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

Re: [textualcriticism] Pericope Adulterae & Jerome's Vulgate (etc)

Expand Messages
  • Jonathan C. Borland
    Dear Mike, In the course of writing my thesis (2009) on the Old Latin tradition of John 7:53-8:11, I examined all 30+ Greek-Latin translatable variants of the
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 19, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Mike,

      In the course of writing my thesis (2009) on the Old Latin tradition of John 7:53-8:11, I examined all 30+ Greek-Latin translatable variants of the Pericope adulterae and found, somewhat surprisingly to me at the time, that the Vulgate agrees with NA27 far more than with any single Greek manuscript stream of the passage (I used von Soden's seven major "mu" groupings).

      Vulgate agreements:
      with NA27 = 94% (30/32)
      with m1 = 72% (23/32)
      with m2 = 67% (21.5/32)
      with m3 = 61% (19.5/32)
      with m5 = 59% (19/32)
      with m7 = 57% (16/32)
      with m4 = 48% (15.5/32)
      with m6 = 45% (14.5/32)

      Out of 32 translatable Greek variants, the only two places where Vulgate disagrees with NA27 are:
      8:9 stans = hESTWSA vs. cum esset/erat = OUSA
      8:11 amplius (+ iam 114 mss) noli peccare = MHKETI hAMARTANE vs. ex hoc iam noli peccare = APO TOU NUN MHKETI hAMARTANE

      [note: the Greek expression APO TOU NUN in the Vulgate NT is invariably rendered with either ex hoc or ex hoc iam (cf. Luke 1:48; 5:10; 12:52; 22:18, 69; Acts 18:6; 2 Cor 5:16), whereas amplius is often rendered simply OUKETI (Matt 22:46; Mark 9:7, etc.) or MHKETI (Mark 9:24; 11:14, etc.).]

      From the results, we can hypothesize either that a text very much like NA27's reconstruction of John 7:53-8:11 was available to Jerome (I think this unlikely) or that Jerome picked and chose and deviated from the OL mss available to him with recourse to Greek mss available to him, and that the editors of NA27 valued Jerome's testimony as ancient and praiseworthy in constructing their own text of the passage (I think this more likely).

      Sincerely,

      Jonathan C. Borland



      On Aug 18, 2013, at 11:02 PM, isaac_chauncy <mikeferrando@...> wrote:

       

      Friends,
      I have not found anything about this question in particular.
      James Snapp gives some related information about the comparison of TR, Byzantine MSS, and Codex Bezae in is post here:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/4110

      Question: Since we have the testimony of Jerome about the pericope and it is in the Vulgate, has anyone attempted to see what "Greek text" is behind Jerome's translation? From your previous email above, and the one I cannot find, you said something about Codex Beza representing the pericope the first part is the TR, the second ??? (something else maybe one of the Latin/Greek versions -- not from John originally but based on Papias work).

      As I read about the Muratorian fragment, Tregelles writes how Scholars were able to un-translate the crude Latin back into Greek (somewhat) based on the Ambrose passage that preceeds and follows the fragment in the monks book of common places. Anyway, I am making a mess of it, but I have not really seen any such comparison or analysis done of this kind.

      Thanks,
      -mike

    • Steven Avery
      Hi, Thanks, Jonathan. Fascinating. So in summary, is this correct, as far as we can tell? a) There are a number of significant differences between the Vulgate
      Message 2 of 8 , Aug 19, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi,

        Thanks, Jonathan. Fascinating.

        So in summary, is this correct, as far as we can tell?

        a) There are a number of significant differences between the Vulgate Pericope and the Byzantine ms Pericope.

        b) The TR texts of Stephanus and Bezae, Greek and Latin, are solidly Greek ms based.
            (Thus, e.g. the Stephanus Latin Greek-corrected TR texts will differ from the Stephanus Latin Vulgate texts)

        c) NA-26 and NA-27 include the Greek Pericope Adulterae text even though it is considered non-autographic.

        d) The NA editions did not have a Greek exemplar for the text, and back-translated the Vulgate Latin, without any specific reader's notification.

        e) Nobody knows why they back-translated the Latin instead of using any of the Greek uncials or cursives or printed editions supporting the section

        If true, is this afawk a one-time awkward phenomenon in the NA text?

        ===============

        As to your study:

        Are there variants in the Vulgate tradition?  Does Codex Amiatinus match up well with the major printed editions: Clementine which matches up well with Wordsworth-White and Nestle and the Stuttgart? 

        And how about the version in the Fuldensis harmony (which may be a bit wilder with Old Latin influence?).

        Which edition did you take as Jerome's Vulgate? 
        And could the Vulgate edition question account for your two variants between NA-27 and the Vulgate?

        Yours in Jesus,
        Steven Avery
        Queens, NY

        Jonathan C. Borland,
        From the results, we can hypothesize either that a text very much like NA27's reconstruction of John 7:53-8:11 was available to Jerome (I think this unlikely) or that Jerome picked and chose and deviated from the OL mss available to him with recourse to Greek mss available to him, and that the editors of NA27 valued Jerome's testimony as ancient and praiseworthy in constructing their own text of the passage (I think this more likely).

        Mike,
        I have not found anything about this question in particular.
        James Snapp gives some related information about the comparison of TR, Byzantine MSS, and Codex Bezae in is post here:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/4110

        Question: Since we have the testimony of Jerome about the pericope and it is in the Vulgate, has anyone attempted to see what "Greek text" is behind Jerome's translation? From your previous email above, and the one I cannot find, you said something about Codex Beza representing the pericope the first part is the TR, the second ??? (something else maybe one of the Latin/Greek versions -- not from John originally but based on Papias work).

        As I read about the Muratorian fragment, Tregelles writes how Scholars were able to un-translate the crude Latin back into Greek (somewhat) based on the Ambrose passage that preceeds and follows the fragment in the monks book of common places. Anyway, I am making a mess of it, but I have not really seen any such comparison or analysis done of this kind.
      • Mike Ferrando
        Steven, After posting this question, I realized that my statement that the Vulgate contains this passage was rather broad and too general. I didn t think about
        Message 3 of 8 , Aug 20, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Steven,
          After posting this question, I realized that my statement that the Vulgate contains this passage was rather broad and too general. I didn't think about the other part of this question. What is the Latin Vulgate Mss witness for this section? What is the most reliable/ oldest mss and is there a consistent witness to the text?

          >>d) The NA editions did not have a Greek exemplar for the text, and back-translated the Vulgate Latin, without any specific reader's notification.

          What was the critiera for NA Latin mss? 

          I just wanted to add James Snapp's paragraph from his long post about the pericope related to my question. I should have done this the first time.

          ==========
          The thing to see is that the text of the pericope that is presented in Mara's
          note, as preserved in the postscript to Book 8 of Zachariah Rhetor's Church
          History in a Syriac MS from the 600's, is far different from the usual text of
          the PA. As Gwynn says, "The original of this version must have differed
          considerably from all existing Greek copies; keeping at first pretty close to
          the Textus Receptus, but approximating especially towards the end to that of
          Cod. Bezae (D), which is the oldest extant Greek of the passage."
          ==========

          I am reading the replies and grateful for the response. I have a lot to learn and I am voraciously reading all these lists. So blessed to see that Jerome approved and confirmed both the pericope and the LE of Mark.

          Ἕν σοι ὑστερεῖ·, (Mk. 10.20)
          -mike

          From: Steven Avery <stevenavery@...>
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:57 AM
          Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Pericope Adulterae & Jerome's Vulgate (etc)



          Hi,

          Thanks, Jonathan. Fascinating.

          So in summary, is this correct, as far as we can tell?

          a) There are a number of significant differences between the Vulgate Pericope and the Byzantine ms Pericope.

          b) The TR texts of Stephanus and Bezae, Greek and Latin, are solidly Greek ms based.
              (Thus, e.g. the Stephanus Latin Greek-corrected TR texts will differ from the Stephanus Latin Vulgate texts)

          c) NA-26 and NA-27 include the Greek Pericope Adulterae text even though it is considered non-autographic.

          d) The NA editions did not have a Greek exemplar for the text, and back-translated the Vulgate Latin, without any specific reader's notification.

          e) Nobody knows why they back-translated the Latin instead of using any of the Greek uncials or cursives or printed editions supporting the section

          If true, is this afawk a one-time awkward phenomenon in the NA text?

          ===============

          As to your study:

          Are there variants in the Vulgate tradition?  Does Codex Amiatinus match up well with the major printed editions: Clementine which matches up well with Wordsworth-White and Nestle and the Stuttgart? 

          And how about the version in the Fuldensis harmony (which may be a bit wilder with Old Latin influence?).

          Which edition did you take as Jerome's Vulgate? 
          And could the Vulgate edition question account for your two variants between NA-27 and the Vulgate?

          Yours in Jesus,
          Steven Avery
          Queens, NY

          Jonathan C. Borland,
          From the results, we can hypothesize either that a text very much like NA27's reconstruction of John 7:53-8:11 was available to Jerome (I think this unlikely) or that Jerome picked and chose and deviated from the OL mss available to him with recourse to Greek mss available to him, and that the editors of NA27 valued Jerome's testimony as ancient and praiseworthy in constructing their own text of the passage (I think this more likely).

          Mike,
          I have not found anything about this question in particular.
          James Snapp gives some related information about the comparison of TR, Byzantine MSS, and Codex Bezae in is post here:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/4110

          Question: Since we have the testimony of Jerome about the pericope and it is in the Vulgate, has anyone attempted to see what "Greek text" is behind Jerome's translation? From your previous email above, and the one I cannot find, you said something about Codex Beza representing the pericope the first part is the TR, the second ??? (something else maybe one of the Latin/Greek versions -- not from John originally but based on Papias work).

          As I read about the Muratorian fragment, Tregelles writes how Scholars were able to un-translate the crude Latin back into Greek (somewhat) based on the Ambrose passage that preceeds and follows the fragment in the monks book of common places. Anyway, I am making a mess of it, but I have not really seen any such comparison or analysis done of this kind.




        • Jonathan C. Borland
          Dear Steven, ... It depends. The Vulgate cannot ever be proven to disagree with every known major Greek stream of the Pericope adulterae. It simply doesn t
          Message 4 of 8 , Aug 20, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Steven,

            I quote your statements with my replies below:

            So in summary, is this correct, as far as we can tell?

            a) There are a number of significant differences between the Vulgate Pericope and the Byzantine ms Pericope.


            It depends. The Vulgate cannot ever be proven to disagree with every known major Greek stream of the Pericope adulterae. It simply doesn't agree with any single stream more than about 70% of the time. Thus, either it is an eclectic text, or its Greek Vorlage containing its unique sequence of readings has no descendants or even close relatives.

            b) The TR texts of Stephanus and Bezae, Greek and Latin, are solidly Greek ms based.
                (Thus, e.g. the Stephanus Latin Greek-corrected TR texts will differ from the Stephanus Latin Vulgate texts)


            Again, it depends on what you mean. For example, in John 7:53 the Greek ms streams are split four ways:
            m1 m2: EPOREUQHSAN
            m1-al m3-pc m4-pt: APHLQON
            m2-al m3 m5: EPOREUQH
            m1-pc m4-pt m6 m7: APHLQEN

            The Vulgate has reversi sunt, which would usually render = hUPESTREYAN or EPESTREYAN, but as neither of these Greek variations is present in the ms tradition here, and as revertor is not outside the translational domain of POREUOMAI (cf. e.g. Vulg-LXX at Gen 13:3; Josh 22:6, 9; 1 Sam 1:19, etc.) and APERCOMAI (cf. e.g. Vulg-LXX at Num 11:30; Josh 6:11; Judg 9:55; 19:2, etc.), one may relatively safely judge that reversi sunt renders either EPOREUQHSAN or APHLQON (both plural), since unusquisque may take a singular or plural verb equally well and often.

            Stephanus has profectus est (singular), which he uses to render his EPOREUQH (singular), which is actually a minority reading (although with the strong m5 group), due to the alliance of the large m6 and m7 groups with APHLQEN. An interesting side-note: Maurice Robinson sees m5 as prior, Hodges-Farstad m6 as prior, and Wilbur Pickering m7 as prior.

            So when things are said like, "The Greek and Latin of Stephanus and Beza are solidly based on Greek mss," it is not very clear. If one means that they always present a reading present in a Greek ms somewhere, sure, but so does the Vulgate. For example, in John 8:3 we see the Vulgate omitting ad eum (= PROS AUTON) with OL e d and the Greek m1-pt m2 and m6-pt groups, while Stephanus has the prepositional phrase in Greek and Latin along with the remaining Greek groups. Both are "solidly based on Greek mss," though one may argue which of the mss or groups of mss are better.

            c) NA-26 and NA-27 include the Greek Pericope Adulterae text even though it is considered non-autographic.


            The editors include it in double brackets which means it is not considered by them to be autographic. I suppose such is done because including such a long passage below the apparatus line (not to mention the many variations!) would have been incredibly cumbersome.

            d) The NA editions did not have a Greek exemplar for the text, and back-translated the Vulgate Latin, without any specific reader's notification.


            Not at all. Every reading in the NA editions is specifically supported by actual Greek mss, as anyone with a copy of any NA edition can see. My judgment is that the editors gave considerable weight to the Vulgate's testimony in deciding which Greek variants to select as primary (for the purportedly secondary addition).

            e) Nobody knows why they back-translated the Latin instead of using any of the Greek uncials or cursives or printed editions supporting the section


            This is not held by anyone I know. See my previous comment.

            If true, is this afawk a one-time awkward phenomenon in the NA text?


            Since the protasis of the above is false, the apodosis is irrelevant except for the level of amusement it might bring some.

            Are there variants in the Vulgate tradition?


            My study was primarily on the level of Old Latin agreement with the known streams of Greek manuscripts, but yes, there are some Vulgate variations. You may view basically all known variants in Bonifatius Fischer, Die lateinischen Evangelien bis zum 10. Jahrhundert: Varianten zu Johannes (Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel 18; ed. E. Beuron, 1949–; Freiburg: Herder, 1991).

            Does Codex Amiatinus match up well with the major printed editions: Clementine which matches up well with Wordsworth-White and Nestle and the Stuttgart?  And how about the version in the Fuldensis harmony (which may be a bit wilder with Old Latin influence?).


            This might be a good thing for you to research and report back to the list, as my study focused primarily on OL and Greek alliances.

            Which edition did you take as Jerome's Vulgate? 


            I used the current standard, i.e., Robert Weber, Bonifatius Fischer, I. Gribomont, H. F. D. Sparks, W. Thiele, and Roger Gryson, eds., Biblia sacra: iuxta Vulgatam versionem (4th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994).

            And could the Vulgate edition question account for your two variants between NA-27 and the Vulgate?


            No. There are no disturbances in the Vulgate tradition that would change the identifications of its two disagreements from NA27, or cause it to disagree further. For example, in John 8:3 only Dublinensis and Martini-Turonensis (both 8th cent.) of the major Vulgate mss add ad eum (= PROS AUTON). Although I think their testimony is remarkable for the evidence they bring regarding how a hypothetically early Latin translation could have come to omit ad eum by error of the eye or ear (or both! -- "adducunt autem ad eum …"), there is little question which is the one promulgated by Jerome, due to the hundreds of Vulgate mss, both early and late, in support of the omission.

            Sincerely,

            Jonathan C. Borland
          • Vox Verax
            This is just on the fringe of NTTC, but, since we re in a lull .... It has been said that in 1716 (or maybe 1716, or maybe 1751), an edition of the Bible was
            Message 5 of 8 , Aug 20, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              This is just on the fringe of NTTC, but, since we're in a lull ....

              It has been said that in 1716 (or maybe 1716, or maybe 1751), an edition of the Bible was printed in Ireland which became rather notorious because it contained a misprint which resulted in the reading "sin on more" instead of "sin no more."

              It has been said that this misprint was in John 8:11.

              It has also been said that this misprint was in John 5:14.

              It has also been said that this misprint was in Isaiah.

              It has also been said that this misprint was at the end of Jeremiah 31:34.

              It has also been said that this Bible never existed.

              Which account of the "Sin On More" Bible can be verified?

              Is it possible that 8,000 such Bibles were printed and bound, and then the error was discovered, and noted, and the printer -- James Brow -- arranged for the destruction of each and every copy?

              Has anybody alive today personally seen a "Sin On More" Bible?

              Yours in Christ,

              James Snapp, Jr.
            • jjcate
              I haven t seen the typo. I would check: Watson, George, ed. _The New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature_, Vol. 1 (600-1660). Cambridge Univ Press
              Message 6 of 8 , Aug 22, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                I haven't seen the typo. I would check:

                Watson, George, ed. _The New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature_, Vol. 1 (600-1660). Cambridge Univ Press (1st ed = 1972; 2nd ed = 1974)

                Herbert, A. S. _Historical catalogue of printed editions of the English Bible 1525-1961._ BFBS, 1968. (Rev and expanded from T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule, 1903)

                Hope this is helpful,
                --Jeff Cate
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.