Re: Vetus Latina Iohannes Update
- Dear James,
Codex Forojuliensis is not considered an Old Latin witness in the Gospels: it does not feature in the Altlateinische Handschriften register edited by Roger Gryson in 1999. (Most of the dates and information in the manuscript descriptions have been taken from this catalogue.)
Fischer's comparison of 4 test passages in each gospel gives it a 94.3% agreement with the editorial text of the Stuttgart Vulgate (see the posthumous article by Fischer in ZNW 101 (2010) 119-144). Old Latin witnesses generally have an agreement of less than 80%. Nonetheless, Forojuliensis may still preserve some readings characteristic of earlier versions.
--- In email@example.com, "james_snapp_jr" <voxverax@...> wrote:
> What a colossal project. I'm having trouble finding a reference to Codex Foro-juliensis. Has it been given a different name or something? Or was its text considered too Vulgaty to qualify as Old Latin?
> I'm going to assume that all the dates provided at this site reflect the views of the latest and best scholarship on the subject.
> Yours in Christ,
> James Snapp, Jr.
- Dear Hugh,
Thanks for that information. I'm afraid I'm not a subscriber to ZNW so I can't immediately read the article on pp. 119-144 of issue 101 to which you referred. It's "Die Lateinischen Evangelien bis zun 10. Jahrhundert. Zwei Untersuchungen zum Text," right?
Sampling test-passages has always seemed like a provisional shortcut to me. Here in Indiana there is something called Smuckers Goober-Grape, a combination of delicious peanut butter and jelly, both contained in a single jar, arranged in alternating slices of peanut butter and jelly. Samples from the peanut butter parts would indicate that the whole jar contains nothing but peanut butter; samples from the jelly parts would indicate that the whole jar contains nothing but jelly. Block-mixed.
If a manuscript like Codex Forojuliensis had a pure Old Latin section outside Fischer's test passages, how would we know? The whole thing needs to be compared to the Stuttgart Vulgate (or some other Vulgate) to draw a real conclusion. I'll try to track down that issue of ZNW; in the meantime, do you know of any other resources that have more information about Codex Forojuliensis?
And, speaking of Roger Gryson: is there any chance of having his 1990 "La version gotique des evangelis. Essai de re-evaluation" re-issued in English? (If I had it in a text-file I would be glad to feed it to Google Translate myself.)
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
- Dear James,
Yes, that's the correct article.
Of course, samples are, as you say, only samples, but Fischer's data is pretty extensive. He took four passages of around one chapter in length from each Gospel, so that's 16 passages spread throughout all four Gospels (around one-fifth or one-sixth of the total). In terms of analysing these passages for block mixture, have a look at what I did for VL 11A in JTS in 2009 ("A newly-discovered Old Latin manuscript...").
The next stage is, as you say, a full transcription of Forojuliensis; I'm not aware of any further resources.
It seems unlikely to me that RTL will issue Gryson's article on the Gothic in English; Carla Falluomini is currently working on the Gothic versions and might be able to help with any English-language queries you have.