment's comment on I John 2:1 is actually an out-of-place comment on Jude 9.
      > (3) The portion from "Cum dicit Daniel" (ending the last line of p. 85 and beginning the first line of p. 86 in Zahn III) all the way to the end of the comment on Jude ("confusus est") is derived from a marginal illustration.
      >
      > But it is all worth more than just a first glance. The first thing I noticed is that whereas Bigg claimed that "Dr. Westcott with justice regards the latter part of this /Adumbration,/ from /immaculatos autem/, as an interpolation due to Cassiodorus," Westcott pinpointed the beginning of the questioned portion, stating that it begins with "Cum dicit Daniel." It is almost as if Bigg, instead of relying on the entry in Smith-Wace that he cites, was using a copy of Zahn III in which he, or perhaps someone else, had placed a note alongside the last line of p. 86 stating that Westcott believed that an interpolation began there – which was indeed Westcott's view, but in regard to a different part of the line.
      >
      > The second thing is, in Westcott's entry in the Smith-Wace Dictionary, p. 564, he writes part of a sentence which I will again repeat very carefully:
      >
      > "and in others to a marginal illustration drawn
      > from some other part of the work (/e.g./ Jude
      > 24, cum dicit Daniel – confusus est)."
      >
      > Now, in Wilson's translation for ANF Vol. II, p. 574, the closing sentence of the comment on Jude is, "For what they had no knowledge of, but expressed in words, that he confessed to be true," which represents "Quo denim non sapiebant, verbis dicebant, hoc ille verum esse confessus est."
      >
      > See the difference in the second-to-last word? Zahn has "confessus," which makes perfect sense, but Westcott's quotation in the Smith-Wace Dictionary, has "confusus." I can imagine an explanatory scenario for this: Westcott wrote (not typed, I presume, since the typewriter was just then becoming a useful machine), as he submitted the draft of his dictionary-entry, "cum dicit Daniel; confusus est," or something similar, intending to refer to the confused part that begins with "Cum dicit Daniel." He would thus be referring specifically to the part that seems to allude to Daniel 7:13-14. The editor, though, thoughtfully interpreted Westcott's words as if Westcott was thus (as he usually did) presenting the beginning and end of the quotation. But probably we are merely looking at a printer's error in the Smith-Wace Dictionary.
      >
      > Now, when Westcott writes in 1877, "It seems, however, more probable that the printed notes are mere glosses taken from a /Catena/, and not a substantial work," what does he mean? In the 1855 first edition of his "General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament," and in the 1896 edition, he affirms, "There can be little doubt that that the Latin /Adumbrationes/ which are given in the editions of Clement are the notes of which Cassiodorus speaks." How can these statements be reconciled?
      >
      > At any rate, it seems that Westcott did not (contra Bigg) regard the passage from "Cum dicit Daniel" to "confessus est" as an clear-cut interpolation, but as a misplaced passage from some other part of the composition. And Westcott doesn't provide much reasoning for that view.
      >
      > Yours in Christ,
      >
      > James Snapp, Jr.
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.