Lexical Variation in the Latin Text of the Jewish Greek Bible...In Proverbia Salomonis libri 3 Bede,...
325
Lexical Variation in the Latin Text of the Jewish Greek Bible by Simone Rickerby BA (Hon) MA A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) MCD University of Divinity March 2015
Transcript of Lexical Variation in the Latin Text of the Jewish Greek Bible...In Proverbia Salomonis libri 3 Bede,...
Lexical Variation in the Latin Text of the
Jewish Greek Bible
by
Simone Rickerby
BA (Hon) MA
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the
degree of
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
MCD University of Divinity
March 2015
Ici, comme toujours, la philologie et l’histoire se donnent la main.
D.S. Blondheim
Lexical Variation in the Latin Text of the Jewish Greek Bible
Abstract
This dissertation will examine whether there is lexical variation apparent in the
Latin Version of the Jewish Greek Bible, and if so, what this variation can tell us
about the history of the text this corpus.1
Within scholarship dedicated to an examination of the textual tradition of the
Latin Bible there has been a tacit assumption that an examination of the Latin
Jewish Greek Bible may be approached using the same methods and
suppositions as those used to elucidate the Latin New Testament text. While
influence of the Latin New Testament on the Latin Jewish Greek Bible should be
expected, and maybe even all consuming, this should not be the foundation from
which we work. This thesis will examine the layers of variation apparent within the
textual tradition of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible, whether within a single book or
across books, and suggest a context for these variations independent of Latin
New Testament textual theories.
A detailed analysis of interesting vocabulary will be the basis for this study.
Access to the Latin text of the books of the Jewish Greek Bible is facilitated by
the Vetus Latina Database and the Beuron editions of the Old Latin Text. These
resources will be key to informing our discussion of vocabulary in the Latin
Jewish Greek Bible text.
It is hoped that the results of this study will contribute to a more rounded
understanding of the context of translation(s) and textual tradition(s) of the books
of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible. It is also hoped that this study will encourage an
appreciation of the wider textual context underlying and/or influencing the textual
tradition of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible.
1 The phrase “Latin Jewish Greek Bible” has been introduced to indicate that this discussion is concerned
with the Latin translation of the range of books used, to some extent or other, by the Greek speaking,
rather than Semitic speaking, Jewish community. See Chapter One for further discussion.
Preface and Acknowledgements
This thesis is not what I intended to write. As have so many investigators before
me I came to an examination of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible via my wish to
engage more fully with the textual tradition of the Old Latin Gospels and the
Western text of the New Testament.
I am now a long way from that starting point and richer for it. The complexity of
the textual traditions of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible and the insight these
witnesses provide on an almost lost world, lost in reality but also lost to
academia, has intrigued and captivated me. Given my starting position I was
expecting my examination of the older Latin textual tradition of the Jewish Greek
Bible to be dominated by the Latin New Testament theory of African and
European text types. However, the more I engaged with the evidence the more I
realised that I was making several assumptions to facilitate my study. My main
assumption was the expectation that I could treat the Latin Jewish Greek Bible
and the Latin New Testament text as one corpus. Without this assumption we are
unable to import New Testament theories into a discussion of variation in the
books of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible.
Simultaneously I was becoming aware of the late 19th and early 20th century
debate surrounding Latin “africanisms”. While this debate fell out of currency
there was a sense that much of what I had accepted as settled was not, or at the
very least, was developed in an academic environment which was tainted by
prejudices foreign to the modern era (or now hidden behind closed doors). While
the Latin New Testment textual theory of African and European texts may not be
associated directly with this debate regarding “africanisms”, there is still much in
the older literature which reflects these prejudices and is hard to escape.
My final shift in perception was triggered by Blondheim’s seemingly little known
and quite small volume on the relationship between the Jewish Romance
languages and the Old Latin (D.S. Blondheim, Les Parlers Judéo-Romans Et La
Vetus Latina; Étude Sur Les Rapports Entre Les Traductions Bibliques En
Langue Romane Des Juifs Au Moyen Âge Et Les Anciennes Versions (Paris: É.
Champion, 1925).).
Blondheim’s volume explores the possibility of a Jewish Latin which survived into
the medieval period, the existence of which may be traced back to antiquity.
Whether or not one accepts Blondheim’s thesis, his book does highlight
something which is not overtly referred to in general discussion of the Latin
biblical text i.e. the possibility that the Latin Jewish Greek Bible is a product of, or
at the very least heavily influenced by, Latin speaking Jews. This thesis is not the
place to debate this possibility, but the work of Blondheim has introduced a
healthy scepticism into this examination of Latin lexical equivalents in the Jewish
Greek Bible. It is also possible that the Latin Jewish Greek Bible was the product
of Christian (or Christian-Jewish) translators, however, and so this examination
will not assume Blondheim's position.
There are many people who have played a role in ensuring that this thesis has
come to fruition.
From the very beginning Dr Matthew Martin was supportive of my candidature. I
appreciate the faith that he showed in my ability to see this journey through to the
end when I wasn’t sure I would be able to.
I would like to thank Donna Goldsmith, the Executive Officer of the ANZICS
Clinical Trials Group, and other colleagues at ANZICS who have proffered
support above and beyond what one would imagine was possible from any work
place. Without their support this thesis would not have been completed.
Greg Chenhall and Jamie Gardiner have supported me throughout this
enterprise. They are dear friends and I appreciate everything they have done to
support me in this process.
This thesis would of course not have been possible without the support and input
from my supervisors — Dr Keith Dyer and Dr Geoffrey Jenkins. Their stimulating
conversation, willingness to engage with new ideas and their dedication in
reviewing this work has been crucial to the success of this thesis.
Finally I would like to thank my parents, Jennifer and Don, and my brother
Christopher, who have always been enthusiastic about my interests. Their love
and support is cherished always.
Simone Rickerby
24th February 2014
Abbreviations^: Patristic Sources
Anonymous
[Abdias] Historiae apostolicae libri 10 (6th century)
An. Expos. Paul. Hebr. Expositio epistole Pauli apostoli ad Hebreos
Antiph. Mozarab. Antiphonale Mozarabic, Cathedral of Leon Ms. 8
Glosa Ps. Glosa psalmorum ex traditione seniorum
Missale. Moz. Missale Mozarabicum
Reg. mon. Regulae monasticae
Res. Rom. Responsoriale Romanum
Vid. Serv. De viduitate servanda
Vita Elig. Vita S. Eligii episcopi Noviomagensis
Vita. Emer. Liber Vitas Sanctorum Patrum Emeretensium
Vita Heliae Vita S. Helia
Autpert Ambrose, Provençale, († 784)
Autpert Ambrose, Apoc. Expositionis in Apocalypsin libri X
Ambrose of Milan († 397)
Ambrose, Fid. Grat. De fide ad Gratianum
Ambrose, Epist. Epistularum libri 1-10; Epistulae extra collectionem
Ambrose, Paen. De paenitentia
Ambrose, Explan. Ps. Explanatio XII psalmorum
Pseudo-Ambrose
Pseudo-Ambrose, Trin. Tractatus (immo sermo) in Phil 4:4-7
Pseudo-Athanasius (a forgery of the Luciferians)
Pseudo-Athanasius, Luc. Epistulae 8
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, North Africa († 430)
Augustine, Epist. Epistulae
Augustine, Faust. Contra Faustum Manichaeum
Augustine, Civ. De civitate Dei
Augustine, Cons. De consensu evangelistarum.
Augustine, Doctr. chr. De doctrina christiana
Augustine, Grat. De gratia et libero arbitrio
Augustine, Adnot. Job. Adnotationum in Job liber I
Augustine, Tract. Ev. Jo. In Evangelium Johannis tractatus
Augustine, Lib. De libero arbitrio
Augustine, Nat. grat. De natura et gratia
Augustine, Pecc. merit. De peccatorum meritis et remissione
Augustine, C. du. ep. Pelag. Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum ad Bonifatium
Augustine, C. litt. Petil. Contra litteras Petiliani
Augustine, Praed. De praedestinatione sanctorum
Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. Enarrationes in Psalms (Enarrations on Psalms)
Augustine, Serm. (Dolbeau)
Sermones (F. Dolbeau, Les sermons de saint Augustin découverts à Mayence. Un premier bilan, in Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. Comptes rendus des séances de l’année 1993 (Paris 1993, 153-171)
Augustine, Serm. (Fragments) Sermones (Fragments from the lost sermons)
Augustine, Serm. (Guelf.) Sermones (G. Morin, ed., Guelferbytanus, Herzog-August-Bibliothek (Weissenburg. 12), Wolfenbüttel)
Augustine, Serm. (Denis) Sermones (M. Denis, ed., Sancti Augustini Sermones post Maurinos reperti, in Miscellanea Agostiniana I, ed., G. Morin (Rome 1930), 11-164.
Augustine, Serm. Sermones
Augustine, Spec. De scriptura sancta speculum
Augustine, Trin. De Trinitate
Pseudo-Augustine
Pseudo-Augustine, Spec. Liber de divinis scripturis sive Speculum quod fertur S. Augustini, Italy, 5th century
Pseudo-Augustine, Hyp. Hypomnesticon Augustini contra Pelagianos sive Caelestianos haereticos
Arnobius the Younger, Africa & Rome († after 455)
Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. Commentarii in psalmos
Pseudo-Basil the Great
Pseudo-Basil the Great, Isa. Expositio super Ysaye prophete
Venerable Bede, Monkwearmouth/Jarrow († 735)
Bede, Prov. In Proverbia Salomonis libri 3
Bede, Sam. In primam partem Samuhelis libri 4
Bede, Ps. Collectio Psalterii
John Cassian Marseille (about 360-435)
John Cassian, Con. Part. Conlationes Patrum 24
Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator, Italy & Constantinople († 583)
Cassiodorus, Expos. Ps. Expositio Psalmorum
Cassiodorus, Expos. Rom. Expositio in Epistulas S. Pauli (Romans)
Chromatius, Bishop of Aquileia (388-407 or early 408)
Chromatius, Serm. Sermones
John Chrysostom
John Chrysostom, Hom. [Lat.] Homiliae (ed. J. Froben)
Cicero
Cicero, Inv. De inventione rhetorica
Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus, Bishop of Carthage († 258)
Cyprian, Test. Ad Quirinum testimonia adversus Judaeos
Cyprian, Unit. eccl. De catholicae ecclesiae unitate
Pseudo-Cyprian
Pseudo-Cyprian, Cent. De centesima, sexagesima, tricesima, Africa
Pseudo-Cyprian, Paen. Exhortatio de paenitentia
Pseudo-Cyprian, Novat. Ad Novatianum
Pseudo-Cyprian, Sing. De singularitate clericorum
Defensor, Monk of Ligugé (by 700)
Defensor, Scint. Scintillarum liber
Epiphanius of Seville (5th / 6th c.)
Epiphanius of Seville, Evang. Interpretatio Evangeliorum
Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage († by 505)
Eugenius [after Victor of Vita], Hist. pers.
Ein Libellus fidei
Eugippus, Naples, Italy († circa 535)
Eugippus, Reg. Regula
Pseudo-Eusebius, Pope
Pseudo-Eusebius, Pope, Epist. Epistulae 3
Eusebius of Gaul [so-called]
[Eusebius of Gaul], Hom. Collectio homiliarum 76
Evagrius of Gaul
Evagrius of Gaul, Alter. Altercatio legis inter Simonem Iudaeum et Theophilum Christianum
Facundus of Hermiane, Africa († before 571)
Facundus, Def. trium Pro defensione trium capitulorum libri 12
Ferrandus, Carthage († 546/7)
Ferrandus, Epist. Epistulae
Fulgentius († around 420/30)
Fulgentius, Epist. Epistulae
Fulgentius, Praed. Ad Iohannem et Venerium de veritate praedestinationis et gratiae Dei libri 3
Fulgentius, Euth. Ad Euthymium de remissione peccatorum libri 2
Gildas Sapiens, Rhuys, Brittany (before 570)
Gildas Sapiens, Exc. De excidio et conquestu Britanniae ac flebili castigatione in reges principes et sacerdotes
Gregory the Great, Pope (590-604)
Gregory the Great, Moral. Expositio in Librum Job, sive Moralium libri xxv
Gregory the Great, Reg. pastor. Gregory the Great, Regula pastoralis
Gregory the Great, Reg. In librum primum Regum expositionum libri 6
Gregory of Elvira († before 393)
Gregory of Elvira, Fid. De fide
Hesychius, Jerusalem († before 451)
Hesychius, Comm. Lev. Commentarius in Leviticum
Hilary of Poitiers († 367/8)
Hilary of Poitiers, Tract. Ps. Tractatus super Psalmos
Isidore of Seville († 636)
Isidore of Seville, Fid. De fide catholica ex Veteri et Novo Testamento contra Iudaeos ad Florentinam sororem
Isidore of Seville, Quaest. Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum
Isidore of Seville, Sent. Sententiae
Pseudo-Isidore of Seville
Pseudo-Isidore of Seville, Adv. Jud.
Liber de variis quaestionibus adversus Iudaeos seu ceteros infideles vel plerosque haereticos iudaizantes ex utroque Testamento collectus
Pseudo-Isidore, Isa. Isaiae testimonia de Christo Domino
Jerome († 420)
Jerome, Ap. Ruf. Apologia contra Rufinum libri 2
Jerome, Epist. Epistulae
Jerome, Comm. Ezech. Commentariorum in Ezechielem libri XVI (Commentary on Ezekiel)
Jerome, Orig. Ezech. Origenis in Ezechielem homiliae XIV
Jerome, Comm. Isa. Commentariorum in Isaiam libri XVIII (Commentary on Isaiah)
Jerome, Interp. Job Libri Job versio, textus hexaplorum
Jerome, Comm. Jer. Commentariorum in Jeremiam libri VI (Commentary on Jeremiah)
Jerome, Orig. Jer. Origenis in Ieremiam homiliae XIV
Jerome, Comm. Mich. Commentariorum in Michaeum libri II (Commentary on Micah)
Jerome, Comm. Os. Commentariorum in Osee libri III (Commentary on Hosea)
Jerome, Reg. Pachom. Regula S. Pachomii, e Graeco
Jerome, Pelag. Adversus Pelagianos dialogi III
Jerome Comm. Zach. Commentariorum in Zachariam libri III (Commentary on Zechariah)
Jerome, Comm. Soph. Commentariorum in Sophoniam libri III (Commentary on Zephaniah)
Jerome, Comm. Ps. Commentarioli in Psalmos (Commentary on Psalms)
Jerome, Hom. Ps. In Psalmos homiliae (translation and editing of Origen)
Jerome, Psalt. Hebr. Psalterium secundum Hebraeos
Pseudo-Jerome
Pseudo-Jerome, Brev. Ps. Breviarium in Psalmos
Pseudo-Jerome, Epist. Epistulae
Julian of Eclanum († before 455)
Julian of Eclanum, Osee In Osee prophetam libri 3
Julian of Eclanum, Ps. Theodori Mopsuesteni expositio in Psalmos interpretante Juliano Aeclanensi
L. Cae(ci)lius Firmianus Lactantius, African († 325)
Lactantius, Inst. Divinarum institutionum libri VII
Lucifer Calaritanus († 370/1)
Lucifer, Ath. De Athanasio libri 2
Lucifer, Con. De non conveniendo cum haereticis
Pope Martin I (649-655)
Pope Martin I, Epist. Epistulae 17
Pseudo-Maximus of Turin
Pseudo-Maximus of Turin, Serm. Sermones 31
Mutianus, friend of Cassiodorus, Italy (6th century)
Mutianus, Hom. Chrys. Translation of the 34 homilies of John Chrysostom on Hebrews
Paulinus of Nola (born 353/4 in Bordeaux, † 431)
Paulinus of Nola, Epist. Epistulae 51
Pseudo-Paulinus of Nola
Pseudo-Paulinus of Nola, Epist. Epistulae 2
Philippus, Presbyter, a student of Jerome († 455/6)
Philippus, Comm. Job, Commentarius in Iob
Pelagius, British (before 418)
Pelagius, Rom. Expositiones XIII Epistularum S. Pauli (Romans)
Pseudo-Pelagius II
Pseudo-Pelagius II, Epist. Epistulae 2
Potamius, Bishop of Lisbon, († before 383/384)
Potamius, Epist. Ath. Epistula ad Athanasium
Potamius, Epist. subst. Epistula de substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti
Primasius of Hadrumetum (= Sousse in Tunisia) († 560)
Primasius, Comm. Apoc. Commentarius in Apocalypsin
Priscillian, Bishop of Ávila († 385/6)
Priscillian, Tract. Tractatus 11
Prosper of Aquitane († after 455)
Prosper of Aquitane, Expos. Ps. Expositio Psalmorum 100-150
Quodvultdeus, Bishop of Carthage, Italy/Africa († 453)
Quodvultdeus, Temp. bar. De tempore barbarico sermones 2
Quodvultdeus, Grat. De accedentibus ad gratiam sermones 2
Quodvultdeaus, Sym. De symbolo sermones 3
Rufinus of Aquileia († 411)
Rufinus, Orig. Comm. Cant. Origenis Commentarius in Canticum
Rufinus, Hist. Eusebii Historia ecclesiastica a Rufino translata et continuata
Rufinus, Greg. Orat. Gregorii Orationes
Rufinus, Orig. Hom. Num. Origenis in Numeros homiliae
Rufinus, Orig. Comm. Rom. Origenis Commentarius in epistulam ad Romanos
Rufinus, Orig. Hom. Ps. Origenis Homiliae in Psalmos
Rusticus, Rome († after 565)
Rusticus, Coll. Casin. Collectionis Casinensis sive Synodici a Rustico diacono compositi pars prior
Sulpicius Severus († 420)
Sulpicius Severus, Chron. Chronicorum libri 2
Tertullian, Carthage († 215)
Tertullian, Adv. Jud. Adversus Judaeos
Tyconius (second half of the 4th century)
Tyconius, Reg. Liber regularum
Vigilius of Thapsus († after 484)
Vigilius of Thapsus, Arian. Contra Arianos Sabellianos et Photinianos dialogus Athanasio Ario Sabellio Photino et Probo iudice interlocutoribus
Pseudo-Vigilius of Thapsus
Pseudo-Vigilius of Thapsus, Tri. De trinitate libri 12
Pseudo-Vigilius of Thapsus, Varim. Contra Varimadum (Marivadum) Arianum libri 3
Zeno of Verona († before 380)
Zeno of Verona, Tract. Tractatus Sancti Zenonis Veronensis episcopi
Abbreviations^: Manuscripts and Psalters
Manuscripts and Psalters
Cod. Casin. Codex Casinensis [Psalms]
Cod. Lugd. Codex Lugdunensis
Cod. Mon. Fragmenta Monacensia
Cod. Sangall. Codex Sangallensis 912 [Jeremiah]
Cod. Ver. Veronese Lectionary [Jeremiah]
Cod. Veron. Codex Veronensis [Psalms]
Cod. Wirc. Codex Wirceburgensis [Jeremiah / Leviticus]
Fr. Sang. Fragmenta Sagallensia [Ezechiel and Minor Prophets]
Fr. Weing. Fragmenta Weingartensia [Ezechiel and Minor Prophets]
Lib. Comic. Liber Comicus Toletanus Teplensis [Spanish lectionary]
Psalt. Anglosax. Psalter Anglosaxon
Psalt. Ambros. Psalter Ambrosianum
Psalt. Hebr. Jerome, Psalterium secundum Hebraeos
Psalt. Mozarab. Psalter Mozarabicum
Psalt. Romanum Psalterium Romanum
Psalt. Sangerm. Psalter Sangermanensis
Psalt. Sangal. Psalter Sangallensis
Psalt. Tiron. Psalt. Tironianum
^Information for these lists of Abbreviations is derived mainly from the Repertorium of the Vetus Latina Database (see http://apps.brepolis.net/vld/repertorium/search_author.cfm). Other resources include the list of Old Latin manuscripts in Henry Barclay Swete, H. St J. Thackeray, and Richard Rusden Ottley, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, (New York: KTAV, 1968), 93-97; and individual editions of the respective texts including Alban Dold, Konstanzer Altlateinische Propheten - und Evangelienbruchstücke mit Glossen, nebst Zugehörigen Prophetentexten aus Zürich und St. Gallen; Teils Neu Teils Erstmals Herausgegeben und Bearbeitet, in Texte und Arbeiten, eds., Erzabtei Beuron (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1923); Paul Capelle, Le Texte du Psautier Latin en Afrique, vol. IV of Collectanea Biblica Latina (Rome: F. Pustet, 1913); and Ambrosio Amelli, Liber Psalmorum iuxta Antiquissimam Latinam Versionem Nunc Primum ex Casinensi Cod. 557, vol. I of Collectanea Biblica Latina (Romae: Fridericus Pustet, 1912).
Table of Contents
Abstract
Declaration / Statement of Originality
Preface and Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
Table of Contents
Chapter One: Variation in the Latin Jewish Greek Bible Introducing adinventio
pp. 1 - 24
Chapter Two: An Examination of Adinventio and its Lexical Equivalents in the Latin Text of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets
Preliminaries Part I: Adinventio in the text of Jeremiah
- A. Adinventio in the Vulgate text of Jeremiah - B. Cogitatio and e0pith/deuma in the Vulgate text of
Jeremiah - C. Studium and e0pith/deuma in the Vulgate text of
Jeremiah - D. Summary of Part I
Part II Adinventio in the text of Ezekiel - A. Idolum, adinventio and the Greek versions in the text
of Ezekiel - B. Adinventio in the Vulgate text of Ezekiel - C. e0pith/deuma without adinventio in the text of Ezekiel - D. Summary of Part II
Part III: Adinventio in the Minor Prophets - A. Adinventio in the text of Hosea - B. Adinventio in the text of Micah - C. Adinventio in the text of the other Minor Prophets - D. Summary of Part III
Part IV: Summary of adinventio in the text of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets
pp. 25 - 84
Chapter Three: An Examination of Adinventio and its Lexical Equivalents in the Latin Text of Psalms
Preliminaries Part I: Adinventio in the Vulgate text of Psalms Part II: Studium in the Vulgate text of Psalms Part III: Adinventio in Codex Casinensis Summary of Adinventio in Psalms
pp. 85 - 152
Chapter Four: An Examination of adinventio and its Lexical Equivalents in the Other Books of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible
Preliminaries Example 1: Leviticus 18:3 Example 2: Deuteronomy 28:20 Example 3: Judges 2:19 Example 4: 1 Kingdoms (1 Samuel) 2:3 Example 5: 3 Kingdoms (1 Kings) 15:12 Example 6: 1 Chronicles 16:8 Example 7: Nehemiah 9:35 Example 8: Adinventio in Judith Example 9: Job 20:18 Example 10: Proverbs 20:11 Example 11: Wisdom of Solomon (= Sapientia) 9:14 Example 12: Wisdom of Solomon 14:12 Example 13: Wisdom of Sirach (= Sirach) 35:12 Example 14: Wisdom of Sirach 40:2 Example 15: Isaiah 3:8 Example 16: Isaiah 3:10 Example 17: Isaiah 12:4 Example 18: 1 Kingdoms (1 Samuel) 25:3 Summary of adinventio in other books of the Jewish Greek
Bible
pp. 153 - 208
Chapter Five: Sapientia, Sirach and Psalms – Discovering Further Variation in the Latin Jewish Greek Bible
Insensatus in the Latin text of Sapientia, Sirach and Psalms Reverentia in the text of Sapientia, Sirach and Psalms Summary
pp. 209 - 244
Chapter Six: Variation in the Latin Patristic tradition of the Jewish Greek Bible - Jerome and Augustine
Part I: Variation in the Jewish Greek Bible text(s) of Jerome Part II: Variation in the Jewish Greek Bible text(s) of
Augustine Chapter Summary
pp. 245 - 288
Chapter 7: A New Paradigm? pp. 289 - 300
Bibliography pp. 301 - 307
Chapter One: Lexical Variation in the Latin
Jewish Greek Bible
In this investigation we will explore the lexical variation apparent in the Latin
version of the Jewish Greek Bible. This lexical variation is characterised by the
use of multiple Latin words to render one (or more) Greek words in the Latin
translations of the Jewish Greek Bible. The need to demonstrate and analyse the
existence of lexical variation within witnesses to the Latin text of this biblical sub-
corpus may seem redundant. However, while lexical variation is known to exist in
the Latin textual tradition the systematic examination of this variation has been
limited to the text of the New Testament and particularly the Gospels. That there
is lexical variation in the text of the Latin Gospels can be established with a
cursory glance at any of Jülicher’s editions of these New Testament Books.1
There is no reason, however, to expect that this variation replicates itself
throughout the Latin biblical text or that, if and when we find lexical variation, it
will align itself closely with that of the Latin Gospel tradition. This study of lexical
variation in the Latin version of the Jewish Greek Bible will highlight the need for
a re-evaluation of the current NT-centric theories of lexical variation and will also
demonstrate the wealth of information that a study of these lexical variants can
provide regarding the text of the Jewish Greek Bible, in Latin and Greek (and
Hebrew).
Before we move forward with this discussion it is necessary to note several
important issues which differentiate this study in some way from those that have
come before.
Throughout this examination reference will be made to the Latin Jewish Greek
Bible or the Latin version of the Jewish Greek Bible rather than the “Bible” or “Old
Testament”. There are two reasons for the introduction of this phrase. Firstly, the
phrase “Latin Jewish Greek Bible” has been introduced to indicate that this
discussion is concerned with the Latin translation of the range of books used, to
some extent or other, by the Greek speaking, rather than Semitic speaking,
1 Adolf Jülicher, Itala Das Neue Testament in Altlateinischer Überlieferung, Walter Matzkow and Kurt Aland, eds. 4 vols. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1940-1972).
1
Jewish community. This corpus includes the Greek translations of the books of
the Hebrew Bible, but also the Wisdom of Sirach, 1 Maccabees, Judith, Tobit as
well as the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch and 2 Maccabees. Secondly, the phrase
“Latin Bible” has been avoided as this study wishes to acknowledge the
possibility that the books of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible and of the Latin New
Testament may be the result of different processes and contexts of translation
and should not be referred to under the same umbrella term. This distinction was
preserved by both Jerome and Augustine. In his works, Augustine refers
frequently to the writings of the Veteris Testamenti.2 Jerome also differentiates
between the Greek and Hebrew Vorlage of the Veteri…Testamento and the
purely Greek heritage of the Nuovo…Testamento.3
The reason why these two corpora have lost their individual identities within the
Latin text in much scholarly discourse may be a result of several factors. The
revisional efforts of Jerome brought homogeneity to a textual tradition which prior
to this had suffered from an infinita varietas.4 The production and distribution of
this version aligned with the beginning of the ascendancy of the Roman Papacy
where the need to be beholden to the Greek dominated textual traditions of the
East was fading. Additionally, there is little new discussion of text critical issues in
the writings of the Latin Church Fathers after the time of Jerome and Augustine.
These factors, whether alone or in combination, may have helped to obscure the
identity of the two Testaments referred to by both Jerome and Augustine.
Another factor contributing to the treatment of the ‘Latin Bible’ as a single corpus
is the assumption that this ‘text’ was the result of the same context of translation.
The origins of the Latin version of both the New Testament and the Jewish Greek
2 See also Augustine, De doctrina christiana - Liber II, 8.13: His quadraginta quattuor libris Testamenti Veteris terminatur auctoritas; 15.22: Latini ergo, ut dicere coeperam, codices Veteris Testamenti, si necesse fuerit, graecorum auctoritate emendandi sunt, et eorum potissimum qui, cum Septuaginta essent, ore uno interpretati esse perhibentur. Contra Adimantum Manichaei Discipulum Liber Unus 2.2: Non ergo Dominus rescindit scripturam Veteris Testamenti, sed cogit intellegi. De moribus Ecclesiae catholicae 1.1: Hoc fere in sanctis Veteris Testamenti libris evenit… 3 Jerome, “Incipit Praefatio Sancti Hieronymi Presbyteri in Evangelio,” in Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. Vol. II, eds., Bonifatius Fischer et al. (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969), 1515. Neque vero ego de Veteri disputo Testamento, quod a septuaginta senoribus in graecam linguam versum tertio gradu ad nos usque pervenit….De Novo nunc loquor Testamento… 4 Augustine, De doctrina christiana - Liber II, 11.16 : …si quam dubitationem attulerit latinorum interpretum infinita varietas.
2
Bible are shrouded in the mists of time. As noted by Bruce Metzger: “The history
of the Latin version of the New Testament bristles with difficult and disputed
problems, not least of which are the questions when, where, and by whom the
earliest Latin rendering was made.”5 In relation to the Latin version of the Jewish
Greek Bible, Natalio Fernández Marcos notes: “No doubt we would like to know
more about the origin and circumstances, sociological as well as religious, that
brought forth the Old Latin, but the lack of evidence in the ancient sources is
absolute…”.6 This lack of evidence regarding the orgins of the Latin is in stark
contrast to the extraordinary abundance of textual material available (in some
books). Complete translations of such canonically “fringe” books as 1 Maccabees
are found well preserved within the Latin manuscript tradition. However, we have
not the slightest hint who translated these documents, apart only from indications
internal to the translation itself.
Our lack of knowledge regarding the context of translation of both the Latin New
Testament and the Latin Jewish Greek Bible means that this period of the textual
tradition of both corpora has been largely ignored in scholarship concerned with
the Latin textual tradition. A study of the Latin textual tradition necessarily begins
with the oldest witnesses — Tertullian and Cyprian. It has been suggested that
Tertullian was aware of an existing Latin textual tradition.7 This implies that
already by the late second or early third century there was some form of
translation of (parts of?) the Bible into Latin. Based on the early and uncertain
nature of this translation it would seem imprudent to make any assumptions
about the relationship of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible and the Latin New
Testament, and also between the individual books within these corpora. Indeed,
5 Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 285. 6 Natalio Fernández Marcos, Scribes and Translators: Septuagint and Old Latin in the Books of Kings (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 85. 7 Albert V. Billen, The Old Latin Texts of the Heptateuch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1927), 75. “The whole question of the text of Tertullian is a difficult one, owing to our uncertainty as to the extant to which he used a Latin version, and how far he translated for himself from a Greek MS. It is possible that a careful comparison of all his quotations with the surviving witnesses to the Old Latin text would suggest that he used a Latin version much more often than has sometimes been admitted. In the Heptateuch at least his text frequently agrees remarkably with later authorities which show no signs of the direct influence of his works”. See also Paul Capelle, Le Texte Du Psautier Latin En Afrique (Rome: Pustet, 1913), 20. "Les innombrables rencontres avec les témoins africains, jointes à des témoignages assez explicites de Tertullien, attestent qu'il s'est servi d'une version écrite…"
3
Burkitt states that by 250 CE the Latin Bible already “had a long and complicated
history behind it”.8
Often theories formed in association with the Latin New Testament text,
particularly the Gospels, have been used to inform discussion of the books of the
Latin Jewish Greek Bible. As well as failing to acknowledge the particular
characteristics of a book this has also led to a skewed perspective on the Latin
Jewish Greek Bible. Henry Barclay Swete discussed the older Latin text and
expressed the opinion that “The classification of the O.T. is less advanced [than
the N.T.], and owing to the fragmentary character of most of the MSS it is more
difficult; but we may assume that it will proceed on the same general lines [as the
N.T.]”.9 This assumed homogeneity does not allow for the possibility that these
corpora, and indeed the individual books within these collections, may be the
result of more than one context of translation. Billen in his examination of the Old
Latin Texts of the Heptateuch turns to the Latin New Testament for confirmation
of the Cyprianic or ‘African’ nature of certain words in the manuscripts under
examination.10 While Cyprian’s text is invaluable as an indicator of the usage of a
word at a certain place and time, to assign this specificity to a New Testament
manuscript which shares commonalities with the Cyprianic text and then to use
this manuscript as an independent guide to identifying Cyprianic or ‘African’ traits
in a different manuscript which attests books from the Latin Jewish Greek Bible
would seem to be methodologically flawed. This study aims to avoid such
anachronistic assumptions.
Care must also be taken not to reverse this process and use the results of this
study on the Latin Jewish Greek Bible to influence too greatly the study of the
Latin New Testament. Thielmann explained how his examination of the Latin text
of Sapientia was motivated by his conviction that the simpler textual history of
Sapientia and Wisdom of Sirach would provide a better starting point for his
examination of the Old Latin than the more complicated textual situations
8 Hensley Henson et al., Criticism of the New Testament (Glasgow: Scribner's Sons, 1902), 74. 9 Henry Barclay Swete, H. St J. Thackeray, and Richard Rusden Ottley, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (New York: Ktav, 1968), 91-92. 10 Billen, Old Latin Texts of the Heptateuch, 24: “The following list gives some of the words in Mon. which are characteristic of Cyprian or of k [Codex Bobbiensis, the most primitive Old Latin Gospel MS…]; and can therefore with confidence be pronounced ‘African’.”
4
proffered by the Gospels and the Letters of Paul.11 Thielmann’s proposed
methodology assumed that the textual traditions of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible
and the Latin New Testament were in some way aligned and that the study of
one corpus would inform the study of the other.
This study is concerned with the Latin version of the Jewish Greek Bible, rather
than focussing only on evidence which is seen to either predate or to have
escaped the influence of Jerome’s massive editorial enterprise. The role of
Jerome in the history of the Latin biblical text cannot be overestimated. His grand
literary enterprise is only rivalled by that of Origen and his production of the
Hexapla. This association of Jerome with Origen is not limited to an
acknowledgement of their respective enterprises. Jerome made great use of
Origen’s Hexapla in his own revisions of the Latin and the evidence of this can be
seen, to a greater or lesser extent, in the Hieronymian editions. However, Jerome
was also aware of the older Latin textual tradition and reference to these may
also be found within his writings. To ignore the texts of Jerome would mean
losing these invaluable references to the older Latin textual traditions and it is this
which has influenced the inclusion of the Hieronymian revisions in this study.
The reader will also find the use of the phrase “older Latin textual tradition(s)”,
rather than “Old Latin” version, throughout this study. The homogeneity
suggested by the use of “Old Latin” belies the realities of the evidence. In the
study of the older Latin textual tradition we find countless witnesses attesting
various Latin textual traditions. While these various textual traditions may
ultimately have their origins in a single original the identification of this “original”
text is a distant prospect. The use of the phrase “Old Latin” therefore provides a
means of trivialising the diversity of a widely disparate group of witnesses which
span across centuries, geography, and books of the Jewish Greek Bible. The use
of “older Latin textual tradition(s)” will help to indicate that the item(s) being
discussed most likely preserve a textual tradition(s) which either pre-dates or has
11 Philip Thielmann, "Die Lateinische Übersetzung Des Buches Der Weisheit." Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 8 (1893): 235–277. “Als ich die früheren Arbeiten studierte, mußte ich mir sagen, daß es nicht praktisch sei, bei der Untersuchung gerade von den verwickeltsten Partien, von Paulus-briefen und Evangelien, auszugehen; denn hier hat sich durch fortgesetzte Überarbeitung die Sache in einer Weise kompliziert, daß es kaum möglich scheint, schon beim ersten Anlauf zu dem ursprünglichen bestand vorzudringen.” (235-236).
5
escaped the influence of Jerome, without casting them into the abyss of
bottomless assumptions implied by the misnomer “Old Latin”.
The importance of a book’s individual textual history is noted by Fernández
Marcos in his discussion of the Septuagint text but is no less relevant for the
books of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible: “…the text history of the Septuagint
cannot be treated as a whole. On the contrary, each book has its own history.”12
Ulrich provides a brief summary of the issues surrounding an examination of the
older Latin version of the Jewish Greek Bible.13 He too notes the need to respect
the textual history of individual books of this corpus.14 Ulrich pays particular
attention to the manuscript tradition noting that “We must ask how a particular MS
relates to other MSS of the same biblical book, and how it relates to its own text-
form in other biblical books (if the MS extends to other books)”.15 This too is one
of the foundation stones of biblical textual criticism. However, in an examination
of the Latin version of the Jewish Greek Bible we are hamstrung by the fact that
the manuscript evidence for the older Latin version(s) of these books, when
compared with the manuscript evidence extant for the revisions of Jerome, is
“very fragmentary”.16 We may take the book of Isaiah as an example of the larger
problem. In his edition of the older Latin version(s) of Isaiah, Gryson begins his
discussion of the text by acknowledging the paucity of surviving manuscript
evidence for this book: “La tradition directed des anciennes versions latines
d’Isaïe est très pauvre”.17 Gryson goes on to highlight the role Jerome’s version
of Isaiah played in eradicating the older Latin version(s). Ironically, evidence for
the older Latin text of Isaiah is often best preserved in Jerome’s own references
to this version in his Commentary on this book.18 The sheer beauty of Gryson’s
12 Fernández Marcos, Scribes and Translators, 12. See also H.A.A. Kennedy, "The Old Latin Versions" in A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings, iii: 47-62. (New York: Scribner's Sons, 1911), 49: “There are some books in which two types of text seem far more marked, e.g. the Synoptic Gospels and Apoc.; while in others, such as the Pauline Epp., there is a much closer resemblance between all types of text. This suggests one of the most important methods to be followed in investigating the OL Bible that, namely, of treating each group of books separately.” 13 Eugene Ulrich, "The Characteristics and Limitations of the Old Latin Translation of the Septuagint," in La Septuaginta En La Investigación Contemporánea (V Congreso De La Ioscs) ed. Natalio Fernández Marcos, 67-80. (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones, 1985). 14 Ulrich, “The Characteristics and Limitations”, 68. 15 Ulrich, “The Characteristics and Limitations”, 68. 16 Ulrich, “The Characteristics and Limitations”, 68. 17 Roger Gryson, Esaias, vol. 12 of Vetus Latina Die Reste Der Altlateinischen Bibel (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1987), 10. 18 Gryson, Esaias, 12.
6
edition somehow obscures the fact that it is really just the Vulgate with a lightly
extended apparatus, necessarily limited by the scarcity of extant witnesses.
The paucity of evidence for most books of the older Latin version of the Jewish
Greek Bible is not reflected in every book of this corpus. Based on his own
testimony, it would seem that Jerome did not revise certain books of the Latin
Jewish Greek Bible. The form of these books – Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of
Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees – as found in the Vulgate (manuscript) tradition is
thus believed to be representative of the older Latin textual tradition(s) in these
books. The inclusion of the Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach and 1 and 2
Maccabees within the Vulgate has meant that the older textual tradition of these
books has been well preserved when compared with those books where the older
textual tradition was superseded in the Vulgate by a Hieronymian revision.
The lack of manuscript evidence for most books of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible
means that academic investigation of the Latin textual tradition often relies on the
information provided by quotations from patristic sources — such as Cyprian,
Tertullian, Ambrose and Jerome. However, these sources bring with them their
own textual complexities. We cannot ignore the fact that the manuscript traditions
of these patristic sources have been influenced by the same redactional
processes and revisions which have also influenced the manuscript tradition of
the Latin Jewish Greek Bible. We must always be aware that the quotation(s) we
are examining may not be original to the text and that assimilation of internal
biblical quotations to certain textual traditions, particularly that of the Vulgate,
often occurred.
Another issue associated with the use of patristic quotations is the actual way in
which the ancient author interacted with their source text. Osburn provides a
useful summary of the methodological issues associated with the identification
(and use) of patristic citations.19 Based on an “amalgamation of current
understandings in use among text critics and among those studying patristic use
of the biblical text”,20 Osburn establishes several categories for working with
patristic references to the biblical text. In this examination, while all evidence will
19 The technical aspects of this discussion are taken from Carroll D. Osburn, "Methodology in Identifying Patristic Citations in NT Textual Criticism." NovT 47.4 (2005): 313-343. 20 Osburn, “Methodology”, 317.
7
be presented, we will be mostly concerned with citations21 and adaptations22 by
patristic authors. It is to be stressed that this examination is concerned ultimately
with the particular rather than the general citation habits of a patristic witness.
While there are methodological issues associated with the use of patristic
sources it cannot be denied that, when used judiciously, these sources provide
context specific evidence of geographic location and date for a certain textual
tradition. This is evidence that is hardly ever realisable from the extant
manuscript tradition. Due to the paucity of manuscript evidence of the older Latin
textual traditions and also because of their value in establishing context for a
particular textual tradition, judicious use of patristic citations will be made
throughout this examination.
While the need to respect the integrity of a book’s textual tradition is undeniable,
it has led to the unfortunate situation where much detailed and essential work on
the Latin does occur, but in isolation from the whole. In 1972 Fischer noted the
fact that there was no overarching work which summed up the current state of
research for the Old Latin New Testament.23 In 1994 a similar situation in the
Latin Jewish Greek Bible was highlighted by Fernández Marcos who lamented
that “it is still true that studies and bibliography on the Old Latin versions are very
scarce in the field of the Old Testament.”24 This is still the case today for both the
Latin New Testament and the Latin Jewish Greek Bible. While much, maybe
necessary, work has been done on the production of critical editions and
21 Osburn, “Methodology”, 318. “Citation. A Verbally exact quotation, whether it corresponds entirely (for very brief instances) or largely (for longer instances), and whether made from a text or from memory, often having an introduction and always having an explicit or implicit cue to the reader that it is intended as a deliberate citation.” 22 Osburn, “Methodology”, 318. “Adaptation. A quotation from a recognizable text, often without introductory formula, in which the lexical and syntactical structure of the text is preserved and woven unobtrusively into the patristic context, reflecting intention to cite, but which is adapted to the patristic context and/or syntax in less important portions of the text.” What will prove most important for this examination is the preservation of the lexical structure of the text. 23 Bonifatius Fischer, "Das Neue Testament in Lateinischer Sprache," in Die Alten Übersetzungen Des Neuen Testaments: Die Kirchenvärterzitate Und Lektionare; Der Gegenwärrtige Stand Ihrer Erforschung Und Ihre Bedeutung Für Die Griechische Textgeschichte, ed. Kurt Aland (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972), 2-3. "Wenn uns einerseits ein Werk fehlt, das den heutigen Stand der Forschung über das lateinische Neue Testament zusammenfaßt, so sind wir andererseits in der glücklichen Lage, daß uns wesentlich mehr Material zur Verfügung steht in kritischen Ausgaben, die teilweise schon vollendet sind, teilweise erst erscheinen." 24 Fernández Marcos, Scribes and translators, 44.
8
discussions of individual texts25 or select corpora,26 and on new editions of the
Fathers,27 we are still desperately lacking cohesive treatments of both the Latin
Jewish Greek Bible and the Latin New Testament which would provide students
and those new to the discipline a grounding in what has come before.28 The lack
of such rallying points has meant that there has been little opportunity for the
ongoing development of general theories relevant to these fields. Opportunities
for the gathering together of evidence from across multiple sources/books have
also been limited. That this endeavour should be judiciously pursued, whilst
avoiding assumptions about the unity or otherwise of the Latin Jewish Greek
Bible and the Latin New Testament respectively, seems self-evident.
An examination of lexical variation in the Latin Version of the Jewish Greek Bible
encounters the same issues as any text critical study. It should be noted,
however, that a reconstruction of the “oldest” or “original” Latin text is not the aim
of this study. Instead, the primary aim of this study is to highlight variation, or lack
of it, within the Latin text. We will also endeavour to discover contexts for the
variation discussed in an effort to provide insight into the textual history of the
Latin Jewish Greek Bible. The development of sound methodology which
facilitates access to the Latin lexical variation will also be pursued. This
examination will hopefully inform discussion of variation in the Latin Jewish Greek
Bible into the future.
General principles of text criticism apply to our study of lexical variation in the text
of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible. It is likely that both deliberate and accidental
changes will have been made to our texts. These changes may be consistent or
inconsistent and will most likely differ in character from book to book. Metzger 25 The detailed editions of the Vetus Latina produced by the Vetus Latina-Institut located within the walls of the Archabbey of Beuron provide an essential tool for the study of the older Latin textual tradition. See http://www.vetus-latina.de/index.html 26 Recent studies of Latin Biblical corpora include: Philip Burton, The Old Latin Gospels: A Study of Their Texts and Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). Fernández Marcos, Scribes and translators. 27 Fernández Marcos, Scribes and translators, 31. “I do not need to emphasize the relevance of the new evidence coming not only from the critical editions of the Fathers, but especially from the study of the Vetus Latina and the Armenian version.” 28 Those trying to get a handle on the Old Latin must mine the articles on the versions as found in the summaries of the Septuagint (Swete, Jellicoe, Würthwein etc.), must grapple with the brilliant, yet overwhelming, introductions found in the Beuron editions, must become familiar with the work of Sanday, Wordsworth, White and Burkitt, and must hunt through the hundred year old Archiv für Lateinische Lexicographie for articles full of details and information which has otherwise been lost to the academic world.
9
suggests several causes of accidental error.29 Copying errors, due to faulty
eyesight or confusion over similar appearing letters may cause orthographical
variation. Such variation may result in nonsensical readings or in the
unintentional formation of new words.30 It is also important to acknowledge that
accidental change may also produce sensible readings. These readings,
however, are likely to be irregularly attested whereas deliberate change will be
systematically implemented throughout a text. The process of homoeoteleuton or
the impact of haplography may also affect a text.31
Deliberate textual change may be inspired by various factors and may be either
systematic or unsystematic across a book or corpus. The impact of the personal
(and the communal) on any text should not be underestimated. That every
individual is the sum of their experiences must impact on the translation and
preservation of a text. The geographic location, social context, grammatical and
linguistic ability, vocabulary preferences, theological predilection and motivation
for translation / copying of the individual will in some way impact the text, both
overtly and covertly. Some of these tendencies may be reflected in the text via
the selection of vocabulary. The choice of a certain lexical variant may indicate a
scribe’s (or revisor’s) theological tendencies or it may suggest a certain
preference of vocabulary based on the currency of a particular word at a
particular time in a particular place. Both of these possibilities are examples of
deliberate textual change.
When examining a text which is the result of translation, it is important to
acknowledge that the Vorlage of the translation, and its later revisions, will
continue to affect the textual tradition of the daughter version. In the case of the
Latin we must expect that revision to the Septuagint Greek will have occurred, to
one extent or other, throughout the lifetime of the Latin textual tradition. The
influence of other Greek versions may also be felt within the Latin textual
tradition. It is possible that the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus and
29 Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964). 30 Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 187-188. 31 Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 189. Homoeoteleuton and haplography both remove relevant variation from the discussion. The absence of a specific reading from a witness (citation or manuscript) can not be considered as definitive evidence for a certain form of the text.
10
Theodotion, as well as other no longer extant Greek versions, have directly
influenced the Latin textual tradition.
It is important to note that both deliberate and accidental change may be
interwoven within the textual tradition and that the identification of the specific
reason for variation may not always be apparent.
Metzger also notes the possibility that errors can arise from faulty hearing.32 It
would not be unexpected to find such errors in the revisions of Jerome as his use
of notarii, librarii, scriptores and scribae is well attested.33 Metzger asserts that
the introduction of synonyms into a text may be the result of what he calls “errors
of the mind”.34
This study of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible will be limited here to a discussion of
lexical variation apparent in this corpus. The issue of vocabulary variation in the
text of the Latin New Testament has had a long and venerable history. The
identification of the text of Matthew in Codex Bobbiensis (k) with the quotations of
Cyprian, as elucidated by Sanday,35 proved to be a critical moment in the history
of academic research into the Latin New Testament text. From here developed
the suggestion of an “African” or Cyprianic text in contrast to a “European”
(and/or a possibly “Italian”) type of text. The culmination of this research is seen
in Bergren’s A Latin-Greek Index of the Vulgate New Testament where an
Appendix is dedicated to listing the “Latin Lexical Equivalences Characteristic of
“African” and “European” Old Latin Versions of the New Testament”.36 The
unambiguous association of this theory with the Latin New Testament text means
that it should not be assumed as a given in the discussion of lexical variation in
32 Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 190-191. 33 Dennis Brown, Vir Trilinguis: A Study in the Biblical Exegesis of Saint Jerome (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992), 28-30. 34 Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 192-3. 35 W. Sanday, "Relation of K to the Biblical Text of Cyprian in St Matthew." in ed. John Wordsworth, W. Sanday and H. J. White, Portions of the Gospels According to St Mark and St Matthew from the Bobbio Ms. (K), Now Numbered G. Vii. 15 in the National Library at Turin Together with Other Fragments of the Gospels from Six Mss. In the Libraries of St. Gall., Coire, Milan and Berne (Usually Cited as N, O, P, A2, S and T), Old-Latin Biblical Texts, No. II (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886), xliii - lxvii. 36 Theodore A. Bergren and Alfred Schmoller, A Latin-Greek Index of the Vulgate New Testament: Based on Alfred Schmoller's Handkonkordanz Zum Griechishen Neuen Testament : With an Index of Latin Equivalences Characteristic Of "African" and "European" Old Latin Versions of the New Testament, in Resources for Biblical Study No. 26 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991). Appendix, 175– 205.
11
the Latin Jewish Greek Bible. Such a method is demonstrated by York in his
article “Latin Versions of First Esdras” which manages to elucidate a complex and
interesting picture of the Latin versions of First Esdras without reference to the
Latin New Testament.37
One cannot ignore the fact that the Latin Jewish Greek Bible and the Latin New
Testament have been preserved within the same textual and religious traditions.
It is therefore to be expected that evidence of Christian revision(s), textual
corruption across corpora (and/or books), theological tendencies, scribal
preferences and other effects of the textual preservation process will have made
their mark on the books within these collections. While this may seem a
hopelessly complex situation methodologically this does not excuse us from
acknowledging the possibility that these collections of texts (and the books within
these collections) may not have originated from the same context of translation.
This study of lexical variation in the Latin Jewish Greek Bible also differs from the
older research in that it is made possible due to the availability of certain research
tools via an electronic medium. This study would not be possible without access
to the Vetus Latina Database. This subscription-only online database of Old Latin
manuscript readings and citations from the Latin Church Fathers is available from
Brepols, the publisher of the Beuron Old Latin editions.38 This database consists
of an older card system (see Figure 1) which has been converted to digital
images.
37 Harry Clinton York, "The Latin Versions of First Esdras", The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, 26:4 (1910): 253-302. 38 The Vetus Latina Database may be accessed via http://apps.brepolis.net/vld/index.html. This site requires a username and password.
12
Figure 1: A card from the Vetus Latina Database (VLD) (Jeremiah 18:11)
These digital cards (Figure 1) are organised according to biblical book, chapter
and verse. There are several limitations to the database. The first concerns the
inability to search electronically the content of the cards for relevant readings,
including the use of specific vocabulary. Given this limitation one is reliant on
other resources as a means of searching for the desired information. The second
limitation of the database is the sometimes difficult process one must undertake
to identify the author acronym found on a card. Given that this information has
most likely been gathered over many decades it is not surprising that acronyms
and the identification of authors with the supplied reading has changed. That the
cards provided in the Vetus Latina Database Repertorium (See Figure 2) do not
always gloss these or provide guidance to the new provenance is awkward. The
Vetus Latina Database would also benefit from a section (maybe in the
Repertorium) dedicated to a discussion of each manuscript referred to in the
database. When a manuscript reference is given the edition consulted has been
indicated on the card by the author’s last name in brackets. However, no further
information about the manuscript is provided. Sometimes a manuscript is referred
to without author and without its full designation, thus making determination of the
provenance of the reading almost impossible. It should also be noted that several
books in the Vetus Latina Database do not supply any information other than the
reading of the Vulgate. This occurs mainly in those books which have been fully
published in a printed Beuron edition. Despite these shortcomings, the Vetus
Latina Database provides an invaluable access point to the Latin textual
13
traditions of the Jewish Greek Bible without which this study would not have been
able to have been attempted.
Figure 2: Information on PS-AM pae provided by the VLD Repertorium
Both the desktop application VulSearch 4.1.6 by Michael Tweedale39 and the
Perseus Digital Library website40 provide the ability to search the Clementine
version of the Vulgate. 41 This constructed text necessarily forms the basis of this
discussion as it is the only accessible electronically indexed version. This
discussion of vocabulary within and across books would not have been able to
occur without such a searchable edition. However, we must remember that the
Clementine Vulgate is a reconstructed text (albeit from a rather homogenous
textual tradition) and use due caution when referring to readings from this text.
Other useful online tools include the Index of Quotations and Allusions in Early
39 Home page of the Clementine Vulgate Project http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/ 40 Home page of the Perseus Digital Library http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/ 41 According to the VulSearch website “There is a single, definitive Clementine text, namely the Editio Typica published by the Typographus Vaticanus in 1598 under the title "Biblia Sacra Vulgatæ editionis, Sixti V Pontificis Maximi jussu recognita et edita". However, the text here has necessarily been derived from later sources, principally that edited by A. Colunga and L. Turrado (La Editorial Católica, Madrid, 1946). For dubious readings, the editions of C. Vercellone (Typis S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, Rome, 1861) and M. Hetzenauer (Pustet & Co, 1914) were also consulted”. The provenance of the Vulgate text available from the Perseus Digital Library is not so well attested: “Jerome. Vulgate Bible. Bible Foundation and On-Line Book Initiative. ftp.std.com/obi/Religion/Vulgate”. The VulSearch application is therefore the preferred reference tool.
14
Christian Literature (biblindex)42 and a website dedicated to St Augustine
sponsored by the Nuova Biblioteca Agostiniana and Citta’ Nuova Editrice. 43
As mentioned in relation to the Vetus Latina Database, the Vetus Latina Institute
in Beuron has been responsible for the publication of the older Latin version(s) of
the New Testament and Jewish Greek Bible.44 These magnificently detailed
editions provide an invaluable tool with which to access the Latin text. Not all
volumes, however, are yet complete and local access to the editions is limited.45
Frequent use has also been made of Hatch and Redpath’s concordance to the
Septuagint46 and the New Testament concordance of Moulton and Geden.47
Access to the Greek textual traditions has been facilitated by the editions of the
Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Use has also been made of Field’s
edition of the extant references to the text of the Hexapla.48 Definition of
vocabulary has been provided by the dictionaries of Lewis and Short (Latin)49
and Liddell and Scott (Greek),50 unless stated otherwise. Access to these
dictionaries has been via both the Perseus Digital Library and the printed
oted
editions.
There are several reasons why we may have lexical diversity in the Latin text.
Systematic revision of the text, akin to the revisions of Jerome, may have led to
parallel texts which witness variation in the textual tradition. It should be n
that, depending on the book being examined, there may also be multiple
42 Homepage for Biblindex http://www.biblindex.mom.fr/. This project is under the aegis of the Institut des Sources Chrétiennes and supported by ANR (the French Research Agency). 43 Homepage of the Sant’ Agostino website http://www.augustinus.it/. See also the Internet Archive (https://archive.org/), The Tertullian Project (http://www.tertullian.org/), Patristica.net http://patristica.net/, Kata Biblon http://en.katabiblon.com etc. 44 Homepage of the Vetus Latina Institute http://www.vetus-latina.de 45 The published Beuron volumes of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible currently include: Genesis; Ruth (introduction only?); Ezra to 5:7; Judith to 4:17; Esther; Canticum Canticorum (introduction only?); Sapientia Solomonis; Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) to 24:47; and Isaiah. see http://www.vetus-latina.de/en/edition_vetus_latina/vetus_latina_band.html?band=122 for full details 46 Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books), 2 volumes (Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1975). 47 W.F. Moulton, A. S. Geden, and H. K. Moulton, A Concordance to the Greek Testament, According to the Texts of Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf and the English Revisers, 4th edition (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975). 48 Frederick Field, ed. Origenis Hexaplorum Quae Supersunt Sive Veterum Interpretum Graecum in Totum Vetus Testamenta Fragmenta, 2 volumes. (Olms: Hildesheim, 1875 (1964)). 49 Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, E. A. Andrews, and William Freund, eds., A Latin Dictionary: Founded on Andrews' Edition of Freund's Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951). 50 Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961).
15
Hieronymian revisions to contend with. This is best demonstrated in Psalms
where we have three possible Hieronymian editions — the Psalterium Romanum,
the Gallican Psalter and the Psalterium secundum Hebraeos. That such r
have left their mark on the extant manuscripts and patristic texts is to be
expected. Yet, we should also not limit our expectation of revision to the workings
of Jerome. It is possible that revision of the older Latin
evisions
textual tradition occurred
to
f
nts
ek Bible
on.
more
is
ploration of this issue cannot be pursed here within
the limits of this thesis.51
across all or some books prior to the work of Jerome.
Deliberate but less systematic revisions of the Jewish Greek Bible text are also
be expected. As mentioned above a scribe’s preference for certain words may
reflect his own sensibilities or may also be an interpretative action by the Latin
translator / revisor in an effort to convey better the meaning of the text to his
audience. Intra-lingual variation may also be motivated by factors independent o
the initial translation such as changes in textual function e.g. the role of citation
versus the role of a Psalter manuscript used in worship. Theological argume
can also play out in the interpretation of one word. The possibility that such
theological sensibilities have affected the Latin text of the Jewish Gre
cannot be ignored. Accidental scribal error should also be expected.
Lastly, one cannot ignore the possibility that variation in the Latin textual tradition
may have been the result of assimilation to an underlying Greek textual traditi
In order to determine whether this was the case we must examine the extant
texts of the Septuagint and other Greek versions in an effort to understand
fully their effect on the Latin. We must also recognise that while the Latin
translation has its foundation in a Greek text it is not necessarily the case that this
text is still extant. That the Hebrew tradition of certain books of the Jewish Greek
Bible may have directly influenced the text of the Latin is also possible. While th
is acknowledged a fuller ex
51 The possible association of the Latin text with the Hebrew, or a Hebraised Greek, has been suggested by Fernández Marcos in relation to the Book of I Kings. See Fernández Marcos, Scribes and Translators, 87.
16
Introducing Adinventio
The initial focus of this study is the use of adinventio and its lexical equivalents in
the Latin Jewish Greek Bible. The selection of adinventio was partly accidental,
when adinventio came to prominence via two unconnected sources.
In his brief introduction to Appendix II of the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo
James suggests the affiliation of the third / fourth century text of the Biblical
Antiquities with the older textual tradition of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible.52
James goes on to list the “more remarkable Latin words” found in the Biblical
Antiquities.53 James does not inform us further regarding these words nor the
“remarkable” traits associated with the 263 words contained in his list. Leopold
Cohn in his seminal article on the Biblical Antiquities also asserts the close
relationship of the Biblical Antiquities with the pre-Hieronymian Bible, noting that
the “translator of Pseudo-Philo agrees entirely with the old Latin versions of the
Old Testament in his vocabulary.”54 Cohn goes on to list “vulgar expressions and
peculiar neologisms” common to the two textual traditions but he too does not
inform us further about many of the items he lists.55
The lists of James and Cohn provide a useful tool for determining a set of
vocabulary which is most likely to be associated with an older Latin textual
tradition in the Jewish Greek Bible. By omitting those words which also occur in
the Latin New Testament we are able to delimit a set of interesting vocabulary
specific to the study of the whole textual tradition of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible
(52 words). The selection of adinventio from this final list was due to its presence
in Cohn’s discussion of the Biblical Antiquities and its significant attestation (see
Figure 5) across the books of the Clementine Jewish Greek Bible, thus allowing
for the vagaries of preservation characteristic of the older Latin textual tradition.
52 M. R. James, The Biblical Antiquities of Philo. Now First Translated from the Old Latin Version (New York: SPCK, 1917), 269. 53 James, The Biblical Antiquities of Philo, 269 54 Leopold Cohn, "An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria", The Jewish Quarterly Review 10:2 (1898), 329. See also page 328: “The Latin translation of Pseudo-Philo corresponds so closely in respect of language with that of the old Latin translations of the Bible that it must have been composed at the same time as they”. 55 Cohn, "An Apocryphal Work”, 329.
17
Independently from the Biblical Antiquities, adinventio also came to prominence
via the text of Augustine’s Enarrations on Psalms (Enarrat. Ps.). In his discussion
of Ps 105:39 Augustine draws attention to the use of adinventio in association
with the Greek e0pith/deuma and suggests other Latin lexical equivalents for
adinventio / e0pith/deuma (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: Adinventio and e0pith/deuma in Enarrat. Ps. 105:39
Et fornicati sunt in adinuentionibus suis. Has dicit adinuentiones, quas Graeci e0pithdeu/mata appellant: nam hoc uerbum est in codicibus graecis et hoc loco, et superius, ubi dictum est, Irritaverunt eum in adinventionibus suis;56 cum et illic et hic eas dicat adinuentiones, in quibus alios imitati sunt. Non itaque sic dictas arbitremur adinuentiones, quasi ab ipsis institutas, nullo in aliis praecedente quod imitarentur exemplo. Unde alii interpretes nostri non adinuentiones, sed studia; alii vero affectiones, vel affectationes, alii voluptates dicere maluerunt: et iidem ipsi qui dixerunt adinuentiones, alio loco studia posuerunt. Hoc commemorare volui, ne quaestionem faceret nomen adinuentionis in ea re, quam non a seipsis excogitaverunt, sed alios imitati sunt.
By inventions are meant what the Greeks call e0pithdeu/mata: for this word doth occur in the Greek copies both in this and a former passage, where it is said, “They provoked Him to anger with their own inventions;” “inventions” in both instances signifying what they had initiated others in. Let no man therefore suppose inventions to mean what they had of themselves instituted, without any example before them to imitate. Whence other translators in the Latin tongue have preferred pursuits, affections, imitations, pleasures, to inventions: and the very same who here write inventions, have elsewhere written pursuits. I chose to mention this, lest the word inventions, applied to what they had not invented, but imitated from others, might raise a difficulty.57
The need for such a passage as this seems to suggest that the use of adinventio
was problematic for some of Augustine’s audience and possibly even for
Augustine himself. In this passage Augustine limits the meaning of adinventio to
the “imitation” of others, thus undermining the implied uniqueness, newness or
inspiration associated with its usual meaning of “invention”. That Augustine is
aware of various alternatives to adinventio is suggested by his listing of studia,
affectiones, affectationes and voluptates. Augustine draws particular attention to
56 See Psalm 105:29 57 Augustine, Expositions on the Book of Psalms. By Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, translated, edited, with brief annotations, and condensed from the six volumes of the Oxford translation, Series I, volume 8 of Early Church Fathers: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co, 1886) (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.html).
18
the use of studia and suggests that we may find this word and adinventio
interchangeably within the same text. Both Rahlfs and Capelle draw attention to
Augustine’s listing of these textual variants.58
The most surprising aspect of Augustine’s passage on adinventio is the
association of this term (and the other Latin lexical equivalents) with the Greek
e0pith/deuma. According to Liddell and Scott e0pith/deuma may be translated as “–
pursuit, business, custom” or “– habit of life: (pl.), ways of living”. There would not
seem to be much translational equivalence between the definition of this term
and that of adinventio “– an invention”. The situation becomes even more
confused when the definition of Augustine’s lexical equivalents is explored (see
Figure 4).
Augustine’s list of Latin vocabulary would not seem to provide the best translation
of e0pith/deuma, nor do they provide the best gloss of each other. While elements
of each Latin word may be reflected in those of another (eg. the “–affection” of
affectio with the “– desire for pleasure” of voluptas), these do not seem to be
natural associations. It is hoped that this study will help to determine whether we
do actually find variation in vocabulary as posited by Augustine and, if so,
whether an understanding of its use in the Latin Jewish Greek Bible will help to
further elucidate this verse.
58 Alfred Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, volume X of Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. ed. Alfred Rahlfs (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 46. Paul Capelle, Texte Du Psautier, 153 & 126.
19
Figure 4: Adinventio and its lexical equivalents from Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 105:39
Vocabulary Definition (from Lewis & Short)
adinventio I. an invention, Vulg.
affectatio I. a striving after something (in a good or bad sense; for the most part only in post-Aug. prose). I. In gen.: …investigation II. Esp., in rhetoric, a striving to give a certain character or quality to discourse without possessing the ability to do it, also an inordinate desire to say something striking, affectation, conceit:
affectio I. The relation to or disposition toward a thing produced in a person by some influence (in this and the two foll. signif. almost peculiar to the philos. lang. of Cic.): II. A. A change in the state or condition of body or mind, a state or frame of mind, feeling (only transient, while habitus is lasting): … In Gellius = adfectus, as transl. of the Gr. pa/qov B. A permanent state of mind, a frame of mind, a state of feeling, Gr. dia/qesiv: — Also of body, as anal. to the mind, a fixed, permanent constitution: — And metaph. of the stars, their position in respect to one another: C. Esp., a favourable disposition toward any one, love, affection, good-will (post-Aug. prose): — Concr., the loved object: adfectiones, children, D. In the Lat. of the Pandects, ability of willing, will, volition, inclination
studium I. a busying one’s self about or application to a thing: assiduity, zeal, eagerness, fondness, inclination, desire, exertion, endeavour, study: I. In gen A. Absol.,… with zeal, from inclination, …In late Lat. studio often means simply voluntarily, on purpose, intentionally:
a. With gen.:… vitae studium, way of life,… b. With ad (usu. to avoid multiplying genitives):…
II. In partic. A. Zeal for any one; goodwill, affection, attachment, devotion, favour, kindness, etc. … party spirit, partisanship … party efforts, B. Application to learning or studying, study; in the plur., studies 2. Transf. a. The fruits of study, works (post-class.): b. A place for study, a study, school (late Lat.):
voluptas I.gen. plur. voluptatum and -tium), f. Gr. e1lpw, to hope; root elp-; cf. volo, satisfaction, enjoyment, pleasure, delight (whether sensual or spiritual; syn. oblectamentum). I. Lit A. In gen. … master of the revels, B. Personified, Voluptas, as a deity II. Transf. A. Of persons, as a term of endearment: “mea voluptas,”my joy, my charmer, B. Voluptates, sports, shows, spectacles, given to the people, C. The desire for pleasure, bent, passion:
20
It must again be highlighted that our focus on adinventio is due to its well attested
presence in the books of the Clementine Vulgate version of the Jewish Greek
Bible as well as the suggestion that it may have some association with the older
textual tradition of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible. Adinventio is a way into this
discussion of variation and no assumptions should be made regarding its
presence in the Latin Jewish Greek Bible.
The methodology for pursuing an examination of variation in the Latin textual
tradition of the Jewish Greek Bible is necessarily convoluted, given the limitations
of our resources. Our discussion of adinventio and its Latin lexical variants begins
with a search for examples of adinventio in the Clementine Vulgate. A search of
the Clementine text using VulSearch provides us with a list of verses which
contain adinventio (see Figure 5). This list is an essential guide to the initial
investigation of adinventio in the Latin text.
In an effort to identify those readings in the Latin Jewish Greek Bible which are
relevant to this conversation, but do not attest adinventio in the Vulgate text, we
must also examine the Latin translations of those verses of the Jewish Greek
Bible which contain e0pith/deuma. These verses may be identified using a
concordance to the Greek Septuagint text (Figure 6). We must also ensure that
we are aware of the Greek underlying adinventio in those verses listed in Figure
5, as this may not always be e0pith/deuma.
This examination will argue that the Latin textual tradition of those verses which
attest adinventio and those verses which are based on e0pith/deuma provides a
pathway into the Latin lexical variation of the Jewish Greek Bible, as suggested
by Augustine.
21
Figure 5: Adinventio in the text of the Vulgate (from VulSearch 4.1.6)
Deuteronomy 28:20
Judges 2:19
1 Chronicles 16:8
Job 20:18
Psalms 27:4, 76:13, 80:13, 98:8, 105:29, 105:39
Wisdom of Solomon 14:12
Wisdom of Sirach 35:12, 40:2
Isaiah 3:8, 3:10, 12:4
Jeremiah 17:10, 32:19
Ezekiel 14:22, 14:23, 24:14, 36:19
Hosea 7:2, 9:15, 12:2
Micah 3:4
Zephaniah 3:11
Zechariah 1:6
2 Esdras 6:5, 15:48, 16:55, 16:6559
The Thesaurus linguae Latinae60 and Rönsch also provide some further details
regarding the use of adinventio outside the Vulgate textual tradition. 61 In addition
to the verses listed in Figure 5 both the Thesaurus linguae Latinae and Rönsch
note the use of adinventio outside the Vulgate text in 1 Kingdoms (1 Samuel) 2:3
and Wisdom of Solomon 9:14. The Thesaurus linguae Latinae also notes the
independent use of adinventio in Psalm 13:1 and Leviticus 18:3. Rönsch draws
attention to the independent use of adinventio in Micah 2:7 and 2:9.
From the entries on adinventio in both the Thesaurus linguae Latinae and
Rönsch it is already apparent that adinventio stands as a variant reading to the
Vulgate text in some textual traditions of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible. We must
therefore expect this study will reveal further examples of this variation.
59 The text of 2 Esdras is not included in the VulSearch text. This list has been supplemented from the Perseus Digital Library. Due to the complexity of the relationship of the texts of Esdras / Ezra in the Latin textual tradition the examples from 2 Esdras have not been included in this discussion. 60 Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin and Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Leipzig: Teubner, Munich: Saur, Berlin: de Gruyter, 1900). Volume I: A – Amyzon. 688-689. 61 Hermann Rönsch, Itala und Vulgata (Marburg: Elwert, 1875).
22
Figure 6: e0pith/deuma in the Septuagint text according to Hatch and Redpath
Leviticus 18:3 (x2)
Deuteronomy 28:20
Judges 2:19
1 Kingdoms (1 Samuel) 2:3, 25:3
3 Kingdoms (1 Kings) 15:12
1 Chronicles 16:8
Nehemiah 9:35
Judith 10:8, 11:6, 13:5
Job 14 :16
Psalms 9:11, 13(14):1, 27(28):4, 76(77):12,
80(81):12, 98(99):8, 105(106):29,
105(106):39
Proverbs 20:11
Hosea 9:15, 12:2(3)
Micah 2:7, 2:9, 3:4, 7:13
Zephaniah 3:11
Zechariah 1:4. 1:6
Jeremiah 4:4, 4:18, 7:3, 7:5, 11:18, 17:10,
18:11, 23:2, 23:22, 25:5, 33(26):3,
42(35):15
Ezekiel 6:9 (x2), 8:15, 14:6, 20:7, 20:8,
20:18, 20:39, 20:43, 20:44, 21:24(29),
36:31
This thesis will explore the implications of lexical variation in the text of the Latin
Jewish Greek Bible, as suggested by Augustine’s discussion of Ps 105:39.
Initially the focus will be on the discussion of adinventio and its Latin lexical
equivalents. In an effort to respect the textual traditions of individual Books of the
Jewish Greek Bible the discussion of adinventio and its Latin lexical variants has
been divided into Chapters based on loose associations of texts. The
examination of adinventio and its Latin lexical equivalents begins in Chapter Two
where we will explore the variation associated with adinventio and e0pith/deuma in
the text of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. In Chapter Three we will
undertake a similar examination of adinventio and e0pith/deuma in the text of
Psalms. Chapter Four will conclude our examination of adinventio and
e0pith/deuma by exploring those examples associated with these readings in other
books of the Jewish Greek Bible. In Chapter Five we move away from a specific
discussion of adinventio and consider the likelihood that certain books within the
Vulgate Latin Jewish Greek Bible attest an older textual tradition. An examination
of vocabulary peculiar to these books will help identify lexical variation in other
books of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible. Finally, in Chapter Six we will consider the
variation apparent within the works of Augustine and Jerome and demonstrate
that a study of Latin lexical equivalents can also inform the wider discussion of
the Latin Jewish Greek Bible.
23
24
Chapter Two: An Examination of Adinventio and its
Lexical Equivalents in the Latin Text of Jeremiah, Ezekiel
and the Minor Prophets
Preliminaries
This chapter is a detailed discussion of adinventio and its lexical equivalents in
the Latin textual traditions of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. Divided
into three Parts, this chapter will demonstrate the variation apparent in the Latin
textual tradition of each book (or in the case of the Minor Prophets each
collection of books) encountered. We will also show that this variation is
multifaceted and demonstrates significantly different characteristics in each book.
Reference to the underlying Greek text(s) will be made in an effort to determine
whether this variation is due to influence from the Vorlage or is an intra-Latin
phenomenon.
Each Part is divided into sections (A, B, C) and within these sections are
examples (numbered sequentially throughout the chapter) the content of which is
directly related to the section title. These examples will highlight the inter-
relationship of the witnesses of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible but will also draw
attention to the variation which is found consistently throughout this version. By
not referring to the paradigm of African versus European inspired by the Latin
Gospel tradition we allow the evidence from the Jewish Greek Bible to be
evaluated on its own merits free from ecclesiocentric assumptions.
Each example will begin with the relevant passage from the Vulgate text,1
followed by a table outlining the textual variation from the Vetus Latina Database.
A discussion of the verse will then follow.
1 The Vulgate text presented throughout this thesis is taken from Michael Hetzenauer, Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis, Ex Ipsis Exemplaribus Vaticanis Inter Se Collatis Critice (Oeniponte: Librariae Academicae Wagnerianae, 1906). This is the edition of the Vulgate included in the Vetus Latina Database.
25
Part I: Adinventio in the Text of Jeremiah
A. Adinventio in the Vulgate text of Jeremiah
According to VulSearch 4, adinventio is only to be found in the Vulgate text of
Jeremiah 17:10 and Jeremiah 32:19 (= Septuagint [LXX] Jeremiah 39:19).
Example 1: Jeremiah 17:10
Ego Dominus scrutans cor, et probans renes: qui do unicuique juxta viam suam, et juxta fructum adinventionum suarum.
Table 1: Adinventio in Jeremiah 17:10
Source Text
1 Vulgate qui do unicuique juxta viam suam, et iuxta fructum adinventionum suarum.
2 Jerome Comm. Jer. 3.74.1 qui do unicuique iuxta viam et iuxta fructum adinventionum suarum.
3 Jerome, Comm. Jer. 3.74.1 LXX: …et cetera similiter
4 Mozarabic Missal (= Missale Moz.)
qui do unicuique juxta viam suam, et iuxta fructum adinventionum suarum.
5 Jerome, Reg. Pachom. 128.10 ut reddam unicuique iuxta vias suas et iuxta fructum adinventionum eius
6 Jerome, Comm. Jer. 3.74.5 (reddit M p.c)
…et reddet unicuique iuxta opera sua.
7 Jerome, Comm. Jer. 3.74.2 (reddet P)
reddit unicuique secundum opera sua.
8 Augustine, Faust. 13.11 ut dem unicuique secundum viam eius et secundum fructum studiorum eius
9 Pseudo-Augustine, Spec. 9 ut dem unicuique secundum vias eius et secundum fructum studiorum eius.
10 Pseudo-Vigilius of Thapsus, Varim. 1.40
ut dem unicuique secundum vias eius et secundum fructum studiorum eius
11 Codex Sangallensis 912 (= Cod. Sangall.)
…Cuique secundum vias eius et secundum fructum cogitationum eorum reddere eius.
12 Ziegler, Ieremias.2 kata\ ta\v o9dou\v au0tou~ au0tou~ kai\ kata\ tou\v karpou\v tw~n e0pithdeuma/twn au0tou~.
13 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, lac.
2 Unless otherwise stated, all references to “Ziegler” in our discussion of Jeremiah refer to Joseph Ziegler, Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae, vol. XV of Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, ed. Joseph Ziegler (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976).
26
Discussion of Example 1: Jeremiah 17:10
1.1 Already it is apparent from Table 1 that there is variation present in the Latin
text of Jeremiah. In the Vulgate text (Table 1, reading 1 [T1:1]) and in Jerome’s
Commentary on Jeremiah [= Jerome, Comm. Jer.](T1:2 and T1:3) we find
adinventionum (“- an invention”). However, in the near contemporary texts of
Augustine’s Contra Faustum Manichaeum [= Augustine, Faust.] (T1:8), Pseudo-
Augustine’s Liber de divinis scripturis sive Speculum [= Pseudo-Augustine, Spec.
(1:9)], and the slightly later Contra Varimadum (Marivadum) Arianum of Pseudo-
Vigilius of Thapsus [= Pseudo-Vigilius of Thapsus, Varim.] (1:10), we find
studiorum (“-application, assiduity, zeal, eagerness, fondness, inclination, desire,
exertion, endeavour, study; vitae studium, way of life, etc.”). In the Codex
Sangallensia [= Cod. Sangall.], the one extant Old Latin manuscript, we find
cogitationum (“- a thinking, consideration; thought, reflection, meditation; a
resolution, design, plan”)(T1:11). The reason for the variation in Jeremiah 17:10
is not obvious. That this variation concerns adinventio is clear.
Another notable feature of the lexical variation found in Jeremiah 17:10 is the
fact that the variation highlighted is interchangeable within the various
witnesses. It is proposed that this “slot variation” is characteristic of the Latin
textual tradition. The modification of these specific elements within a verse
must be the result of deliberate emendation by a reviser or copier. That we
find three Latin lexical variants which would seem to have resulted from such
a process of revision means that in all probability more than one reviser/editor
has pursued this same philosophy of emendation.3
3 It is also possible, but unlikely, that one reviser has introduced all this diversity by revising inconsistently.
27
1.2 It is possible that the Greek text of Jeremiah 17:10 may explain the
variation apparent in the Latin text. The Greek text(s) of Jeremiah may be
referenced by consulting Joseph Ziegler’s edition of Ieremias, Baruch, Threni,
Epistula Ieremiae4 and Frederick Field’s Origenis Hexaplorum5. According to
Ziegler and Field, there are no significant Greek variants relevant to this
discussion of Jeremiah 17:10 and only e0pithdeuma/twn is attested.6 We are
therefore left with a three-pronged Latin tradition, made up of adinventio,
studium and cogitatio, which is not supported by any extant Greek evidence.
As always, of course, we must allow that other Greeks texts which could have
influenced our Latin, or been the vorlage of it, did exist but are now lost totally
from view. This is especially so when one considers the totally piecemeal way
in which evidence of the three Jewish Greek versions has come down to us.
The variation apparent in Jeremiah 17:10 does not recall the clear African /
European dichotomy apparent in the older textual tradition of the Latin Gospels.
While one may question whether there really is a threepronged tradition
(unassociated with Jerome) in this verse the fact that Jerome’s LXX text attests
adinventio means that we cannot ignore the possibility that adinventio does here
represent an older Latin textual tradition.
4 Ziegler, Ieremias. 5 Frederick Field, Origenis Hexaplorum Quae Supersunt Sive Veterum Interpretum Graecum in Totum Vetus Testamenta Fragmenta. 2 vols (Hildesheim: Olms, 1964 (1875)). 6 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 617.
28
Example 2: Jeremiah 32:19
Magnus consilio, et incomprehensibilis cogitatu: cuius oculi aperti sunt super omnes vias filiorum Adam, ut reddas unicuique secundum vias suas, et secundum fructum adinventionum eius.
Table 2: Adinventio in Jeremiah 32:19
Source Text
1
Vulgate
Jerome, Comm. Jer. 6.37 (2)
Jerome, Comm. Jer. 6.37 (10)
Gregory the Great, Moral. 21.9
ut reddas unicuique secundum vias suas, et secundum fructum adinventionum eius.
2 Ziegler, Ieremias, 370 (Text) …dou~nai e(ka/tw| kata\ th\n o(do\n au)tou~.
3 Ziegler, Ieremias, 370 (Apparatus)
dou~nai e(ka/tw| kata\ th\n o(do\n au)tou~.] q’ + (٭ O) kai kata touv karpouv twn epithdeumatwn autou O–233 L’ Arm = MT et 17:10 || q’ + ٭ kai kata touv karpouv twn epithdeumatwn autou Q 86 (sub oi g’; sine ٭).7
4 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 6658
O’ kata\ th\n o(do\n au)tou, (indicated by an asterisk) Q. kai\ kata\ tou\v karpou\v tw~n e0pithdeuma/twn
Discussion of Example 2: Jeremiah 32:19
2.1 The presence of adinventionum in the Vulgate text of Jeremiah 32:19
(T2:1) is complicated by the fact that the underlying e0pithdeuma/twn of this
verse is peculiar to the text of Theodotion (T2:3 and T2:4) rather than the LXX
Greek text (T2:3). The apparatus of Ziegler’s edition notes an addition to the
end of this verse in certain manuscripts and versions. This addition is marked
by the q’ associated with readings from the Greek text of Theodotion.
It is likely that the text of Theodotion is the impetus for Jerome’s addition of et
secundum fructum adinventionum eius to the end of Jeremiah 32:19. As the
later text of Gregory the Great [= Gregory the Great, Moral.] is the only other
7 Ziegler, Ieremias, 370. 8 Unless otherwise indicated references to “Field” in this Chapter refer to Volume II of Field, Origenis Hexaplorum.
29
non-Hieronymian witness to this text it is almost certain that the use of
adinventio is here part of a textual addition which does not pre-date Jerome. 9
Jerome has here introduced adinventio in response to the Greek e0pith/deuma.
The selection of adinventio to render e0pith/deuma in this verse is important as
it tells us that Jerome is comfortable introducing adinventio for e0pith/deuma in a
biblical text where he would seem to have no other readings to inform his
vocabulary selection. Unless Jerome is deliberately introducing archaising
elements into his text, the use of adinventio in this “new” verse certainly
suggests that this word is in more or less common use during Jerome’s
lifetime. Based on the evidence from this verse we may suggest that the use
of adinventio, evidently favoured by Jerome, was current at least during the
late fourth and early fifth centuries if not at other times.
What this usage does not tell us necessarily is whether we can attribute the
introduction of adinventio elsewhere in the Jewish Greek Bible to the hand of
Jerome. We must remember that it is just as likely that Jerome is here influenced
by earlier usage as that he has defined the usage. Even so, we can conclude for
this important example, because of the probable lack of a specific Latin
precedent, that Jerome was at least comfortable using adinventio to translate
e0pith/deuma.
9 The Biblical Antiquities also attests Jeremiah 17:10 in a form very similar to that found in the Vulgate: ut reddam unicuique secundum opera sua et secundum fructus adinventionum suarum. The presence of this reading in the Biblical Antiquities raises several questions. In particular, we must wonder whether the suggestion that the Biblical Antiquities is aligned with the older Latin Tradition (per Cohn and James) is incorrect given its association with the Vulgate text in this verse. Alternatively, we may wonder whether the Biblical Antiquities is attesting an older Latin textual tradition which has only been preserved by Jerome in this verse. See Pseudo-Philo et al., Les Antiquités Bibliques, 2 Volumes, Sources Chrétiennes (Paris Cerf, 1976), III:10.
30
B. Cogitatio and e0pith/deuma in the Vulgate text of Jeremiah
Jeremiah 17:10 and 32:19 are the only verses in the Vulgate version of Jeremiah
which attest adinventio. From the examination of these two verses it seems likely
that the introduction of adinventio was partly the result of Jerome’s influence on
the text of this book. What is also clear from the above two examples is that
adinventio at these points has been introduced as the Latin equivalent of
e0pith/deuma. To understand the situation more fully we must examine other verses
in Jeremiah which contain e0pith/deuma to determine what the Latin equivalents
are at these points. It must be noted that we are only able to pursue this
examination because of the slot-like lexical variation apparent in the Latin textual
tradition.
A list of verses attesting e0pith/deuma in the LXX text of Jeremiah may be compiled
from A concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek versions of the Old
Testament by Hatch and Redpath.10
Figure 1: e0pith/deuma in the LXX text of Jeremiah according to Hatch and Redpath
Chapter and Verse
4:4 11:18 23:22
4:18 17:10 25:5
7:3 18:11 33:3 (= LXX 26:3)
7:5 23:2 42:15 (= LXX 25:15)
Without even looking at the Greek and Latin texts it is apparent from this list in
Hatch and Redpath that the situation is more complicated than one suspects from
our brief examination of Jeremiah 17:10 and 32:19. There are obviously many
more examples of e0pith/deuma in the text of Jeremiah than are suggested by the
use of adinventio in the Vulgate text. Only further examination will elucidate the
variation surrounding adinventio in the text of Jeremiah.
10 Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books). 2 Volumes (Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1975).
31
Example 3: Jeremiah 4:4
Circumcidimini Domino, et auferte praeputia cordium vestrorum, viri Juda, et habitatores Jerusalem: ne forte egrediatur ut ignis indignatio mea, et succendatur, et non sit qui extinguat, propter malitiam cogitationum vestrarum. Table 3: e0pith/deuma and its Latin equivalents in Jeremiah 4:4
Source Text
1 Vulgate et succendatur, et non sit qui extinguat, propter malitiam cogitationum vestrarum.
2 Pseudo-Augustine, Spec. 71 et exardescat, et non erit qui extinguat a facie nequitiae cogitationum vestrarum
3 Jerome, Comm. Jer. 1.70 (1) et succendatur et non sit, qui extinguat propter malitiam cogitationum – sive adinventionum – vestarum
4 Jerome, Comm. Jer. 1.70 (4) …propter malitiam cogitationum sive adinventionum nostrum.
5 Veronese Lectionary (= Cod. Ver.)11
et exardiscat a faciae malitiae et non aeret qui extinguat adinventionem vestrarum.
6
Cyprian, Test. 1.8 Lactantius, Inst. 4.17.8 (et exurat] lac.) Evagrius of Gaul, Alter. 5 (275.60) 3 Zeno of Verona, Tract. Isidore of Seville, Fid. 2.16.3 (525B) (et exurat] et succendatur)
et exurat et non sit qui extinguat. [omit?]
7 Gregory the Great, Reg. pastor. 3.32
et succendatur, et non sit qui extinguat, propter malitiam studiorum vestrorum
8 Ziegler, Ieremias, 167 prosw/pou ponhri/av e0pithdeuma/twn u9mw~n
9 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, lac.
11 Cod. Veron. is an 8th century lectionary from the Kapitelsbibliothek in Verona. This text preserves only Jeremiah 4:3-4:4 (cf. Ziegler, Ieremias, 17 & 19). It may be worth noting that Ziegler in his edition prefers the reading mou (o( qumo/v mou) of Cod. Ver. (LaVer), Or., Cypr., Zeno and Spec to the Greek autou B-S-239-410; sou 567 in Jeremiah 4:4. This is the only other place that Ziegler attests LaVer (cf. Ziegler, Ieremias, 166-167)
32
Discussion of Example 3: Jeremiah 4:4
3.1 Jeremiah 4:4 is the first verse in Jeremiah to attest e0pith/deuma. There are no
variants associated with the e0pithdeuma/twn of the LXX Greek of Jeremiah 4:4
(T3:8).
3.2 Cogitationum for e0pithdeuma/twn is found in the Vulgate text of Jeremiah 4:4.
It is surprising that we find cogitatio in the Vulgate text, given the presence of
adinventio for e0pith/deuma in Jeremiah 17:10 and 32:19. We may suggest that the
cogitatio of the Vulgate is indicative of a different underlying text, whether Greek
or Hebrew. However, the lack of Greek variants in this verse does not provide
any supporting evidence for this suggestion.12
3.2 In Jeremiah 4:4 we are first introduced to Jerome’s inclusion of variant Latin
readings within the text of his commentaries. In his Commentary on Jeremiah [=
Jerome, Comm. Jer.](T3:3 and T3:4) Jerome indicates his knowledge of an
alternate reading by the use of sive. In both examples from Jerome, Comm. Jer.
1.70 the use of sive suggests that adinventionum may be found elsewhere in the
Latin textual tradition of Jeremiah 4:4. It is unclear from where Jerome has
gathered these variants. It is even possible that Jerome is himself translating the
LXX text. However, as adinventio is also witnessed in the older Veronese
Lectionary [= Cod. Ver.] we cannot dismiss the possibility that Jerome is referring
in his commentary to an independent textual tradition within his commentary.
3.3 In Gregory the Great, Reg. pastor. we find the exact text of the Vulgate but
studiorum is substituted for cogitationum (T3:7). There is no additional support for
the reading of studiorum in this verse. This example demonstrates the focused
nature of the slot-like variation apparent within the Latin textual tradition.
In Jeremiah 4:4 we again find a threefold Latin tradition. However, there is little to
associate two (cogitatio and studium) of these readings with the older Latin
textual tradition. It is significant, however, that we find adinventio attested in the 12 The Jerusalem Bible supports the LXX e0pith/deuma. Jeremiah 4:4: “… in return for the wickedness of your deeds”, 1075.
33
older Latin manuscript tradition. For the first time adinventio is not associated
exclusively with the text of Jerome.
3.4 It is possible that some exemplars may omit the last part of the verse. Our
oldest witness, Cyprian’s Ad Quirinum testimonia adversus Judaeos [= Cyprian,
Test.] supported by several derivative texts,13 omits the final phrase containing
our Latin variant of e0pith/deuma and the preceding phrase represented by et
succendatur in the Vulgate and et exardiscat in Pseudo-Augustine, Spec. and the
Cod. Ver. These omissions are also supported by Isidore of Seville’s De fide
catholica ex Veteri et Novo Testamento contra Iudaeos ad Florentinam sororem
[= Isidore of Seville, Fid.] (T3:6). De Bruyne draws attention to Cyprian’s
tendency to attest a shorter text but is unable to determine whether these texts
have been deliberately abbreviated by Cyprian or whether the biblical text used
by Cyprian was shorter to begin with.14 Osburn urges caution when dealing with
accurate citations with partial omission. If this omission is “not known to occur
elsewhere in the manuscript tradition, the omission should be considered as a
patristic solecism and the accurate portion accepted as the Father’s text”.15 We
are thus left unable to definitively comment on Cyprian’s text in this verse, but we
can anticipate the value of a more extensive study that engages more frequently
with the citations of Tertullian and Cyprian.
13 The Vetus Latina Database draws attention to the fact that the texts of Lactantius, Divinarum institutionum [= Lactantius, Inst.], Evagrius of Gaul, Altercatio legis inter Simonem Iudaeum et Theophilum Christianum [= Evagrius of Gaul, Alter.] and Zeno, Tractatus Sancti Zenonis Veronensis episcopi (T3:6) all rely on Cyprian, Test. 14 Donatien de Bruyne, "Étude Sur Le Texte Latin De La Sagesse." RBén 41 (1929): 109. “Il y a aussi dans Cy des omissions considérables dont il est parfois difficile de dire avec certitude si Cy a abrege ou si ces parties manquaient dans son exemplaire et, dans le second cas, se posent de nouvelles et plus graves questions: ces parties omises appartiennent-elles à la traduction primitîve, et même appartiennent-elles au modèle grec que le traducteur avait sous les yeux, et enfin sont-elles authentiques dans le grec? Dans l'etat actuel de nos connaissances il n'est pas possible de resoudre toutes ces questions et il sera prudent d'etre un peu conservateur”. 15 Carroll D. Osburn, "Methodology in Identifying Patristic Citations in NT Textual Criticism." NovT 47/4 (2005): 325.
34
Example 4: Jeremiah 4:18
Viae tuae et cogitationes tuae fecerunt haec tibi: ista malitia tua, quia amara, quia tetigit cor tuum. Table 4: e0pith/deuma and it Latin equivalents in Jeremiah 4:18 Source Text
1 Vulgate Viae tuae et cogitationes tuae fecerunt haec tibi:
2 Pope Martin I, Epist.
viae enim tuae et cogitationes tuae fecerunt haec tibi.
3 Ziegler, Ieremias, 169
ai9 o9doi/ sou kai\ ta\ e0pith/deuma sou e0poi/hsan tau=ta/ soi.
4
Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, lac.
Discussion of Example 4: Jeremiah 4:18
4.1 There is a lack of extant Latin evidence for the text of Jeremiah 4:18. In the
Vetus Latina Database our evidence for the LXX e0pith/deuma is limited to the
cogitationes of the Vulgate (T4:1) and Pope Martin I [= Pope Martin I,
Epist.](T4:2). The reliance of Pope Martin I, Epist. on the Vulgate text is
undeniable. It does not seem that we have access to an older (pre-Hieronymian)
Latin textual tradition in this verse.
The use of cogitatio for e0pith/deuma in the Vulgate text again causes us to wonder
whether Jerome is aware of an alternative Vorlage in this verse.16
16 The Jerusalem Bible again supports the LXX e0pith/deuma in this verse. See Jeremiah 4:18: "Your own behavior and actions…”, 1076.
35
Example 5: Jeremiah 23:22
Si stetissent in consilio meo, et nota fecissent verba mea populo meo, avertissem utique eos a via sua mala, et a cogitationibus suis pessimis. Table 5: Cogitatio and e0pith/deuma in Jeremiah 23:22
Source Text
1
Vulgate17 Jerome, Comm. Jer. 4.57.1 (omits a) Augustine, Spec. 20 Eugenius after Victor of Vita, Hist. pers. 2.58
avertissem utique eos a via sua mala, et a cogitationibus suis pessimis
2 Cyprian, Unit. eccl. 11 convertissent eos a malis cogitationibus eorum.
3 Codex Wirceburgensis (= Cod. Wirc.) convertissent eos a malignis cogitationibus eorum.
4 Primasius, Comm. Apoc. 2 utique avertissem eos a malis cogitationibus suis.
5 Autpert Ambrose, Apoc. 3 avertissem eos a pessimus cogitationibus eorum.
6 Pseudo-Isidore of Seville, Adv. Jud. 18.4
avertissem eos a pessimus cogitationibus eorum.
7 Pseudo-Augustine, Spec. 104 avertissem illos a pessimis adinventionibus suis.
8 Ambrose, Fid. Grat. 3.122 (adinventionibus E)
avertissem eos a nequitiis et conventionibus suis
9 Potamius, Epist. Ath. Potamius, Epist. subst. 10
avertissem eos a malis studiis eorum
10
Gregory of Elvira, Fid. 54 Pseudo-Vigilius of Thapsus, Tri. 5.40 Pseudo-Vigilius of Thapsus, Varim. 1.44 (averterem)
avertissem eos ab studiis eorum pessimis.
11 Vigilius of Thapsus, Arian. 2.19 (suis] eorum)
averterent eos a studiis suis pessimis:
12 Ziegler, Ieremias, 266 a@n a0pe/strefon au0tou\v a0po\ tw~n ponhrw~n e0pithdeuma/twn au0tw~n.
13 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, lac.
17 The longer text of the Vulgate reflects the addition note in Ziegler, Ieremias, 266: LXX a)po/ tw~n ponhrw~n e0pithdeuma/twn au0tw~n.
36
Discussion of Example 5: Jeremiah 23:22
5.1 In Jeremiah 23:22 adinventionibus for the LXX e0pithdeuma/twn (T5:12) is
attested in Pseudo-Augustine, Spec. 104 (T5:7) and in a variant reading of
Ambrose, Fid. Grat. 3.122 (T5:8). The presence of adinventionibus in Pseudo-
Augustine, Spec. in Jeremiah 23:22 is unexpected given that we find
cogitationum for e0pithdeuma/twn in this text in Jeremiah 4:4 (T3:2). This reading
of the early 5th century is partially supported by the manuscript tradition of the De
fide ad Gratianum Augustum of Ambrose of Milan [= Ambrose, Fid. Grat.], dated
around 378-380 CE.
5.2 In the Vulgate text of Jeremiah 23:22 (T5:1) we find cogitationibus supported
by Cyprian’s De catholicae ecclesiae unitate [= Cyprian, Unit. eccl.] (T5:2), Codex
Wirceburgensis [= Cod. Wirc.] (T5:3) and several other later witnesses (T:1-7).
That cogitationibus is attested by Cyprian, Unit. eccl. (c. 251/256 CE) and the
older Latin manuscript tradition strongly suggests that this reading does not
originate with Jerome and may be traced back to an older Latin textual tradition.
5.3 We also find studiis in the text of Jeremiah 23:22 (T1:9-11). The reading
of studiis in Potamius Epistula ad Athamasium [= Potamius, Epist. Ath.], dated
after 359 CE, and his later Epistula de substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus
Sancti [= Potamius, Epist. subst] suggests that this reading too may belong to
the older Latin textual tradition.
5.4 Ambrose, Fid. Grat. attests conventionibus (“-a meeting, assembling”) in
allusion to Jeremiah 23:22. This singular reading does not recall any of our
previous Latin lexical equivalents (adinventio, studium, cogitatio) nor the LXX
e0pith/deuma. Its presence here is thus difficult to explain. The reading of
adinventionibus in manuscript E of Ambrose, Fid. Grat. may be an attempt to
correct this seemingly erroneous text. Alternatively, the reading of conventionibus
may be an accidental misreading of adinventionibus, the original reading of which
has been preserved in manuscript E only.
37
5.5 In Jeremiah 23:22 we again find three Latin lexical variants (studium,
cogitatio and adinventio). Surprisingly, the Vulgate reading of cogitatio, in this
verse, may be securely traced back to the older Latin text of Cyprian and Cod.
Wirc. Until this point the reading of cogitatio in the Vulgate text was
associated only with the texts of Jerome. That we here find cogitatio
associated with the older Latin textual tradition may suggest that in other
verses in the Vulgate text of Jeremiah where we find this reading Jerome may
here be inspired by an older Latin textual tradition, rather than by a variant
Greek or Hebrew text. We must still wonder, however, how the reading of
cogitatio ended up in the text of Cyprian and Cod. Wirc. As for Jerome, it may
be suggested that these texts represent a Latin textual tradition which has
been influenced by a now lost Greek or Hebrew Vorlage.
Cogitatio may also be indicative of a particular theological tendency on the part of
the translator or a very early reviser. The use of cogitatio for e0pith/deuma is
certainly not a natural translation. We must also acknowledge, however, that
neither adinventio nor studium are natural translations of e0pith/deuma which is
better translated by opus. It is unclear whether we are here witness to a
predictable tension between thought (cogitatio) and action (adinventio / studium).
In other books of the Jewish Greek Bible cogitatio is associated with logismo/v (“-
counting, calculation; account; reason, argument”).18 According to the
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament logismo/v “is not just general reason
(nou=v). It is reason in its concrete form in the consciousness and worked ou
life as action”.
t in
t
term in
19 As cogitatio is used to translate logismo/v we may suggest tha
“the consciousness and worked out in life as action” referred to by this Greek
term is also implicit in the Latin cogitatio. This definition of cogitatio recalls the
“way of life” associated with studium vitae in Liddell and Scott. This definition of
cogitatio is then not so far from studium and may explain why we find this
association with e0pith/deuma in these readings from Jeremiah. However so, the
18 See also the association between the Vulgate cogitatio and LXX dialogismo/v in Psalm 39:6, 55:6, 91:6, 93:11, 138:20, 145:4. 19 Gerhard Kittel and Geoffrey William Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol IV (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 286.
38
whole tenor of this translation is anything but unsophisticated, even though it is
reasonably literal is shape.
It is also possible that the sense of invention (or adinventio) associated with
excogitatio (“- a thinking out, a contriving, devising, inventing (syn. inventio)”) may
also have played some part in the selection of cogitatio for e0pith/deuma.
The exact reason why cogitatio is used for e0pith/deuma is unclear. It has been
demonstrated, however, that there are several plausible reasons for why we find
cogitiatio in these verses. A different Vorlage, theological considerations and/or
lexical preference may be responsible for the use of cogitatio for e0pith/deuma.
The use of studium in Jeremiah 23:22 may also be traced back to the older
Latin textual tradition of Potamius.
The attestation of adinventio by the fifth century Pseudo-Augustine, Spec. again
suggests that adinventio is a current Latin rendering of e0pith/deuma in this
period.20 The association of adinventio with the fifth century was also suggested
above in relation to Jerome’s use of this term in his addition to Jeremiah 32:19.
The posited use of adinventio to “correct” the text of Ambrose, Fid. Grat. does not
provide any indication whether this reading should be dated before or after the
Hieronymian revisions.
5.6 The continued absence of variant readings within the Greek textual
tradition of Jeremiah does not allow us to determine whether the threefold
variation within the Latin is likely due to internal or external Latin pressures,
such as variant readings from a now lost Greek Vorlage.
20 See the entry on Pseudo-Augustine, Spec. in the Vetus Latina Database Repertorium for discussion of the date and the (revised) character of the biblical text. http://apps.brepolis.net/vld/repertorium/work.cfm?action=fiche&work_id=2420
39
Example 6: Jeremiah 25:5
cum diceret: Revertimini unusquisque a via sua mala, et a pessimis cogitationibus vestris, et habitabitis in terra quam dedit Dominus vobis et patribus vestris, a saeculo et usque in saeculum
Table 6: Cogitatio and e0pith/deuma in Jeremiah 25:5
Source Text
1
Vulgate Jerome, Comm. Jer. 5.7.1 Jerome, Comm. Jer. 5.7.2 (reverteretur / vestris] suis) Augustine, Spec. 20 Liber Comicus Toletanus Teplensis (= Lib. Comic.) Gothic Breviary (et revertatur / vestris] suis) Missale. Moz. Responsoriale Romanum (Res. Rom.)
revertimini unusquisque a via sua mala, et a pessimis cogitationibus vestris,
2 Cyprian, Test. 1.2 (affectionibus B) Lactantius, Inst. 4.11.4
convertatur unusquisque a via sua mala, et a nequissimis adfectationibus vestris:
3 Somnium Neronis 7.2 (inventionibus BM / malis pessimis B
Avertite vos a viis vestris malis, et ab adinventionibus vestris pessimis
4 Ziegler, Ieremias …a0po\ th~v o9dou~ au0tou~ th~v ponhra~v kai\ a0po\ tw~n ponhrw~n e0pithdeuma/twn u9mw~n
5 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, lac.
Discussion of Example 6: Jeremiah 25:5
6.1 While the text of the Somnium Neronis is reflective of Jeremiah 25:5 (T6:3) it
is not a direct citation of the biblical text. However, the appearance of
adinventionibus in the Somnium Neronis deserves further consideration. This text
of uncertain date contains narrative sections which can be traced through
40
Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius back to Josephus.21 That this text used a biblical
text reflecting an older Latin textual tradition has also been established.22 It is
worth considering the possibility that adinventionibus may be Rufinus’ own
translation of Eusebius’ e0pithdeuma/twn, not dissimilar to Jerome’s introduction of
adinventio in Jeremiah 32:19 (T2:1) in response to the presence of e0pith/deuma in
Theodotion (T2:3).
6.2 In Cyprian’s Ad Quirinum [= Cyprian, Test.] and the aligned text of Lactantius’
Divinarum instiutionum [= Lactantius, Inst.] we find adfectationibus (affectionibus)
for the LXX e0pithdeuma/twn. This, along with studium, is one of the Latin lexical
equivalents noted by Augustine in his discussion of Ps 105:39 (see Chapter
One). The presence of adfectatio (affectatio) in Cyprian suggests the antiquity of
this reading of e0pith/deuma.
6.3 In the Vulgate text of Jeremiah 25:5 we again find cogitationibus for the
LXX e0pithdeuma/twn.
21 Zbigniew S. Izydorczyk, The Medieval Gospel of Nicodemus: Texts, Intertexts, and Contexts in Western Europe, in Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies (Tempe: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1997) 61. 22 Izydorczyk, Gospel of Nicodemus, 62.
41
C. Studium and e0pith/deuma in the Vulgate text of Jeremiah
There are several places in the Vulgate text of Jeremiah where studium is
associated with the Greek e0pith/deuma.
Table 7: Studium and e0pith/deuma in the Vulgate and LXX Greek text of Jeremiah
Jeremiah
(Chapter and verse)
Vulgate text
(VulSearch)
LXX (Ziegler’s edition – variant readings in (brackets))
1 7:3 studia e0pithdeu/mata
2 7:5 studia e0pithdeu/mata
3 11:18 studia e0pithdeu/mata
4 18:11 studia e0pithdeu/mata
5 21:12 studiorum lac. (e0pithdeuma/twn Q = Theodotion)
6 21:14 studiorum lac. (e0pithdeuma/ta Q = Aquila & Theodotion)
7 23:2 studiorum e0pithdeu/mata
8 26(33).3 studiorum e0pithdeuma/twn
9 35(42):15 studia e0pith/deuma (pra/gmata 26 46 86’ 233 410 534 544 IrLat)
10 44(51):22 studiorum pragma/twn (e0pithdeuma/twn 86, Syh = Aquila)
The use of studium in Jeremiah can be divided into three rough groups: i)
those readings where studium reflects the LXX e0pith/deuma (T7:1-4, 7, 8); ii)
those readings where studium is a rendering of e0pith/deuma as a variant to the
LXX tradition (T7: (9) & 10); iii) and those places where studium attests
e0pith/deuma as part of an addition to the LXX tradition (T7:5-6).
Studium is associated twice with e0pith/deuma in the Vulgate text of Jeremiah
21: It is notable that the reading of e0pith/deuma, found in the text of Theodotion
in Jeremiah 21:12 and Theodotion and Aquila in Jeremiah 21:14, has inspired
42
studium rather than adinventio.23 This situation is unlike Jeremiah 32:19
where we find adinventio for e0pith/deuma in the text of Theodotion. The
inconsistency demonstrated by Jerome in his translation of the text of
Theodotion is curious and is not easily explained.
Adinventio as a variant of studium in the above readings is rare. Only in
Jeremiah 23:2 do find adinventiones as a Latin lexical equivalent of the
Vulgate studiorum.
23 Jerome in his Commentary on Jeremiah notes the fact that the LXX text of Jeremiah 21:12 and 21:14 does not include studium. Jerome, Comm. Jer. 4,33 (251,20): propter malitiam studiorum vestrorum, in LXX non habetur. Jerome, Comm. Jer. 4,34 (253,10) iuxta fructum studiorum vestrorum, dicit dominus, in LXX non habetur.
43
Example 7: Jeremiah 23:2
Ideo haec dicit Dominus Deus Israel ad pastores qui pascunt populum meum: Vos dispersistis gregem meum, et ejecistis eos, et non visitastis eos: ecce ego visitabo super vos malitiam studiorum vestrorum, ait Dominus.
Table 8: Studium and e0pith/deuma in Jeremiah 23:2
Source24 Text
1
Vulgate Jerome, Comm. Jer. 4.44.1 Liber Comicus Toletanus Teplensis (= Lib. Comic.) Augustine, Spec. 20 Pope Martin I, Epist. 12 Gildas Sapiens, Exc. 82 (dicit Dominus) Missale. Moz. (dicit Dominus) Isidore of Seville, Sent. 3.46.8 (omit. ait Dominus)
ecce ego visitabo super vos malitiam studiorum vestrorum, ait Dominus.25
2 Pseudo-Augustine, Spec. 46 Ecce ego vindico in vos secundum mala studia vestra.
3 Codex Wirceburgensis (= Cod. Wirc.)
Ecce ego vindicavo in vos secundum malignas cogitationes vestras.
4 Rufinus, Greg. Orat. 1.68.2 ecce ego dabo vindictam super vos secundum pessimas adinventiones vestras.
5 Ziegler, Ieremias, 262 kata\ ta\ ponhra\ e0pithdeu/mata u9mw~n.
6 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, lac.
24 The Vetus Latina Database includes Gregory the Great, Reg. pastor. 3.32 (Visitabo super vos juxta fructum studiorum vestrorum) as representing Jeremiah 23:2 but this reading would seem to be more closely aligned with Jeremiah 21:14. 25 This phrase is nearly identical to that added to Jeremiah 21:14 by Theodotion, Aquila and Jerome in the Vulgate text: Et visitabo super vos iuxta fructum studiorum vestrorum, dicit Dominus:
44
Discussion of Example 7: Jeremiah 23:2
7.1 In Jeremiah 23:2 the discovery of studia in Pseudo-Augustine, Spec.
completes the trifecta of variants in this text (T8:2).26 The presence of
cogitationes in Cod. Wirc. (T8:3) recalls the reading of cogitationibus in Cod.
Wirc. at Jeremiah 23:22 (T5:3) and again supports the suggestion that this
reading may be associated with the older Latin textual tradition.
7.2 That Rufinus, in his translation of the orations of Gregory of Nazianzus [=
Rufinus, Greg. Orat.], opts for adinventiones for e0pithdeu/mata (?) is
tantalising (T8:4). It was proposed above, in our discussion of the Somnium
Neronis in Example 6, that Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius may have
influenced the appearance of adinventionibus in this text (T6:3). The
discovery of adinventiones in another translation by Rufinus supports this
theory.
The use of adinventio in the translations of both Rufinus and Jerome again
suggests a contemporary (late fourth - early fifth century) predilection for this
word as a Latin rendering of e0pith/deuma.
D. Summary of Part I
In our examples from Jeremiah we find regular attestation of three Latin
lexical equivalents (adinventio, studium and cogitatio) for e0pith/deuma. These
three items of vocabulary appear, to a greater or lesser degree, in parallel
with each other in the majority of our examples. As there is hardly any
evidence for Greek variation apparent in our examples we are unable to
determine whether this lexical variation is a result of influence from the Greek
Vorlage or is attributable to internal Latin influences.
26 See the presence of adinventionibus for e0pithdeuma/twn in Pseudo-Augustine, Spec. 104 in Jeremiah 23:22 and cogitationum for e0pithdeu/mata in Pseudo-Augustine, Spec. 71 in Jeremiah 4:4. Studiorum, for e0pithdeuma/twn, is also found in Pseudo-Augustine, Spec. 9 in Jeremiah 17:10.
45
In the text of Jeremiah there are several authors from the fourth – fifth century
who attest adinventio for e0pith/deuma. These citations suggest that the use of
adinventio for e0pith/deuma was current during this period. We also find
adinventio in the text of Cod. Ver. in Jeremiah 4:4. The presence of adinventio
in this witness of the older Latin textual tradition suggests that adinventio may
also have been used in an earlier period.
The use of cogitatio for e0pith/deuma in the text of Jeremiah has some
interesting ties with the older Latin textual tradition of Cyprian and Cod. Wirc.
Due to the lack of extant evidence from the Greek versions, we are unable to
determine whether the use of cogitatio was inspired by e0pith/deuma or by a
now lost Greek text.
Studium for e0pith/deuma is found ten times in the Vulgate text of Jeremiah.
When we compare this to the dual attestation of adinventio in the Vulgate text
we may suggest that Jerome demonstrates a decided preference for studium
in this text.
In the Latin textual tradition of Jeremiah we find three Latin lexical equivalents
associated consistently with e0pith/deuma. This threepronged textual tradition
does not support the African / European dichotomy often argued for (or
presupposed!) in the Latin Gospel tradition. Indeed, this examination has
already begun to indicate that variation in the Latin Jewish Greek Bible, while
displaying certain slot-like characteristics, is more complex than has
previously been acknowledged.
46
Part II Adinventio in the text of Ezekiel
It is notable that in Ezekiel adinventio does not occur in manuscripts or
citations outside the text of Jerome. However, the inclusion of adinventio in
Jerome’s Latin LXX text, as opposed to the Vulgate text, of his Commentary
on Ezekiel is quite regular. We are again torn between whether Jerome is
introducing this reading or whether he is indeed preserving older Latin textual
materials. As in Jeremiah, adinventio in Ezekiel is closely aligned with
e0pith/deuma. However, the situation becomes quite complicated as we have
access in Ezekiel to more evidence of diversity in the underlying Greek.
A. Idolum, adinventio and the Greek versions in the text of Ezekiel
In the Vulgate text we find that Jerome prefers to read idolum (“- an image, form;
an idol (in the Church fathers)”) following either the ei01dwlon (“- phantom; image in
the mind, idea; later, image of god, idol”) of the Greek versions (Aquila,
Symmachus and/or Theodotion) or the Hebrew text. In his Commentary on
Ezekiel [= Jerome, Comm. Ezech.](see Table 9), however, Jerome invariably
returns to adinventio in his LXX Latin text. As no other witness attests adinventio
in Ezekiel we are left wondering whether adinventio in Jerome, Comm. Ezech.
represents an older Latin textual tradition or is a direct translation of the LXX by
Jerome.
Table 9: e0pith/deuma, ei01dwlon, idolum and adinventio in Ezekiel
Verse LXX Variant Vulgate
Jerome’s Commentary on
Ezekiel (LXX Lemma)
6:911 e0pithdeuma/twn e0idw/lwn (62(10) = MT)
idola adinventiones
20:7 e0pithdeu/masin ei0dw/loiv (86 = Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus )
idolis adinventionibus
47
Example 8: Ezekiel 20:7 Et dixi ad eos: Unusquisque offensiones oculorum suorum abiiciat, et in idolis Aegypti nolite pollui: ego Dominus Deus vester
Table 10: Idolum and adinventio in Ezekiel 20:7
Source Text
1
Vulgate Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 6.20.7 (188C) Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 6.20.7 (189C) (nequaquam)
Unusquisque offensiones oculorum suorum abiiciat, et in idolis Aegypti nolite pollui:
2 Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 6.20.7 (188C)27
LXX: Unusquisque abominationes oculorum suorum proiciat, et in adinventionibus Aegypti non polluatur:
3 Fragm. Turicense (Fr. Turic.)28 unusquisque abominamenta oculorum suorum proiciat; et in studiis aegypti nolite quoinquinari
4 Priscillian, Tract. 1.16 (15.16) nec in Aegyptiorum (-) studiis polluamur
5
Ziegler, Ezechiel, 17229 toi=v e0pithdeu/masin ] a’ (1. ed.) inquinamentis Hi.; a’ (1. ed.) s’ q’ (oi g’ sec. 86) eidwloiv 86 HI.Lat: cf. 8.
…kai\ e)n toi=v e)pithdeu/masin Ai0gu/ptou mh\ miai/nesqe.
6 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 817
O0. e0n toi=v e0pithdeu/masin. ’A. (juxta ed Imam) in inquinamentis ’A. (juxta ed 2dam) S. Q. e0n ei0dw/loiv
Discussion of Example 8: Ezekiel 20:7
8.1 Ezekiel 20:7 demonstrates Jerome’s preference for the Greek version(s).
In the Vulgate text of Ezekiel 20:7 we find idolis reflecting the ei0dw/loiv of
Aquila (’A), Symmachus (S.) and Theodotion (Q.). This reading is supported
by the lemma of Jerome, Comm. Ezech.
27 See also the mixed text of Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 20.7: …ne simulacris Aegypti polluamur, adinventionibus videlicet philosophorum atque haereticorum quae recte idola nominantur. 28 See the reference card for Fr. Turic. Ezekiel 20:7 in the Vetus Latina Database. This card refers to Dold (1923) but this reference is unclear. See Alban Dold, Konstanzer Altlateinische Propheten – und Evangelien- Bruchstücke mit Glossen, Heft 7-9 in Texte und Arbeiten (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1923), 225-250 (Anhang). 29 Unless otherwise specified the “Ziegler” in Part II refers to Joseph Ziegler, Ezechiel, Volume XVI, pars 1 in Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, ed. Joseph Ziegler (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977).
48
The use of adinventionibus for the LXX e)pithdeu/masin in the text of Ezekiel 20:7
(T10:2) is also attested in Jerome, Comm. Ezech., but Jerome clearly indicates
that this reading is from the “LXX” (Latin?) text.
8.2 In Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 14 Jerome informs us that the Hebrew word
underlying the LXX adinventiones is 'gelule'. Jerome then goes on to note, in
Latin, the readings of the Greek versions and his preferred use of idola:
'gelule' quoque verbum hebraicum est quod Septuaginta 'adinventiones', Aquilae prima editio 'inquinamenta', secunda, Symmachusque et Theodotio 'idola' interpretati sunt, quos et nos in praesentiarum secuti sumus. 30
The idola of Symmachus and Theodotion is preserved within Greek manuscript
86. However, the 'inquinamenta' of Jerome’s Aquila is not found within the extant
Greek textual tradition.
Jerome’s introduction of the Hebrew element into his textual discussion raises a
similar issue for this study. There is much we could learn by examining the
Hebrew underlying e0pith/deuma and adinventio. However it is proposed that this
extra layer of complexity would undermine rather than support the cohesiveness
of this discussion. As is done by Jerome, it is proposed that, for now, we
acknowledge and be aware of the possibilities of the Hebrew but limit our
discussion to Greek and Latin.
8.3 In this verse we find the older manuscript Fr. Turic. (and Priscillian?) attesting
studia (T10:3-4) for the LXX e)pithdeu/masin (T10:5). The association of studium
and e0pith/deuma was established in our discussion of the text of Jeremiah. This
example would suggest that this association, in Ezekiel, also pre-dates the
revisions of Jerome.
30 S. Hieronymi Presbyteri, Commentariorum in Hiezechielem Libri XIV, Volume LXXV, Pars I, Opera Exegetica 4 in CCSL, ed. Francisco Glorie (Turnholt: Brepols, 1964), 258-259.
49
The presence of studium in the older manuscript tradition prompts us to wonder
whether Jerome’s Latin LXX reading of adinventio is truly representative of an
older Latin textual tradition or whether it is a product of Jerome’s own LXX
revision of the Latin text. Without extant support from an older Latin textual
tradition we are unable to answer this question.
The readings of Fr. Turic. and Jerome, Comm. Ezech. (LXX) are very similar
apart from lexical variation which is characterised by its slot-like nature:
Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 6,20,7 (188C) LXX: Unusquisque abominationes oculorum suorum proiciat, et in adinventionibus
Aegypti non polluatur:
Fr. Turic.
unusquisque abominamenta oculorum suorum proiciat; et in studiis aegypti nolite
quoinquinari
A quick examination of these readings of Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 6 (LXX) and Fr.
Turic. informs us that the only significant variation apparent in these texts is
associated with lexical variation. While this examination is concerned with the
Latin lexical equivalents of adinventio and studium, we may also draw attention to
the slot-like Latin lexical variation demonstrated by inquino (“-to befoul, stain,
pollute, defile”) and polluo (“-to soil, defile, pollute.”)
The similarities of the readings in the LXX text of Jerome, Comm. Ezech. and Fr.
Turic. suggests that Jerome may indeed be relying on an older Latin textual
tradition in his “LXX” text. Whether the differences between these two witnesses
may be attributed to Jerome is less clear.
8.4 The situation in Ezekiel 6:9b closely parallels that found in Ezekiel 20:7. In
Ezekiel 6:9b the extant Latin witnesses are limited to the et oculos eorum
fornicantes post idola sua of the Vulgate and Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 2; and the
et fornicantes oculi post adinventiones suas also from Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 2.
While the latter reading of Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 2 reflects the LXX
e0pithdeuma/twn the Vulgate text is no doubt inspired by the ei0dw/loiv of Greek
50
manuscript 62 (= Masoretic Text).31 Apart from the fact that this reading has not
been clearly attributed to one or other of Aquila, Symmachus or Theodotion, this
situation is identical to that found in Ezekiel 20:7.
8.5 In Ezekiel 14:6 and 20:39a we find the LXX e0pith/deuma supporting Jerome’s
reading of adinventio in Jerome, Comm. Ezech. Unfortunately there is no extant
evidence for variant Greek readings in these verses. Based on Ezekiel 20:7 and
6:9b, however, it would seem likely that the Vulgate reading of idolum in these
verses is a response to a reading once found in the Greek versions.
The fact that we do not have any extant Greek variation in Ezekiel 14:6 and
20:39a highlights the tenuous situation surrounding our discussion of variation in
the Latin Jewish Greek Bible. Without evidence for ei1dwlon in the Greek we are
left wondering whether the Vulgate idolum is a response to a lost Vorlage.
However, based on previous examples this proposition is not unreasonable. This
situation would be quite different if we did not have any evidence for Greek
variant readings elsewhere in the text of Ezekiel. This uneven preservation of
witnesses highlights how constrained we are by accidents of transmission and
also how cautious therefore we must be in making categorical statements
regarding any elements of the ancient textual traditions of the Jewish Greek
Bible.
31 Ziegler, Ezechiel, 111.
51
Example 9: Ezekiel 14:6
Propterea dic ad domum Israel: Haec dicit Dominus Deus: Convertimini, et recedite ab idolis vestris, et ab universis contaminationibus vestris avertite facies vestras.
Table 11: Idolum and e0pith/deuma in Ezekiel 14:6
Source Text
1
Vulgate Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 4.14 (116C)32
Convertimini, et recedite ab idolis vestris,
3 Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 4.14 (117A)
LXX: …Convertimini et recedite adinventionibus vestris,
4
Jerome, Orig. Ezech. 3.8 (357.8) Jerome, Orig. Ezech. 3.8 (357.11)
convertimini et avertite vos a studiis vestris.
5 Fragmenta Sangallensia (Fr. Sang.)33
Convertimini. et avertite vos ab studiis vestris
6 Gothic Breviary (362C) Convertimini, et recedite ab omnibus iniquitatibus vestris:
7 Vita S. Eligii episcopi Noviomagensis (Vita Elig.) 2 (261)
Revertimini recedentes ab iniquitatibus vestris
8 Ziegler, Ezechiel,141 Epistra/fhte kai\ a)postre/yate a)po\ tw~n e)pithdeuma/twn u(mw~n
9 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, lac.
Discussion of Example 9: Ezekiel 14:6
9.1 Ezekiel 14:6 informs us further regarding the editorial tendencies of Jerome.
In this verse we have what would seem to be three different Latin versions
preserved by Jerome. In Ezekiel 14:6 both the Vulgate and Jerome, Comm.
Ezech. 4.14 (116C) attest idolis (T11:1) most likely in response to a non-extant
Greek version, or direct influence from the Hebrew. This “new” translation is
32 There is a further allusion to Ezekiel 14:6 in Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 4.14 (118B): ut recedant ab idolis cogitationibusque perversis, et convertantur ad me but the textual affiliations of this text are unclear. 33 Dold, Konstanzer, 225-250 (Anhang).
52
paralleled by two further Hieronymian readings which suggest other Latin textual
traditions. In addition to idolis we find adinventionibus in Jerome, Comm. Ezech.
4.14 (117A)(T11:3) and studiis in Jerome, Orig. Ezech. (T11:4). Both these
readings may be a response to the LXX e)pithdeuma/twn (T11:8).
Jerome’s translation of Origen’s Homilies on Ezekiel (Jerome, Orig. Ezech.) was
undertaken during his time in Constantinople in 379/80.34 This exercise pre-dates
the Commentary on Ezekiel by around 20 years.35 It is not unlikely that Jerome’s
use of studiis is reflective of the textual tradition with which he was then familiar.
9.2 We also find studiis in the older Latin text of the Fragmenta Sangallensia [=
Fr. Sang.]. The association of Fr. Sang. and Jerome, Orig. Ezech. in this verse
supports the proposition that Jerome, Orig. Ezech. is here reflective of an older
Latin textual tradition. Once again we are able to trace the provenance of studium
prior to the revisions of Jerome.
9.3 While there is no extant Greek variation apparent for Ezekiel 14:6 it is
posited, based on Ezekiel 20:7 and 6:91a, that the use of idolum in the Vulgate
text is a response to the occurrence of ei0dw/loiv in one or other of the Greek
versions or the Hebrew text. It is significant that Jerome here acts as a possible
source for a Greek reading that is no longer extant. Based on the evidence from
this verse and Ezekiel 14:6 and 20:39a it may be suggested that the
Commentaries of Jerome and the Vulgate text of Ezekiel (and possibly other
books) could provide a wealth of information regarding the Greek and/or Hebrew
versions which otherwise may be lost.
9.4 Two other Latin witnesses attest Ezekiel 14:6. In the Gothic Breviary and the
Vita S. Eligii episcopi Noviomagensis [= Vita Elig.] we find iniquitatibus for
34 J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome:His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London: Duckworth, 1975), 76-77. The Vetus Latina Database Repertorium suggests that these homilies were translated in 378/9, probably in Antioch. Both Kelly and the Vetus Latina Database Repertorium agree that these homilies were translated after the Homilies on Jeremiah. 35 Kelly, Jerome, 305-308.The majority of the work took place between 411 and 414. The Vetus Latina Database Repertorium suggests between 412 and 415.
53
e)pithdeuma/twn (?). This reading is singular within the text of Jeremiah, Ezekiel
and the Minor Prophets.
Example 10: Ezekiel 20:39a
Et vos, domus Israal, haec dicit Dominus Deus: Singuli post idola vestra ambulate, et servite eis. Quod si et in hoc non audieritis me, et nomen meum sanctum pollueritis ultra in muneribus vestris et in idolis vestris:
Table 12: Idolum and e0pith/deuma in Ezekiel 20:39
Source Text
1 Vulgate Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 6.20.39
Singuli post idola vestra ambulate, et servite eis.
3 Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 6.20.39 LXX: Unusquisque adinventiones suas auferat.
4 Fragmenta Sangallensia (Fr. Sang.)
unusquisque studia sua auferte:
8 Ziegler, Ezechiel, 178 e3kastov ta\ e)pithdeu/mata au0tou= e)ca/rte,
9 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 820 (86)
S. e3kastov toi=v ei0dw/loiv (’A. ei1dwla) au0tou a0pelqo/ntev latreu/ete,
Discussion of Example 10: Ezekiel 20:39a
10.1 In Ezekiel 20:39a we again find idola in the Vulgate (T12:1). This time we
are able to align this reading with the text of Symmachus and Aquila as attested
by Field (T12:9). The adinventio of Jerome’s Commentary may also be
associated with the LXX e)pithdeu/mata. Jerome confirms these associations in his
Commentary on Ezekiel where he clearly notes the variation between the Greek
traditions, again in Latin rather than the Greek original:
… interpretatus est Symmachus: Unusquisque idolis suis euntes seruite… Symmachi translatio hanc habet intellegentiam: 'Quia mihi semire non uuItis, ite, seruite idolis et simulacrorum uestrorum calcate uestigia;… Porro Septuaginta proprium explicant sensum: 'Derelinquite cogitationes uestras pristinas, et mala adinuentionum auferte peccata;… Aquila uero, Symmacho ex parte consentiens, in parte discordat : Ite, inquit, post idola uestra et seruite eis…36
36 S. Hieronymi Presbyteri, Commentariorum in Hiezechielem, 270-271.
54
10.3 In this verse we find two manuscripts attesting studia (T12:4) for the LXX
e)pithdeu/mata (T12:8). This appearance of studium in the older Latin textual
tradition is not surprising given several of our previous examples (see Jeremiah
23:22, Ezekiel 20:7 and Ezekiel 14:6). Indeed, it would certainly seem likely that
the use of studium does indeed go back to an older Latin textual tradition.
10.4 The situation in the Latin text of Ezekiel 20:7 is almost identical to that found
in Ezekiel 20:39. While the Vulgate attests idola, adinventiones for the LXX
e)pithdeu/mata is apparent in the text of Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 6. We also find
studia attested in the older manuscript tradition (Fr. Turic.).
In these examples from Ezekiel the prominence of idolum in the Vulgate is
absolute. This reading is closely aligned with the ei1dwlon of the Greek versions
and/or the Hebrew text. We also find studium and adinventio attested in other
witnesses in these examples. While three-fold variation has been maintained in
the Latin textual tradition it is noticeable that, unlike in the text of Jeremiah, the
use of cogitatio is not associated with this variation. This situation highlights the
need to treat each book of the Latin Bible on its own merits.
55
B. Adinventio in the Vulgate text of Ezekiel
Jerome’s preference for adinventio as a translation of e0pith/deuma is confirmed
when one examines the use of adinventio in the Vulgate text of Ezekiel.
Adinventio is found four times in the Vulgate text of Ezekiel: 14:22, 14:23, 24:14
and 36:19. An examination of adinventio in Ezekiel 36:19 and 24:14 will help
inform the discussion of Ezekiel 14:22 and 14:23.
Example 11: Ezekiel 36:19
Et dispersi eos in gentes, et ventilati sunt in terras: juxta vias eorum et adinventiones eorum judicavi eos. Table 13: Adinventio in Ezekiel 36:19
Source Text
1
Vulgate Pseudo-Isidore of Seville, Adv. Jud. 34.4
juxta vias eorum, et adinventiones eorum judicavi eos.
3 Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 11.36.16juxta vias eorum, et adinventiones (sive peccata) eorum judicavi eos
4 Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 11.36.16et iuxta vias suas, et inventiones pessimas iudicati,
5
Tyconius, Reg. 4 Augustine, Doctr. chr. 3 (34.48) Pseudo-Cyprian, Novat. 10 (omit. secundum vias eorum)
secundum vias eorum et secundum peccata eorum iudicavi eos.
6
Ziegler, Ezechiel, 264 th\n a(marti/an 967] tav anomiav A’-106’-403’ Arab; peccata Co Arm Tyc PsCypr Hi Aug; ta epithdeumata L’ Theodoret Cyrensis = Masoretic text.
…kata\ th\n o(do\n au0tw~n kai\ kata\ th\n a(marti/an au)tw~n e1krina au)tou/v.
7 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, lac.
56
Discussion of Example 11: Ezekiel 36:19
11.1 Based on our examination of idolum in the Vulgate text of Ezekiel, we are
not surprised that the adinventiones of the Vulgate text of Ezekiel 36:19 (T13:1)
does not align with the LXX a(marti/an (T13:6). Indeed it is the Greek variant
e)pithdeu/mata, found in L’ and Theodoret Cyrensis (T13:6), which has inspired
the Vulgate adinventiones. Ziegler notes that the text of Theodoret Cyrensis and
L’, in this case, have been influenced by the Masoretic Text.37 It is not unlikely
that the text of Theodoret Cyrensis and L’ represent a reading found in one of the
Greek versions. Indeed, many of Field’s references to Aquila, Symmachus and
Theodotion are based on the authority of Theodoret Cyrensis.38 It would thus
seem likely that e)pithdeu/mata too is a reading representative of one of the Greek
versions. While this posited association is tenuous it certainly suggests that
Jerome is continuing to provide us with insight into the Greek version(s).
11.2 That inventiones (“-an inventing, invention; the faculty of invention”) requires
the adjective pessimus (“- bad”) in Jerome’s allusion to Ezekiel 36:19 (Jerome,
Comm. Ezech. 11.36)(T13:4) suggests that the negative features of pessimus are
implied by adinventiones earlier in his discussion.
11.3 The older Latin textual tradition associated with Pseudo-Cyprian Ad
Novatianum [= Pseudo-Cyprian, Novat.39], Tyconius’ Liber regularum [=
Tyconius, Reg.] and Augustine’s De doctrina christiana [= Augustine, Doctr. chr.]
attests peccata (“- a fault, error, mistake, transgression, sin; guilt”)(T13:5) in
response to the LXX a(marti/an (“- a failure, fault; guilt, sin”)(T13:6). a(marti/an is
found in 967, a papyrus text from the (first half?) of the third century CE.40 The
association of this older Greek tradition with that of the Latin is intriguing.
37 Ziegler, Ezechiel, 50. 38 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, (Psalms) where Field makes use of Theodoretus in Psalmus. Specific exmples include Ps 4:1 or 7:7 where we find references to Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotian in Theodoret. 39 The Vetus Latina Database Repertorium suggests that this text should be dated 253/7 CE or later. http://apps.brepolis.net/vld/repertorium/work.cfm?action=fiche&work_id=2824 40 Ziegler, Ezechiel, 10.
57
Example 12: Ezekiel 24:14 Ego Dominus locutus sum: veniet, et faciam: non transeam, nec parcam, nec placabor: juxta vias tuas, et juxta adinventiones tuas judicabo te, dicit Dominus juxta vias eorum et adinventiones eorum judicavi eos.
Table 14: Adinventio in Ezekiel 24:14
Source Text
1 Vulgate Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 7.24.1
juxta vias tuas, et juxta adinventiones tuas judicabo te, dicit Dominus.
3 Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 7.24.1 sed] vias tuas et adinventiones tuas reddam tibi, immo judicabo te…
4 Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 7.24.1 LXX: …Secundum vias tuas et secundum adinventiones tuas iudicabo te, dicit Adonai Dominus
5
Codex Wirceburgensis ( = Cod. Wirc.) Fragmenta Sangallensia (Fr. Sang.) (omit. dicit dms)
secundum vias tuas et secundum cogitationes tuas iudicabo te dicit dms…
6 Ziegler, Ezechiel, 203 e)nqumh/mata/ 1st] epithdeumata 967 Syhmg C’- 86’ Arm. HI. cf. 23
kata\ ta\v o(dou/v kai\ kata\ ta\ e0nqumh/mata sou krinw~ se, le/gei ku/riov.
7
Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 835 Sic. Ald., Codd. 49, 68, 86, alii, et Syro-hex. in marg. char. med.
O’. kai\ kata\ ta\ e0nqumh/mata (alia exempl. e0pithdeu/mata) sou.
Discussion of Example 12: Ezekiel 24:14
12.1 The Vulgate texts of Ezekiel 36:19 and Ezekiel 24:14 are very similar.
As in Ezekiel 36:19 and other verses the adinventiones of the Vulgate text
(T14:1) follows the e0pithdeu/mata of an alternate Greek reading which is at odds
with the LXX text (T14:6). However, it is noticeable that in this verse Jerome also
attests adinventiones in the LXX text of his Commentary on Ezekiel (T14:4)
despite the fact that the LXX would seem to attest e0nqumh/mata (“- thought, piece
of reasoning, argument; invention, device”) in this verse (T14:6).
In the older Latin manuscript tradition attested by Fr. Sang. and the Cod. Wirc.
we find cogitationes (T14:5). While it is likely that this reading aligns with the
58
e0nqumh/mata of Ziegler’s LXX, we must acknowledge that in Jeremiah we
witnessed several examples where cogitatio may have been a response to
e0pith/deuma.41 The association of cogitatio with e0nqu/mhma in the older Latin textual
tradition in this verse suggests the possibility that e0nqu/mhma may also be
underlying cogitatio in those verses in Jeremiah where we find cogitatio without
extant Greek variation. Currently, however, we must be content with the
association of cogitatio with e0pith/deuma in these verses.
The reading of adinventio in the LXX Latin text of Jerome, Comm. Ezech. leads us
to wonder whether adinventio too may be associated with e0nqu/mhma in this verse.
12.2 In our discussion of the Latin lexical variants of adinventio in Jeremiah and
Ezekiel we have drawn attention to the slot-like nature of this variation and
suggested that this is characteristic of the Latin textual tradition. We must also,
however, draw attention to a similar variation which is apparent in the Greek
textual tradition underlying this verse. The textual tradition of Ezekiel 24:14
provides us with two variant readings e0nqu/mhma and e0pith/deuma. Based on the
evidence from Field and Ziegler the use of this vocabulary is interchangeable
within the verse. This slot variation parallels that found in the Latin witnesses.
41 See discussions of Jeremiah 17:10, 4:4 and 23:22.
59
Example 13: Ezekiel 14:22 and 14:23
Table 15: Adinventio in Ezekiel 14:22 and 14:23
Source Ezekiel 14:2242 Ezekiel 14:2343
1 Vulgate Jerome
ecce ipsi ingredientur ad vos, et videbitis viam eorum et adinventiones eorum, Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 4 (120A) (egredientur)
Et consolabuntur vos, cum videritis viam eorum et adinventiones eorum: Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 4 (120B)
2 Fragmenta Sangallensia (Fr. Sang.)
et ecce procedunt ad uos; et videbitis vias eorum. et cogitationes eorum
et deprecabunter vos qm videbitis vias eorum et cogitationes eorum.
3 Ziegler
kai\ o!yesqe ta\v o(dou\v au0tw~n kai\ ta\ e0nqumh/mata au0tw~n ta\ e)nqumh/mata ] s’ ta panourghmata Syh Ziegler, Ezechiel, 144 - 145
dio/ti o!yesqe ta\v o(dou\v au0tw~n kai\ ta\ e0nqumh/mata au0tw~n Ziegler, Ezechiel, 145
4 Field
O’. kai\ ta\ e0nqumh/mata (S. panourgh/mata) au0tw~n S. = Syro-hexapla Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 802
Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, lac.
Discussion of Example 13: Ezekiel 14:22 and 14:23
13.1 In Ezekiel 14:22 and 14:23 we find cogitationes in the text of Fr. Sang.
(T15:2) and adinventiones in the text of the Vulgate (T15:1). Unlike Ezekiel 36:19
and 24:14 we do not have Greek evidence for e0pith/deuma in these verses. 44
13.2 Based on the examination of Ezekiel 36:19 and 24:14 it seems reasonable
to posit that Jerome’s use of adinventiones in the Vulgate and Jerome, Comm.
Ezech. is in response to the presence of e0pith/deuma in a no longer extant Greek
tradition. The only caveat is the presence of adinventiones in the LXX Latin text
of Jerome, Comm. Ezech. in Ezekiel 36:19. That adinventio may have been used to
42 These are the only references for 14:22 in the Vetus Latina Database. 43 These are the only references for 14:23 in the Vetus Latina Database. 44 It should be noted that 967 is lacking for 14:22. (Ziegler, Ezechiel, 10). It is also unclear how much of 967 is extant for 14:23.
60
render e0nqu/mhma is not impossible. e0nqu/mhma is found 21 times in the LXX text of
Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. However, the only other examples
where adinventio is associated with this word in the Vulgate are Ezekiel 23:7 and
Ezekiel 23:37. This paucity of evidence for the regular association of adinventio
and e0nqu/mhma in the Vulgate text of Jerome certainly suggests that the presence
of adinventio in Jerome’s Vulgate text of Ezekiel 14:22 and 14:23 is inspired by
e0pith/deuma rather than e0nqu/mhma. This pattern of association may also suggest
that the text of Ezekiel 36:19 and 24:14 in Jerome, Comm. Ezech. is better
aligned with the variant e0pith/deuma (whether extant or non-extant) than with the
LXX e0nqu/mhma.
61
Example 14: Ezekiel 23:7 and 23:37
Table 16: Adinventio in Ezekiel 23:7 and 23:37
Source A. Ezekiel 23:745 B. Ezekiel 23:3746
1 Vulgate in immunditiis eorum polluta est et cum idolis suis fornicatae sunt:
2 Jerome
[in] immunditiis (sive adinventionibus) polluta est. Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 7 (208D)
et cum idolis (sive adinventionibus) suis fornicatae sunt; Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 7 (222A)
3 Fragmenta Sangallensia (Fr. Sang.)
lac. et sanguis in manibus earum cogitationibus suis moechabantur
4 Ziegler
e0n pa~si toi=v e0nqumh/masin au0th=v e)miai/neto. e0nqumh/masin] epiqumhmasin L 534; epithdeumasin 967: cf. 24:14 Ziegler, Ezechiel, 192
ta\ e0nqumh/mata au0tw~n e0moixw~nto ta\ e0nqumh/mata au0tw~n e0moixw~nto] s/ kai prov ta eidwla (a/ s/ q/ ta eidwla 86) autwn emoixwnto Syh Ziegler, Ezechiel, 198
5 Field lac.
O’. ta e0nqumh/mata (‘A. S. Q. ei1dwla)* au0tw~n e0moixw~nto. *Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 832 (cod 86). S. kai\ pro\v ta\ ei1dwla au0tw~n e0moixw~nto. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 832 (Syro-hexapla).
Discussion of Example 14: Ezekiel 23:7 and 23:37
14.1 Ezekiel 23:7 and 23:37 demonstrate the complicated relationship of Jerome
to the extant Greek text.
In Ezekiel 23:7 the Vulgate reading of immunditiis (“-uncleanness, impurity,
filth”)(T16:1-2 column A [= T16:1-2 col. A]) and the Latin LXX reading of
adinventionibus (T16:2 col. A) attested by Jerome, would seem to have a closer
relationship to the attested Greek variants e0piqumh/masin (“- object of desire;
yearning desire”) and e0pithdeu/masin respectively, than to the LXX e0nqumh/masin
45 These are the only readings included in the Vetus Latina Database for this verse. 46 See also Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 7 (223A): sunt enim moechatae in idolis. This completes the variant readings from the Vetus Latina Database.
62
(T16:4 col. A).47 The reading of e0pith/deuma, again attested by 967, fully supports
Jerome’s use of adinventionibus. The peculiar use of e0pith/deuma in 967, and the
alignment of this manuscript with various Latin witnesses is intriguing and
deserves further exploration. However, the reading of e0pith/deuma in this
manuscript in this verse is the only support for the reading of adinventio indicated
as a variant reading (by Jerome’s use of sive) in Jerome, Comm. Ezech. Without
support from each other these two readings would be considered outliers and not
representative of a larger textual tradition. However, that we find these two
associated readings in two disparate witnesses gives us reason to pause and re-
evaluate the evidence. The presence of adinventio in the text of Jerome, Comm.
Ezech. suggests that Jerome was either aware of this variant Greek textual
tradition, here represented by 967, or used an older Latin textual tradition which
was influenced by this Greek variation. This example highlights the ongoing
influence of the Greek Vorlage on the Latin text.
14.2 In Ezekiel 23:37 the Vulgate reading of idolis (T16:1 col. B) may be
associated with the ei1dwla of Aquila, Theodotion and/or Symmachus (T16:4-5
col. B) while the cogitationibus of the older Fr. Sang. (T16:3 col. B) aligns with the
LXX e0nqumh/mata (T16:4 col. B).
14.3 As there is no evidence for e0pith/deuma in Ezekiel 23:37 the reference to
adinventionibus in the Latin LXX text of Jerome, Comm. Ezech (T16:2 col. B) is
once again seemingly without support from an extant Greek text. We are thus
again left to ponder Jerome’s use of adinventio, its relationship to e0nqu/mhma or a
lost e0pith/deuma, and whether this reading truly reflects a non-Hieronymian older
Latin.
47 The association of immunditia with e0piqu/mhma is admittedly tenuous.
63
C. e0pith/deuma without adinventio in the text of Ezekiel
There are seven places in the text of Ezekiel where we find e0pith/deuma
but do not find any reference to adinventio:
Example 15: e0pith/deuma without adinventio in the text of Ezekiel
Table 17: e0pith/deuma without adinventio in the text of Ezekiel
Verse A. LXX Greek (Greek variation)
B. Vulgate text (other texts of
Jerome)
C. MSS D. Older Patristic Evidence
1 Ezekiel 8:15
e0pithdeu/mata (bdelu/gmata 86) abominationes
studia (Fragmenta Sangallensia = Fr. Sang.) Fragmenta Weingartensia = Fr. Weing.48)
adfectationes / affectationes (Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 11 (310.13))
2 Ezekiel 20:18
e0pithdeu/mata idolis
studiis (Fragm. Turicense = Fr. Turic. Fr. Weing.)
studiis (Pseudo-Cyprian, Sing. cleric. 35 (211.16))
3 Ezekiel 20:39b
e0pithdeu/masin idolis (studiis Jerome, Comm. Ezech.)
4 Ezekiel 20:43
e0pithdeu/mata (omit. C) scelerum
studia (Fr. Sang. Fr. Weing.)
5 Ezekiel 20:44
e0pithdeu/mata (e0nnoi/av 86) scelera
studia (Fr. Sang.)
6 Ezekiel 21:24(29)
e0pithdeu/masin cogitationibus studiis (Fr. Sang.)
7 Ezekiel 36:31
e0pithdeu/mata studiorum(que) cogitationes (Tyconius, Reg.)
Discussion of Example 15: e0pith/deuma without adinventio in the text of
Ezekiel
15.1 The static nature of the older Latin manuscript tradition in these examples
(T17 column C) is noticeable given the variability of the Vulgate text (T17 col. B).
The Greek LXX text of these examples also demonstrates a static text (T17 col.
48 See Dold, Konstanzer, 2-112.
64
A). Table 17 establishes a clear association between studium and e0pith/deuma in
the older Latin textual tradition of Ezekiel (as found in Fr. Sang. and Fr. Weing.).
15.2 In Part II we established that the Vulgate text of Jerome in Ezekiel often
attests readings independent of the Greek LXX tradition. In Ezekiel 8:15 we again
find Jerome demonstrating this tendency (T17:1). Jerome’s reading of
abominationes in the Vulgate clearly aligns with the bdelu/gmata of 86. That the
idolis of Ezekiel 20:18 (T17:2 col. B) and 20:39b (T17:3 col. B) may also be
inspired by a variant Greek tradition is possible but lacking extant support.
15.3 The use of scelus (“- an evil deed; a wicked, heinous, or impious action; a
crime, sin, enormity, wickedness”)(T17:4-5 col. B) for e0pith/deuma in Ezekiel is
unique to Ezekiel 20:43 and 20:44. It is unclear whether this reading is due to an
unknown Greek variant or is a new attempt at rendering e0pith/deuma.
15.4 Jerome’s introduction of cogitationibus in Ezekiel 21:24(29) is unexpected
(T17:6 col. B). In Jeremiah we find cogitatio for e0pith/deuma several times in the
Vulgate text (see Jeremiah 4:4, 17:10 and 23:22 ). However, this is the first use
of cogitatio in the Vulgate text of Ezekiel. That the manuscript tradition in Ezekiel
maintains studium, rather than cogitatio, further highlights the anomalous nature
of this reading. Cogitatio for e0nqu/mhma would not be so unexpected given the
evidence of the manuscript tradition in Ezekiel 14:22, 14:23, 23:37 and 24:14.
15.5 In Ezekiel 36:31 we finally find Jerome using studiorum to render
e0pithdeu/mata in the text of Ezekiel (T17:7 col. B). That Tyconius attests
cogitationes at this point is notable. This reading of cogitatio recalls the use of
this term in the older Latin texts of Cyprian, Unit. eccl. and Cod. Wirc. in Jeremiah
23:22.
15.6 The citation of Ezekiel 8:15 by Tertullian in his Adversus Iudaeos [=
Tertullian, Adv. Jud.] may be the only passage from Tertullian discussed in this
study. Unfortunately the Vetus Latina Database Repertorium states that the
65
biblical quotes in this text are certainly spurious.49 Despite this fact the reading of
adfectationes / affectationes in Tertullian, Adv. Jud. can clearly be associated
with the adfectatio / affectio of Cyprian and Lactantius, Inst. Jeremiah 25:5 (T6:2).
This reading also recalls the passage from Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 105:39 where
both affectio and affectatio are included as Latin lexical equivalents for
e0pith/deuma. Despite the fact that the biblical quotations from Tertullian, Adv. Jud.
are not directly associated with Tertullian, it does seem that these Latin cognates
are suggestive of an older Latin textual tradition.
D. Summary of Part II
Our discussion of the Latin lexical equivalents in Ezekiel has highlighted several
different issues to that encountered in our investigation of variation in the text of
Jeremiah. In Ezekiel the Vulgate text demonstrates much reliance on the Greek
versions (or Greek variation). This situation is very different to the text of
Jeremiah where there is little evidence for any Greek variation and the
association of the Vulgate text with the LXX predominates. The core difference in
the philosophy of revision/translation revealed by these two texts highlights our
need to treat each book of the Jewish Greek Bible on its own merits while still
being ready to acknowledge cross-book trends. Additionally, we must remain
vigilant regarding the influence of the Greek Vorlage on the Latin textual tradition.
Indeed, the readings of the Vulgate text of Ezekiel also demonstrate how the use
of a different Vorlage can introduce variation into a textual tradition. We must also
continue to be aware that the preservation of all witnesses is an accident of
history. This is especially evident in Ezekiel 23:7 where the reading of adinventio
and e0pith/deuma is preserved only in Jerome, Comm. Ezech. and Greek
manuscript 967.
49 The Vetus Latina Database Repertorium states “aber mindestens die Bibelzitate sind sicher unecht” ( http://apps.brepolis.net/vld/repertorium/work.cfm?action=fiche&work_id=1383).
66
Part III: Adinventio in the Minor Prophets
While the attestation of adinventio in Ezekiel is limited to the writings of Jerome,
in the Minor Prophets we find healthy support for adinventio in both Jerome and
the manuscript tradition (Fr. Sang. and Fr. Weing.).
A. Adinventio in the text of Hosea
In Hosea we find adinventio three times in the Vulgate textual tradition: Hosea
7:2, 9:15 and 12:2(3). In these three examples adinventio is here associated with
the LXX . e0pith/deuma
Example 16: Adinventio in the text of Hosea 9:15 and 12:2(= LXX 12:3)
Table 18: Adinventio in Hosea 9:15 and 12:2
Verse A. Greek B. Vulgate C. MSS D. Other
1 Hosea 9:15
e0pithdeuma/twn adinventionum
adinventionum (Fragmenta Sangallensia = Fr. Sang.) adinventiones (Fragmenta Weingartensia = Fr. Weing.)
2 Hosea 12:2
e0pithdeu/mata adinventiones adinventiones (Fr. Sang.)
studia (Tyconius, Reg. 3)
Discussion of Example 16: Adinventio in the text of Hosea 9:15 and 12:2
16.1 In Hosea 9:15 and Hosea 12:2 we find adinventio in the text of the Vulgate
(T18 col. B) and the MSS tradition (T18 col. C). We also find Hosea 12:2 in the
text of Tyconius. Tyconius, however, supports the use of studium (T18:2 col. D)
rather than adinventio.
In Ezekiel we established a close link between the studium of the older textual
tradition of the Latin manuscripts and e0pith/deuma. The discovery of studia for
e0pithdeu/mata in the older textual tradition of Tyconius is therefore not surprising
67
and may hint at the possibility that the use of adinventio, while anterior to the
revisions of Jerome, may not be the oldest reading.
Example 17: Adinventio in Hosea 7:2
Et ne forte dicant in cordibus suis, omnem malitiam eorum me recordatum, nunc circumdederunt eos adinventiones suæ : coram facie mea factæ sunt.
Table 19: Adinventio in Hosea 7:2
Source Text
1
Vulgate Jerome, Comm. Os. 2 (873B) Julian of Eclanum, Osee. 2 (996B) Julian of Eclanum, Osee. 2 (996C)(omit. nunc)
nunc circumdederunt eos adinventiones suae:
2
Jerome, Comm. Os. 2.7 (873B) Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 5.16 (151B) Jerome, Comm. Isa.18.66 (693B)
LXX: nunc circumdederunt eos cogitationes suae,
3 Jerome, Comm. Os. 2 (873C) inquit dicant in cordibus suis et ostendam illis adinventiones suas, sive cogitationes
4 Pseudo-Basil the Great, Isa. 1.18 circumdederunt eos consilia sua;
5
Ziegler, Duodecim50 ta\ diabou/lia] a’ s’ (s’ sec. 86) ta (> 86) epithdeumata 22txt-86 Theodoret Cyrensis; e’ <ta> asebhmata 86
:…nu=n e)ku/klwsen au0tou\v ta\ diabou/lia au0tw~n
6 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 950 (same witnesses as Ziegler)
O’. ta\ diabou/lia (’A. S. e0pithdeu/mata, E/. a0sebh/mata) au0tw~n.
50 Unless otherwise stated “Ziegler” in this section refers to Joseph Ziegler, Duodecim Prophetae, Volume XIII in Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, ed. Joseph Ziegler (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967).
68
Discussion of Example 17: Adinventio in Hosea 7:2
17.1 In Hosea 7:2 the adinventiones of the Vulgate (T19:1) may be attributed to
the Greek variant reading of e0pithdeu/mata found in 22txt-86 and Theodoret
(T19:5-6). In his Commentary on Hosea [=Jerome, Comm. Os.], Commentary on
Isaiah [=Jerome, Comm. Isa.] and Jerome, Comm. Ezech. Jerome specifies
cogitationes as the reading of the LXX Latin text of Hosea 7:2 (T19:2). In Hosea
7:2 we find diabou/lia in the LXX Greek text. This is the first time that we have
met with diabou/lion (“- debate, deliberation; resolution decree; meeting for
debate”) in this discussion. We might wonder at the association of cogitatio and
diabou/lion in Jerome’s Latin LXX text. However, this association of cogitatio and
diabou/lion is also to be found in Hosea 4:9, 5:4 and 11:6 in the Vulgate text and
thus may be characteristic of the Book of Hosea.51
17.2 diabou/lia would also seem to inspire the later Latin consilia (T19:4). That
the Vetus Latina Database Repertorium chooses to dismiss the readings from
Pseudo-Basil the Great, Isa. as they cite neither the Vulgate or Old Latin text
would seem to be misguided given the fact that we know so little regarding the
older Latin text and how it has been preserved.52
51 See also Wisdom of Solomon 1:9. 52 See the Vetus Latina Database card on Pseudo-Basil the Great, Isa. (= PS-BAS [Is): “Expositio super Ysaye prophete; Bruchstücke einer Übersetzung des Kommentars in PG 30, 117-668. diese Übersetzung aus dem 12. Jh (von Burgundio von Pisa?) zitiert weder Vetus Latina noch Vulgata, vgl. R. Gryson, T. P. Osborne, Un faux témoin de la “Vetus Latina”: La version latine du commentaire Pseudo-Basilien sur Isaïe: RB 95 (1985) 280-292; sie wird künftig nicht mehr berücksichtigt.” http://apps.brepolis.net/vld/repertorium/work.cfm?action=fiche&work_id=2465
69
B. Adinventio in the Text of Micah
In Micah adinventio is found four times in the Latin LXX text of Jerome’s
Commentary on Micah [= Jerome, Comm. Mich.]. In one of these examples
adinventio is also found in Jerome’s Vulgate text. While the older Latin
manuscript tradition generally supports the Latin LXX text of Jerome, there is no
extant Latin manuscript evidence for Jerome’s joint LXX-Vulgate reading. It is
notable that in all these examples e0pith/deuma is to be found in the LXX text. As
the text of the Vulgate does not generally contain a reading which may be
associated with the LXX e0pith/deuma it must be wondered whether the Vulgate
readings have been inspired by a non-extant Greek textual tradition. The only
verse which supports this theory is Micah 2:9.
Example 18: Adinventio in Micah 2:9
Mulieres populi mei eiecistis de domo deliciarum suarum; a parvulis earum tulistis laudem meam in perpetuum.
Table 20: Adinventio in Micah 2:9
Source Text
1 Vulgate Mulieres populi mei eiecistis de domo deliciarum suarum; a parvulis earum tulistis laudem meam in perpetuum.
2 Jerome, Comm. Mich. 1 (1171D)
LXX: Duces populi mei proiicientur de domibus deliciarum suarum: propter malas adinventiones suas ejecti sunt.
3 Fragmenta Weingartensia (= Fr. Weing.)
Propter hoc duces populi mei proicientur de domibus aepulationum suarum propter malas adinventiones suas repulsi sunt. Accedite in montibus aeternis.
4 Jerome, Comm. Mich.1 (1172A)
propter malas adinventiones suas et eiiciendi propter malas cogitationes et opera sua
5 Jerome, Orig. Jer. 2.4 (294,7)
Duces populi mei poicientur ex domo delicarum suarum, propter pessimas voluntates suas
6 Ziegler, Duodecim, 211 …dia/ ta\ ponhra\ e)pithdeu/mata au0tw~n e0cw/sqhsan.
7 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, lac.
Discussion of Example 18: Adinventio in Micah 2:9
18.1 While there are no attested variants to the Greek tradition in this verse, the
Vulgate omits propter malas adinventiones suas ejecti sunt (e.g. T20:2) and
70
instead elects to finish the verse with parvulis earum tulistis laudem meam in
perpetuum (T20:1). The introduction of muleres for duces would also suggest that
the Vulgate text is inspired by a different Greek or Hebrew text.
18.2 The adinventiones of Jerome, Comm. Mich. 1 (T20:2 and 4) and Fr. Weing.
(T20:3) are clearly associated with the LXX e)pithdeu/mata.
18.3 In other Hieronymian allusions to this verse we find additional Latin lexical
equivalents to adinventio. In Jerome, Comm. Mich. we find adinventiones
associated with both cogitationes and opera sua (T20:4) and in Jerome, Orig.
Jer. (T20:5) we find voluntates (“-will, freewill, wish, choice, desire, inclination”).
With this veritable buffet of Latin vocabulary Jerome is here demonstrating his
familiarity with several Latin lexical equivalents of adinventio.
Example 19: Adinventio in Micah 2:7 and Micah 7:13
Table 21: Adinventio in Micah 2:7 and 7:13
A. Verse B. Greek C. Vulgate
(Other readings of Jerome)
D. Jerome’s LXX text
E. Manuscript
1 Micah 2:7
e0pithdeu/mata cogitationes adinventiones adinventiones (Fr. Weing.)
2 Micah 7:13
e0pithdeuma/twn cogitationum (opera / studiorum)
adinventionum adinventionum (Fr. Sang.)
Discussion of Example 19: Adinventio in Micah 2:7 and 7:13
19.1 In Micah 2:7 and Micah 7:13 the cogitatio of the Vulgate text (T21 col. C)
may not necessarily be explained by the LXX e0pith/deuma. In Ezekiel it became
apparent that, in this book at least, there was some association of cogitatio with
e0nqu/mhma, particularly in the older manuscript tradition. However, a cursory review
of cogitatio in Jeremiah leads us to question this theory. In Jeremiah the lack of
Greek variants would tend to suggest a correlation between e0pith/deuma and
cogitatio. That e0pith/deuma is present in many of the examples in Ezekiel which
attest e0nqu/mhma may suggest that the presence of e0nqu/mhma in these verses may
just be obscuring the true association of cogitatio and e0pith/deuma. This situation
highlights the complexity of the relationship of the Latin with the underlying Greek
71
tradition and also suggests one reason for the diversity attested by the Latin
textual tradition.
19.2 In Micah 2:7 and 7:13 Jerome’s LXX Latin text (T21 col. D) and the
manuscript tradition (T21 col. E) both attest adinventio. There is a clear
association of these readings with the LXX e0pith/deuma.
Example 20: Adinventio in Micah 3:4
Tunc clamabunt ad Dominum, et non exaudiet eos, et abscondet faciem suam ab eis in tempore illo, sicut nequiter egerunt in adinventionibus suis. Table 22: Adinventio in Micah 3:4
Source Text
1 Vulgate Gothic Breviary 428A.
sicut nequiter egerunt in adinventionibus suis.
2 Jerome, Comm. Mich. 1 (1179A)
LXX: eo quod pessime egerunt in adinventionibus suis.
3 Jerome, Comm. Mich. 1 (1179C)
quia pessime egerunt in studiis et voluptatibus suis
4 Jerome, Comm. Mich. 1 (1178C)
quia nequiter egerint in sceleribus suis
5 Gildas Sapiens, Exc. 86 (73.26) (adinventionibus O [or Q?] / adventionibus DP
propter quod malitiose gesserunt in adventionibus suis super ipsos.
6 Ziegler, Duodecim, 212 …a)nq’ w{n e0ponhreu/santo e0n toi=v e0pithde/umasin au0tw~n e0p’ au0tou/v. e0pithde/umasin] a’ s’ q’…epithdeumata
7 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 991 (Syro-hexapla)
O’. e0ponhreu/santo e0n toi=v e0pithde/umasin au0tw~n - e0p’ au0tou/v ’A. e0ka/kwsn ta\ e0pithdeu/mata au)tw~n. S. e0ponhreu/santo dia\ tw~n e0pithdeuma/twn. Q/ e0ponhreu/santo peri\ (s. e3neken) tw~n e0pithdeuma/twn au0tw~n
Discussion of Example 20: Adinventio in Micah 3:4 20.1 In Micah 3:4 we find adinventionibus in the text of the Vulgate (T22:1) and
the LXX text of Jerome, Comm. Mich. (T22:2).
72
In Micah 3:4 we do not have any evidence older than that provided by Jerome.
However, the presence of adinventio in both Jerome’s Vulgate text and the Latin
LXX text of Jerome, Comm. Mich. 1 supports the attestation of e0pith/deuma in the
Greek LXX text and the Greek Versions of Aquila (’A), Symmachus (S.) and
Theodotion (Q/)as preserved in the Syro-hexapla. The close alignment of the
manuscript tradition of Hosea with the Latin LXX text of Jerome in other verses of
Hosea supports the proposition that adinventionibus in Jerome, Comm. Mich. 1
may also be representative of the older Latin textual tradition and not an
independent translation of Jerome.
20.2 In Jerome, Comm. Mich. 1 (1179C) the use of studiis and voluptatibus are
presented as lexical equivalents to adinventionibus (T22:3). While the use of
studium is almost non-existent in the extant texts of the Minor Prophets,53
studium is quite often found for e0pith/deuma in the older texts of Ezekiel and, to a
much lesser extent, in Jeremiah. The introduction of voluptatibus (“-
satisfaction, enjoyment, pleasure, delight (whether sensual or spiritual”) is
singular. The use of voluptas for e0pith/deuma, however, is foreshadowed by
Augustine in his passage on Ps 105:39. The appearance of voluptas in Micah 3:4
means that the complete set of Latin lexical equivalents proposed by Augustine –
adinventio, studium, affectio, affectatio and voluptas - are present to some
degree or other in the Latin textual tradition of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor
Prophets.
20.3 In Jerome, Comm. Mich. 1 (1178C) (T22:4) we also find sceleribus in
association with adinventio and/or e0pith/deuma. Scelus is also present in the
Vulgate text of Ezekiel 20:43 and 20:44. As was suggested above, scelus may
represent an alternative Greek reading, or, given the attestation of this word
again in the context of e0pith/deuma, it may indeed attest to some relationship
between these two terms. Without further evidence we are unable to conclude
much regarding the presence of scelus in Micah 3:4 except that it is indeed
another element of variation apparent in the Latin textual tradition.
53 See Tyconius studia for epithdeumata in Hosea 12:2 only.
73
C. Adinventio in the text of the other Minor Prophets (Zephaniah and
Zechariah)
Example 21: Adinventio in Zephaniah 3:11
In die illa non confunderis super cunctis adinventionibus tuis, quibus praevaricata es in me, quia tunc auferam de medio tui magniloquos superbiae tuae, et non adiicies exaltari amplius in monte sancto meo.
Table 23: Adinventio in Zephaniah 3:11
Source Text
1
Vulgate Jerome, Comm. Soph. (1379D) Psalt. Mozarab. (867)
super cunctis adinventionibus tuis
2
Fragmenta Sagallensia (= Fr. Sang.) Jerome, Comm. Soph. 3 (1380A) (= LXX) Jerome, Comm. Soph. (1381A) (adinventionibus tuis] tuis adinventionibus) Rufinus, Orig. Comm. Cant. 2 (pg. 104C)(ex] ab) Rufinus, Orig. Comm. Cant 2 (pg. 109A) Augustine, Civ. 18 (33; 319.7)
ex omnibus adinventionibus tuis
6 Ziegler, Duodecim, 283 …p/ntwn tw~n e)pithdeuma/twn sou, e)pithdeuma/twn] bdelugmatwn Q’
7 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, lac.
74
Discussion of Example 21: Adinventio in Zephaniah 3:11
21:1 Zephaniah 3:11 is the only verse in Zephaniah to attest adinventio and/or
e0pith/deuma.
While both the Vulgate (T23:1) and the older Latin textual tradition attested by Fr.
Sang. and other witnesses (T23:2) attest adinventionibus for e)pithdeuma/twn the
initial super cunctis and ex omnibus clearly differentiate these readings. The
Greek variant bdelugma/twn would not seem to be reflected in the extant Latin
textual tradition.
75
Example 22: Adinventio in Zechariah 1:6
Verumtamen verba mea, et legitima mea, quae mandavi servis meis prophetis, numquid non comprehenderunt patres vestros, et conversi sunt, et dixerunt: Sicut cogitavit Dominus exercituum facere nobis secundum vias nostras, et secundum adinventiones nostras, fecit nobis?
Table 24: Adinventio in Zechariah 1:6
Source Text
1
Vulgate Jerome, Comm. Zach. 1 (1421B) Jerome, Comm. Zach. 1 (1421B)(= LXX) Fragmenta Sagallensia (= Fr. Sang.)
secundum vias nostras, et secundum adinventiones nostras,
2 Ziegler, Duodecim, 292 kata\ ta\v o(douv h(mw~n kai\ kata\ ta\ e0pithdeu/mata h(mw~n
3 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, lac.
Discussion of Example 22: Adinventio in Zechariah 1:6
22.1 In Zechariah 1:6 we find the same reading in all witnesses, including
Jerome, Comm. Zach. and Fr. Sang. This reading attests adinventiones for
e0pithdeu/mata. However, a quick look at the larger context of the verse dispels the
notion that the Vulgate and the Fr. Sang. are attesting the same textual tradition
(see Table 25).
22.2 Table 25 demonstrates that although the text of Zechariah 1:6 may appear
static the true situation is one of significant variation across witnesses. Indeed the
attestation of adinventio is one of the only places in this passage where all the
witnesses attest the same text.
Table 25 also demonstrates that, while slot variation may be the dominant form of
variation apparent within the Latin textual tradition, there are other elements of
76
variation apparent within the Latin text of the Jewish Greek Bible. Access to this
variation is, however, even more limited than that provided by our examination of
Latin lexical variation.
Table 25: The text of Zechariah 1:6 in the Vulgate, Jerome, Comm. Zach. and Fr. Sang.
Vulgate and Jerome, Comm. Zach. 1
(1421B)
Jerome, Comm. Zach. 1 (1421B) LXX
Fr. Sang.54
Verumtamen verba mea, et legitima mea, quae mandavi servis meis prophetis,
Verumtamen sermones meos, et legitima mea suscipite, quae ego praecipio in spiritu meo servis meis prophetis,
verumtamen legitima mea accipite et verba mea quae ego mando in spu meo servis meis prophetis;
numquid non comprehenderunt patres vestros,
qui comprehenderunt patres vestros:
quia adprehenderunt patres vestros;
et conversi sunt, et dixerunt: et responderunt atque dixerunt:
et responderunt, et dixerunt:
Sicut cogitavit Dominus exercituum facere nobis secundum vias nostras, et secundum adinventiones nostras, fecit nobis
Sicut praeparatus est Dominus omnipotens ut faceret nobis secundum vias nostras, et secundum adinventiones nostras, sic fecit nobis.
sicut disponit dns omnipotens ut faceret secundum vias nostras, et secundum adinventiones nostras, sic fecit nobis
54 Dold, Konstanzer, 278: “utraque huius paginae columna ita detrita apparet, ut non pauce litterae iam legi nequeant aliaeque solummodo difficulter percipi potuerint”
77
Example 23: Adinventio in Zechariah 1:4
Ne sitis sicut patres vestri, ad quos clamabant prophetae priores, dicentes: Haec dicit Dominus exercituum: Convertimini de viis vestris malis, et de cogitationibus vestris pessimis: et non audierunt, neque attenderunt ad me, dicit Dominus.
Table 26: Adinventio in the text of Zechariah 1:4
Source Text
1 Vulgate Jerome, Comm. Zach. 1 (1420D);
Convertimini de viis vestris malis, et de cogitationibus vestris pessimis:
2 Fragmenta Sagallensia (= Fr. Sang.)
convertimini a semetis vestris malignas et ab inventionibus vestris
3 Jerome, Comm. Zach. 1 (1420A)
LXX: Convertimini a viis vestris pessimis: et ab adinventionibus vestris malis:
4 Ziegler, Duodecim, 291 …)Apotre/yate a)po\ tw~n o(dw~n u(mw~n tw~n ponhrw~n kai\ a)po\ tw~n e)pithdeuma/twn u(mw~n tw~n ponhrw~n,
5 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, lac.
Discussion of Example 23: Adinventio in Zechariah 1:4
23.1 The use of cogitationibus in the Vulgate (T26:1) and adinventionibus in the
Latin LXX of Jerome, Comm. Zach. (T26:3) would both seem to be associated
with the LXX e)pithdeuma/twn (T26:4). This example reflects the same textual
situation as that found in Micah 2:7 and 7:13 (Example 19). While we have
variation apparent in the Latin textual tradition, we do not have variation in the
Greek. This variation must therefore be the result of influence from a (non-extant)
variant Greek textual tradition or inner-Latin textual variation.
23.2 In Zechariah 1:4 we find ab inventionibus in Fr. Sang. (T26:2). This reading
would seem to be associated with the adinventionibus of Jerome’s Latin LXX.
D. Summary of Part III
The evidence for adinventio and its associated Latin lexical variants is not as
widespread nor as well preserved within the texts of the Minor Prophets. Despite
78
this, however, there is a sense that the individual books of the Minor Prophets
and their various witnesses each demonstrate their own particular relationship to
the Latin lexical variation surrounding adinventio and e0pith/deuma.
In the text of the Minor Prophets we usually find adinventio in the older
manuscript tradition of the examples tabled above. This situation is the reverse of
that found in Ezekiel and Jeremiah. It is also notable that the Vulgate text tends
to support this reading. The readings of the Vulgate and the older manuscript
tradition are closely aligned with the LXX e0pith/deuma which may be found in
nearly all these examples. The alignment with the LXX text clearly differentiates
these books from the Vulgate text of Ezekiel where the text of Jerome is greatly
influenced by the Jewish Greek versions and/or the Hebrew text. It is possible
that the lack of evidence from the Jewish Greek versions forced Jerome to rely
on the LXX text in these books.
79
Part IV: Summary of Adinventio in the text of Jeremiah, Ezekiel
and the Minor Prophets
From this study of adinventio in the text of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor
Prophets it has become clear that there is significant lexical variation in the Latin
textual tradition.
The Latin lexical variation apparent in both Jeremiah and Ezekiel is characterised
by a three-pronged tradition. This reality does not align well with the duopoly of
the African and European elements attested in the Latin New Testament textual
tradition and justifies our decision not to engage with this theory. The fact that the
core elements of these threepronged traditions is different in Jeremiah and
Ezekiel also supports our decision to treat these books (relatively) independently.
In Jeremiah we find variation in the Latin text most often characterised by the
three-fold variants of adinventio, cogitatio and studium (Jeremiah 4:4, 17:10, 23:2
and 23:22). That this variation is not apparent in the extant Greek textual tradition
is notable. When we turn to Ezekiel we continue to find variation associated with
adinventio but the situation becomes more opaque as the influence of the Greek
variant readings becomes more dominant. In Ezekiel the Vulgate text often
follows a Greek Version (or versions) different from Ziegler’s LXX. While these
versions are extant for some of Ezekiel there are several verses where it is likely
that the Vulgate text of Jerome is the only remaining witness to these alternative
Greek textual traditions.
In regard to the older Latin text in Ezekiel the situation becomes even more
unclear as we find ourselves witnessing two (or more?) textual traditions attested
by the LXX text of Jerome, Comm. Ezech. and the older manuscript tradition
preserved in the fragmentary Fr. Sang, Fr. Turic and Fr. Weing. Only in Ezekiel
14:6 do we find a text of Jerome (Jerome, Orig. Ezech. 3,8) and Fr. Turic. jointly
80
attesting studium.55 It is unclear whether the almost universal appearance of
adinventio in the Latin LXX text of Jerome, Comm. Ezech. is inspired by an older
Latin textual tradition or is the result of Jerome’s own translation of the Greek
LXX text of Ezekiel. In the Minor Prophets the complete opposite is apparent.
While Jerome alternates between the use of adinventio in his Vulgate and LXX
Latin text we invariably find the reading of adinventio supported by the older Latin
manuscript tradition.56
From this discussion it would seem that Jerome’s use of adinventio and his
relationship with the underlying e0pith/deuma is different from book to book. This
book specific variation would also seem to be apparent in the text of the older
Latin manuscript tradition.
In Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets we benefit greatly from the fact that Jerome in
his Commentaries of these texts often provided a full and identified Latin LXX
text. This situation is very different from that found in Jerome’s Commentary on
Jeremiah where the only indication of variation is the occasional sive within the
statement of Jerome’s Vulgate lemma.
In this discussion we have encountered only an occasional reference to Cyprian,
Tertullian and other representatives of the older Latin patristic (e.g. Tyconius,
Lactantius) tradition. It is interesting to note that we find affectio and/or its
cognates attested in Cyprian and Lactantius in Jeremiah 25:5, and in Tertullian in
Ezekiel 8:15. While there may be some doubt about the association of these
readings with the proffered author, this use of affectio certainly recalls
Augustine’s listing of this term in his passage on Ps 105:39. At this point it is also
interesting to note the single appearance of voluptas in Jerome’s Commentary on
Micah 3:4 (T22:3). That voluptas appears in tandem with studium in this passage
(the LXX reading of adinventio has also been noted previously by Jerome) leads
55 Another posited alignment of the Latin LXX of Jerome and the manuscript tradition may be found in Ezekiel 20:392 (Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 6 (197A) LXX studiis). However, for this verse there is no surviving manuscript evidence. 56 The older Latin manuscript tradition is attested intermittently by Fr. Sang., Fr. Weing., and Cod. Wirc.
81
us to wonder whether Jerome is demonstrating his knowledge of the lexical
equivalents of e0pith/deuma in a way not dissimilar to that found in Augustine.
This study has certainly hinted at an association between Jerome and the use of
adinventio. However, we can not say whether the presence of this word is
indicative of Hieronymian revision. Indeed in some books, the evidence suggests
that adinventio may also be representative of a pre-Hieronymian Latin textual
tradition. Despite this, it would seem certain that, for Jerome, there is a close link
between adinventio and e0pith/deuma.We must not assume, however, that
adinventio is the only word associated with e0pith/deuma in the Hieronymian text.
We have also witnessed a close relationship, particularly in the older Latin
manuscript tradition, between studium and e0pith/deuma. That there is also an
association between e0nqu/mhma and cogitatio, instead of e0pith/deuma, is less
certain.
In Jeremiah and Ezekiel adinventio is closely associated with the text of
Jerome.57 This situation is reversed in the Minor Prophets where we find
adinventio more closely aligned with the older Latin manuscript tradition. Given
that the support for adinventio in the manuscript tradition of the Minor Prophets
reflects, at different times, the adinventio of either Jerome’s Vulgate or his Latin
LXX text it is unlikely that the presence of this word is due to influence solely from
the Vulgate. We are thus left with the impression that studium in Ezekiel and
adinventio in the Minor Prophets (and cogitiatio in Jeremiah?) reflect a textual
tradition older than Jerome.
After this initial foray into the Latin lexical variation of the Jewish Greek Bible we
have managed to establish that the variation apparent in the Latin text of the
Jewish Greek Bible does not seem to be attributable to any one factor. Indeed,
the influence of the Greek versions, variant LXX manuscripts and inner-Latin
lexical influences (lexical preference and/or theological motivations) all seem to
57 Adinventio is found only in Jeremiah 4:4 in the older Latin manuscript traditions of both Jeremiah and Ezechiel. It should be noted, however, that there are several readings in Jeremiah, in particular, where there is no surviving older Latin manuscript tradition.
82
83
be responsible to some degree or other for this variation. It is notable that this
variation has been deliberately introduced into the text and that there is no
evidence for accidental change. That this variation also displays a specific slot-
like character is also apparent from this examination.
This analysis of adinventio and its lexical equivalents in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and
the Minor Prophets is a solid base providing useful points of comparison for our
subsequent examinations of adinventio and lexical variation in the text of Psalms
and other books of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible.
Chapter Three: An Examination of Adinventio and its Lexical
Equivalents in the text of Psalms
Preliminaries
Variation in Psalms is not limited to the lexical associates of adinventio, studium
and cogitatio which were established throughout Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor
Prophets. This discussion will demonstrate that, as is suggested by Augustine’s
paragraph on adinventio and e0pith/deuma on Psalm 105:39,1 there are several
new lexical variants for adinventio and e0pith/deuma which can be found in the
textual evidence for Psalms. These variants include the voluptas and affectio of
Augustine’s passage.
In the Latin of Psalms we are overwhelmed with evidence from both the patristic
and manuscript tradition. Manuscript material may be found in the editions of the
various Psalters (Romanum, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, etc.) as well as in
manuscripts which do not seem to fit entirely within these liturgical traditions,
such as the bilingual Greek and Latin Codex Veronensis [= Cod. Veron.], Codex
Casinensis [= Cod. Casin.] and Psalter Sangermanensis [= Psalt. Sangerm.].
Patristic evidence includes regular citations from Augustine, Arnobius and Julian
of Eclanum as well as irregular or isolated citations from other Latin authors . The
large number of witnesses extant for the text of Psalms allows us not only to
determine whether there is variation within the textual tradition of this book but
also to analyse the balance of witnesses supporting this variation. As will be
demonstrated in the following discussion, variation is apparent in the text of
Psalms and it is shared relatively equally among the extant witnesses.
Jerome had a complicated relationship with the Psalter, turning his attention as
revisor and/or translator to this book at least three times. Evidence for these
endeavours may be found in the Vulgate (or Gallican Psalter), the Psalter
according to the Hebrew [= Psalt. Hebr.] and the Psalterium Romanum [= Psalt.
1 For full details of this verse please see the discussion of Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 105:39 in Chapter One.
85
Romanum]. The Psalt. Romanum was at one time considered to be Jerome’s
actual revision of the Latin text of the Psalter according to the Septuagint (LXX)
translation. 2 More recently, however, this association has been questioned and it
has been suggested that it “probably represents the text on which he worked and
which he corrected”.3 This position suggests that the text of the Psalt. Romanum
may be more representative of the older Latin textual tradition than of the later
text of the Vulgate or the Psalt. Hebr.
In our discussion we have included reference to the Greek evidence from
Papyrus Bodmer 24. That this text differs somewhat from the text of Rahlf’s LXX
is suggested in the preface to the edition of Kasser and Testuz.4 Both Kasser and
Testuz and later Pietersma note the close association of Papyrus Bodmer 24 and
the Sahidic version of Psalms.5 We also include reference to Papyrus Bodmer 24
and the Coptic versions of Psalms in an effort to further elucidate the variation
apparent in the Latin version of Psalms.
This Chapter is divided into three parts. “Part I: Adinventio in the Vulgate text of
Psalms” examines six examples where the use of adinventio in the Vulgate text
of Psalms hides a wealth of variation attested by other Latin witnesses. In “Part II:
Studium in the Vulgate text of Psalms”, we focus on the use of studium,
adinventio’s closest lexical associate, to render e0pith/deuma in the Vulgate text of
Psalms. This section will allow us to demonstrate that studium and adinventio in
the text of Psalms do attest a similar lexical association to that seen in Jeremiah,
Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. However, this relationship is complicated by the
addition of several other Latin lexical variants. In “Part III: Adinventio in Codex
Casinensis” the use of adinventio in the peculiar text of this manuscript will be
examined and the relevant verses compared to other witnesses of the Latin
textual tradition. 2 J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London: Duckworth, 1975), 89. 3 Kelly, Jerome, 89. See also Estin’s discussion of the work of De Bruyne in Collette Estin, Les Psautiers De Jérôme a La Lumière Des Traductions Juives Antérieures. Volume XV of Collectanea Biblica Latina (Rome: San Girolamo, 1984), 25-28. 4 Rodolphe Kasser and Michel Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer XXIV, Psaumes XVII - CXVIII (Cologny-Genève: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1967), 5. 5 Kasser and Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer, 8; and Albert Pietersma, "The Edited Text of P. Bodmer XXIV," BASP 17.1-2 (1980): 67-79.
86
As we did in Chapter One, each example from Psalms will begin with the relevant
passage from the Vulgate text, followed by a table outlining the textual variation
from the Vetus Latina Database. A discussion of the verse will follow.
In the following discussion we will also show that there are significant differences
in the type of lexical variation associated with adinventio in the book of Psalms
compared to that already seen in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets.
87
Part I: Adinventio in the Vulgate text of Psalms
Adinventio occurs six times in the Vulgate text of Psalms.6 These examples will
be treated in the following order: 105:29, 105:39, 80:13b, 80:13a, 98:8, 27:4, and
76:13.7
Example 1: Psalm 105:29
Et irritaverunt eum in adinventionibus suis, et multiplicata est in eis ruina. Table 1: Adinventio et al. in Psalm 105:29
Source Text
1
Vulgate8 Psalter Tironianum [= Psalt. Tiron.] (inritaverunt / ad inventionibus G) Pseudo-Jerome, Brev. Ps. 105 (1143B) Cod. Veron. (exacerbaverunt) Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 105.25.5 105.31.20 Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. 105 - lemma (483D) Prosper of Aquitane, Expos. Ps. (304D)
Et irritaverunt eum in adinventionibus suis
2
Psalter Ambrosianum [ = Psalt. Ambros]. Psalter Mozarabicum [= Psalt. Mozarab.] (irritaberunt)
Et irritaverunt eum in observationibus suis
6 Searches for adinventio were made in VulSearch 4.1.6 and confirmed using the Perseus frequency tool http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lang=la&lookup=adinventio 7 This order of verses was followed as it allowed for the best explanation of the evidence, each example informing discussion of the next. 8 The Vulgate text presented throughout this thesis is taken from Michael Hetzenauer, Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis, Ex Ipsis Exemplaribus Vaticanis Inter Se Collatis Critice (Oeniponte: Librariae Academicae Wagnerianae, 1906). This is the edition of the Vulgate included in the Vetus Latina Database.
88
Source Text
3
Psalt. Romanum Psalter Sangermanensis [= Psalt. Sangerm.] (inritaverunt) Psalter Sangallensis [= Psalt. Sangal.] (1395)(inritaverunt) Psalter Anglosaxon [= Psalt. Anglosax.] Cassiodorus, Expos. Ps. 105.28-29 (967.424) Julian of Eclanum, Ps. 105 (515)(inritaverunt)
Et irritaverunt eum in studiis suis
4 Psalt. Hebr. et concitaverunt eum in studiis suis
5 Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. 105 – commentary (485D)
sic fit ut irritemus Dominum in his studiis nostris
6 Glosa Ps. 105.29.1 (43) et inritaverunt eum in studiis suis, id est in adinventionibus suis
7 Cod. Casin. Incitaverunt eum in conationibus suis
8 LXX, Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, 267.9
kai\ parw&cunan au)to\n e0n toi=v e0pithdeu/masin au)tw~n…
9 Kasser and Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer, 215.10
kai parwcunan auton en toiv epithdeumasin autwn…
10
Aquila & Symmachus- Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 232.11 (According to the Syro-hexapla)
‘A. S e0n tai=v katafronh/sesin au0tw~n
11 Sahidic (Budge, Coptic Psalter, 115.12)
au+nou['snaf xn neuxbhue.
12 Bohairic (Schwartze, Psalterium Copt., 170.13)
ouox aut aut jwnt naf qen nouxbhoui
9 Unless otherwise noted the LXX text of Psalms is taken from Alfred Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, Volume X, ed., Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979). 10 Kasser, Papyrus Bodmer, 215. 11 Unless otherwise stated all references to Field are from Volume 2 of Frederick Field, Origenis Hexaplorum Quae Supersunt Sive Veterum Interpretum Graecum in Totum Vetus Testamenta Fragmenta. 2 Volumes (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1964 (1875)). 12 All references to the Sahidic text are from E.A. Wallis. Budge, The Earliest Known Coptic Psalter. The Text, in the Dialect of Upper Egypt, Edited from the Unique Papyrus Codex Oriental 5000 in the British Museum (London: Kegan Paul, 1898). 13 All references to the Bohairic text are from M. G. Schwartze, Psalterium in Dialectum Copticae Linguae Memphiticam Translatum (Lipsiae: J.A. Barthii., 1843).
89
Discussion of Example 1: Psalm 105:29
We find adinventio twice in the text of Psalm 105 at 105:29 and 105:39. The Latin
text of both these verses is relatively static except when we consider adinventio
and its associated vocabulary. The interchangeability of the vocabulary
associated with adinventio compared to the static nature of the surrounding verse
in Psalm 105 again highlights the “slot-like” character of this variation.
1.1 In Psalm 105:29 we find four variants to our text. The major witnesses for
each variation are noted.
The Vulgate or Gallican Psalter14, Augustine, Cod. Veron., Arnobius the Younger
and other later witnesses read adinventionibus (see Table 1: Reading 1 [T1:1]).
The Psalt. Romanum, Psalt. Sangerm., Psalt. Sangallensis [= Psalt. Sangal.]
(cod 1395), Julian of Eclanum, the Psalt. Hebr. and other associated witnesses
read studiis (T1:3 and T1:4).
Arnobius the Younger, who attests the Vulgate adinventionibus in his lemma of
Psalms 105:29, demonstrates his knowledge of studium in this verse by alluding
to studiis in the text of his commentary (T1:7). By introducing both studiis and
adinventionibus the Anonymous 7th century gloss on Psalms [=Glosa Ps.] also
displays knowledge of both these readings (T1:6). The possible introduction of
Vulgate readings into the manuscripts of the Latin Father’s cannot be ignored. In
both Arnobius the Younger and Glosa Ps. one must question whether the
references to the Vulgate text were introduced by the original authors or whether
these readings were “corrected” according to the Vulgate at a later point in time.
According to the card dedicated to Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. in the
Vetus Latina Database Repertorium the lemmata of Comm. Ps. are late and have
been added from the Gallican (i.e. Vulgate) tradition. This confirmation of our
suspicions encourages us to be careful when dealing with citations in the text of
the Latin Fathers.
14 Henry Barclay Swete, H. St J. Thackeray, and Richard Rusden Ottley. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (New York: KTAV, 1968), 99.
90
According to the Vetus Latina Database Cassiodorus supports the studium of the
Psalt. Romanum and others. However, the notes of Sabatier suggest that
Cassiodorus here supports the use of observatio:15
Cassiodorus, Expos. Ps.
105, 28(29) (Migne 762C) Et inritaverunt eum in studiis suis; et multiplicata
est in eis ruina.
Cassiodorus, Expos. Ps.
105 (Sabatier, 211) Et inritaverunt eum in observationibus suis; et
multiplicata est in eis ruina.
The reading of observationibus proffered by Sabatier is supported by the Psalt.
Ambros. and the Psalt. Mozarab. (T1:2), while the unusual reading of
conationibus is found in the independent Cod. Casin.(T1:R7).
From our survey of Psalm 105:29 it is apparent that we have variation within the
Latin text (adinventio, studium, observatio and conatio). The reason for this
variation, however, is not at all obvious.
1.2 The invariable reading of e0pith/deuma in Rahlf’s LXX and Papyrus Bodmer 24
(T1:8 and T1:9) does not provide any clues to the lexical variation associated with
adinventio in Psalm 105:29. The association of e0pith/deuma with both adinventio
and studium was established in Chapter Two.16
1.3 Variation in the Greek text may be found by investigating the readings of
Origen’s Hexapla as edited by Frederick Field. Based on reconstructed evidence
from the Syro-Hexapla, Field posits that Aquila and Symmachus read e0n tai=v
katafronh/sesin au0tw~n in this verse (T1:10). Field suggests that the introduction
of this variant may be in response to an alternative reading of the underlying
Hebrew. According to Hatch and Redpath katafro/nhsiv (“-contempt, disdain”) is 15 P. Sabatier, V. d. La Rue, et al. Bibliorum Sacrorum latinae versiones antiquæ, seu vetus italica, et cæteræ quæcunque in codicibus mss. & antiquorum libris reperiri potuerunt: quæ cum Vulgata latina, & cum textu græco comparantur. Accedunt præfationes, observationes, ac notæ, indexque novus ad Vulgatam è regione editam, idemque locupletissimus. Tom. II (Remis: Reginaldum Florentain, 1743), 211. 16 See Chapter One (Augustine on Psalm 105:29) and Chapter Two (Adinventio in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets).
91
found in the LXX text only at 2 Maccabees 3:18.17 There the Vulgate reads
contemptum. 18 Additionally, katafro/nhsiv may be found at Proverbs 12:8,
Ezekiel 17:20, and Ezekiel 20:27 in the text of Symmachus. None of these
examples from Symmachus, or their parallel Latin passages, inform our
examination of adinventio in Psalm 105:29.19 It would seem that the posited text
of Aquila and Symmachus has not influenced our Latin text at this point (though
perhaps elsewhere it has).
1.4 The variation surrounding adinventio in Psalm 105:29 would not seem to be
inspired by the Greek text. That observatio and conatio are independent
responses to e0pith/deuma, as are adinventio and studium¸ is possible. It would
seem more plausible, however, to suggest that we are here looking at the results
of inner-Latin textual variation. It would certainly seem that conatio and studium
share the same sense of endeavour, effort and/or exertion. The place of
observatio in this verse is less apparent and may be informed by further
examination of adinventio in Psalms. That we find adinventio and studium for
e0pith/deuma is not unexpected. It is notable, however, that whatever is underlying
the association of these three words has influenced the Latin text across the
books of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets and also Psalms. This cross-
book phenomenon must be the result of deliberate change and suggests that, at
some stage, significant revision of some (or all) books of the Latin Jewish Greek
Bible has occurred.
17 Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books). Volume II-III (Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1975), 748. 18 The Vulgate reading is a supported by Cod. Ambros. and Cod. Breslau. 19 This use of katafro/nhsiv by Symmachus is interesting. According to Joseph Reider and Nigel Turner, An Index to Aquila, Greek, Hebrew, Hebrew-Greek, Latin-Hebrew with the Syriac and Armenian Evidence, by the Late Joseph Reider. Completed and Revised by Nigel Turner (Leiden: Brill, 1966) katafro/nhsiv does not occur in Aquila.
92
Example 2: Psalm 105:39
et contaminata est in operibus eorum: et fornicati sunt in adinventionibus suis. Table 2: Adinventio et al. in Psalm 105:39
Source Text
1
Vulgate Psalt. Tiron. (ad inventionibus G) Pseudo-Jerome, Brev. Ps. 105 (1144A) Psalt. Anglosax. Cod. Veron. Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 105.31.15 (1565) Prosper of Aquitane, Expos. Ps. (305C) Glosa Ps. 105.39.1 (44) Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. 105 - lemma (484A)
et fornicati sunt in adinventionibus suis.
2 Psalt. Sangerm. et fornicati sunt ab inventionibus suis
3
Psalt. Romanum Psalt. Sangal. (cod. 1395) Psalt. Mozarab. Cassiodorus, Expos. Ps. 105.39 (969.508)
et fornicati sunt in observationibus suis
4 Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. 105 - commentary (486C)
Quia fornicamur in observationibus nostris
5 Psalt. Hebr. et fornicati sunt in studiis suis 6 Cod. Casin. et fornicaverunt in conationibus suis
7 LXX Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, 268 kai\ e0po/rneusan e0n toi=v e0pithdeu/masin au0tw~n
8 Kasser and Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer, lac.
9 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2. lac.
10 Sahidic (Budge, Coptic Psalter, 115.) auw auswwf x'n neuxbhue. auporneue x'n neumeeue 'nxYt
11 Bohairic (Schwartze, Psalterium Copt. 170-171)
ouox afswf (nje pkaxi) qen nouxbhoui (ouox) auer porneuin qen nouxbhoui
93
Discussion of Example 2: Psalm 105:39
As for Psalm 105:29 the text of 105:39 is generally quite static. Although we do
find the same lexical variation present in Psalm 105:39 as in Psalm 105:29 (i.e.
adinventio, studium, observatio and conatio) these variants are not necessarily
found in the same witnesses.
2.1 The Vulgate, Augustine, Prosper of Aquitaine, Pseudo-Jerome and Cod.
Veron. again attest adinventionibus for the LXX e0pith/deuma (T2:1). However, they
are also joined by Glosa Ps. and the Psalt. Sangerm. (T2:1 and T2:2).
Whereas the Psalt. Hebr. was supported by several witnesses in attesting studiis
in Psalm 105:29, in Psalm 105:39 we find the Psalt. Hebr. alone out of our
witnesses attesting this reading (T2:5).
While the reading of Cassiodorus in Psalm 105:29 was unsure, both the Vetus
Latina Database and Sabatier confirm the reading observationibus in this text in
Psalm 105:39 (T2:3). The reading observationibus is further supported by the
Psalt. Romanum, Psalt. Sangal. (cod. 1395) and the Psalt. Mozarab. (T2:3). The
Psalt. Mozarab. is the only witness, if we discount Cassiodorus, attesting
observationibus in both verses.
As in Psalm 105:29, Arnobius the Younger again quotes the Vulgate text
(adinventionibus) in his lemma (T2:1) and then introduces an allusion to an
alternate reading (observationibus) in his commentary (T2:4).
The lone conationibus of Cod. Casin. in Psalm 105:29 is again attested in Psalm
105:39 (T2:6).
2.2 Augustine’s passage on adinventio and e0pith/deuma was discussed in Chapter
One.20 However, it is worth noting that while this passage is associated with
Psalm 105:39 none of the alternative vocabulary suggested by Augustine, apart
20 Augustine, Enarrat. Ps., 105:39.
94
from studium, is found in this verse!21 The fact that the Latin witnesses of Psalm
105:39 do not support the full gamut of Latin lexical variation enumerated by
Augustine in relation to this verse suggests that Augustine must have been
familiar with other verses in Psalms (or in other books) which did attest these
items of vocabulary in association with adinventio and e0pith/deuma. Alternatively,
these items of vocabulary may have been present in the text of Psalm 105:39 but
now no longer survive in the extant textual tradition. In the next few examples we
will demonstrate that the full spectrum of Augustine’s Latin variants is apparent
elsewhere in the extant Latin textual tradition of Psalms. This suggests that
Augustine was most likely inspired by these examples in his discussion of Psalm
105:39.
2.3 As for Psalm 105:29 the LXX Greek reading e0pithdeu/masin is static in Rahlfs’
edition (T2:7). Unfortunately, the text of this verse is lacking in Papyrus Bodmer
24.22 There is also no evidence extant for this verse in Field.
21 This alternative vocabualry consists of: affectio, affectatio and voluptas. This vocabulary is also not found in the proximate text of Ps 105:29. 22 Kasser and Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer, 215.
95
Table 3: Combined evidence from Psalm 105:29 & Psalm 105:39
Source Psalm 105:29 Psalm 105:39 1 LXX (Rahlfs / Bodmer23) e)pithdeu/masin e)pithdeu/masin 2 LXX (Field O’) e)pithdeu/masin 3 Aquila (Field ‘A.)
(from Syro-Hexapla) katafronh/sesin
4 Symmachus (Field S.)(from Syro-Hexapla)
katafronh/sesin
5 Sahidic (Budge, Coptic Psalter, 115) nehxbhue neumeeue ('nxht)
6 Bohairic (Schwartze, Psalterium Copt. 170 / 171) nouxbhouÉÉi nouxbhouÉÉi
7 Vulgate adinventionibus adinventionibus 8 Psalt. Tiron. adinventionibus adinventionibus 9 Prosper of Aquitane, Expos. Ps. adinventionibus adinventionibus 10 Pseudo-Jerome, Brev. Ps. 105 adinventionibus adinventionibus 11 Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 105 adinventionibus adinventionibus 12 Cod. Veron. adinventionibus adinventionibus 13 Glosa Ps. studiis…adinventionibus adinventionibus 14 Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps.
105 (lemma) adinventionibus adinventionibus
15 Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. 105 (commentary)
studiis observationibus
16 Cassiodorus, Expos. Ps. 105, 28-29
studiis (observationibus?) observationibus
17 Psalt. Hebr. studiis studiis 18 Psalt. Sangerm. studiis ab inventionibus 19 Julian of Eclanum, Ps. studiis 20 Cod. Casin. conationibus conationibus 21 Psalt. Anglosax. studiis adinventionibus 22 Psalt. Sangal. studiis observationibus 23 Psalt. Romanum studiis observationibus 24 Psalt. Ambros. observationibus studiis 25 Psalt. Mozarab. observationibus observationibus
2.4 The seemingly static nature of the Greek text underlying Psalm 105:29 and
105:39 means that not only is our Latin text demonstrating variation within a
verse but also, in some witnesses, across verses. A significant number of our
witnesses do demonstrate the same vocabulary across both verses, thus
suggesting a similar underlying Greek and supporting our current knowledge
regarding the extant Greek text (see Table 3).
In contrast to this uniformity we find several textual witnesses which do not
support the same Latin in each verse. The Psalt. Romanum and Psalt. Sangal.
23 Evidence for 105:29 extant only.
96
both demonstrate variation across verses but are uniform in their support of each
other, thus we find studiis in Psalm 105:29 and observationibus in Psalm 105:39
in both texts (T3:22 and T3:23). This situation is reversed in the Psalt. Ambros.
(T3:24). Arnobius the Younger alludes to both studium and observatio in his
commentary on Psalms (T3:16), thus suggesting awareness of the older textual
tradition of the Psalters.
2.5 In Budge’s edition of the Sahidic Psalter we also find variation across Psalm
105:29 and 105:39: 24
105:29
au+nou['snaf xn neuxbhue.
a pxe asai" xrai" 'Nxhtou.
105:39
auw auswwf x'n neuxbhue.
auporneue x'n neumeeue 'nxYt
In Psalm105:29 we find neuxbhue while in Psalm 105:39 we find neumeeue for
e0pith/deuma. Complicating this situation is the appearance of neuxbhue in the first
part of Psalm 105:39. The LXX Greek behind this second example of neuxbhue is
e1rgoiv. A quick examination of the Coptic equivalents of e1rgon in Psalms
demonstrates that neuxbhue would not be an unusual rendering of this Greek:
Psalm 76:12
LXX e1rgwn
Sahidic (76:11)
'nneuxbhue
Psalm 76:13
LXX e1rgwn
Sahidic (76:12)
nnekxbhue
Psalm 104:1
LXX e1rga
Sahidic
nnefxbhue
Crum, in the index to his Coptic Dictionary, indicates that e0pith/deuma may be
translated by both xbhue and meeue.25 We are thus left wondering if the different
24 Budge, The Earliest Known Coptic Psalter, 115. 25 W. E. Crum, A Coptic Dictionary Compiled with the Help of Many Scholars (Oxford: The Clarendon, 1939), 901. Crum indicates that e0pith/deuma may be translated by eiope (81a), meeue (200a), sbw (319b (Add)), xwb (653b), xi toot (734b).
97
rendering of e0pith/deuma across verses in the Sahidic version is purely an inner
Coptic phenomenon or does indeed suggest an underlying alternate Greek. It is
interesting to note that the Bohairic displays no variation reading nouxbhoui for
e)pithdeu/masin in Psalm 105:29 as well as for e1rgoiv and e)pithdeu/masin in Psalm
105:39.26
2.6 That the Sahidic text of Psalm 105:29 and 105:39 attests different readings
for e0pith/deuma as do certain texts of the Latin tradition is intriguing. That we then
find the Bohairic supporting the static text of other Latin witnesses is doubly so.
We are left wondering whether the mechanism for change within the Coptic and
the Latin textual tradition was similar.
2.7 The Latin lexical variation highlighted in Psalm 105 displays a complexity not
hinted at in the theory of African and European lexical variation associated with
the Latin New Testament. In this verse we find three lexical variants (adinventio,
observatio and studium) attested in various combinations in Psalm 105:29 and
Psalm 105:39. An attempt to try and characterise this variation within a double,
rather than triple, textual tradition would be misguided.27
The variation apparent in Psalm 105 also reinforces the need to treat each book
of the Jewish Greek Bible independently. While certain elements in this verse are
also apparent in our examination of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets
(i.e. the use of studium and adinventio for e0pith/deuma) the introduction of
observatio and the peculiar text of Cod. Casin. demonstrates the independence
of Psalms from these books.
26 Schwartze, Psalterium Copt., 176 and 177. 27 The three part collection of lexical equivalents referred to here does not take into account the peculiar reading of the Cod. Casin. which, although only preserved in one extant manuscript, may also be another strand of variation in the textual tradition of Psalms.
98
This page deliberately left blank
99
Example 3: Psalm 80:13b
a. Et dimisi eos secundum desideria cordis eorum; b. ibunt in adinventionibus suis. Table 4: Adinventio et al. in Psalm 80:13b
Source Text
1
Vulgate Psalt. Tiron. (ad inventionibus G) Jerome, Hom. Ps. 13 (80.162) (et ibunt SG) Jerome, Comm. Ps. 80 (219.4) (ambulabunt in) Cod. Casin. (ambulabunt in) John Cassian, Con. Part. 3 (20.2) (ambulabunt in) Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. lemma (442C) commentary (443B) (abierunt in)
…ibunt in adinventionibus suis
2 Pelagius, Rom. 1.24 (15.17) (+ [et] ibunt in adinventionibus (voluptatibus V Cas) suis = G V Cas)
3
Psalt. Romanum Psalt. Sangerm. (ambulabunt) Psalt. Sangal (1395) Psalt. Ambros. Psalt. Anglosax. Augustine, Praed. and Grat. 11.13 (1673) Rufinus, Orig. Hom. Num.14.3 (126.5) Cassiodorus, Expos. Ps. 80.12-13 (754.245) 80.12-13 (754.251) Fulgentius, Praed. 11 (850D) Epiphanius of Seville Evang. 52 (130.27) Evang. 52 (voluntatem eorum) Gregory the Great, Moral. 26 18.33 Glosa Ps. 80.13.1 (369) Autpert Ambrose, Apoc. 2 (145.77f) (voluptatibus?) Bede, Sam. (72.191)
…ibunt in voluntatibus suis
4 Psalt. Mozarab. …ibunt in voluptatibus suis
100
Source Text Augustine, Serm. 119 8 (ambulabunt in) Quodvultdeus, Grat. 1.8.4 (447.7) (ambulabunt in) Fulgentius, Euth. 2.13.2 (695.622) Cassiodorus, Expos. Rom.1.24 (420A) Autpert Ambrose, Apoc. 3 (196.8) 10 (858.10)
5
Cod. Veron. (et ibunt) Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 80.17.1 (1130.3) 80.17.1 (1130.12)
… ibunt in affectionibus suis
6 Psalt. Hebr. …ambulabunt in consiliis suis 7 Rufinus, Orig. Comm. Rom. 9.1 (1207C) …irent in cupiditatibus suis
8 LXX (Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, 223) poreu/sontai e0n toi=v e0pithdeu/masin au0tw~n.
9 Kasser and Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer, 68 poreusontai en toiv epithdeumasin autwn
10 Aquila - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 233 (Nobilius, Theodoret)
’A. poreu/sontai e0n bouleu/masin au0tw~n
11 Symmachus - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 233 (Eusebius, Theodoret, Nobilius)
S. o9deu/ein tai=v boulai=v au0tw~n.
12 Sahidic (Budge, Coptic Psalter, 88) senamoose x'n neuxbhue. 13 Bohairic (Schwartze, Psalterium Copt. 155) senamosi ÉÉnqrhi qen nouxbhouÉÉi.
Discussion of Example 3: Psalm 80:13b
e0pith/deuma is actually found twice in the LXX of Psalm 80:13. We will turn to
80:13a after a discussion of 80:13b.
3.1 In Psalm 80:13b we find evidence for the complete range of variants specified
by Augustine in his discussion of adinventio and e0pith/deuma in his Enarrations on
Psalms [= Augustine, Enarrat. Ps.].
The Vulgate adinventionibus of 80:13b is supported, with slight variation across
101
the passage, by Jerome, Cod. Casin., Arnobius the Younger (in both his lemma
and commentary) and John Cassian (T4:1).28
Both the lemma and commentary of Arnobius the Younger attest adinventionibus.
As occurred in Psalm 105:29 and 105:39 the lemma of Arnobius the Younger
supports the Vulgate. However, the alliance of the commentary of Arnobius with
the Vulgate is new. This suggests that the commentary of Arnobius is based on
various textual traditions.
According to the Vetus Latina Database Repertorium the commentary of
Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. contains references to the Romanum and
Gallican Psalters, the Psalt. Hebr. and, especially, the Psalt. Mozarab.29 It is
interesting to note that our brief examination has already demonstrated the
influence of several of these textual traditions on the commentary of Arnobius the
Younger.
Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 80.17.1, supported by Cod. Veron., reads affectionibus in
place of adinventionibus (T4:5). Given Augustine’s concern about the
interpretation of adinventio, as demonstrated in his passage on Psalm 105:39, it
is not surprising that we find an alternative reading to adinventio in Augustine,
Enarrat. Ps. That this reading is also supported by Cod. Veron. is intriguing. In his
Prolegomena Rahlfs draws attention to the agreement often found between
Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. and the Cod. Veron.30
Voluptatibus for adinventionibus is found in the text of Augustine, Serm.,
Quodvultdeus, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Autpert Ambrose and the Psalt.
Mozarab. (T4:4). As was demonstrated in Chapter One, Augustine includes
voluptatibus in his list of terms known to translate e0pith/deuma. The discovery of
28 Manuscript G of Pelagius, Rom. adds adinventionnibus suggesting influence from the Vulgate. 29 See the card referring to Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. in the Vetus Latina Database Repertorium http://apps.brepolis.net/vld/repertorium/work.cfm?action=fiche&work_id=2209 30 Rahlfs, Psalmi cum Odis, 37-38: “Der Text von LaR stimmt…sehr oft mit demjenigen überein, welchen Augustin seiner großen Erklärung der Psalmen, den "Enarrationes in Psalmos", zugrunde gelegt hat.” Rahlfs’ LaR refers to the Latin column of the Greek-Latin Psalter from Verona (i.e. Cod. Veron.). Rahlfs notes (p. 10) that this Codex is unsatisfactorily edited by Blanchinus. The Blanchinus edition is that referred to in the Vetus Latina Database.
102
this term in Augustine, Quodvultdeus and Fulgentius suggests a strong
association with writers from fourth to sixth century North Africa.
Due to its omission from Augustine’s list of variants we must wonder whether the
use of voluntatibus in 80:13b is inspired by e0pith/deuma or a different Greek. The
age of this variant is secured by the appearance of voluntatibus in three of the
older manuscript traditions, i.e. Psalters Romanum, Sangerm., and Sangal. as
well as Rufinus, Orig. Hom. Num. and Augustine, Praed. and Grat. This reading
is also supported by several other later witnesses including Cassiodorus and
Fulgentius.
In Rufinus’ translation of Origen’s Commentary on Romans [= Rufinus, Orig.
Comm. Rom.] we find the unique cupiditatibus. The individuality of the reading
found in Rufinus, Orig. Comm. Rom. is matched by the consiliis of the Psalt.
Hebr.31
3.2 In Psalm 80:13b we find six different variants (adinventio, voluntas, voluptas,
affectio, consilium and cupiditas) associated with the reading of adinventio.
However, it is notable that we do not find studium in this verse. Several of the
readings in 80:13b recall Augustine’s discussion of Psalm 105:9 in Enarrat. Ps.
but the reason for the presence of these variants here, and in Augustine’s
passage, still eludes us. That the reading of voluptas or voluntas may be the
result of accidental scribal error, originating in the misreading of one or other of
these words, is possible. But this possibility will not be fully entertained until we
have more fully examined the usage of adinventio in Psalms.
3.3 The issue of variation in the Latin is further complicated by variation found in
the Greek text of Psalm 80:13. While Rahlf’s LXX and Papyrus Bodmer 24 read
e0pithdeu/masin (T4:8), Field notes the use of bouleu/masin (“a resolution, purpose,
31 According to Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, 227 bou/leuma is only found in the text of Aquila in Psalm 80:13 and Proverbs 1:31. In Proverbs 1:31 we find the bou/leuma of Aquila being rendered by consiliis in the Vulgate text while the LXX a0se/beia is associated with impietate in Clement of Rome, Pseudo-Cyprian and Pseudo-Athanasius. The consiliis of the Vulgate text in Proverbs 1:31 clearly realls the consiliis of the LXX text of Jerome, Comm. Mich. Micah 6:16 (T5:5) and the Psalt. Hebr. in Psalm 80:13b (T4:6).
103
sitting of the boulh/”) in the text of Aquila (T4:10) and boulai=v (“will,
determination; a counsel, advice; a Council etc.”) in the text of Symmachus
(T4:11).
The sense of will and determination suggested by the boulh/ of Symmachus may
be paralleled by the Latin voluntas. In Philo we find that boulh/ “does not mean
counsel so much as wish or will”. 32 This may further suggest association between
the Latin voluntas and the Jewish Hellenistic Greek text of Symmachus in
Psalms.
Our discussion of Psalm 80:13b and voluntas may be informed by an
examination of Micah 6:16.
Table 5: Micah 6:16
Source Text
1 Swete, Old Testament in Greek, Vol III, 36
e0n tai=v o9doi=v(boulai=v AQ) au0tw~n. Q – Codex Marchalianus (Egypt earlier than 6th century CE33. Agrees largely with Cyril of Alexandria and the Memphitic version = Egyptian text = Jerome’s Hesychian text.34) A – Codex Alexandrinus (Middle 5th century CE.35 Egypt?)
2 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 997
O’ e0n tai=v o9doi=v (alia exempl. boulai=v) au0tw~n.
3 Vulgate Jerome, Comm. Mich. 2 (1212C)
et ambulasti36 in voluntátibus eórum
4 Jerome, Comm. Mich. 2 (1215A)
Et ambulastis in voluntatibus eorum in voluntatibus eorum
5 Jerome, Comm. Mich. 2 (6,1213A) LXX37
LXX…et ambulasti in consiliis eorum
6 Fr. Sang. et ibatis in vias eorum
32 Gerhard Kittel and Geoffrey William Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol 1 (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1977), 634. 33 Henry Barclay Swete, The Old Testament in Greek, According to the Septuagint. Vol. III (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907), vii. 34 Swete, Old Testament in Greek, Vol. III, ix. 35 Swete, Old Testament in Greek, Vol. I, xxii. 36 The appearance of both ambulo and eo in Micah 6:16 reflects the presence of these variants in Psalm 80:13b. The clear association of eo (ibatis) with the Fr. Sang. suggests that this is the older reading. However, the presence of ambulo (ambulasti) in the LXX of Jerome does suggest that this reading is also older than Jerome and is not attributable to his influence on the tradition. 37 The use of “LXX” in association with an abbreviation for one of Jerome’s commentaries means that direct reference to “LXX” is made by Jerome in the text of his commentary.
104
In Micah 6:16 it is clear that the voluntatibus of the Vulgate and Jerome, Comm.
Mich. 2 (T5:3) as well as the consiliis of Jerome, Comm. Mich. 2 LXX (T5:5)
support the boulai=v of Cod. Alexandrinus and Marchalianus rather than the o9doi=v
(“- a way, path, track, road”) found in other LXX manuscripts (T5:1). However,
o9doi=v would seem to be represented in the older Latin textual tradition by the vias
of Fr. Sang. (T5:6). This association of voluntas and consilium with boulh/ in
Micah 6:16 supports a similar association of this vocabulary in Psalm 80:13b,
thus suggesting that the text of Symmachus, rather than the LXX, underlies the
reading of several Latin witnesses in this verse.
It is unclear whether the introduction of cupiditas in Rufinus, Orig. Comm. Rom. in
Psalm 80:13b is a response to either boulh/ or e0pith/deuma. As Rufinus, Orig.
Comm. Rom. is a translation from a Greek original it is likely that the impetus for
this reading lay outside the existing Latin textual tradition. It is possible that
Origen may have read a different Greek and that this in turn has influenced the
text of Rufinus.
3.3 No variation is apparent in the Coptic text of Psalm 80:13b. The Sahidic
neuxbhue and the Bohairic nouxbhoui both support the LXX e0pith/deuma.
105
Example 4: Psalm 80:13a
a. Et dimisi eos secundum desideria cordis eorum; b. ibunt in adinventionibus suis.
Table 6: Adinventio et al. in Psalm 80:13a
Source Text
1
Vulgate Psalt. Tiron. Jerome, Hom. Ps. 13 (80.162) 13 (80.165) Pseudo-Jerome, Brev. Ps. 80 (1061A) 80 (1061B) Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. (442C) (443B) (ideo dimisi) Rufinus, Orig. Comm. Rom. 9.1 (1207C) Augustine, Praed. and Grat. 11.13 (1673) Pseudo-Augustine, Spec. 29 (443.4) Psalt. Romanum Psalt. Sangerm. Psalt. Ambros. (emisi illos secundum) Psalt. Sangal. (saecundu desiteria cordis) Psalt. Mozarab. Psalt. Anglosax Pelagius, Rom. 1.24 (15.17) Cassiodorus, Expos. Ps. 80.12-13 (754.245) 80.12-13 (754.251) Cassiodorus, Expos. Rom. 1.24 (420A) Epiphanius of Seville, Evang. 52 (130.27) Fulgentius, Praed. 11 (p. 850D) Fulgentius, Euth. 2.13.2 Glosa Ps. 2.4.5 (12) An. Expos. Paul. Hebr. (436) (dimisi] reliqui) Autpert Ambrose, Apoc. 2 (145.77f) 3 (196.8) 10 (858.10) [Eusebius of Gaul], Hom. 38.5 (444.168) Glosa Ps. 80.13.1 (369) Gregory the Great, Moral. 26. 18.33 (368B) Bede, Sam. 2 (72.191) (dimitte)
dimisi eos secundum desideria cordis eorum
106
Source Text
2 Bede, Sam. 3 (176.1689) dimittente eos domino secundum desideria cordis eorum
3 Rufinus, Orig. Hom. Num. 14.3 (126.5) dimisit eos in desiderio cordis eorum (desiderio AEg, Ald.] desideriis C, desideria Db, Del)
4 Vita. Emer. 2 dimisit eum habire secundum desideria cordis eius
5
Cod. Veron. Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 80.17.1 (1130) Augustine, Serm. 119.838 Quodvultdeus, Grat. 1.8.4 (447.7)
dimisi eos secundum affectiones cordis eorum
6 Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 80.17.1 (3)
Et dimisi eos, non secundum salutem praeceptorum meorum, sed secundum affectiones cordis eorum donavi eos sibi/.Romans 1:24 / Dimisi eos secundum affectiones cordis eorum;…
7 Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 80.18.3 (1131) eo post affectiones cordis mei;
8 Jerome, Comm. Ps. 80 (219.4) dimisit eos secundum adinventionem cordis eorum
9 John Cassian, Con. Part. 3 (20.2)
propter quod dimisi eos…secundum adinventiones cordium eorum
10 John Cassian, Con. Part. Et misi eos in difficultate cordis eorum 11 Psalt. Hebr. et dimisi eum in pravitate cordis sui:
12 LXX (Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, 223) kai\ e0cape/steila au0tou\v kata\ ta\ e0pithdeu/mata tw~n kardiw~n au)tw~n,
13 Kasser and Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer, 167-168
kai ecapesteila autouv kaka ta epiqumhmata twn kardiwn au[twn
14 Aquila - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 233 (au0tw~n Nobilius, Theodoret; lac. Codd. 264, 268)
A’ …e0n skolio/thti kardi/av [au0tw~n]
15 Symmachus - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 233
S. a0fh=ka ou]n au0tou\v th=| a0reskei/a| th=v kardi/av au0tw~n,
16 Sahidic (Budge, Coptic Psalter 88, 80:12) ai"joouse kata nepicumia 'nneuxht.
17 Bohairic (Schwartze, Psalterium Copt. 128)
ouox aitaouÉÉo nwou kata ni xbhouÉÉi ÉÉnte pouxht (nouxht C).
Discussion of Example 4: Psalm 80:13a
The reason for including Psalm 80:13a in this discussion stems from the dual
presence of e0pith/deuma in this verse. While 80:13a reads e0pithdeu/mata (T6:12)
the LXX text of 80:13b (T4:8) reads e0pithdeu/masin. With the presence of
38 The assignment of Augustine, Serm. 32 19.19 (Dedit illos Deus in concupiscentias cordis eorum) to Psalm 80:13 in the Vetus Latina Database would seem to be in error. This reading better reflects Romans 1:24.
107
e0pith/deuma in part a and b of this verse one might expect readings from Example
3 to also appear here. However, this occurs in a limited number of witnesses.
4.1 In 80:13a the Vulgate desideria (“-a longing, ardent desire or wish”) (T6:1) is
aligned with the LXX e0pithdeu/mata (T6:12). This reading is supported by the
preponderance of Latin witnesses (T6:1-4). However, there would not seem to be
any reason to associate these two readings apart from their physical positioning
in the verse.
While Rahlf’s LXX text is static Field highlights variations from Aquila (skolio/thti
”- crookedness”) (T6:14) and Symmachus (a0reskei/a|”-obsequiousness”)(T6:15).
The skolio/thv of Aquila may be reflected in the pravitas of the Psalt. Hebr. and
the difficultas of Cod. Casin. That either of these Greek variants underpin the
Latin adinventio, affectio and desiderium is unlikely.
As noted previously, the presence of affectio and adinventio in Augustine,
Enarrat. Ps. 105:39 suggests that these items of vocabulary may be associated
with e0pith/deuma. It is therefore not unreasonable to suggest that the attestation of
affectio in Augustine, Enarrat. Ps., Cod. Veron. and Quodvultdeus (T6:5-7) and
the reading of adinventio in Jerome, Comm. Ps. and Cassian (T6:8-9) are
inspired by the LXX e0pithdeu/mata (T6:12).
4.2 It is likely that desiderium supports a Greek reading other than those already
discussed in association with this verse. Papyrus Bodmer 24 and the Sahidic
version of Psalm 80:13a provide us with a Greek reading which may have
inspired the Latin desiderium:
Papyrus Bodmer 24 Psalm 80:13a
…kaka ta epiqumhmata twn kardiwn au[twn
Sahidic Psalm 80:12(13)a
…ai"joouse kata nepicumia 'nneuxht.39
39 Budge, Coptic Psalter, 88.
108
The discovery of e0piqu/mhma (“-object of desire; yearning, desire”) in Papyrus
Bodmer 24 (T6:13) and e0piqumi/a (“-desire, yearning”; = e0piqu/mhma) in the Sahidic
text (T6:16) of 80:13a clearly supports the Latin desiderium. As occurred in
Psalm 105:39 the Bohairic xbhoui moves away from the reading of the Sahidic
version toward the LXX e0pith/deuma (T6:17).
The alliance of Papyrus Bodmer 24 and the Sahidic has already been observed.40
The reading of Psalm 80:13a further supports this association. That the Latin
version may also reflect elements of this textual tradition is now posited.
4.3 Due to possible intertextual influence between the Latin version of the Jewish
Greek Bible and the Latin New Testament, passages in the New Testament
which closely parallel those being discussed also need to be examined
The text of Romans 1:24 closely aligns with Psalm 80:13a:
Romans 1:24
Vulgate: Propter quod tradidit illos Deus in desideria cordis eorum,
Greek NT : Dio\ pare/dwken au0tou\v o9 qeo\v e0n tai=v e0piqumi/aiv tw~n kardiw~n
au0tw~n…41
Psalm 80:13a
Vulgate : Et dimisi eos secundum desideria cordis eorum…
LXX : kai\ e0cape/steila au0tou\v kata\ ta\ e0pithdeu/mata tw~n kardiw~n au)tw~n,
Papyrus Bodmer 24 : …kaka ta epiqumhmata twn kardiwn au[twn
While the text of the Vulgate in Romans 1:24 and Psalm 80:13a are reminiscent
of each other, the text of Augustine in Romans 1:24 helps to distance the two
verses from one another. In many, but not all, references to Romans 1:24
40 See Preliminaries above. 41 Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren. The Greek New Testament. English edition (United Bible Societies, 1983), 531.
109
Augustine attests concupiscentia rather than desiderium.42 However, in
Augustine, Epist. 2,9,3 (17,25) Augustine acknowledges openly that desiderium
may be found in some witnesses: tradit aliquos in desideria cordis eorum.43
Jerome, Comm. Ps. 80 also draws a direct link between Psalm 80 and Romans
1:24:
(219,4) Et dimisit eos secundum adinventionem cordis eorum: ambulabunt in adinventionibus suis. De hoc (220,6) loco et apostolus ad Romanos sumsit exemplum:
What is curious here is Jerome’s connection of the two verses despite his use of
adinventio (and thus e0pith/deuma in the Greek) in reference to Psalm 80:13a.
Neither adinventio or e0pith/deuma are found in Romans 1:24. However Jerome,
Hom. Ps. 13 (x2) uses desideria in place of adinventionem. It would seem that
while Jerome in his Commentary on Psalms displays a Latin lemma reflective of
his preferred Greek he is still willing to refer to commentary inspired by an older
Latin reading (i.e. desideria).
The common text of Romans 1:24 and Psalm 80:13a makes it difficult to
determine whether the desiderium of Psalm 80:13a is reflective of the Greek of
Papyrus Bodmer 24 and the Sahidic Version or is a correction to the text of
Romans 1:24. Some perspective on this issue may be gained when we consider
the text of Psalm 80:13a and 80:13b as one entity. In Psalm 80:13 we find two
elements which suggest connection with textual traditions other than the Greek
LXX text. The use of voluntas in Psalm 80:13b may have been inspired by a
textual tradition similar to that found in the text of Symmachus (boulh/). In Psalm
80:13a desiderium is more closely aligned with Papyrus Bodmer 24 and the
Sahidic than the other extant Greek readings in this verse. Based on the
presence of these two elements in this verse it is not too bold to suggest that the
Latin textual tradition, in this verse, may preserve an otherwise lost Greek text,
now only extant in various unrelated sources.
42 Augustine attests concupiscentia more than 20 times in relation to Romans 1:24. See also Paulinus of Nola, Epist. 1.9 (7.23) …traditios in concupiscnetias cordis sui; Rufinus, Orig. Hom. Ps. 57 9: Tradidit eos Dominus in concupiscentias cordis eorum. 43 See Divjak, Bibliothèque Augustinienne 46B (Paris, 1987).
110
This page deliberately left blank
111
Example 5: Psalm 98:8
Domine Deus noster, tu exaudiebas eos; Deus, tu propitius fuisti eis, et ulciscens in omnes adinventiones eorum.
Table 7: Adinventio et al in Psalm 98:8
Source Text
1
Vulgate Psalt Tiron. Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. 98 – lemma (467A) Pseudo-Jerome, Brev. Ps. 98 (1124C)
…et ulciscens in omnes adinventiones eorum.
2 Cod. Casin. …et vindicans super adinventiones eorum
3
(forms vary) Psalt. Roman. Psalt. Sangerm. Psalt. Ambros. Psalt. Anglosax. Psalt. Mozarab. Cassiodorus, Expos. Ps. 98.8 (886.185) 98.8 (886.190) 98.8 (886.194)
…et vindicans in omnia studia eorum
4 Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. 98 – commentary (467C)
…tu vindicasti in omnibus studiis eorum
5 Julian of Eclanum, Ps. 98 (481) Et vindicasti in omnia studia eorum. simmachus. et ulciscens omnes iniurias eorum.
6
([the form of affectio varies) Cod. Veron. Augustine, Pecc. merit. 2 (16.25) Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 98.11.12 (1388) 98.12.1 (1388.3) 98.12.1 (1388.28) 98.12.1 (1388.31) 98.12.1 (1390) 98.12.1 (1390.13 x2) 98.12.1 (1391.34) 98.12.1 (1391.36)
…et vindicans in omnes affectiones eorum
7 Psalt. Hebr. …et ultor super commutationibus eorum
8 LXX (Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, 251)
kai\ e)kdikw~n e0pi\ pa/nta ta\ e0pithdeu/mata au0tw~n.
9 Kasser and Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer, 196)
kai e]diwkwn epi panta ta epi[thdeu] /mata autwn:
112
Source Text
10 LXX - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 255 (Theodoret, Reg. unus. Nobilius quasi scholium)
O’. kai\ e0kdikw~n e0pi –pa/nta/ ta\ e0pithdeu/mata au0tw~n
11
Symmachus - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 255 (Theodoret, Reg. unus. Nobilius quasi scholium. Syro-hex S. e0pi\ tai=v e0phrei/aiv au0tw~n)
S. kai\ e2kdikov e0pi\ tai=v e0phrei/aiv au0tw~n.
12 Sahidic (Budge, Coptic Psalter, 105)
akeire 'mpekba 'nneuxbhue throu.
13 Bohairic (Schwartze, Psalterium Copt. 155)
nem ou ref[I Ém psis ÉExrhi ÉEjen nouxbhouÉi throu.
Discussion of Example 5: Psalm 98:8
In the Latin text of Psalm 98:8 we find five variants relevant to our discussion of
adinventio.
5.1 In the LXX text of Psalm 98:8 we find the expected e0pithdeu/mata (T7:8). We
also find the Greek variant e0phrei/aiv (“-insulting treatment, abuse”) attested in
the text of Symmachus as noted by Field (T7:11).
Julian of Eclanum, Ps. has already drawn our attention to the reading of
Symmachus: Et vindicasti in omnia studia eorum. simmachus. et ulciscens
omnes iniurias eorum (T7:5). The suggestion that iniurias (“-contrary to justice
and equity, injury, wrong, violence”) reflects the e0phrei/aiv of Symmachus is
intriguing. We are further intrigued by the presence of such a reading in Theodori
Mopsuesteni expositio in Psalmos interpretante Juliano Aeclanensi [= Julian of
Eclanum, Ps.].
5.2 The use of adinventio in Psalm 98:8 is limited to the Vulgate, Psalt. Tiron., the
lemma of Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. 98, Pseudo-Jerome, Brev. Ps. 98
and Cod. Casin. (T7:1 and T7:2). The role of Cod. Casin. in the current
discussion continues to puzzle. While one would be tempted to suggest that the
113
reading adinventiones in Psalm 98:8 has its origin with Jerome the presence of
this reading in Cod. Casin. gives us reason to pause.44
The commutationibus (“-a changing, change, alteration”) of the Psalt. Hebr. does
not recall either the LXX e0pithdeu/mata or the e0phrei/aiv of Symmachus. Jerome
must either be resorting to a different Greek or directly to the Hebrew text.
Studium is the most popular reading in Psalm 98:8. studia is witnessed by the
Psalters Romanum, Sangermanensis, Ambrosian, Anglosaxon and Mozarabic as
well as Cassiodorus and the commentary of Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps.
98 (T7:3 and T7:4). As noted above studiis is attested by Julian of Eclanum in his
lemma (T7:5). This well-know alternative to adinventio has been discussed in
detail in our Chapter on Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets where it was
determined that studium is suggestive of an older text type. The discovery of this
reading in the Psalt. Romanum supports this view.
5.3 In Psalm 98:8 we find Augustine and the Cod. Veron. again preferring affectio
for adinventio (T7:6). Augustine’s pre-occupation with affectio needs further
examination. It is unclear whether affectio represents internal Latin variation or is
suggestive of a different underlying Greek. That Augustine in his passage on
Psalm 105:39 associates affectio with e0pith/deuma would suggest the former. How
this association is formed is less clear.
In the Vulgate affectio is found only in Romans 1:31 (sine affectione45 -
a0sto/rgouv46), Philippians 2:20 (sincera affectione47 - gnhsi/wv48) and 2 Timothy
44 Cod. Casin. and the Psalt. Hebr. continue to display their peculiar association through the joint attestation of super against all other witnesses in this verse. 45 Romans 1:31: Vulgate sine affectione; Augustine, Civ. 14.9, Augustine, Spec. 30 sine affectione; Augustine, Nat. grat. 24, Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 33 1,9,19 sine affectu (source: Vetus Latina Database database). 46 Aland et al., Greek New Testament, 532. 47 Philippians 2:20: Vulgate sincera affectione; Augustine, Epist. 2 (9,11) sincerae dilectionis affectu. (source: Vetus Latina Database database. See also Divjak, Bibliothèque Augustinienne 46B (Paris, 1987) as per the Vetus Latina Database card). 48 Aland, Greek New Testament, 685.
114
3:3 (sine affectione49 - a!storgoi50). These examples support the definition of
affectio suggested by Lewis & Short II. C:.“a favourable disposition toward any
one, love, affection, good-will (post-Aug. prose)”. Augustine too supports this
sense in Romans 1,31 and Philippians 2:20 but evidence is lacking for 2 Timothy
3:3. That affectio is found only three times in the Vulgate suggests that this term
was not favoured by Jerome.
In the article “The Topics of Argumentative Invention in Latin Rhetorical Theory
from Cicero to Boethius” we find affectio and studia listed under Cicero’s De
inventione rhetorica in the table titled: The Attributes of the Person and the Act in
Selected Latin Authors.51 The suggested association of this vocabulary with De
inventione, and the obvious relationship between adinventio and the inventione of
the title, leads us to wonder whether there is a rhetorical aspect to Augustine’s
use of affectio and Jerome’s use of adinventio.52 In Lewis and Short the
philosophical aspect of affectio is defined as:
I. the relation to or disposition toward a thing produced in a person by some influence (in this and the two foll. signif. almost peculiar to the philos. lang. of Cic.)…; II. A. A change in the state or condition of body or mind, a state or frame of mind, feeling (only transient, while habitus is lasting)… B. A permanent state of mind, a frame of mind, a state of feeling…”
It is suggested that, for Augustine, affectio carries philosophical baggage which in
turn reflects his familiarity with the technical terminology of Cicero. It is possible
that these philosophical overtones are also why Jerome avoids the use of this
term in his Vulgate text. If the use of affectio is a strong indicator of familiarity with
49 2 Timothy 3:3: Vulgate sine affectione; Augustine lac. (source: Vetus Latina Database database). 50 Aland, Greek New Testament, 735. 51 Michael C. Leff, "The Topics of Argumentative Invention in Latin Rhetorical Theory from Cicero to Boethius." Rhetorica 1.1 (1983): 23 - 24. 52 We may also look to Vitruvius Pollio’s The Ten Books on Architecture for possible insight into the relationship of our vocabulary: hae nascuntur excogitatione et inventione. cogitatio est cura studii plena et industriae vigilantiae que effectus propositi cum voluptate. inventio autem est quaestionum obscurarum explicatio ratioque novae rei vigore mobili reperta. (Chapter 2: The Fundamental Principles of Architecture) (Krohn, 1912) http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Vitr.+1.2&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0073
115
Ciceronian philosophical concepts one must wonder about the context of
translation and/or revision which produced Augustine’s constant companion -
Cod. Veron.
Example 6: Psalm 27:4
Da illis secundum opera eorum, et secundum nequitiam adinventionum ipsorum. Table 8: Adinventio et al in Psalm 27:4
Source Text
1
Vulgate Psalt Tiron. (ad inventionum G) Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. (360A)
et secundum nequitiam adinventionum ipsorum.
2 Psalt. Hebr. et secundum malum adinventionum suarum :
3 Glosa Ps. 27.4.3 (117) et secundum iniquitatem adinventionum eorum retribue illis.
4 Pseudo-Jerome, Brev. Ps. 27 (899B) et secundum nequitiam adinventionum eorum, etc. Studia eorum sunt
5 Psalt. Sangal. et secun)dum nequitiam a(d) in(ventionum ipsor)um.
6 Cod. Casin. et secundum malitiam conversationis eorum
7 Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 27.4.1-7 (168) (affectationum] opt. codd., affectionum alii codd. a K)
Et secundum malignitatem affectationum ipsorum.
8 Cod. Veron. et secundum malignitatem affectionum ipsorum;
9
Lucifer, Con. 5 (13.2) Psalt. Sangerm. Psalt. Ambros. Psalt. Mozarab. Gothic Breviary (500A) Cassiodorus, Expos. Ps. 27.4 (244.78) 27.4 (244.87) Fulgentius, Euth. 2.10.5 (692.517)
et secundum nequitiam studiorum ipsorum
10 Lucifer, Con. 5 (13.20) secundum nequitiam studiorum vestrorum
11 Psalt. Romanum (nequitias / omit. ipsorum) Psalt. Anglosax.
et secundum nequitiam studiorum ipsorum retribue illis;
12 Bede, Sam. 2 (129.2563) quia secundum nequitiam studiorum ipsorum retribuet illis
13 LXX (Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, 120) kai\ kata\ th\n ponhri/an tw~n e0pithdeuma/twn au0tw~n.
14 Kasser and Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer, 62)
kai kata thn ponhrian twn epeith[deuma]twn autwn:
15 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, lac. for this part of verse
116
Source Text
16 Sahidic (Budge, Coptic Psalter, 29)
+nau kata neuxbhue auw kata tponhria 'nneu meeue. twwbe nau kata nexbhue 'nneu[ij + nau 'mpeutoueio.
17 Bohairic (Schwartze, Psalterium Copt., 38)
moi nwou kata nouxbhouÉi nem kata + met-pet-xwou Énte nouxbhouÉi moi nwou kata ni xbhouÉi Énte noujij moi nwou Én tsebiÉw Én nh Éet auaitou
Discussion of Example 6: Psalm 27:4
6.1 In the LXX text of Psalm 27:4 we find e0pithdeuma/twn (T8:13). This static text
does not support the amount of variation apparent in the Latin. It should also be
noted that the epeith[deuma]twn of Papyrus Bodmer 24 is a reconstructed reading
but would seem to support Rahlfs’ LXX text (T8:14). Evidence from Field is
lacking for this part of Psalm 27:4 (T8:15).
6.2 The alignment of evidence for adinventio and its associates in Psalm 27:4 is
very similar to that found above in Psalm 98:8. The Vulgate, the lemma of
Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps., Glosa Ps., and Pseudo-Jerome all attest
adinventionum (T8:1, 3-4). That the Psalt. Sangal. joins these witnesses in
opposition to the other Psalters is unexpected (T8:5).
We also find studiorum in Psalm 27:4. This reading of Lucifer of Cagliari aligns
with the text of the Psalters (except Psalt. Tiron. which supports the Vulgate
throughout Psalms) and Cassiodorus (T8:9-12). The reading of Lucifer of Cagliari
(died 370/1 CE) must pre-date the textual influence exerted by Jerome and is
further evidence for the antiquity of studium as a translation of e0pith/deuma.
In Psalm 27:4 several manuscripts of Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 27,4,1-7 introduce
affectationum (T8:7). In the Vetus Latina Database card associated with this
reading an unknown editor suggests that the preferred reading here should be
affectionum, as found in other manuscripts of Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 27,4,1-7
117
and the Cod. Veron.53 This unknown editor refers us to Capelle where he too
notes his preference for affectio in this reading.54 While the affectionum of Cod.
Veron. indeed supports this interpretation, we should not forget that Augustine in
his paragraph on Psalm 105:39 includes affectatio as well as affectio in his list of
possible variants for e0pith/deuma.
Surprisingly the Psalt. Hebr. supports the Vulgate adinventionum in Psalm 27:4
(T8:2). The introduction of adinventio here and in the Vulgate would once again
seem to be at the behest of Jerome.
In Psalm 27:4 the quirky text of Cod. Casin. introduces conversationis (T8:6).
While the meaning of this word, as found in Lewis and Short “ -frequent use;
frequent abode in a place; intercourse, conversation”, leaves us puzzled we
better understand its usage here if we turn to the Revised Medieval Latin Word-
List from British and Irish Sources. Here we find conversatio being equated with
“-manner of living, behaviour” as used in texts from the seventh century and
later.55 This definition clearly recalls one aspect of e0pith/deuma – “way of living”.
Whether e0pith/deuma or one of our Latin variants (such as studium) is the true
inspiration for this later textual variation is impossible to tell. However, it would
seem that this reading does demonstrate the impact of late readings on Cod.
Casin.
53 Vetus Latina Database card reads ”affectationum) opt. codd., affectionum alii codd. a K (rectius, ut videtur, cf Capelle, Psautier, p.126)” – underline is from source. I am unsure which textual traditions a and K here refer to but they are not manuscripts of Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 54 Paul Capelle, Le Texte Du Psautier Latin En Afrique. Vol. IV of Collectanea Biblica Latina (Rome: Pustet, 1913), 126. 55 R. E. Latham, James Houston Baxter, Charles Johnson, and British Academy, Revised Medieval Latin Word-List from British and Irish Sources (London: Oxford University Press, 1965), 113.
118
6.3 The Sahidic text of Psalm 27:4 raises several questions.
Figure 1: Psalm 27:4 in the Sahidic and LXX Greek texts
Sahidic (Budge, Coptic Psalter, 29)
LXX Greek (Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, 120)
}nau kata neuxbhue auw kata tponhria 'nneu meeue twwbe nau kata nexbhue 'nneu[ij…(T8:16)
do\v au)toi~v kata\ ta\ e!rga au)tw~n kai kata\ th\n ponhri/an tw~n e)pithdeuma/twn. kata\ ta\ e!rga tw~n xeirw~n au0tw~n au)toi=v,…
While xbhue has previously been associated with both e0pith/deuma and e1rgon it is
clearly aligned with e1rgon in Psalm 27:4. Indeed, this association is seen
continuing into the next verse where we again find various forms of xbhue for
e1rgon. It is therefore most likely that the meeue of Psalm 27:4 aligns with a Greek
which is different from e1rgon. That this Greek is e0pith/deuma is possible, maybe
even likely. We are here reminded of Psalm 105:39 and the use of meeue for
e0pith/deuma in that verse.
As occurred in Psalm 105:39, the Bohairic of Psalm 27:4 uses xbhoui to render
both e0pith/deuma and e1rgon (T8:17).
119
Example 7: Psalm 76:13
et meditabor in omnibus operibus tuis, et in adinventionibus tuis exercebor.
Table 9: Adinventio et al in Psalm 76:13
Source Text
1
Vulgate Psalt. Tiron. (ad inventionibus) Jerome, Hom. Ps. 10 (58.105) Psalt. Mozarab. (ad(in)ventionibus) Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. – lemma (433C)
et in adinventionibus tuis exercebor
2 Psalt. Hebr. et adinventiones tuar loquar
3
Psalt. Romanum (exercebo) Psalt. Ambros. Psalt. Anglosax. Cassiodorus, Expos. Ps. 76.13 (704.246) 76.13 (704.255) Julian of Eclanum, Ps. 76 (390) (exercebar)
et in observationibus tuis exercebor
4 Psalt. Sangerm. et in obsecrationibus tuis exercebor
5 Cod. Casin. et in dispensationibus exercebor
6
Cod. Veron. Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 76.14.1 (1061)
et in affectionibus tuis garriam
7 Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 76.14.1 (1061.5)
Et in affectionibus tuis garriam, non in affectionibus meis.
8 Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 76.15.1 (1061)
ex his garrit, et in his affectionibus exsultat
9 LXX (Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, 211)
kai\ e0n toi=v e0pithdeu/masi/n sou adolesxh/sw
10 Kasser and Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer, 152
kai en toiv epidthdeumasin msou adolesxhsw
11 LXX - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 224 (Eusebius, Nobilius)
O’. …kai\ e0n toi=v e0pithdeu/masi/ sou a0dolesxh/sw
120
Source Text
12
Symmachus - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 224 (Eusebius, Nobilius, Syro-hexapla)
S. …kai\ ta\ mhxan/mata/ sou dihgou/mhn
13 Sahidic (Budge, Coptic Psalter 76:12)
tameleta nnekxbhue throu. tajixrai" x'n nekmeeue
14 Bohairic (Schwartze, Psalterium Copt. 117, 76:13)
ouox }naer meletan qen nekxbhouÉi throu ouox eiÉeswpi eimhn qen nekxbhoui
Discussion of Example 7: Psalm 76:13
7.1 The LXX text of Psalm 76:13, as found in Rahlfs and Papyrus Bodmer 24,
reads e0pithdeu/masi/n without attested variation (T9:9 and T9:10). However, Field
draws attention to the use of mhxa/nmata (“-machine; mechanical device; subtle
contrivance”) in the text of Symmachus in this verse (T9:9).
The Sahidic text of Psalm 76:13 attests nekmeeue while the Bohairic reads
nekxbhoui. These readings continue a familiar pattern established in Psalm
105:39 and Psalm 27:4. It is likely that they are both inspired by the LXX
e0pith/deuma and thus do not shed light on the variation apparent in the Latin
version of Psalm 76:13.
7.2 As in the previous example (Psalm 27:4), the adinventionibus of Psalm 76:13
is attested by the Vulgate, Psalt. Tiron., the lemma of Arnobius the Younger,
Comm. Ps. and the Psalt. Hebr. (T9:1 and T9:2). However, in Psalm 76:13 we
also find Jerome, Hom. Ps. and the Psalt. Mozarab. reading adinventionibus
(T9:1). The Hieronimocentric nature of the witnesses supporting adinventio for
e0pith/deuma is further confirmed by the addition of Jerome, Hom. Ps. to this
grouping. The only exception to the homogeneity of this group is the Psalt.
Mozarab.
In Psalm 76:13 the Cod. Veron. and Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. continue to
demonstrate their preference for affectio by reading affectionibus instead of
adinventionibus for e0pith/deuma (T9:6-7).
121
7.3 In a recollection of Psalm 105:29 and 105:39 the Psalt. Romanum, Psalt.
Ambros., Psalt. Anglosax., Cassiodorus and Julian of Eclanum attest
observationibus for e0pith/deuma (T9:3). The Psalt. Sangerm. partly supports this
reading with obsecrationibus (T9:4). The reason for the appearance of observatio
in this verse is not obvious and without an index to the various texts of the
Psalters we are reliant on the Vulgate to help elucidate the use of observatio in
these readings. Observatio is a relatively rare word in the Vulgate appearing only
in 1 Chronicles 23:32 (x2), 2 Chronicles 31:16, Nehemiah (Latin) 12:44, Ezekiel
44:8, 1 Maccabees 12:11, Luke 17:20 and 1 Corinthians 7:19. The use of
observatio in these readings is displayed in Figure 8. In each of these verses
observatio carries a definite sense of the formal (and technical?) aspects of
worship. In Lewis and Short this technical aspect of observatio (“-an office, duty,
service”) is noted and relegated to the realms of ecclesiastical Latin. However,
the presence of this term in the older Psalt. Romanum suggests the possibility
that this technical term may be more ancient than is currently acknowledged. The
implication is that observatio is the result of deliberate variation within the Latin
text without recourse to the Greek. That this was the original reading is possible
but perhaps unlikely. The association of this term in the Vulgate with Jewish
worship is particularly interesting and deserves further consideration and
examination at a future point in time.56
56 It is interesting to note that observatio occurs twice in the text of Biblical Antiquties of Pseudo-Philo, see pages 305 & 480 in Howard Jacobson, A commentary on Pseudo-Philo's Liber antiquitatum biblicarum, with Latin text and English translation, Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums (Leiden: Brill, 1996).
122
Figure 2: Observatio in the Vulgate
Reference VulSearch Latin VulSearch English 1 Chronicles 23:32a
Et custodiant observationes tabernáculi
And let them keep the observances of the tabernacle
1 Chronicles 23:32b
… et observationem filiorum Aaron fratrum suorum,
…and the charge of the sons of Aaron their brethren,
2 Chronicles 31:16
…atque observationibus juxta divisiones suas,
and their offices according to their courses, day by day.
Nehemiah (Latin) 12:44
Et custodierunt observationem Dei sui, et observationem expiationis,
And they kept the watch of their God, and the observance of expiation,
Ezekiel 44:8 …et posuistis custodes observationum mearum in sanctuario meo vobismetipsis
…but you have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves.
1 Maccabees 12:11
memores sumus vestri in sacrificiis quae offerimus, et in observationibus,
remember you in the sacrifices that we offer, and in our observances,
Luke 17:20 respondens eis, dixit : Non venit regnum Dei cum observatione
he answered them, and said: The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
1 Corinthians 7:19
Circumcisio nihil est, et praeputium nihil est : sed observatio mandatorum Dei.
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing: but the observance of the commandments of God.
There is some possibility that the technical status of observationibus may also be
found in the dispensationibus of Cod. Casin. (T9:5). In Lewis and Short
dispensatio is defined as “- economical management, charge, direction,
superintendence; the office of a dispensator (steward / bursar), management”.
This technical sense is continued in the Revised Medieval Latin Word-List where
dispensatio is defined as an “ordering” or “ordinance”.57
The presence of observatio and dispensatio in Psalm 76:13 would seem to
suggest a particular understanding of this verse not conveyed by adinventio and
affectio. It seems likely that this variation is the result of deliberate revision of the
Latin text without reference to the Greek.
57 Latham, Medieval Latin Word-List, 151. This definition is circa 730 CE.
123
Summary of Part I
The variation discussed in this section is rather more complicated and
multifaceted than that encountered in our discussion of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the
Minor Prophets. This circumstance supports our decision not to be guided by the
more simplistic New Testament theories of textual variation. In these examples
we find good attestation of most lexical variants in the extant witnesses. The
character of the variation is therefore not a single predominant text surrounded by
occasional outliers. Instead, we get a sense of strong currents each representing
multiple textual traditions within the Latin text of Psalms. While some of the
variation in the examples in this section may be the result of correction to a
different Greek Vorlage we also find some examples which suggest that variation
may be due to inner-Latin pressures.
124
This page deliberately left blank
125
Part II: Studium in the Vulgate text of Psalms
In both Psalm 13:1 and 9:12 we find studium in the Vulgate text for e0pith/deuma.
However adinventio is still apparent here in other parts of the Latin textual
tradition. It should be noted that these are the only two verses where studium is
attested in the Vulgate text of Psalms.
Example 8: Psalm 13:1
Dixit insipiens in corde suo: Non est Deus. Corrupti sunt, et abominabiles facti sunt in studiis suis; non est qui faciat bonum, non est usque ad unum
Table 10: Studium et al in Psalm 13:1
Source Text
1
Vulgate Psalt Tiron. Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. 13 – lemma (340A) Mutianus, Hom. Chrys. 6 (279/80)
Corrupti sunt, et abominabiles facti sunt in studiis suis
2 Julian of Eclanum, Ps. 13.1 (79.19) Corrupti sunt et abominabiles usque suis. In studiis vero possuit
3 Psalt. Hebr. corrupti sunt, et abominabiles facti sunt studiose
4 Cod. Casin. corrupti et abominati sunt in conversationibus
5 Cod. Veron. (adfectionibus) Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 13.2.1 (86.5)
Corrupti sunt et abominabiles facti sunt in adfectionibus suis
6 Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 13.2.1 (86.8) affectiones quae corrumpant animam…
7 Psuedo-Athanasius, Luc. 6 corrupti sunt et abominabiles facti sunt in operibus suis
8 Jerome, Pelag. 2.12 Corrupti sunt, et abominabiles facti sunt in adinventionibus suis
9 Psalt. Sangal. (912) corrupti sunt, et abominabi(les) facti sunt in cogitation(i)bus suis
10 Chromatius, Epist. Serm. 9 1(39.4) Corrupti sunt et execrabiles facti sunt in iniquitatibus suis
11
Psalt. Mozarab. Antiph. Mozarab.137 r (94) (abominaviles) Gothic Breviary (457C)
Corrupti sunt et abominabiles facti sunt in voluptatibus suis
126
Source Text
12 Hilary of Poitiers, Tract. Ps. 13.3 (80.22) ubi abominandis voluptatum fallaciis corrupti sint cuncti
13
Psalt. Romanum Psalt. Sangerm. Psalter. Anglosax. Psalter. Ambros. Jerome, Epist. 60.3 (551.11) Pseudo-Augustine, Hyp. 6.1 Pseudo-Jerome, Brev. Ps. 13 (850C x2) Hilary of Poitiers, Tract. Ps. 13.1 Cassiodorus, Expos. Ps. 13.1 (126.29) 13.1 (127.35) (voluntas) Eugippus, Reg. 18.35 (31) (boluntatibus) 28.31 (54) 55.43 (55) Reg. mon. 7 (165.85) (boluntatibus E) 10 (176.77) 10 (177.105)
Corrupti sunt, et abominabiles facti sunt in voluntatibus suis
14 LXX (Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, 95) (die/fqeiran B’ U 55] diefqarhsan pl. cf Rahlfs | e0pithdeu/masin] + suis La Ga: cf 52:2 [see below])
die/fqeiran kai\ e0bdelu/xqhsan e0n e0pithdeu/masin ou0k e1stin poiw~n xrhsto/thta, ou0k e1stin e3wv e9no/v.
15 Kasser and Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer, lac.
16 LXX - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, Field 105 (as attested by the Syro-hexapla)
O’. kai\ e0bdelu/xqhsan e0n e0pithdeu/masin.
17 Aquila - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 105 (Attested by the Syro-hex)
’A. e0bdelu/canto e0nallagh\n (s. e0na/llagma).
18 Sahidic (Budge, Coptic Psalter, 13) autakÉo auswwf x'n neumeeue. m'n peteire 'noum'nt<rh stos 'mm'n ouon saxrai" eouÉa
19 Bohairic (Schwartze, Psalterium Copt. 16)
autako ouox au[wqem qen nouxbhouÉi Émmon pet Éiri Én ou met,'r's É mmon sa Éeqoun Ée ouai
127
Discussion of Example 8: Psalm 13:1
There is much evidence extant for Psalm 13:1. The Vetus Latina Database
includes 138 cards!
8.1 There is no surviving variation in the Greek text of Psalm 13:1 where we find
e0pithdeu/masin (T10.14). However, Field does suggest that Aquila reads
e0nallagh\n (s. enallagma) (“-change / interchange”) reconstructed from the Syro-
hexapla.
8.2 The Vulgate, Psalt. Tiron. and the lemma of Arnobius the Younger, Comm.
Ps. 13, supported by Julian of Eclanum and Mutianus, attest studiis for
e0pithdeu/masin (T10.1 and T10:2). The studiose of the Psalt. Hebr. also closely
aligns with this text (T10.3).
In Jerome’s Dialogi contra Pelagianos [=Jerome, Pelag.] we discover
adinventionibus (T10.8). This is the only attestation of adinventio in Psalm 13:1
and once again suggests a strong link between Jerome and this term. That
Jerome, Pelag. uses adinventio to render e0pith/deuma in Psalms is not surprising.
However, the presence of studium in the Vulgate text of Psalms is unusual and is
only found elsewhere in the Vulgate text of Psalms in Psalm 9:12. We are left
wondering why studium and its cognate studiosus have been introduced into the
Vulgate and the Psalt. Hebr. respectively.
Both the Cod. Veron. and Augustine read adfectionbus / affectionibus. That
affectio, within these witnesses, reflects e0pith/deuma is suggested by the continual
association of these words.
8.3 In Psalm 13:1 the Psalt. Romanum, Psalt. Sangerm., Psalt. Ambros., Hilary of
Poitiers, Tract. Ps. 13:2 (78:7) and several other witnesses attest voluntatibus
(T10.13). As noted in Part I voluntas may also be found in the Psalt Romanum,
and other witnesses, in Psalm 80:13b. In item 3.2 of the Discussion of Example
3: Psalm 80:13b it was proposed that voluntas may be inspired by the boulh/ of
Symmachus rather than the LXX e0pith/deuma. Here too it would seem likely that a
128
Greek other than e0pith/deuma (boulh/?) has inspired the Latin voluntas.58 That this
Greek is the e0nallagh\ of Symmachus is unlikely.
8.4 The Psalt. Mozarab., supported by a few later witnesses, attests voluptatibus
for e0pithdeu/masin (T10:11). The voluptatum of Hilary of Poitiers, Tract. Ps. 13.3
also alludes to this reading (T10:12). That there is an association between
voluptas and voluntas is suggested by the presence of these variants in the same
examples. Given the antiquity of the witnesses supporting voluntas in Psalm 13:1
(i.e. Psalt. Romanum, Psalt. Sangerm., Jerome, Epist.) it is tempting to suggest
that voluptas is a corruption of this reading. However, the presence of voluptas in
the mid-fourth century CE text of Hilary of Poitiers, Tract. Ps. 13.3 (as well as
voluntas in Hilary of Poitiers, Tract. Ps. 13.1) undermines this suggestion as does
the presence of this term, and not voluntas, in Augustine’s discussion of
adinventio and e0pith/deuma in Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 105:39. Indeed, the
testimony of Augustine would suggest that voluntas should be considered a
corruption of voluptas!
8.5 Cod. Casin. alone attests conversationibus for e0pithdeu/masin in Psalm 13:1.
conversationis was also present in Cod. Casin. in Psalm 27:4 (T8:6). In item 6.2
of the Discussion of Example 6: Psalm 27:4 it was noted that the medieval
definition of conversatio, i.e. “- manner of living, behaviour”, certainly recalls the
“habit of life, way of living” suggested by e0pith/deuma.
8.6 In Psalm 13:1 we find operibus for e0pithdeu/masin in Psuedo-Athanasius, Luc.
The Vetus Latina Database database informs us that this letter from Athanasius
to Lucifer is in fact a forgery of the Luciferians.59 Jerome’s antagonism to the
58 Voluntas for the LXX boulh/ is attested by the Vulgate, Psalt. Romanum et al. in Psalm 72:24. Voluntas is witnessed many times in the Vulgate text of Psalms as is boulh/ in the LXX of Psalms. However, a brief comparison of the relevant verses suggests there is not much association between these words in these texts. The situation is of course more complicated when one moves to the additional witnesses within each version. Further investigation of this issue is beyond the scope of this investigation but may prove fruitfull in the future. 59 According to the Vetus Latina Database entry on Psuedo-Athanasius, Luc. “eine Fälschung der Luciferianer”. See the entry on LUC ep at http://apps.brepolis.net/vld/repertorium/work.cfm?action=fiche&work_id=699
129
Luciferians60 and the fact that this group disappeared in the early fifth century CE
suggest that this reading is independent of Jerome and may represent an earlier
version of the Latin.
8.7 In his apparatus Rahlfs draws our attention to Psalm 52:2 where we find
die/fqa/rhsan kai\ e0bdeluxqhsan e0n a0nomi/aiv (e0pithdeu/masin R). Given the similarity
of the text of this verse and Psalm 13:1 it is not unlikely that textual corruption
has occurred between these verses. That this corruption may be found in the
Latin text is also likely. The corruption of these verses in the Latin is first
suggested by the presence of iniquitatibus (“- inequality; unfairness, injustice”) in
the text of Psalm 13:1 in Chromatius (T10:10). This text has a clear association
with the Vulgate text of Psalm 52:2: Corrupti sunt, et abominabiles facti sunt in
iniquitatibus (T11.1).
When we turn to the evidence for Psalm 52:2 from the Vetus Latina Database
(see Table 11: Psalm 52:2a) we are faced with such a large amount of possible
textual corruption that we become unsure of anything regarding these two verses.
60 Jerome published the “controversial pamphlet” Altercation of a Luciferian with an Orthodox. See Kelly, Jerome, 62-63.
130
This page deliberately left blank
131
Psalm 52:2 (see Psalm 13:1)
Corrupti sunt, et abominabiles facti sunt in iniquitatibus; non est qui faciat bonum.
Table 11: Psalm 52:2a
Source Text
1
Vulgate Jerome, Psalt. Hebr. Psalt. Tiron. (Conrupti) Psalt. Ambros. (suis) Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. (399B) Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 52.3.3 (639.11) 52.3.27 (640) (sunt] ergo isti) 52.4.7 (640.28) 52.2.1 (639.35)? Pseudo-Jerome, Brev. Ps. 52 (978A) Hilary of Poitiers, Tract. Ps. 52.3 (119.15) 52.3 (120.1)
Corrupti sunt, et abominabiles facti sunt in iniquitatibus (suis):
2 Hilary of Poitiers, Tract. Ps. 52.3 (120.2)
abominabiles facti sunt in adinventionibus suis.
3 Julian of Eclanum, Ps. 52 (288)
corrupti sunt, et abhominabiles facti sunt in vanitatibus suis…
4
Psalt. Romanum Psalt. Sangerm. Psalt. Anglosax. Psalt. Mozarab. (volu(m)tatibus) Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. 52 (76.3) (SF) Cassiodorus, Expos. Ps. 52.2 (378A) (inabominabiles) 52.2 (378A) 52.2 (378A) 52.1-2 (478.32) 52.1-2 (478.36) 52.1-2 (478.36) 52.1-2 (478.53)
Corrupti sunt, et abominabiles facti sunt in voluntatibus suis:
5 Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. 52 (76.3)
omnes corrupti, omnes abominabiles facti sunt non voluntate dei, sed in voluntatibus suis
132
Source Text
6 Glosa Ps. 52.2.1 (221) corrupti sunt de lege bonae naturae (+et Z) abhominabiles, id est odibiles facti sunt in voluntatibus suis, hoc est in desideriis suis.
7 Psalt. Mozarab. (Migne) Corrupti sunt, et abominabiles facti sunt in voluptatibus suis:
8 Cod. Veron. Corrupti sunt et abominabiles facti sunt (c) in affectionibus suis:
9 Quodvultdeus, Temp. bar. 2.3.3 (abhominabiles G V)
Corrupti sunt, et abominabiles facti sunt in affectionibus suis:
10 Cod. Casin. (lac. / omit ?) corrupti et abominati sunt non est faciens bonum.
11 LXX (Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis,166, 52:2b-c)
diefqa/rhsan kai\ e)bdelu/xqhsan e0n a0nomi/aiv, ouk e1stin poiw~n a0gaqo/n anomiaiv iniquitatibus GaAug] epithdeumasin R, affectionibus LaR, voluntatibus LaG: ex 13:1
12 Kasser and Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer, 110
diefqarhsan kai emdeluxqhsan en anomiaiv: ouk estin poiwn agaqon:
13 LXX - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 176
O’. die/fqeiran, kai\ e0bdelu/xqhsan e0n a0nomi/aiv
14
Symmachus - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 176 (Euseb. Vat. affert: S. diefqa/hsan)
S. diefqa/rhsan, kai\ bdeluri/am e0peth/deusan meta\ adiki/av.
15 Sahidic (Budge, Coptic Psalter 57, 52:1b-c)
autakÉo au'rbote x'n neuanomia m'n peteire 'noum'n't<rh stos m'n ouon sa xrai" eouÉa
16 Bohairic (Schwartze, Psalterium Copt. 7, 52:2b-c)
autako ouox auswf qen xan ÉanomiÉa Émmon pet Éiri Én ou Éagacon
8.8 The Vulgate texts of Psalm 13:1 and 52:2 have retained their independence
from one another with the studiis of Vulgate 13:1 (T10:1) clearly reflecting the
LXX Greek e0pithdeu/masin and the iniquitatibus (“- inequality; difficulty, hardness;
unfairness, injustice”) of Vulgate 52:2 (T11.1) suggesting the LXX Greek
a0nomi/aiv (“- lawlessness, lawless conduct”). This independence is also
maintained by the Psalt. Hebr. where we find studiose in Psalm 13:1 (T10:23)
and iniquitatibus in Psalm 52:2 (T11:1).
8.9 The Psalters Romanum, Sangerm. and Anglosax. along with Cassiodorus
attest an identical reading across both verses: Corrupti sunt, et abominabiles facti
sunt in voluntatibus suis (T10:13 and T11:4). This suggests that textual corruption
has occurred in these texts.
133
8.10 The bilingual Cod. Veron. also displays similar readings across the Latin text
of both verses (T10:5 and T11:8) but goes further by introducing the final non est
usque ad unum of 13:1 into 52:2:
Dixit imprudens in corde suo: non est Deus. Corrupti sunt et abominabiles facti sunt in affectionibus* suis; non est qui faciat bonum; non est usque ad unum.
*The only difference between the two verses in the Cod. Veron. is the reading of adfectionibus in Psalm 13:1 and affectionibus in Psalm 52:2.
These Latin readings are also mirrored in the Greek text of Cod. Veron. (Rahlfs’
manuscript R) where we find e0pithdeu/masin in both the LXX text of Psalm 13:1
(T10:14) and as a variant reading of a0nomi/aiv in Psalm 52:2 (T11:11). The
e0peth/deusan of Symmachus in Psalm 52:2 (T11:14) may also recall the
e0pithdeu/masin of manuscript R. The Greek of Cod. Veron. [= R] displays the
addition of ou0k e1stin e3wv e9no/v inspired by 13:1. This addition is also found in the
Sahidic version61 and the Greek manuscript 2013.62 Rahlfs notes the alliance of
these two texts in his introduction where they are subsumed in his Upper
Egyptian text type.63 The addition of this final phrase to witnesses from the Greek,
Latin and Sahidic tradition may easily be the result of independent textual
corruption within each of these versions. It is only when a number of readings,
supporting such an association, have been collected that serious consideration of
the relationship of these texts should be undertaken.
8.11 It must be noted that although the Sahidic includes the addition from 13:1 it
maintains the independence of these verses by retaining neumeeue in Psalm
13:1 and neuanomia in 52:2.
61 Budge, The Earliest Known Coptic Psalter, 57. 62 Rahlfs, Psalmi cum Odis, 166. 63 Rahlfs, Psalmi cum Odis, 28 - “Der oberägyptische text”.
134
8.12 In the seventh century text of Glosa Ps. 52,2 we find a reference to Psalm
52:2: corrupti sunt de lege bonae naturae (+et Z) abhominabiles, id est odibiles
facti sunt in voluntatibus suis, hoc est in desideriis suis. This text provides
interesting glosses for both abominabiles and voluntatibus. While abominabiles is
glossed by odibiles, voluntatibus is glossed by desideriis (“- a longing, ardent
desire, wish, want, grief, regret”). This gloss is supported by Lewis and Short who
list voluntas as a synonym of desiderium along with optio, optatio, cupido,
cupiditas, studium and appetitio. This example demonstrates the complexity of
meaning associated with the vocabulary under examination, in this case voluntas.
Where one might expect a translation with simplistic word for word equivalence,
the Latin version displays a startling complexity which may defy clear
comprehension. However, the “slot-like” character or interchangeable nature of
this variation is characteristic of the Latin textual tradition. Echoes of this slot-like
variation are also occasionally apparent in the text of the Jewish Greek versions.
135
Example 9: Psalm 9:12
Psallite Domino qui habitat in Sion; annuntiate inter gentes studia eius:
Table 12: Studium et al in Psalm 9:12
Source Text 1 Vulgate
Psalt. Tiron. (adnuntiate) Psalt. Ambros. Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. (335D) Glosa Ps. 9.12.1 (42) (adnuntiate) Julian of Eclanum, Ps. 9.12 (Adnuntiate) Pseudo-Jerome, Brev. Ps. 9 (841D)
…annuntiate inter gentes studia eius:
2 Jerome, Comm. Ps. 9 (191.12) Ita certe Aquila apud Theodoret e0nallaga/v (p. Gr 81.928); *in gentibus) EAM, in gentes) C;
Adnuntiate in gentibus adinventiones eius. Pro adinventionibus in hebraeo ‘commutationes’ habet: ut significetur proprie in gentibus* praedicatio,
3 Cod. Casin. …adnuntiate in gentibus custodia eius: 4 Cod. Veron. …adnuntiate in gentibus mirabilia eius. 5 Psalt. Romanum (ms. in gentibus)
Psalt. Anglosax. Psalt. Mozarab. (adnuntiate) Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 9.12.1 (64.18) 9.13.3 (64) Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps. 9 (11.21; 11) (adnuntiemus) Cassiodorus, Expos. Ps. 9.1 (12; 100.190) 9.1 (12; 101.206)]
…annuntiate inter gentes mirabilia eius.
6 Psalt. Sangerm. Psalt. Sangal. 912 (volumtates)
…adnuntiate inter gentes voluntates eius.
7 Psalt. Hebr. (Sabatier) annuntiate in populis cogitationes eius 8 LXX - Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis,
90. (lac. in Papyrus Bod 24)
ya/late tw~| kuri/w| tw~| katoikou=nti e0n Siwn, a)naggei/late e0n toi=v e!qnesin ta\ e)pithdeu/mata au0tou=,
9 Aquila – Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 98. (Theodoret. et “quidam MSS.”)
’A …e0nallaga\v au)tou=.
136
Source Text 10 Symmachus – Field, Origenis
Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 98. (Theodoret. et “quidam MSS.”)
S…mhxana\v au0tou=.
11 Symmachus – Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 98. Syro-hexapla. affert: ’A. S. ta\v e0nallaga/v
…ta\v e0nallaga/v
12 1Allov. - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 98. (Chrysostom)
e0n toi=v laoi=v ta\ mhxanh/mata au0tou=.
13 Sahidic (9:11) Budge, Coptic Psalter, 9. jw pnefxbhue x'n 'nxe:nos
14 Bohairic (9:12) Schwartze, Psalterium Copt., 10. saji Én nefxbhoui xen ni e:nos
Discussion of Example 9: Psalm 9:12
9.1 In Psalm 9:12 we find studia for e)pithdeu/mata in the Vulgate, Psalt. Ambros.,
Julian of Eclanum and several other later witnesses (T12:1). This is the second
and final time we find studium in the Vulgate text of Psalms.
9.2 The text of the Psalt. Hebr. attests cogitationes for e)pithdeu/mata in Psalm
9:12. Surprisingly, given the presence of this reading in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and
the Minor Prophets, this is the first time we have encountered this variant in our
discussion of Psalms.
9.3 We find adinventio in the text of Jerome, Comm. Ps. 9 (T12:2). In this text
Jerome attempts to guide us through the quagmire of variation by noting that the
Hebrew has commutationes (“- a changing, change, alteration; an exchange”) for
adinventionibus (T12:2). It would seem that Jerome is here referring to the
e0nallaga\v (“- interchange; variation”) of Aquila, as noted by Field (T12:9). 64 It is
curious that despite Jerome’s claim that the “Hebrew” of Psalm 9:12 reads
commutationes we do not find this reading in his Psalt. Hebr. in this verse.
Instead we find cogitatio. This reading occurs again in Psalm 102:7 where the
Psalt. Hebr. reads cogitatio and Aquila reads e0nallaga\v (T14:7).
64 Field, Hexapla¸ Vol 2, 98. This reading is attested by Theodoret. et “quidam MSS.” Field notes that the Syro-hexapla assigns this variant to Symmachus also.
137
This example provides us with some insight into the textual process of Jerome.
That Jerome uses adinventio in the lemma of Jerome, Comm. Ps. 9 rather than
the Vulgate studium suggests that Jerome is capable of changing his text of
Psalms (and the rest of the Jewish Greek Bible?) outside of the formal revisional
process. Additionally, it would seem likely that the commutatio of Jerome’s
“Hebrew” text of Jerome, Comm. Ps. 9 is based on Aquila’s e0nallagh/ rather than
directly on the Hebrew. The inspiration for the cogitatio of the Psalt. Hebr. is less
easy to identify.
9.4 Several venerable witnesses, including Cod. Veron., the Psalt. Romanum and
Augustine, read mirabilia for e)pithdeu/mata in Psalm 9:12. That mirabilis (“-
wonderful, marvellous, admirable, strange; glorious; (subst.) a miracle, wondrous
deed”) reflects either the LXX e0pith/deuma or the e0nallagh/ of Aquila is dubious.
That the reading of mirabilia is therefore the result of inner Latin textual corruption
from the textually similar Psalm 95:3 is likely (see Figure 10).
Figure 3: Psalms 9:12 and 95:3
Verse Source Text Psalm 9:12
Vulgate Psallite Domino qui habitat in Sion; annuntiate inter gentes studia eius
Psalm 9:12
Psalt. Romanum (ms. in gentibus) Psalt. Mozarab. (adnuntiate) Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 9.12.1 (64.18) 9.13.3 (64)
…annuntiate inter gentes mirabilia eius.
Psalm 9:12
Cod. Veron. …adnuntiate in gentibus mirabilia eius.
Psalm 95:3
Vulgate Psalt. Romanum Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 95 (in gentibus)
Annuntiate inter gentes gloriam eius; in omnibus populis mirabilia eius
Psalm 95:3
Cod. Veron. in omnibus populis mirabilia eius
9.5 While Rahlfs’ edition of the LXX text of Psalm 9:12 does not present any
variation, Field presents an additional three variations to the LXX e)pithdeu/mata.
138
According to Field, Theodoret witnesses e0nallaga\v in Aquila and mhxana\v in
Symmachus. Field notes that the Syro-hexapla also suggests e0nallaga\v, but in
Symmachus rather than Aquila. Echoing the mhxana\v of Theodoret’s Symmachus
is the mhxanh/mata of 1Allov, or another witness. While the e0nallagh/ of Aquila
(and Symmachus?) may have influenced Jerome, Comm. Ps., it is less apparent
whether the additional readings found in Field have impacted on the Latin text.
9.6 The final variant of Psalm 9:12 may be found in Cod. Casin. This manuscript
reads custodia for studia / e)pithdeu/mata. This reading continues the peculiar
behaviour of this manuscript which will be more fully explored in Part III.
Summary of Part II
Studium is only found twice in the Vulgate text of Psalms. This is quite different
from the situation in Jeremiah where we find studium for e0pith/deuma attested ten
times in the Vulgate text. This is a clear difference in the textual traditions of
these two books. In Psalm 9:12 and 13:1 the sheer number of extant witnesses to
these verses overwhelms the current examination. However, we are still able to
draw attention to the slot-like nature of the variation in these verses. We are also
able to acknowledge that several of the Latin lexical variants in these verses are
well attested within the extant witnesses.
139
Part III: Adinventio in Codex Casinensis
In addition to Psalms 80:13b and 98:8 discussed above we also find adinventio in
Psalms 55:6, 77:7, 77:11, 102:7 and 104:1 in Codex Casinensis. In these verses
Cod. Casin. is the only witness to this reading. It is hoped that an examination of
these verses may help us to better understand the influences at work in this
manuscript tradition. This exercise also provides us with an opportunity to further
gauge the behaviour of our other Latin witnesses in verses where adinventio is
not present in the Vulgate text.
While Table 13: Adinventio in Cod. Casin (Latin) demonstrates the
independence of Cod. Casin. in its use of adinventio in Psalms, Table 14:
Adinventio in Cod. Casin. (Greek) provides us with the Greek and Coptic
evidence for the verses listed in Table 13. The presentation of evidence in Table
13 has been limited to the Cod. Casin., the Vulgate, the Psalt. Hebr., the Psalters
Romanum, Ambrosian and Sangermanensis, Cod. Veron., Augustine, Enarrat.
Ps. (and occasionally other readings of Augustine) and a few other key
witnesses.
In Psalm 55:6 (T13:1 and T14:1) the dialogismoi\ (“- calculation, consideration;
debate, argument”) of the LXX may easily be associated with the Latin consilia (“-
deliberation, consultation”) found in the text of the Psalters, Cod. Veron. and
Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. The cogitatio of the Vulgate and Psalt. Hebr. may also be
associated with the Greek dialogismo/v.65
In Psalm 77:7 (T13.2 and T14:2) all Latin witnesses, except Cod. Casin. the
Psalt. Hebr. and Augustine, Spec., attest operum (“- work, labour; deed, action”)
for the LXX e1rgwn (“- work; deed action; thing matter”). When compared to the
variation demonstrated in Part I and Part II of this chapter the solidarity of the
Latin witnesses in this verse is surprising. The appropriateness of the Latin opera
as a translation of e1rgon is also unlike the relationship of the Latin and Greek
vocabulary discussed previously. In Psalm 77:11 (T13:3 and T14:3) variation is
65 See the following verses of Psalms where cogitatio is found in the Vulgate and dialogismo/v is found in the LXX: 39:6; 55:6; 91:6; 93:11; 138:20; 145:4.
140
once again apparent in the attestation of benefactorum by the Vulgate, Psalt.
Romanum, Psalt. Ambros. and Julian of Eclanum, and beneficiorum by the Psalt.
Sangerm., Cod. Veron., Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. and Tertullian, Adv. Jud.
(beneficiis). The LXX eu0ergesiw~n (“- well-doing; a good deed, kindness”) is well
represented by both beneficiorum (“- kindness, favour, benefit, service”) and
benefactum / bene factum (“- benefit, service; good deed”). Psalm 77:11 is the
first time in this Chapter where we come across a reading from Tertullian. That
this reading aligns with Cod. Veron. and Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. is particularly
intriguing.
In Psalm 102:7 (T13:6 and T14:6) we once again encounter unanimity across all
Latin witnesses, except Cod. Casin. and the Psalt. Hebr. The voluntates of the
majority Latin text clearly parallels the LXX qelh/mata (“will”). This example, and
others in Part III, provide a contrast to those discussed in Part II. Where Psalm
9:12 and 13:1 demonstrated much variation and a wide spread of witnesses
across different textual traditions. Psalm 102:7 presents an almost static text with
only a few outlier readings. This suggests that the variation associated with
adinventio and its lexical equivalents may not be typical of the Latin text of
Psalms.
In Psalm 104:1 (T13:7 and T14:7) we find operum again for the LXX e1rga in the
Vulgate, Psalt. Romanum, Psalt. Sangerm., Cod. Veron. and Augustine, Enarrat.
Ps. The Psalt. Ambros. resists this trend by attesting magnalia (great things;
mighty works/deeds).
Out of the seven times that adinventio appears in Cod. Casin. the Psalt. Hebr.
witnesses cogitatio four times.66 If we remove the two examples where
e0pith/deuma is found in the LXX text this becomes four out of five examples where
the Psalt. Hebr. witnesses a static text alongside Cod. Casin. The use of
adinventio in Cod. Casin. and cogitatio in the Psalt. Hebr. contrasts with the LXX
inspired vocabulary found in most other Latin witnesses. The association of the
Cod. Casin. and Psalt. Hebr. has been hinted at in some of the previous
66 In two of these readings, Psalm 77:7 and Psalm 104:1, the Psalt. Hebr. is supported by Augustine, Spec.
141
142
examples. However, this connection is suggested more by patterns of
association, as is apparent here, than by similar readings. An explanation for this
pattern of association currently eludes us. It is possible that both texts are
inspired by a similar underlying text (the Hebrew?), or that maybe they were
produced in a similar manner. Further study, however, is required to engage
more fully with this issue. That the Cod. Casin. and the Psalt. Hebr. are
independent of the rest of the Latin Psalms tradition is evident. In the case of the
Psalt. Hebr. this is hardly surprising. However, in the case of Cod. Casin. we are
nonplussed.
Table 13: Adinventio in Cod. Casin. (Latin)
Psalm Cod. Casin. Jerome, Psalt. Hebr.
Vulgate Psalt. Romanum
Psalt. Ambros.
Psalt. Sangerm. (Sabatier)
Cod. Veron. Augustine, Enarrat. Ps.
Other
1 55:6 adinventiones Cogitationes cogitationes consilia consilia consilia consilia consilia
consilia (Julian of Eclanum, Ps.) cogitationes (Ambrose, Explan. Ps.)
2 77:7 adinventiones cogitationum operum operum operum operum operum
operum (Enarrat. Ps.) cogitationum (Spec.)
operum (Julian of Eclanum, Ps.)
3 77:11 adinventionum commutationum benefactorum benefactorum benefactorum beneficiorum beneficiorum beneficiorum
beneficiis (Tertullian, Adv. Jud. x2) benefactorum (Julian of Eclanum, Ps.)
4 80:13b adinventionibus consiliis adinventionibus voluntatibus voluntatibus voluntatibus affectionibus
affectionibus (Enarrat. Ps.) voluntatibus (Praed &. Grat.) voluptatibus (Serm.)
5 98:8 adinventiones commutationibus adinventiones studia studia studia affectiones affectiones studia (Julian of Eclanum, Ps.)
6 102:7 adinventiones cogitationes voluntates voluntates voluntates voluntates voluntates voluntates voluntates (Paulinus of Nola, Epist.)
7 104:1 adinventiones cogitationes opera opera magnalia opera opera
opera (Enarrat. Ps.) cogitationes (Enarrat. Ps.)
143
Table 14: Adinventio in Cod. Casin. (Greek)
Psalm LXX (Rahlfs)
Papyrus Bodmer 24
Field* LXX Aquila (Field) Symmachus (Field)
Sahidic Bohairic
1 55:6 dialogismoi\ lac. dialogismoi\ lac. dialogismo\v neumeeue
nouso[ni (p. 615 take counsel, design)
2 77:7 e1rgwn ergwn e1rgwn lac. perinoi/av nnexbhue xbhoui
3
77:11 eu0ergesiw~n euergesiwn lac. lac. lac. nnefpet- nanouf
(p. 227 be good, fair)
nefxbhoui
4 80:13b e0pithdeu/masin epithdeumasin e0pithdeu/masin bouleu/masin boulai=v neuxbhue nouxbhoui
5 98:8 e0pithdeu/mata epit[hdeu]mata e0pithdeu/mata lac. e0phrei/aiv neuxbhue nouxbhoui
6 102:7 qelh/mata qelhmata qelh/mata e0nallaga\v
boula\v (s. enqumh/seiv)
nefouws
(p. 500 wish, desire)
nefouws
7 104:1 e1rga erga lac. lac. lac. nnefxbhue n nefxbhoui
*There is no attestation of Theodotion in Field for these examples
144
Summary of Adinventio in Psalms
An examination of adinventio in Psalms highlights the variation found within this
book but also draws attention to the unity of certain witnesses. We approached
this examination of Psalms aware of the possible variation to be found in this
book. Augustine in his paragraph on adinventio and e0pith/deuma in Enarrat. Ps.
105:39 highlights five lexical equivalents for e0pith/deuma – adinventio, studium,
affectio, affectatio and voluptas. In our examination of Psalms we have
discovered extant evidence for all five of these variants, often more than one is
apparent in any given example. Other vocabulary, such as observatio and
voluntas, have also been prominent in this discussion. It is notable that the list of
vocabulary specific to the discussion of adinventio and e0pith/deuma in Psalms only
partially overlaps with that encountered in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor
Prophets. This circumstance highlights the need to treat each book based on its
own merits.
That Psalms attests similar variation to Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets
is suggested by the continued use of adinventio and studium for e0pith/deuma.
However, there is a decided lack of cogitatio for e0pith/deuma in Psalms. It is only
in Psalm 9:12 that we discover cogitatio in the Psalt. Hebr. for e0pith/deuma and
given the singular nature of this reading we would be tempted to suggest that this
is in response to a reading other than e0pith/deuma.
If we accept that studium and adinventio may be used interchangeably for
e0pith/deuma in the Vulgate then it must be stated that the Vulgate text of Psalms
closely aligns with Rahlf’s LXX edition. However, a true understanding of the
relationship between studium and adinventio still eludes us. That Augustine too
acknowledges this problematic relationship is suggested in his passage on Psalm
105:39 where he acknowledges that et iidem ipsi qui dixerunt adinuentiones, alio
loco studia posuerunt.
145
That the Psalter Romanum is a witness for a Latin text distinct and most likely
older than the Gallican text of the Vulgate is suggested by Kelly but is also
supported by the alliance of this textual tradition with that of the Psalt. Ambros.
Psalt. Sangerm. Lucifer (see T6:9-11), and to a lesser extent with that of Julian of
Eclanum, who was writing before 418 CE (see T1:3, T5:3 and T5:5, T7:3)).
Only occasional variation is evident among the Psalt. Romanum, Psalt. Ambros.
and Psalt. Sangerm. This variation is most visible in Psalms 105:29 and 105:39
where there is no easily discernible pattern to the attested readings. In these
verses the LXX Greek is static and the Greek katafrone/w of Aquila and
Symmachus does not seem to have influenced the Latin text. On closer
examination the Latin vocabulary of Psalm 105:29 and 105:39 reveals that the
selection of this vocabulary, particularly observatio, may be inspired by the
particular context and concerns of the revisors / translators rather than the Greek.
We are here looking at inner-Latin textual variation rather than influence from the
Greek Vorlage.
It is intriguing that adinventio does not occur at all in the Psalters (except the
Gallican / Vulgate) in our examples. This would certainly suggest that, in Psalms,
adinventio is not part of the older textual tradition. Our only caveat here is the
place of adinventio in Augustine’s discussion of Psalm105:39. However, it may
be that the date of Augustine’s discussion of Psalm 105:39 (sometime after 398
CE) allows for this passage to have been influenced by the text of the Gallican
Psalter (circa 386) which thus accounts for the prominence of adinventio in this
discussion. It is notable that Augustine and the Cod. Veron. only attest adinventio
in Psalm 105:29 and 105:39 preferring affectio or affectatio in all other examples.
While Jerome’s preference for adinventio for e0pith/deuma is apparent in the
Gallican text, we do also find studium for e0pith/deuma in this text on two occasions
(Psalm 9:12 and 13:1). There is nothing within the context of these two verses to
suggest association. Indeed while Psalm 9:12 declares that “his [God’s] ways”
should be spread among the nations, Psalm 13:1 focuses on the “corrupt” who
are “abominable in their ways”. That studium and adinventio may both be found
146
representing e0pith/deuma was made apparent in our examination of the Prophets.
Is the appearance of studium here a deliberate (or accidental) reference to an
older reading? Kelly notes that in Psalms, in particular, “Jerome was sometimes
prepared to prefer a reading consecrated by tradition and church usage to the
one required by the Hebrew”.67
In Psalm 9:12 we find evidence for possibly five different revisions of this text by
Jerome. In the Psalt. Romanum, the oldest text associated with Jerome, we find
mirabilia. This reading would seem to have been influenced by the mirabilia of
Psalm 95:3. Maybe realising this error, the Gallican/ Vulgate text of Psalm 9:12
attests studium. In his Commentary on Psalms (Jerome, Comm. Ps. 9) Jerome
attests the familiar adinventio instead of studium. At this point Jerome also draws
attention to the fact that the underlying “Hebrew” of Psalm 9:12 reads commutatio
rather than adinventio. The commutatio of Jerome, Comm. Ps. would seem to be
inspired by the e0nallagh/ of Aquila. Whether this is also a true refelction of the
Hebrew needs to be further explored. The inspiration for the cogitatio of the Psalt.
Hebr. currently eludes us. That this examination of adinventio can provide some
insight into the revisional activities of Jerome suggests the value of pursing an
understanding of specific vocabulary and its use in the Jewish Greek Bible.
It is also apparent from this examination that the Hebrew and the Hexapla
exerted little influence on the text of the Gallican Psalter. Indeed while Kelly
speaks of the Gallican text being based on Origen’s Hexapla68 there is not one
reading among our Vulgate examples which demonstrates association with
anything other than the LXX Greek text. In Psalm 80:13b a text similar to the
boulh/ of Symmachus may be seen in the voluntas of the Psalt. Romanum and
other witnesses. However, there is no evidence for this reading in the text of the
Vulgate.
The most interesting reading of this examination is the presence of desiderium in
the majority of texts (including the Vulgate) in Psalm 89:13a. That this reading
67 Kelly, Jerome, 286. 68 Kelly, Jerome, 285.
147
148
may align with the e0piqu/mhma of Papyrus Bodmer 24 and the epicumia of the
Sahidic against all other witnesses is intriguing. However, the possibility of
intertestimental influence from Romans 1:24 also needs to be acknowledged.
The Psalt. Hebr. and the Cod. Casin. provide us with two independent texts.
While the association of the Psalt. Hebr. with a particular Jewish textual tradition
is unclear, the inspiration for the readings of the Cod. Casin. also eludes us.
This examination of Psalms has managed to identify at least three groupings of
witnesses which may be identified as separate recensions of Psalms. These
recensions are identified with Augustine and Cod. Veron. (marked by affectio);
the Psalt. Romanum, Psalt. Ambros., Psalt. Sang.; and the Vulgate tradition of
Jerome, Psalt. Tiron., the lemma of Arnobius the Younger, Comm. Ps., Pseudo-
Jerome et al. In addition to these recensions are the texts of the Psalt. Hebr. and
the mysterious Cod. Casin., the nature of which continues to elude us. What is
most spectacular about these groupings is that despite a static LXX text these
witnesses display internal unity in their variation from the underlying Greek. Often
this variation is limited to specific vocabulary items in the verse, thus allowing the
syntax and general structure of the verse to remain the same. This “slot-like”
phenomenon of interchangeable vocabulary is characteristic of the Latin Jewish
Greek Bible and deserves further examination.
Table 15: Adinventio in the text of Psalms (Latin witnesses)(pages 149 – 150)
Psalm Cod. Casin. Jerome, Psalt. Hebr.
Vulgate Psalt. Romanum Psalt. Ambros. Psalt. Sangerm. (Sabatier)
Cod. Veron. Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. et al
Other
27:4 conversationis adinventionem adinventionem studiorum studiorum studiorum affectionum
affectationem (Enarrat. Ps.) voluntatem (Enarrat. Ps.)
studiorum (Lucifer, Con.)
observationibus (Julian of Eclanum, Ps.)
76:13 dispensationibus adinventiones adinventionibus observationibus observationibus obsecrationibus affectionibus affectionibus
80:13b adinventionibus consiliis adinventionibus voluntatibus voluntatibus voluntatibus affectionibus
affectionibus (Enarrat. Ps.) voluntatibus (Praed. & Grat.) voluptatibus (Serm.)
98:8 adinventiones commutationibus adinventiones studia studia studia affectiones affectiones studia (Julian of Eclanum, Ps.)
105:29 conationibus studiis adinventionibus studiis observationibus studiis adinventionibus adinventionibus studiis (Julian of Eclanum, Ps.)
105:39 conationibus studiis adinventionibus observationibus studiis ab inventionibus adinventionibus adinventionibus
9:12 custodia cogitationes studia mirabilia studia voluntates mirabilia mirabilia studia (Julian of Eclanum, Ps.)
13:1 conversationibus studiose studiis voluntatibus voluntatibus voluntatibus adfectionibus affectionibus / affectiones
studiis (Julian of Eclanum, Ps.) operibus (Psuedo-Athanasius, Luc)
80:13a difficultate pravitate desideria desideria desideria desideria affectiones
affectiones (Enarrat. Ps.) desideria (Praed. & Grat.)
149
Psalm Cod. Casin. Jerome, Psalt. Hebr.
Vulgate Psalt. Romanum Psalt. Ambros. Psalt. Sangerm. (Sabatier)
Cod. Veron. Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. et al
Other
55:6 adinventiones cogitationes cogitationes consilia consilia consilia consilia consilia
consilia (Julian of Eclanum, Ps.) cogitationes (Ambrose, Explan. Ps.)
77:7 adinventiones cogitationum operum operum operum operum operum
operum (Enarrat. Ps.) cogitationum (Spec.)
operum (Julian of Eclanum, Ps.)
77:11 adinventionum commutationum benefactorum benefactorum benefactorum beneficiorum beneficiorum beneficiorum
beneficiis (Tertullian, Adv. Jud. x2) benefactorum (Julian of Eclanum, Ps.) voluntates (Paulinus of Nola, Epist.)
102:7 adinventiones cogitationes voluntates voluntates voluntates voluntates voluntates voluntates
104:1 adinventiones cogitationes opera opera magnalia opera opera
opera (Enarrat. Ps.) cogitationes (Spec.)
150
151
Table 16: Adinventio in the text of Psalms (Greek and Coptic witnesses)
Psalm LXX (Rahlfs) Papyrus Bodmer 24
LXX (Field) Aquila (Field) Symmachus (Field)
Sahidic Bohairic
27:4 e)pithdeuma/twn epeithdeumatwn lac. lac. lac. meeue nouxboui 76:13 e0pithdeu/masi/n epidthdeumasin e0pithdeu/masi mhxanh/mata nekmeeue nekxbhoui 80:13b e0pithdeu/masin epithdeumasin e0pithdeu/masin bouleu/masin boulai=v neuxbhue nouxbhoui 98:8 e0pithdeu/mata epit[hdeu]mata e0pithdeu/mata lac. e0phrei/aiv neuxbhue nouxbhoui 105:29 e0pithdeu/masin epithdeumasin e0pithdeu/masin katafronh/sesin katafronh/sesin nehxbhue nouxbhoui 105:39 e0pithdeu/masin lac. lac. lac. lac. neumeeue nouxbhoui
9:12 e0pithdeu/mata lac.
e0pithdeu/mata 1Allov. mhxanh/mata
e0nallaga\v
mhxana\v (Theodoret et quidam MSS) e0nallaga\v (Syro-hex)
pnefxbhue nefxbhoui
13:1 e0pithdeu/masin lac. e0pithdeu/masin e0nallagh\n (s. ena/llagma ) lac. neumeeue nouxbhoui
80:13a e0pithdeu/mata epiqumhmata skolio/thti a0reskei/a| epicumia xbhoui 55:6 dialogismoi\ lac. dialogismoi\ lac. dialogismo\v neumeeue nouso[ni 77:7 e1rgwn ergwn e1rgwn lac. perinoi/av nnexbhue xbhoui
77:11 eu0ergesiw~n euergesiwn lac. lac. lac. nnefpet- nanouf
nefxbhoui
102:7 qelh/mata qelhmata qelh/mata e0nallaga\v boula\v (s. enqumh/seiv) nefouws nefouws
104:1 e1rga erga lac. lac. lac. nnefxbhue n nefxbhoui
Chapter Four: An Examination of Adinventio and its
Lexical Equivalents in the Other Books of the Latin Jewish
Greek Bible
Preliminaries
It is clear from our previous examination of adinventio in Psalms, Jeremiah, Ezekiel
and the Minor Prophets that, while there are overarching similarities, each book
demonstrates individual editorial tendencies in regards to adinventio, studium and
e0pith/deuma. This Chapter will explore further the role adinventio can play in
highlighting the possible reasons for these textual variations between books as well
as within books. We will also demonstrate that the slot variation encountered in
Chapters Two and Three is evident in several other books of the Jewish Greek Bible.
In addition to this we will draw attention to the peculiar behaviour of adinventio in
Sapientia and Sirach.
We find adinventio in several books of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible including
Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Judges, 1 Kingdoms (1 Samuel), 3 Kingdoms (1 Kings), 1
Chronicles, Nehemiah (2 Esdras), Judith, Job, Proverbs, the Wisdom of Solomon,
the Wisdom of Sirach and Isaiah. Each of these books brings with it a different set of
witnesses. One of the major issues confronting this examination is the dearth of
witnesses in some books of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible. While some books have
many extant witnesses others are limited to just a few witnesses attesting the revised
Vulgate text.1
The revisional activity of Jerome has also cast its shadow over the older textual
traditions of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible. We must always have an eye out for those
features which might suggest later revision.
Our previous examinations of adinventio in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor
Prophets and Psalms will inform this discussion of adinventio in the Latin text of
1 As discussed in Chapter One, it is critical to acknowledge that while one witness may contain multiple books (or references to multiple books) it cannot be assumed that the books within these witnesses attest a similar textual tradition or, indeed, that they are related in any way.
153
other books of the Jewish Greek Bible. We must, however, acknowledge the
individual nature of each book and the textual history associated with it.
This discussion will be separated into examples from each book. Each example will
begin with the relevant passage from the Vulgate text, followed by a table outlining
the textual variation from the Vetus Latina Database and a discussion of the
elements of the text relevant to this examination.
154
This page deliberately left blank
155
Example 1: Leviticus 18:3
juxta consuetudinem terrae Aegypti, in qua habitastis, non facietis: et juxta morem regionis Chanaan, ad quam ego introducturus sum vos, non agetis, nec in legitimis eorum ambulabitis. Table 1: Adinventio et al in Leviticus 18:3
Source Text
1 Vulgate
juxta consuetudinem terrae AEgypti, in qua habitastis, non facietis: et juxta morem regionis Chanaan, ad quam ego introducturus sum vos, non agetis, nec in legitimis eorum ambulabitis.
2 Codex Lugdunensis [= Cod. Lugd.]
Secundum adfectata Aegypti, in quo incolae fuistis in eo, non facietis: et secundum adfectatae praedia Chanaan, in quam ego induco vos ibi, non facietis, et legibus eorum non ambulabitis.
3 Codex Wirceburgensis [= Cod. Wirc.]
secundum adinventionem terræ aeypti in qua inhabitastis non facietis secundum adinventiones chanaam, in qua ego vos induco ibi non facietis et in legetima eius non ambulabitis.
4 Lucifer, Ath. 1.3 (70.10)
secundum studia terrae Aeypti, in qua inhabitastis, in ea non facietis, et secundum studia terrae Chananaeorum, in quam ego induxero vos, ibi non facietis et in legetima eius non ambulabitis.
5 Hesychius, Comm. Lev. 5 (1008C)
Juxta consuetudinem terrae Aegypti, in qua habitastis, non facietis. Juxta morem regionis Chanaan, ad quam ego introducturus sum vos, non agetis, nec in legitimis eorum ambulabitis.
6 Hesychius, Comm. Lev. 5 (1009A)
juxta consuetudinem terrae AEgypti, et juxta morem terrae Chanaan nihil facere, sic ab omni inquitate abstineri praecepit. Septuaginta autem pro consuetudine, studia interpretati sunt: quia malignas adinventiones, et fabulas solet divina Scriptura appellare malorum studia; utpote Ezechiele divente post inquitates quas Deus in templo seniores Israel agere ostendit : Et dixit ad me Dominus : Vides, fili hominis? Et rursus : Conversus, videbis studia majora horum.
156
Source Text
7
Septuagint [= LXX] - Brooke and McLean, Exodus and Leviticus.2
kai\ kata\ ta\ e0pithdeu/mata gh=v Ai0gu/ptou, e0n h|[ katoikh/sate e0p 0 au0th=|, ou0 poih/sete kai\ kata\ e0pithdeu/mata gh=v Xana/an, ei0v h4n e0gw\ ei0sa/gw u9ma~v e0kei, ou0 poih/sete, kai\ toi=v nomi/moiv au0tw~n ou0 poreu/sesqe. (cf also epithdeumata1] adinventionum in Ranke’s edition of the Old Latin Würzburg palimpsest [= Cod. Wirc.])
8
LXX - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 1, 196.3
O’ kai\ kata\ ta\ e0pithdeu/mata
9
Other- Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 1, 196. 1Allov (Sic in marg. Codd. X (teste Holmes), Lips.
( 1Allov. e!rga)
Discussion of Example 1: Leviticus 18:3
1.1 The first impression of Leviticus 18:3 is that the witnesses to this book are more
fluid in their association with one another than has been previously encountered.
While a single Greek text would seem to underpin the Latin of this verse there is
some distance between this text and the extant Latin witnesses. Indeed the amount
of variation present in the Latin witnesses suggests a long and complicated history
within the version.
When we examine adinventio and its lexical equivalents in Leviticus 18:3 we notice
distinctive variation which is reminiscent of Psalms. Without this foreknowledge to
recognise this variation, however, we would not have been able to distinguish this in
particular from the general background of variation presented by this verse.
2 Alan E. Brooke and Norman McLean, eds., Volume I. The Octateuch (to be completed in 4 parts), Part II. Exodus and Leviticus, in The Old Testament in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus, supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909). 3 Most references to Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, in this Chapter are taken from Volume 1 rather than Violume 2.
157
1.2 In the text of Leviticus 18:3 we encounter several elements reminiscent of
adinventio in Psalms. As occurred in Psalm 80:13, we find e0pithdeu/mata twice in the
Septuagint [= LXX] Greek text of Leviticus 18:3 (Table 1: Reading 7 [T1:7]). While
Field notes that another Greek text reads e!rga it is unclear to which e0pithdeu/mata
this variation applies (T1:9).
1.3 In the Vulgate we find the two examples of e0pithdeu/mata rendered differently –
first by consuetudinem (“- a custom, habit, use, usage, way”) and then by morem (“-
manner, custom, way, usage” etc.). These synonyms are found throughout the
Vulgate text but, as demonstrated by our previous examinations, not usually as a
translation of e0pith/deuma. It may be that the Jewish textual tradition rather than the
LXX (or its variant) is influencing the choice of vocabulary here. Our lack of evidence
from Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion in this verse means that it is impossible to
identify the mechanism via which, if any, these texts have influenced the text of
Jerome.
1.4 In the older Codex Lugdunensis [= Cod. Lugd.] and the Codex Wirceburgensis [=
Cod. Wirc.], we find lexical elements also apparent in Psalms. In Cod. Lugd. we
encounter adfectata for both examples of e0pithdeu/mata (T1:2). This reading is
strongly reminiscent of the adfectio / affectio of Codex Veronensis and Augustine in
Psalms. Billen notes that the peculiarities of the text of Leviticus in Cod. Lugd. “are
particularly numerous” and that “where the usage of the books varies, Leviticus and
Numbers preserve the ‘African’ or Cyprianic rendering, and that these two books
rarely reveal the use of distinctively late forms”.4
1.5 In Cod. Wirc. we find the readings adinventionem and adinventiones for
e0pithdeu/mata (T1:3). This reading also aligns with our knowledge of the behaviour of
adinventio and e0pith/deuma in Psalms. However, whereas adinventio would seem to
have an association with Jerome in Psalms its presence in Cod. Wirc. does not
seem to be attributable to Jerome due to the likely early date of the textual tradition
in Cod. Wirc. According to Billen, Cod. Wirc. is generally “not so late as Cod. Lugd.”
and occupies an uneasy place between Cod. Lugd. and the more “primitive”
4 Albert V. Billen, The Old Latin Texts of the Heptateuch (Cambridge: The University Press, 1927), 10.
158
Fragmenta Monacensia [= Cod. Mon.].5 We are left nonplussed by this seeming
reversal of our expectations, i.e. that adinventio would seem to be an older reading
than adfectata in this verse. Billen also acknowledges, however, that certain
readings in Cod. Lugd. are earlier readings than Cod. Mon.6 An examination of these
readings is beyond the scope of this examination but that such readings exists may
allow the possibility that affectio (adfectata) represents an older reading than
adinventio.
1.6 Studia for e0pithdeu/mata may be found in Lucifer’s De Athanasio [= Lucifer, Ath.].
The early date of this textual tradition, (357/8 CE) suggests that this is an early
reading, pre-dating the influence of Jerome.
1.7 While the lemma of Hesychius’ Commentarius in Leviticum [= Hesychius, Comm.
Lev.] follows the Vulgate text, Hesychius later comments on the fact that the LXX
has studia for consuetudine in this verse. Whether Hesychius is himself translating
the LXX e0pithdeu/mata is unclear. Previously we have seen several examples where
reference to an alternative Greek or Hebrew reading has been provided in Latin. In
these places too, it was not always clear whether the inspiration for the Latin text
was from an existing Latin textual tradition or was a result of independent translation
of a Greek or Hebrew exemplar by the author. That studium is not here a result of
independent translation may be suggested by its appearance in Lucifer, Ath.
Hesychius’ statement includes a further gloss which parallels malignas
adinventiones with malorum studia. These phrases echo the nequitiam (malum)
adinventiones and nequitiam studiorum of Psalm 27:4 as well as the malitiam
studiorum of Jeremiah 23:2 and the malas adinventiones of Micah 2:9. It would seem
that Hesychius is familiar with the “evil” aspect of these inventions / works / pursuits
suggested elsewhere in the Latin Jewish Greek Bible.
1.8 The influence of Field’s e!rgon on Leviticus 18:3 is limited. Indeed, all extant
variants to the Vulgate text seem to have been inspired by the LXX e0pith/deuma.
5 Billen confirms that Cod. Mon. is lacking for Leviticus 18:3. 6 Billen, Old Latin Heptateuch, 25-26.
159
1.9 In Leviticus 18:3 we find ourselves grappling with a similar variation to that
demonstrated in Psalms and, to a lesser extent, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor
Prophets. However, it must be noted that the Vulgate use of mos and consuetudo in
this verse belies our expectations and behaves very differently from anything else we
have seen.
1.10 In the Heptateuch we benefit from Billen’s detailed study of the older Latin
manuscripts. Despite having some reservations regarding his use of New Testament
results to inform his discussion of these Latin Jewish Greek Bible texts,7 his work
provides a welcome insight to this textual tradition. Billen’s assessment of the
manuscript tradition suggest that adinventio rather then adfectio belongs to the older
manuscript tradition. This assessment is at odds with our own understanding of the
situation based on our previous examination of Psalms and the Prophets. Billen does
acknowledge that some older readings may be found in the same manuscript which
attests adfectio. This caveat allows for the possibility that adfectio may indeed be
representative of the older Latin textual tradition in this verse.
7 Billen, Old Latin Heptateuch, 24: “The following list gives some of the words in Cod. Mon. which are characteristic of Cyprian or of k [Codex Bobbiensis, the most primitive Old Latin Gospel MS…]; and can therefore with confidence be pronounced ‘African’.” As noted in Chapter One, this process would seem to be methodologically flawed.
160
Example 2: Deuteronomy 28:20
Mittet Dominus super te famem et esuriem, et increpationem in omnia opera tua, quae tu facies: donec conterat te, et perdat velociter, propter adinventiones tuas pessimas in quibus reliquisti me. Table 2: Adinventio et al in Deuteronomy 28:20
Source Text
1 Vulgate donec conterat te, et perdat velociter, propter adinventiones tuas pessimas in quibus reliquisti me.
2
Somnium Neronis 5.1 (18.19) [vos) + dominus IKL, + in omnibus gentibus K / disperget AIK, disperdet BL, C (-dat)]
Conterat vos et disperget velociter propter adinventiones vestras pessimas.
3 Cod. Lugd. usquedum exterminet te et usquedum perdat te cito propter malas cogitationes tuas, quia dereliquisti me.
4 Cod. Mon. et quoadusq. obterat te in loco, propter mala facta tua, propterea quod me relinquisti.
5 Lucifer, Ath. 1.8 (79.13) quodusque disperdat te in brevi propter nequitiam studiorum tuorum.
6 LXX - Brooke and McLean, Numbers and Deuteronomy, 642 – 643.8
e3wv a@n ecoleqreu/sh| se kai\ e3wv a@n a0pole/sh| se e)n ta/xei dia\ ta\ ponhra\ e)pithdeu/mata/ sou, dio/ti e0nkate/lipe/v me.
7 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 1, 312 (No relevant variation)
Discussion of Example 2: Deuteronomy 28:20
2.1 In Deuteronomy 28:20 we encounter several of the same witnesses found in our
examination of Leviticus 18:3. However, most of their readings do not reflect the
same vocabulary preferences as that demonstrated there. This difference in
vocabulary selection may indicate that although we have the same witnesses
apparent the textual traditions represented within the books of these witnesses do
not represent the same textual tradition.
8 Alan E. Brooke and Norman McLean, eds., Volume I. The Octateuch (to be completed in 4 parts), Part III. Numbers and Deuteronomy, in The Old Testament in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus, supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911).
161
2.2 In Deuteronomy 28:20 the Vulgate text returns to familiar ground with its use of
adinventiones for e)pithdeu/mata/ (T2:1).9 This reading is alluded to by the later
Somnium Neronis (T 2:2).
2.3 Billen notes that the text of both Deuteronomy and Exodus in Cod. Lugd.
displays “hardly a single ‘Africanism’” and that “later words repeatedly prevail”.10 In
Deuteronomy 28:20 in Cod. Lugd. we encounter cogitationes for e)pithdeu/mata/
(T2:3). There are several verses in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets where
we find adinventio in the Vulgate text and cogitatio in other witnesses. The
manuscript tradition in Ezekiel, in particular, displays this pattern of association.11 In
Ezekiel 24:14, 14:22 and 14:23 we find adinventio in the Vulgate text and cogitatio in
the older Latin manuscript tradition. It is likely that the LXX e0nqu/mhma (“- thought,
piece of reasoning; invention, device”) underlies the reading of cogitatio in these
verses. We also find cogitatio associated with e0pith/deuma in the older textual
tradition of Jeremiah.12 In these examples, however, we find the Vulgate text
attesting studium. It is unclear from this discussion whether a different Greek Vorlage
is the reason for the lexical variation apparent in Deuteronomy 28:20 verse.
This example demonstrates the complexity surrounding the use of cogitatio for
e0pith/deuma in the Jewish Greek Bible. Examination of the use of cogitatio, here and
in the text of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets, has not allowed us to reach
any conclusions regarding the association of cogitatio and e0pith/deuma and/or
e0nqu/mhma.
2.4 Lucifer, Ath. is the only witness to retain the same reading in this verse as that
found in Leviticus 18:3 (i.e. studium). Lucifer, Ath. is also the only witness attesting
studium for e0pith/deuma in both these verses.
2.5 In Deuteronomy 28:20 we encounter a reading from Fragmenta Monacensia [=
Cod. Mon.] for the first time. Billen considers this manuscript in the later part of
9 There is no relevant Greek variation apparent in the text of Field to further inform this discussion. 10 Billen, Old Latin Heptateuch, 11. 11 For example see Ezekiel 24:14, 14:22 and 14:23. 12 See Jeremiah 11:18 (in Ambrose, Fid. Grat.) and 7:5 (Lucifer, Ath.).
162
Deuteronomy to be “almost uniformly primitive” in character13 and believes it to be
the oldest of his three manuscripts of the Heptateuch. In Deuteronomy 28:20 Cod.
Mon. presents a curious texts which presents facta for adinventiones / e)pithdeu/mata/
(T2:4). This mundane translation has no parallels within our examination and may be
representative of either a late or early date.
2.5 The Latin text of Deuteronomy 28:20 also demonstrates interesting variation
inspired by the LXX e0coleqreu/w (“- destroy utterly”).
13 Billen, Old Latin Heptateuch, 23-24. Billen divides the manuscript into three sections Section One, which would seem to include Deuteronomy 28:20, “consists of the latter part of Exodus (ch. xxxi to the end), Leviticus, and the latter part of Deuteronomy. (ch. xxii to the end)…” (p. 23). “The first section is remarkable for the almost uniformly primitive character of its vocabulary” (p. 24).
163
Figure 1: Variation in Deuteronomy 28:20
Source e0coleqreu/w and associated Latin lexical elements in Deuteronomy
28:20
e0pith/deuma and associated Latin lexical elements in Deuteronomy
28:20
1 LXX e0coleqreu/w
(“- destroy utterly”)
e0pith/deuma
2
Vulgate
Somnium Neronis
contero
(“- to grind, bruise, pound, to crumble; to diminish by rubbing, to waste,
destroy”)
adinventio
3 Cod. Lugd.
extermino
(“- To abolish, extirpate, destroy (late Lat.; Vulg. Sap. Apoc”)
cogitatio
4 Cod. Mon.
obtero
(“- to crush, trample on, degrade, disgrace, contemn, disparage,
ravage, destroy”)
factum
The variation associated with e0coleqreu/w in Figure 1 would certainly seem to be due
to inner-Latin, rather than external Greek or Hebrew, influences. 14 That each lexical
equivalent for e0pith/deuma is matched by a lexical equivalent for e0coleqreu/w is also
notable. While this is not the point to launch into an examination of other lexical
equivalents in the Latin Jewish Greek Bible it is worth noting that such associations
exist outside adinventio and e0pith/deuma and deserve future study.
14 There is no variation apparent in Field, Origenis Hexaplorum for this part of Deuteronomy 28:20 either.
164
Example 3: Judges 2:19
Postquam autem mortuus esset iudex, revertebantur, et multo faciebant peiora quam fecerant patres eorum, sequentes deos alienos, servientes eis, et adorantes illos. Non dimiserunt adinventiones suas, et viam durissimam per quam ambulare consueverunt. Table 3: Adinventio et al in Judges 2:19
Source Text
1 Vulgate Non dimisarunt adinventiones suas, et viam durissimam per quam ambulare consueverunt.
2 Cod. Lugd. Non proiecerunt adfectiones suas, et non recesserunt a via sua dura.
3 LXX - Brooke & McLean, Joshua, Judges and Ruth.15
ou0k a0pe/riyan ta\ e0pithdeu/mata au0tw~n kai\ o9dou\v au0tw~n ta\v sklhra/v.
4 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 1, 405. (No relevant variation)
Discussion of Example 3: Judges 2:19
3.1 In Judges 2:19 our witnesses are limited to the Vulgate and Cod. Lugd. However,
these texts still manage to provide us with interesting variation.
3.2 While the Vulgate text of Judges 2:19 presents us with the familiar adinventiones
(T3:1) for e0pithdeu/mata, Cod. Lugd. witnesses adfectiones (T3:2), a cognate of
adfectata (T1:2). Billen notes that Genesis, Joshua and Judges in Cod. Lugd. have a
“confusing mixture of early and late forms” and that in Joshua and Judges
particularly “the later words are more noticeable”.16 Billen also draws attention to “a
few unusual renderings…found in these three books”.17 To which category Billen
would assign adfectio he fails to state explicitly. As in Leviticus 18:3, the presence of
adfectio in Judges 2:19 suggests some form of association between the textual
15 Alan E. Brooke and Norman McLean, eds., Volume I. The Octateuch (to be completed in 4 parts), Part IV. Joshua, Judges and Ruth, in The Old Testament in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus, supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917). 16 Billlen, Old Latin Heptateuch, 15. 17 Billen, Old Latin Heptateuch, 15.
165
tradition of this book in Cod. Lugd. and the textual tradition of Psalms attested by
Augustine and Codex Veronensis.
That Deuteronomy 28:20 in Cod. Lugd. does not demonstrate the same textual
tradition as that found in Leviticus and Judges is not problematic. As Billen states in
his conclusion “the general impression received in passing from one book of this MS
[Cod. Lugd.] to another is that the difference in the texts is as great as that which
exists between any two of the Old Latin authorities”.18 This statement recognises the
need to treat each book within a manuscript on its own merits, and not to assume
that they may be the product of the same textual tradition.
18 Billen, Old Latin Heptateuch, 15-16.
166
This page deliberately left blank
167
Example 4: 1 Kingdoms (1 Samuel) 2:3
Nolite multiplicare loqui sublimia gloriantes; recedant vetera de ore vestro: quia Deus scientiarum Dominus est, et ipsi praeparantur cogitationes. Table 4: Adinventio in 1 Kingdoms 2:3
Source Text
1
Vulgate Psalter Tironianum Somnium Neronis 13.2 (27.10) Bede, Sam. 1 (quoniam) Gregory the Great, Reg. 1.94 (110.2197; 110.2211) 1.95 (111.2225) 2.9 (10; 126.201) 2.9 (11; 126.213)
quia Deus scientiarum Dominus est, et ipsi praeparantur cogitationes.
2 Codex Legionensis (These readings are from the margin of the manuscript19)
quia Deus scientiae Dominus est, et Deus praeparans inquisitiones suas….
3 Fragmenta Vindobonensis …quia deus est qui praeparat inventiones eius […quia dms et di parat inventiones suas]
Fragmenta Vindobonensis …quia dms et ds qui parat inventio nes suas
4 Paris Codex Quoniam Deus scientiarum Dominus et Deus praeparans adinventiones eius
5 Verona manuscript (Vulgate?)20 Brev Goth (130C) (quoniam / omit et)
Quia Deus scientiae, Dominus est, et Deus qui parat adinventiones suas.
6 Psalter Mozarabic quoniam Deus scientie, Dominus est. Deus qui parat adinventiones suas:
19 Henry Barclay Swete, H. St J. Thackeray, and Richard Rusden Ottley, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (New York,: KTAV, 1968), 95. Burkitt also notes that “it is by no means certain that this interesting document does not represent readings extracted and translated from some Greek codex, so that it may have no connection with the Old Latin properly so called”. F.C. Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala. With an appendix containing the text of the S. Gallen palimpsest of Jeremiah (Cambridge: University Press, 1896), 9-10. 20 Swete, Old Testament, 95, suggests that the Veronese manuscript, as well as the Vatican fragments of Kings, cited by Bianchini “should perhaps be classed as Vulgate”.
168
Source Text
7 Augustine, Civ. 17.4 (555[?]) Quoniam Deus scientarum Dominus, et Deus praeparans adinventiones suas.
8 Augustine, Civ. 17.4 (555[?]) quoniam Deus scientarum Dominus. Et praeparans (-) adinventiones suas.
9 Fulgentius, Praed. 2.22 (638D) sic in nobis Deus praeparat adinventiones suas
10 Pseudo-Jerome, Epist. 3.6 (53A) Pseudo-Paulinus of Nola, Epist. 1.5 (433.9)
quia talibus suis praeparat adinventiones suas
11 Fulgentius, Epist. 1.20 et quaerenti adinventiones suas praeparet
12 Psalter Ambrosian Quoniam Deus scientiae Dominus: Deus praeparat voluntates suas.
13 Ferrandus, Epist. 7.17 (945B) consule ergo quos Deus scientiae dominus consuli denere commonuit
14 LXX - Brooke, McLean and Thackeray, I and II Samuel, 5.21
o#ti qeo\v gnw/sewv Ku/riov, kai\ qeo\v e9toima/zwn e0pithdeu/mata au0tou~. [2nd qeo\v to au0tou~: non emendaverunt excusationes Or-lat | e0pithdeu/mata pr. ta i : inquisitiones LaV]
15 LXX - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 1, 490.
O’ kai\ qeo\v e9toima/zwn e0pithdeu/mata au0tou~.
16 Symmachus - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 1, 490. (Nobil., Reg., Procop. in Cat. Niceph. T. II, p. 292).
S. kai\ ou0k e0si\ par 0 au0tw~| profa/seiv
Discussion of Example 4: 1 Kingdoms (1 Sam) 2:3
4.1 In 1 Kingdoms 2:3 we find four Latin lexical variants for e0pith/deuma.
The Vulgate cogitationes of 1 Kingdoms 2:3 is supported by the Psalter Tironianum
[Psalt. Tiron.], Somnium Neronis and other later witnesses (T4:1). Both the Psalt.
Tiron. in Psalms (see Chapter Three) and Somnium Neronis in Deuteronomy 28:20
(T2:2) have previously demonstrated a close relationship to the Vulgate text. The
presence of cogitatio in the text of the Vulgate recalls several examples from the
21 Alan E. Brooke, Norman McLean and Henry St John Thackeray, eds., Volume II. The Later Historical Books, Part I. I and II Samuel, in The Old Testament in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus, supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1927).
169
Chapter on adinventio in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. That we also
find adinventio in several other witnesses in 1 Kingdoms 2:3 (T4:4-11) recalls some
specific examples from Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets including
Jeremiah 23:22 and Jeremiah 25:22. However, the most informative examples are
found in the Minor Prophets where the Vulgate attests cogitatio and Jerome’s Latin
LXX text, as elucidated in his commentaries, reads adinventio (see Micah 2:7, Micah
7:13 and Zechariah 1:4). In all these examples the LXX Greek text reads e0pith/deuma.
It is likely that adinventio in 1 Kingdoms 2:3 is a response to the LXX e0pith/deuma and
that this reading of the older Latin textual tradition has been replaced in the Vulgate
by the editorial preferences of Jerome who in turn has been inspired by the Jewish
textual tradition(s), whether Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion or directly from the
Hebrew.
The discovery of adinventio in 1 Kingdoms 2:3 without support from Jerome is
significant as it demonstrates that adinventio, at least in some books, is not limited to
the influence of Jerome. It is therefore likely that the use of adinventio in the text of
Jerome is a remnant of an older textual tradition (possibly preferred by Jerome),
rather than an introduction of new vocabulary by Jerome.
The discovery of adinventio in book 17 of Augustine’s De civitate Dei [=Augustine,
Civ.] is extremely unusual given the preference for affectio so far demonstrated by
Augustine. It is possible that the original citations in Augustine, Civ. have been
corrected to a different textual tradition. However, the fact that the dominant Latin
textual tradition (i.e. the Vulgate) here attests cogitatio may argue against this
suggestion.
4.2 Without access to Morano Rodriguez’s edition of the Marginal Glosses of the Old
Latin22 we are left with Vercellone’s “faulty” text of Codex Legionensis.23 In 1
Kingdoms 2:3 this text reads the unique inquisitiones (“- a searching, seeking, an
examination”) for e0pith/deuma (T4:2). Burkitt suggests that this manuscript may
22 C. Morano Rodriguez, Glosas Marginales De Vetus Latina En Las Biblias Vulgatas Espanolas, 1-2 Samuel (Madrid, 1989). 23 Natalio Fernández Marcos, Scribes and Translators: Septuagint and Old Latin in the Books of Kings in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 44.
170
actually “represent readings extracted and translated from some Greek codex, so
that it may have no connection with the Old Latin properly so called”.24 This would
certainly seem to be the case in this example. That inquisitiones is more closely
associated with the profa/seiv (“- motive, cause alleged”) of Symmachus (T4:16)
seems unlikely.
4.3 In 1 Kingdoms 2:3 we also encounter two readings which recall our examination
of Psalms. The attestation of voluntas in the Ambrosian Psalter [= Psalt. Ambros.]
(T4:12) and of consuli in Ferrandus, Epist. (T4:13) in 1 Kingdoms 2:3 bring to mind
the reading of voluntas in the Psalt. Ambros. and consilium in Jerome, Psalt. Hebr. in
Psalm 80:13b (see Chapter Three, Table 4). In Psalm 80:13b it was suggested that a
text akin to the boulh/ of Symmachus may be responsible for these readings. It is
possible that this is also the case here. However, extant evidence to support this
theory is currently lacking. That this Greek, if it existed, may also have inspired the
inquisitio of Codex Legionensis is possible, especially when we consider the
medieval meaning of this Spanish gloss “– inquest, judicial inquiry, or record thereof,
body of jurors serving on inquest” etc.25
4.4 In 1 Kingdoms 2:3 we find adinventio in the older Latin textual tradition.
Significantly this reading does not find any support in the text of Jerome. The use of
adinventio, at least in this book if not elsewhere in the Jewish Greek Bible, is
therefore not a product of Hieronymian revision but representative of an older Latin
textual tradition. While we have managed to establish some clarity regarding the
affiliation of adinventio with the older Latin textual tradition in this verse, the
inspiration for the Vulgate cogitatio continues to elude us.
24 Burkitt, Old Latin and the Itala, 9-10. 25 R.E. Latham, James Houston Baxter, Charles Johnson, and British Academy, eds., Revised Medieval Latin Word-List from British and Irish Sources, (London: Oxford University Press, 1965), 252
171
Example 5: 3 Kingdoms (1 Kings) 15:12
et abstulit effeminatos de terra, purgavitque universas sordes idolorum quae fecerant patres eius. Table 5: Adinventio et al in 3 Kingdoms 15:12
Source Text
1 Vulgate Jerome, Comm. Os. 1 (852A) (universas] omnes)
purgavitque universas sordes idolorum quae fecerant patres eius.
2 Sulpicius Severus, Chron.1.42.2 deletis aris lucisque idolorum vestigia paternae prfidiae sustulit.
3 Codex Legionensis (These readings are from the margin of the manuscript26)
et exterminavit omnes adinventiones patris eius.
4 Facundus, Def. trium 6.1.13 (163.105)
abstulit omnes adinventiones quas fecerant patres eius
5 LXX - OT in Greek (Brooke, McLean and Thackery, I and II Kings, 267.27
kai\ e0cape/steilen pa/nta ta\ e0pithdeu/mata a$ e0po/hsan oi9 pate/rev au0tou~.
6 LXX - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 1, 628.
O’ pa/nta ta\ e0pithdeu/mata
7
Symmachus - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 1, 628 (Syro-hex. Ad priorem versionem cf. Hex. ad Ezech. xx.7, xxiii.30. Pro e0pithdeu/mata Comp. edidit bdelu/gmata.)
S. ta\ ei1dwla pa/nta kai\ pa/nta ta\ bdelu/gmata.
26 Swete, Old Testament, 95. 27 Alan E. Brooke, Norman McLean and Henry St John Thackeray, eds., Volume II. The Later Historical Books, Part II.I and II Kings, in The Old Testament in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus, supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930).
172
Discussion of Example 5: 3 Kingdoms (1 Kings) 15:12
5.1 In 3 Kingdoms 15:12 the introduction of idolorum in the text of the Vulgate and
Jerome, Comm. Os. 1 (T5:1) is a continuation of the editorial habits particularly
apparent in Jerome’s Vulgate text of Ezechiel. The ei1dwla of Symmachus (T5:7), as
reconstructed from the Syriac of the Syro-hexapla, supports this. Field also notes the
relationship between this verse and Ezechiel.28
5.2 We are fortunate that two other witnesses preserve a text different to that of the
Vulgate in 3 Kingdoms 15:12. In the Codex Legionensis (T5:3) and Facundus (T5:4)
we find adinventiones for the LXX e0pithdeu/mata (T5:5). However, both of the texts
attesting adinventio are problematic. Fernández Marcos draws our attention to the
fact that Vercellone used a “very faulty copy of the Codex Gothicus Legionensis” for
his edition of this text.29 That the Codex Legionensis, according to Vercellone, is
here presenting a Greek different from that found underlying the Vulgate text is
certainly the case. That this is might be an independent translation not related to any
previous Latin textual tradition is impossible to tell without evidence from other Latin
witnesses. The allusion to this verse in the Pro defensione trium capitulorum of
Facundus is late, dating to around 547/8 CE, and does not inform the situation.
5.3 The idolum of the Vulgate text of 3 Kingdoms 15:12 is significant as it strongly
suggests that this edition of the text is influenced primarily by the Jewish Greek
Versions (see the reading of ei1dwla in Symmachus in this verse) rather then the
LXX or the older Latin textual tradition. This suggests a close relationship between
the Vulgate text of 3 Kingdoms and Ezechiel, which also frequently attests idolum as
inspired by one or other of the Jewish Greek versions.
28 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 628. 29 Fernández Marcos, Scribes and translators, 44.
173
Example 6: 1 Chronicles 16:8
Confitemini Domino, et invocate nomen eius: notas facite in populis adinventiones eius. Table 6: Adinventio in 1 Chronicles 16:8
Source Text
1 Vulgate notas facite in populis adinventiones eius.
2 Rufinus, Orig. Comm. Cant. (79A) notas facite in populis voluntates eius.
3 Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 20.14.4 (116 et nota faciemus mirabilia tua
4 LXX - Brooke, McLean and Thackeray, I and II Chronicles, 442.30 [autou 2nd] + ta megala biye2]
gnwri/sate e0n laoi=v ta\ e0pithdeu/mata au0tou~.
5 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 1, lac.
Discussion of Example 6:1 Chronicles 16:8
Scarpat in his Commentary on the Wisdom of Solomon draws attention to 1
Chronicles 16:18 stating that this is the one exception in the Latin Bible where
adinventio may be taken in a positive manner.31 That the Vulgate adinventiones
(T6:1) stands as the Latin equivalent of the LXX e0pithdeu/mata in this verse (T6:4)
would seem assured. The association of e0pith/deuma in this verse with the actions of
God may explain the introduction of mirabilia in Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. (T6:3). The
appearance of mirabilis in Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. in association with a verse which
contains e0pith/deuma was encountered in Psalm 9:12. There, it was proposed that
inner-Latin textual corruption was the impetus for the appearance of mirabilis. It is
also possible that these same verses have influenced the appearance of mirabilia
here.
This study has not provided much opportunity for engagement with the text(s) of
Rufinus. In 1 Chronicles 16:8 we find voluntates for e0pithdeu/mata in Rufinus (T6:2).
30 Alan E. Brooke, Norman McLean and Henry St John Thackeray, eds., Volume II. The Later Historical Books, Part III.I and II Chronicles, in The Old Testament in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus, supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932). 31 Giuseppe Scarpat, Libro Della Sapienza Testo, Traduzione E Commento. Volume I (Brescia: Paideia, 1999), 355.
174
In Psalms it was suggested that the occurrence of voluntas in many texts may have
been inspired by the boulh/ of Symmachus. However, the lack of evidence for this
verse in Field makes this pure speculation here, as often elsewhere. It could also be
posited that the reason for the appearance of voluntas in Rufinus may be found in
the frequent association of this term with God in the Vulgate — see Genesis 27:20
Voluntas Dei, Acts 21:14 Domini voluntas and Ephesians 5:17 voluntas Dei.
In 1 Chronicles 16:8 we find three Latin lexical equivalents – adinventio, voluntas
and mirabilis. Voluntas and mirabilis are not characteristic of the Latin lexical
equivalents of e0pith/deuma but we have encountered these variants elsewhere in our
discussion of adinventio and e0pith/deuma. Without further evidence from both the
Greek and Latin textual traditions we are unable to determine whether the
explanations proffered for the use of voluntas and mirabilis elsewhere in our
examination are also valid in this verse.
175
Example 7: Nehemiah 9:35 (2 Esdras: 19:35)
Et ipsi in regnis suis, et in bonitate tua multa quam dederas eis, et in terra latissima et pingui quam tradideras in conspectu eorum, non servierunt tibi, nec reversi sunt a studiis suis pessimis. Table 7: Studium in Nehemiah 9:35
Source Text
1 Vulgate nec reversi sunt a studiis suis pessimis.
2 LXX - Brooke, McLean and Thackeray, I Esdras, Ezra-Nehemiah, 651.32
kai\ au0toi\ e0n basilei/a| sou kai\ e0n a0gaqwsu/nh| th~| pollh~| h|[ e1dwkav au0toi=v kai\ e0n th~| gh~| th platei/a| kai\ lipara~| h|[ e1dwkav e0nw/pion au0tw~n ou)k e0dou/leusa/n soi, kai\ ou)k a0pe/streyan a0po\ e0pithdeuma/twn au0tw~n tw~n ponhrw~n.
Discussion of Example 7: Nehemiah 9:35 (2 Esdras: 19:35)
While adinventio is absent from the text of Nehemiah 9:35 the LXX text of this verse
does include e0pithdeuma/twn (T7:2). The only Latin witness available to us for
Nehemiah 9:35 is the Vulgate.33 Here we find studiis (T7:1) for the LXX
e0pithdeuma/twn (T7:2). That we find studium in the Vulgate text rather than
adinventio is a strong indicator that this text may not have been edited by Jerome.
While studium does appear regularly in Jerome’s Vulgate text of Jeremiah, this
behaviour is anomalous and does not represent Jerome’s infrequent use of this term
apparent in Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets and Psalms. Given the lack of witnesses for
32 Alan E. Brooke, Norman McLean and Henry St John Thackeray, eds., Volume II. The Later Historical Books, Part IV. I Esdras, Ezra-Nehemiah, in The Old Testament in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus, supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935). 33 This is confirmed by the Vetus Latina Database and P. Sabatier and Vincent de La Rue, eds., Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones Antiquæ, Seu Vetus Italica, Et Cæteræ Quæcunque in Codicibus Mss. & Antiquorum Libris Reperiri Potuerunt: Quæ Cum Vulgata Latina, & Cum Textu Græco Comparantur. Accedunt Præfationes, Observationes, Ac Notæ, Indexque Novus Ad Vulgatam È Regione Editam, Idemque Locupletissimus (Remis: Reginaldum Florentain, 1743). Vol 1.
176
177
this verse it is impossible to prove that this text is not Hieronymian, but given the use
of studium it is likely that this text represents an older Latin. More wide-ranging
investigation of Nehemiah should prove this one way or another, but is beyond our
present scope.
Example 8: Adinventio in Judith (Judith 10:8, 11:4 (and 11:6), 13:7)
The singular nature of the Vulgate text of Judith in these passages partly matches
what is known regarding Jerome’s edition of this text. Kelly writes that Jerome most
likely translated Judith in response to a request from one of his close friends.34
Based on an Aramaic exemplar, Kelly also states that Jerome was dependant on the
existing Old Latin version and treated the Aramaic “pretty freely”.35 It must be said
that there is not much in the Vulgate passages from Judith discussed below to
remind us of the older Latin textual tradition. While the beginning of most of the
Vulgate verses has an association with the older Latin text the two quickly part ways.
34 J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London: Duckworth, 1975), 284. 35 Kelly, Jerome, 285. Kelly also mentions that as Jerome knew no Aramaic (‘Chaldean’) he was reliant on a translator who knew both Aramaic and Hebrew.
Table 8: Cogitatio and adinventio in the text of Judith
Verse LXX Vulgate Cod. Corb. Cod. Germ. Cod. Pech. Cod. Reg. & Germ. Cod. Monac.
1 10:8 e0pithdeu/mata n/a.
[consilium] lac. cogitationes cogitationes cogitationes cogitationibus
2 11:4
(= LXX 11:6) e0pithdeuma/twn n/a. lac. cogitationibus lac. cogitationibus cogitationibus
3 11:6
(= LXX 11:8) panourgeu/mata n/a. lac. adinventiones lac. adinventiones adinventiones
4
13:7
(= LXX
13:4b-5)
e0pith/deuma/ n/a
[cogitavi] cogitatio cogitationem cogitat cogitationem cogitationem
178
8.1 The Vulgate text of Judith is demonstrably independent of the LXX Greek text
(T8:1) and does not provide any insight into the older Latin textual tradition.
Occasionally vocabulary which is reminiscent of previous discussion (see the
consilium of T8:1 and cogitavi of T8:4) may be found in the Vulgate text but this is
more likely to have been inspired by the Aramaic (or Hebrew) text rather than by
an older Latin textual tradition.
We find e0pith/deuma several times in the LXX text of Judith (T8:1-2 and T8:4).
Each time we find e0pith/deuma it is clearly associated with cogitatio in the older
Latin textual tradition (T8:1-2 and T8:4).
While the text of cogitatio in 1 Kingdoms 2:3 was associated with Jerome and
more recent witnesses, the cogitatio of Judith 10:8 is securely attested by a pre-
Hieronymian textual tradition. This recalls the situation in Jeremiah where several
verses witness studium in the Vulgate and cogitatio in earlier witnesses such as
Ambrose, Fid. Grat. (378/380 CE) and Lucifer, Ath. (357/8 CE).
A development of a sound understanding of the use of cogitatio as a lexical
equivalent for e0pithdeu/mata is possibly beyond the limits of this study. However,
it is clear that the use of cogitatio may indicate different things in different books.
8.2 Adinventiones for panourgeu/mata (“- wonderful feats”) is found in Judith 11:6
(T8:3). panou/rgeuma is only found elsewhere in the LXX text of the Jewish Greek
Bible in Wisdom of Sirach 1:6 and 42:18. Here we find astutia (“- dexterity,
adroitness; in eccl. Lat.: understanding, wisdom; in early texts used in a bad
sense: cunning, slyness”) for panou/rgeuma.
It is notable that Judith 11:6 is the first time we find adinventio attested without
e0pith/deuma. That we find this reading being attested in the older Latin textual
tradition also sets apart the use of adinventio in this verse. It is also notable that
this is the first example where the characteristic interchange of vocabulary of the
Latin textual tradition is not found in the Vulgate text. We do, however, find this
variation elsewhere in the older Latin textual tradition of Judith.
179
Example 9: Job 20:18
Luet quae fecit omnia, nec tamen consumetur: iuxta multitidinem adinventionum suarum, sic et sustinebit.
Table 9: Adinventio in Job 20:18
Source Text
1 Vulgate Gregory the Great, Moral. 15 (1092C) 15 (1093A) Lathcen 15 (173.133) Philippus, Comm. Job (670A)
iuxta multitudinem adinventionum suarum, sic et sustinebit.
2 Jerome, Interp. Job 132 + 161 (213)
in vanum et frustra laboravit divitias de quibus non est gustaturus; quae egerentur ut durum quid quod mandi non potest nec gluttiri.
3 Jerome, Interp. Job 132 + 160 + 161 (80)
in vanum-quibus gustaturus; que erunt ut durum - nec glutti.
4 Augustine, Adnot. Job. 20 (551, 17.21) (Sabatier quae egerunt)
in vanum et frustra laboravit :….21. quae erunt ut durum quid, quod mandi non potest nec glutiri.
5 LXX - Ziegler, Iob, 300.36 ei0v kena\ kai\ ma/taia e0kopi/asen plou=ton, e0c ou[ ou0 geu/setai, w#sper stri/fnov a0ma/shtov a0kata/potov.
6 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, lac.
36 Joseph Ziegler, Iob, Vol. XI,4 of Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, ed. Joseph Ziegler (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982).
180
Discussion of Example 9: Job 20:18
9.1 The text of Job is notoriously complicated. Here we limit our discussion to the
occurrence of adinventionum in the Vulgate text of Job 20:18 (T9:1). This is one
of only a handful of cases where we find adinventio attested in the Vulgate
without support from e0pith/deuma in an extant Greek text.37 While we have often
come across different Latin vocabulary for e0pith/deuma in the Vulgate, we have
not discovered many cases where we find adinventio without e0pith/deuma. A quick
glance at Table 9 confirms the suspicion that the Vulgate text is not based on the
extant LXX text (T9:5). It is likely that the Vulgate text is here inspired directly
from the Hebrew. Jerome confirms these suspicions in his Prologue to Job where
he states that this “translation follows no translator of the ancients, but will rather
convey from the language itself, Hebrew and Arabic and sometimes Syrian”.38 As
Jerome uses adinventio in his edition of Job we may suggest that the use of this
term by Jerome was not limited to associations with the Greek e0pith/deuma.
Jerome’s engagement with the Semitic text of Job, however, may have been
supplemented by the Jewish Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus and
Theodotion. It is possible that e0pith/deuma was attested by one or other of these
versions. Without extant evidence from the Greek versions, however, we are able
to do nothing more than suggest this was the case.
The lack of independent witnesses to the text of Job has hindered the
examination of this verse. The lack of manuscript evidence pertaining to the older
Latin textual tradition is especially problematic and means that we are unable to
gauge the impact of the older textual tradition(s) on the edition of Jerome.
37 See also Ezekiel 14:22 and 14:23, Judith 11:6. 38 Translation by K. P. Edgecomb http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_job.htm
181
Example 10: Proverbs 20:11
Ex studiis suis intelligitur puer, si munda et recta sint opera eius.
Table 10: Adinventio in Proverbs 20:11
Source Text
1
Vulgate Augustine, Spec. 7 (64.13) Bede, Prov. 2 (996C) Defensor, Scint. 68.11 (208)
Ex studiis suis intelligitur puer,
2 Pseudo-Augustine, Spec. 64 (555.4) et qui facit ea in studiis suis inpedietur.
3 Bede, Prov. 2 (996D) studiosi pueri munda esse ac recta opera testatur;
4 John Cassian, Con. Part. 21.22.5 (597.14) Isidore of Seville, Quaest. 12.1 (364A)
et qui facit ea in adinventionibus suis conpedietur.
5 Swete, Old Testament in Greek, Vol II, 455 (20.14)
kai\ o( poiw~n au0ta\ e0n toi=v e0pithdeu/masin au)tou~ sunpodisqh/setai,
6 LXX - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 352.
O /. kai\ o9 poiw~n au0ta/. e0n toi=v e0pithdeu/masin au0tou~.
7 Others - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 352. Alia exempl. (Sic Syro-hex., et sine obelo. Cod. 23)
~ kai\ oi9 poiou=ntev au)ta\ e0n au0toi=v sumpodisqh/sontai /. kai/ge e0n toi=v e0pithdeu/masin au0tou~.
Discussion of Example 10: Proverbs 20:11
10.1 In Proverbs 20:11 the Vulgate attests studiis (T10:1) for the LXX
e0pithdeu/masin (T10:5). This reading is supported by Augustine, Spec., Pseudo-
Augustine, Spec. and other later witnesses. In contrast to this reading John
Cassian in his Conlationes Patrum (420-26 CE) and Isidore of Seville in his
Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum (after 624 CE), read adinventionibus (T10:4).
Both studium and adinventio support the LXX e0pithdeu/masin (T10:5). With the
limited number of witnesses for this verse it is not surprising that we do not
discover a wide range of variation. However, it is interesting to find studium in the
Vulgate while other later witnesses read adinventio. Again, we must wonder
whether adinventio is a phenomenon independent of Jerome.
182
It is unclear whether the text of John Cassian and Isidore of Seville is a direct
citation of an existing Latin Biblical tradition. If so, manuscript evidence for this
tradition is lost. However, the possibility that this text is an allusion to the Biblical
tradition witnessed in the Vulgate seems unlikely. if we set aside our lexical
equivalents it seems likely that the text of Pseudo-Augustine, Spec. represents
the same Latin textual tradition as that found in Cassian and Isidore. Their
respective use of inpedio (‘- to entangle, ensnare”) and conpedio (“- to shackle,
fetter”) confirms this. It is possible that the introduction of studium into Pseudo-
Augustine, Spec. may have occurred under the influence of the Vulgate text.
However, it may also be that we are here witnessing two stages of revision within
a textual tradition which is independent of the Vulgate text.
183
Example 11: Wisdom of Solomon [= Sapientia] 9:14
Cogitationes enim mortalium timidae, et incertae providentiae nostrae; Table 11: Adinventio in Sapientia 9:14
Source Text 1 Vulgate
Augustine, Civ. 22.29.157 (860) Augustine, Faust. 22.52 (645.25) Augustine, Trin. 3.21 (150.98) 14.14 (442.10) Fulgentius, Praed. 2.18 (501.417) 2.20 (502.448) Isidore of Seville, Quaest.,Gn 25.5 (260A)
et incertae providentiae nostrae;
2 Vita Heliae (234) incerte providentie nostre 3 Augustine, Civ.12.16.8 (370) et incertae adinventiones nostrae; 4 John Chrysostom, Hom. [Lat.] I
530 (534A)
et incertae adinventiones earum (kai episfaleiv ai epinoiai autwn)
5 Pseudo-Cyprian, Sing.16 (190.20) (providentiae PL 4.848B)
et incerte prudentiae nostrae
6 LXX - Thiele, Sapientia, 417.39 kai\ e0pisfalei=v ai9 e0pinoiai h9mw~n 7 LXX - Zeigler, Sapientia, 125.40 kai\ e0pisfalei=v ai9 e0pinoiai h9mw~n
[h9mw~n] twn anqrwpwn 613; autwn SaL St Syp Arab Cant.com Chr. Tht. Dam. p. 1265 (non p. 1080)
39 Walter Thiele, Sapientia Salomonis, Bd. 11/1 of Vetus Latina; Die Reste der Altlateinischen Bibel (Freiburg: Herder, 1977-1984). 40 Joseph Zeigler, Sapientia Solomonis, Bd. XII/1 Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962).
184
185
Discussion of Example 11: Sapientia 9:14
The Vulgate text of Sapientia is representative of the older Latin textual tradition
and is not the result of Jerome’s great enterprise. This statement will be explored
further in Chapter Five.
11.1 In Sapientia 9:14 we find adinventio in the text of Augustine, Civ. 12 (T11:3)
and the Latin translation of Chrysostom (T11:4). 41 In contrast, the Vulgate,
supported by Augustine, Civ. 22, Augustine, Faust., Fulgentius and Isidore of
Seville attests providentiae (T11:1). An additional, but not dissimilar, reading is
found in the prudentiae of Pseudo-Cyprian, Sing. (T11:5). It is clear from even a
superficial glance at this collection of lexical variants that there is something
peculiar happening in the text of Sapientia. This is confirmed when we turn to the
Greek which reads e0pi/noiai (“- thinking on, thought, notion; invention, device,
conceit”) rather than e0pith/deuma (T11:7). The sense of foresight and
foreknowledge suggested by both providentia and prudentia would not seem to
accurately represent the thought and invention of e0pi/noia. In contrast, adinventio
would seem to be an appropriate Latin equivalent for this term.
11.2 e0pi/noia may be found elsewhere in the LXX text in Sapientia 6:16, 14:12,
15:4; the Wisdom of Sirach [= Sirach] 40:2; Jeremiah 20:10; 2 Maccabees 12:45;
4 Maccabees 17:2; and in the New Testament in Acts 8:22. As both Sapientia
14:12 and Sirach 40:2 will be treated more fully below and as 4 Maccabees is not
included in the Vulgate42 this discussion will be limited to evidence from the other
verses listed (see Figure 2: e0pi/noia in the Latin Version of the Jewish Greek Bible
and New Testament).
41 According to the Vetus Latina Database Repertorium John Chrysostom, Hom. [Lat.] (= CHRY) is the Latin translation of Chrysostom perhaps by the Deacon An(n)ianus of Celeda (= ANI s), a Pelagian from the time of Jerome. An(n)ianus probably translated all 90 homilies. Association with An(n)ianus would make this translation early 5th century (419/20CE). 42 James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 Volumes (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983), Volume 2, 351: “The Fourth Book of Maccabees is not in the Vulgate and so is absent from the Apocrypha of the Roman Bible as well as from Protestant Bibles. However, Erasmus was responsible for a very free Latin paraphrase of 4 Maccabees, first published at Cologne in 1524. He was not acquainted with the Greek text, which was in face first printed in volume 3 of the Strasbourg Septuagint in 1526, but may have worked from an old Latin version entitled Passio SS. Machabaeorum, somewhat closer to the Greek than Erasmus’ rendering and extant in some thirty codices going back, probably to an eighth-century archetype.”
Figure 2: e0pi/noia in the Latin Version of the Jewish Greek Bible and New Testament
Book, Chapter and Verse
LXX Vulgate All evidence from the Vetus Latina Database unless otherwise stated
Other Evidence All evidence from the Vetus Latina Database unless otherwise stated
1 Sapientia 6:16 e0pi/noia
providentia V[ulgate] Z*?; cf. Pseudo-Cyprian, Cent.; Paulinus of Nola, Epist.; Augustine; Gregory the Great > Taius, Bishop of Zaragoza; Bede.43
prudentia pl. mss; Paulinus of Nola (Var); Augustine, Epist. (Var); Gothic Breviary (12590)
previdentia S Z*?
2 Sapientia 15:4 e0pi/noia excogitatio et cogitatio PL44
3 Jeremiah 20:10 e0pi/noian [si quomodo decipiatur, et praevaleamus adversus eum] 45
Observante ab inventione eius si seducitur et poterimus ad eum Julian of Eclanum, Ps. 34 (174.26):
4
2 Maccabees 12:46 (= LXX 2 Maccabees 12:45)
e0pi/noia cogitatio cogiationem Cod. Ambros.
5 Acts 8:22 e0pi/noia
cogitatio Vulgate, Cod. 50, 51, 54, 56, 57; [Abdias]1.3; Gothic Breviary; John Cassian, Con. Part.13.12.9; Pseudo-Cyprian, Paen. (25)
recordatio Ambrose, Paen.2.23 (173) (recordatio] cogitatio add in mg. Bm 3, A X; iniquitas L)
recordatio Chromatius, Epist. Serm. 2 2.4 (9.62)
43 Thiele, Sapientia, 354-355. 44 Thiele, Sapientia, 513-514. 45 We might suggest that the Vulgate text of Jeremiah 20:10 is based on a different Greek or Hebrew Vorlage.
186
In Sapientia 6:16 we again discover providentia and prudentia representing the
LXX e0pi/noia| (Figure 2, reading 1 [F2:1]). However, unlike Sapientia 9:14
adinventio is not present in any witnesses, even Augustine deserts this reading.
The use of providentia and/or prudentia for e0pi/noia is curious and seems peculiar
to the text of Sapientia.
In Sapientia 15:4, 2 Maccabees 12:46 and Acts 8:22 different forms of
(ex)cogitatio dominate our witnesses. The excogitatio (“- a thinking out, a
contriving, devising, inventing; synonym of inventio”) of Sapientia 15:4 (F2:2)
aligns well with the definition of e0pi/noia. The cogitatio of 2 Maccabees 12:46
(F2:4) and Acts 8:22 (F2:5) (“- a thinking, consideration; thought, reflection,
meditation; a resolution, design, plan”) also suggests a close association with this
Greek term. We have encountered the use of cogitatio many times in this
examination, in this and other chapters. However, the association of this term
with adinventio and e0pith/deuma has not been fully understood. It is possible that
the association of excogitatio and cogitatio with a Greek word meaning “thought” /
“invention” provides one piece of this puzzle.
The text of Jeremiah 20:10 is extremely problematic for our discussion. Of the 16
witnesses for this verse listed in the Vetus Latina Database only the inventione of
Julian of Eclanum suggests a text which recalls the LXX and its use of e0pi/noia
(F2:3). It is impossible to tell from this short passage whether Julian of Eclanum
is referring to an existing Latin Biblical text or is translating directly from the
Greek. That Julian of Eclanum is capable of dealing with the original Greek
sources is suggested by his reference to the text of Symmachus in Psalm 98:8
(see Chapter 3, T7:5).46
11.3 While Augustine avoids adinventio in his Enarration on Psalms [= Augustine,
Enarrat. Ps.] the use of this term in his reference to Sapientia 9:14 in Augustine,
Civ. 12 is not entirely out of character when one considers his use of this term
elsewhere in Augustine, Civ. (twice in I Kingdoms 2:3, see above T4:7 and T4:8).
In Augustine, Civ. 22 Augustine again refers to Sapientia 9:14. This time,
however, he attests the providentiae of the Vulgate version. That Augustine is
46 We do not find this reference to the text of Symmachus in any of the other extant Latin witness.
187
demonstrating his familiarity with more than one Latin textual tradition is possible.
It is also possible that one or other of these references has been subject to
scribal emendation in order to bring the verse into line with the Vulgate text. The
reference to Sapientia 9:14 in Augustine, Civ. 22 is indicated as being from in
libro Sapientia.47 This identification of the source text will have made this
passage an easy target for assimilation to the majority text maybe explaining the
presence of providentiae in this text.
47 See http://www.augustinus.it/latino/cdd/index2.htm
188
Example 12: Sapientia 14:12
Initium enim fornicationis est exquisitio idolorum, et adinventio illorum corruptio vitae est: Table 12: Adinventio in Sapientia 14:12
Source Text
1
Thiele V text (adinventio H V ; Pseudo-Augustine, Spec.: {cf KA A a} adinventio (di ex ?) QA2 inadinventio A* inadventio DB* > in adventione DB2 adventio T*, Bern A. 9 {cf KA Aa (Var)} {inventio ? Jerome})
et adinventio illorum corruptio vitae est:
2 Vulgate et adinventio illorum corruptio vitae est:
3 Augustine, Serm. 360/A, 6.48
et adinventio illorum corruptio vitae.
4 Pseudo-Augustine, Spec. 44 (489.12)
et adinventio illorum corruptio vitae est:
5
KA A a 33 (10) [= Chapters or Summaries in Bible MS]49 (adventionibus YD)
de adinventionibus idolorum et de cultoribus eorum
6
Jerome, Comm. Os.1 (42.213) (principio / ~ inventio idolorum C)
principium eorum fornicationis idolorum inventio
7 LXX - Thiele, Sapientia, 501-502
0Arxh\ ga\r pornei/av e0pi/noia ei0dw/lwn, eu3resiv de\ au0twn fqora\ zwh=v.
8 LXX - Zeigler, Sapientia, 143)
0Arxh\ ga\r pornei/av e0pi/noia ei0dw/lwn, eu3resiv de\ au0twn fqora\ zwh=v.
48 http://www.augustinus.it/latino/discorsi/discorso_589_testo.htm not from the Vetus Latina Database or Thiele! 49 See the card for KA in the Vetus Latina Database: http://apps.brepolis.net/vld/repertorium/work.cfm?action=fiche&work_id=633 for more information.
189
Discussion of Example 12: Sapientia 14:12
12.1 In Sapientia 14:12 we find both adinventio and e0pi/noia but these words are
not associated with one another! Instead we find e0pi/noia being paralleled by
exquisitio (“- research, inquiry, investigation; a seeking for, decision” (cf.
Sapientia 14:12)) and eu3resiv (“- a finding, discovery; of writings – invention,
conception”) by the ubiquitous adinventio (see T12).
12.2 A quick search using VulSearch 4.1.6 and the Perseus Digital Library
reveals that exquisitio is a hapax legomena within the Vulgate text.50 Indeed, the
Perseus Digital Library does not attest any other example of this word in its
database.51
12.3 eu3resiv is only found in the Jewish Greek Bible and the Greek New
Testament in Sirach 13:32 (= LXX 13:26) and Psalm 31:6 (Sexta).52
In Sirach 13:32 the kai\ eu3resiv parabolw~n dialogismoi\ of the Greek text has
been omitted from the majority of Latin witnesses.53 Manuscripts CZ* and Milano
B. 48 inf.2 add et inventionem parabolarum which is obviously inspired by this
omitted Greek text. Additionally, the Latin Vulgate includes difficile invenies which
recalls elements of the Greek text.54 In both these examples we find inventio (“-
an invention, invention; Rhet. the faculty of invention”) / invenio (“- to come or
light upon a thing; to find out, invent”) for eu3resiv. The use of adinventio for
eu3resiv in Sapientia 14:12, while not directly parallelled, would seem to be
50 We also find inquisitio (manuscript H) as a variant to exquisitio. Inquisitio is only found elsewhere in the Vulgate in Acts 12:19. 51 Frequency for exquisitio http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lang=la&lookup=exquisitio 52 While the Vulgate (Gallican) text of Psalm 31:6 — supported by Cod. Casin., Cod. Veron., the Psalters Sagerm., Ambros., Romanum — uses in tempore opportuno to render the LXX e0n kairw~| eu0qe/tw|, the Psalt. Hebr. witnesses tempus inveniens inspired by the text of Sexta, Aquila, Symmachus and/or E’. The reading of invenio in the Psalt. Hebr. would seem to betray some relationship with the adinventio of Sapientia 14:12. We may suggest this is due to a similar underlying (versional) Greek. 53 Walter Thiele, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). Vol. 11/2 of Vetus Latina; Die Reste Der Altlateinischen Bibel (Freiburg: Herder, 1987-2005), 428-429. 54 See also Nec de malignitate naturae queri possumus, quia nullius rei difficilis inventio est, nisi cuius hic unus inventae fructus est invenisse ; quidquid nos meliores beatosque facturum est, aut in aperto aut in proximo posuit. Seneca, De Beneficiis, John W. Basore, Ed. (Sen. Ben. 7.1).
190
associated with these examples — both adinventio and inventio provide an
accurate translation of eu3resiv.
12.4 It is unclear to which Greek the inventio of Jerome, Comm. Os. (T12:6) and
the adinventionibus of KA A (T12:5) are referring. The close positional
association of these terms with idolorum may suggest that e0pi/noia rather than
eu3resiv is inspiring these texts. We cannot be certain either way.
12.5 We again find adinventio in the text of Augustine in Sapientia 14:12 (T12:3).
According to www.augustinus.it adinventio may be found 13 times in the text of
Augustine.55 Four of these references may be found in Augustine’s passage on
adinventio and e0pith/deuma in Psalm 105:39. An additional two of these
references are from Sapientia and a further two are from 1 Kingdoms 2:3. We
may wonder if Augustine’s text has been assimilated to the Vulgate in these
examples, as suggested for providentia in point 11.3. However, this does not
seem to be the case. In 1 Kingdoms 2:3 and Sapientia 9:14 the text of Augustine,
Civ. goes against the Vulgate reading to attest adinventio. In the static text of
Sapientia 14:12 the adinventio of Augustine, Serm, along with all other witnesses,
presents the Vulgate text.
12.6 We are left wondering whether the curiousness of the Latin text of Sapientia
is due to its independence from the editorial efforts of Jerome and/or the
uniqueness of the underlying Greek vocabulary. That adinventio appears at all in
Sapientia is notable. Throughout this thesis the inclusion of adinventio in the Latin
text has often seemed to be related to the revision of Jerome. That Sapientia is
free from Jerome’s influence leads us to again suggest that adinventio, in some
books, may indeed represent an older textual tradition.
55 This result was reached using the search tool at http://www.augustinus.it/ricerca/index.htm
191
Example 13: Wisdom of Sirach [= Sirach] 35:12
Da Altissimo secundum datum eius, et in bono oculo adinventionem facito manuum tuarum,
Table 13: Adinventio in Sirach 35:12
Source Text
1
Vulgate Codex Amiatinus [= Cod. Amiat.] Augustine, Spec. 23 (adinventionem M)
et in bono oculo ad inventionem facito manuum tuarum
2
Vid. Serv.16 (1078D) Defensor, Scint. 29.6 (116) Pseudo-Maximus of Turin, Serm. 26 (901D) Pseudo-Pelagius II, Epist.1 (729) (fac) Liber Commicus Toletanus (295.24) (fac)
et in bono oculo adinventionem facito manuum tuarum
3 LXX - Ziegler, Sapientia, 287. 56 (32)35:12
kai\ e0n a0gaqw|~ o0fqalmw~| kaq’ eu3rema xeiro/v. [kaq’ eu3rema] kaqairema S; kaqareuma 542, 603, 755 (kaqer. ); kateuquma 106-545, 46; kaqeudeuma 548
Discussion of Example 13: Sirach 35.12
13.1 As for Sapientia, the Latin text of Sirach is also believed to be part of the
older Latin textual tradition which has not been subject to the editorial workings of
Jerome.57 We find adinventio in the text of Sirach 35:12 and Sirach 40:2.
13.2 In Sirach 35:12 we find ad inventionem (sic, two words) in the Vulgate,
Codex Amiatinus [= Cod. Amiat.] and Augustine, Spec. (T13:1) and the conjoined
adinventionem in several later witnesses (T13:2). This example raises the
56 Joseph Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Bd. XII/2 of Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980). 57 As for Sapientia this statement will be further explored in Chapter Five.
192
question of how adinventio came into being and its relationship with ad
inventionem. The use of ad and inventionem, within the Perseus corpus, would
seem to be mostly limited to De inventione rhetorica (see Figure 3: ad
inventionem in Cicero and Petronius).
Figure 3: Ad inventionem in Cicero and Petronius
Book Text
1 Cicero, Inv. 1.9elocutio est idoneorum verborum et sententiarum ad inventionem accommodatio;
2 Cicero, Inv. 1.9memoria est firma animi rerum ac verborum ad inventionem perceptio;
3 Cicero, Inv. 1.50
quare et de ea praeceptione nobis et in hoc loco dicendum visum est, ut ad inventionem argumentandi ratio adiungeretur.
4 Cicero, Inv. 2.45
facilius autem ad inventionem animus incidet,
5 Petronius, Satyr. 88
Eudoxos quidem in cacumine excelsissimi monis consenuit, [p. 174] ut astrorum caelique motus deprehenderet, et Chrysippus, ut ad inventionem sufficeret, ter elleboro animum detersit.
That ad inventionem has a close association with Cicero’s De inventione
rhetorica is reminiscent of the association of affectio, studium and consilium with
De inventione already witnessed in the discussion of adinventio in Psalms. Given
this coincidence one might propose that De inventione, or the rhetorical tradition
it represents, has had an impact on the Biblical text, and possibly even the
original Latin translation(s). Whether adinventio is a mistaken reading of ad
inventionem which has then been formed into a new noun adinventio remains
uncertain.
13.3 The representation of eu3rema (later form of eu3rhma “– invention, discovery,
thing discovered not by chance but by thought”) by adinventio / inventio is rather
193
apt. Inventio for eu3rema(-hma) is found in Sirach 20:9, Sirach 29:4, Sirach 29:6 (=
LXX 29:6) and 35:12 (= LXX 32:10).58 eu3rema(-hma) is also found in Jeremiah
38:2 (= LXX 45:2) and Jeremiah 45:5 (= LXX 51:35) but in these two verses is
aligned in the Vulgate with sospes (“- saving, delivering; a saviour; saved, safe,
unhurt”) and salutem (“-being safe and sound; health, welfare; a greeting”)
respectively. 59 The sense of safety evoked by both sospes and salus does not
accurately represent the LXX eu3rema(-hma) nor the sku~lon (“- spoils; arms
stripped off a slain enemy”) of Aquila, which is also found in both verses.60
Unfortunately there is no evidence for these verses in the Vetus Latina Database
apart from that of the Vulgate.61 That the Vulgate maintains its theme of safety
across the relevant verses while the LXX and Aquila attest their same respective
vocabulary across the verses suggests that the Vulgate may be representative of
a non-extant Greek or may indeed be a direct translation from the Hebrew text.
13.4 The uniformity of the rendering of eu3rema as inventio in Sirach suggests that
the two word ad inventio is indeed the original reading of the verse and that these
two words have been conjoined in later witnesses under the influence of other
readings from the Latin Jewish Greek Bible.62
13.5 Given the presence of inventio in Sirach it is worth investigating the use of
this word elsewhere in the Vulgate. Surprisingly, most examples of inventio in the
Vulgate (Jewish Greek Bible and New Testament) are limited to Sirach. We
observe that Baruch and Sapientia are the only exceptions to this (see Figure 4:
Inventio in the Latin Jewish Greek Bible. While none of the tabled examples
include ad before inventio we are still not surprised to find adinventio occasionally
58 Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, 576. 59 Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, 576. 60 See Jeremiah 38:2 in Field, Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 684, and Jeremiah 45:5 in Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2. 61 The biblindex search tool also does not produce any Latin citations for these verses. See http://www.biblindex.mom.fr 62 We find inventionem in the singular accusative only in Sapientia 13:10, Sirach 29:4 and Sirach 29:7 in the Vulgate; inventiones in the plural accusative is lacking in the Vulgate text. Adinventionem in the singular accusative only in Sirach 35.12; adinventiones in the plural accusative in Deuteronomy 28:20, Judges 2:19, I Chronicles 16:8, Psalm 98:8, Isaiah 3:8 & Isaiah 12:4, Ezekiel 14:22, Ezekiel 14:23, Ezekiel 24:14, Ezekiel 36:19, Hosea 7:2, Hosea 12:2, Zechariah 1:6. We might wonder whether these readings should really be ad inventiones (sic, two words).
194
appearing in these verses in some witnesses. In Sapientia 13:10 we find
adinventionem in manuscript X and u (F4:1). The appearance of this reading in
the Spanish manuscript X63 is particularly interesting as this manuscript is an
important member of Thiele’s D group which also includes, to a greater and
lesser extent, Lucifer, Pseudo-Augustine, Spec., Ambrose, Augustine and
Fulgentius (and Psuedo-Cyprian).64
In Sapientia 13:10 (F4:1) we find the LXX hapax legomena e0mmele/thma (“- that on
which an art is practised”) underlying inventio / adinventio.65 The rarity of this
Greek word is also demonstrated by its presence in only one text of the Perseus
Digital Library.66 The lack of a similar technical term in Latin may have led to the
use of inventio in this passage. That the art being practised is “bad” (i.e. idols
depicting false Gods) may also have encouraged the use of inventio, and
certainly the later (?) introduction of adinventio.
The appearance of adinventio in Codex Cavensis in Baruch 3:18 is also
interesting (F54:5). The underlying LXX e0ceu/resiv closely parallels the eu3resiv of
Sapientia 14:12 (T12:7 and T12:8). That this Greek inspires inventio and the
variant adinventio in Baruch is therefore to be expected.
63 Thiele, Sapientia, 12. 64 Thiele, Sapientia, 13. 65 Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, Vol I, 456. e0mmele/thma is not found in the Greek NT- see Moulton, W. F., A. S. Geden, and H. K. Moulton. A Concordance to the Greek Testament, According to the Texts of Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf and the English Revisers. 4th ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975, 328. 66 See Paton’s Greek Anthology, Vol I, at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lang=greek&lookup=e)mmele%2Fthma
195
Figure 4: Inventio in the Latin Jewish Greek Bible
Book Vulgate Manuscript Evidence
Patristic Evidence
LXX (Other)
1 Sapientia 13:10
(artis) inventionem
adinventionem (X u)
(Patristic citations lacking)
te/xnhv e0mmele/thma
(emmelethmata O-S2-V 637-106 547 766 Sahidic; Origen’s Commentary on John 2.27; John of Damascus (PG95, 1277D))
2 Sirach 20:9 (est) inventio inventio (Cod. Amiat.)
inventio (Pseudo-Augustine, Spec.; Pseudo- Eusebius, Pope, Epist.)
eu#rema (eu1roia)
3 Sirach 29:4 (quasi) inventionem
inventionem (Cod. Amiat.)
inventionem (Pseudo-Augustine, Spec.; Bede; Missale. Moz.)
eu3rema
4
Sirach 29:7 (cf Vetus Latina Database 29:9)
(quasi) inventionem
inventionem (Cod. Amiat.)
inventionem (Missale. Moz.)
eu3rema
5 Bar 3:18 (est) inventio
inventio (Cod. Casin., Cod. Leg., Cod. Vallicell.)
adinventio (Codex Cavensis)
(No relevant Patristic citations)
e0ceu/resiv67
(searching out, search ; finding out, invention ; discovery)
67 There are no Greek variants apparent in this text see Swete, Old Testament in Greek, Vol III, 356. e0ceu/resiv is also to be found in: Isaiah 40:28 (LXX = e0ceu/resiv th=v fronh/sewv) in Swete, Old Testament in Greek, Vol III, 175; Vulgate = investigatio sapientiae; and Psalm 144:3 (Al. Greek - cf. 1Allov. e0ceu/resiv = Chrysostom (Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 301); inventio Jerome, Psalt. Hebr.). Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, Vol I, 495.
196
Example 14: Sirach 40:2
Cogitationes eorum, et timores cordis, adinventio exspectationis, et dies finitionis,
Table 14: Adinventio in Sirach 40:2
Source Text
1 Vulgate Cod. Amiat.
cogitationes eorum, et timores cordis, adinventio exspectationis, et dies finitionis,
2 LXX - Ziegler, Sirach, 312.
tou\v dialogismou\v au0tw~n kai\ fo/bon kardi/av, e0pi/noia prosdoki/av, h9me/ra teleuth=v
Discussion of Example 14: Sirach 40:2
14.1 In Sirach 40:2 we find adinventio (T14:1) for the returning e0pi/noia (T14:2).
However, there is no sign of the providentia which was so dominant in Sapientia
9:14.
14.2 The independence of the textual traditions of Sapientia and Sirach from the
rest of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible is noticeable. The examples from Sapientia
and Sirach witness several Greek words (e0pi/noia, eu3resiv, eu3rema(-hma)) which
are not in common usage outside of these books of the Jewish Greek Bible. To
some degree or other, each of these words is associated with adinventio. We
thus have a relatively common word from the Vulgate text of the Jewish Greek
Bible appearing in Sapientia and Sirach but with a different underlying Greek.
What is even more bewildering is the fact that the meaning of adinventio better
represents the uncommon Greek of Sapientia and Sirach than the ubiquitous
e0pith/deuma underlying the majority of other Latin readings attesting adinventio.
We are left wondering what the relationship is between the adinventio of
Sapientia and Sirach and the adinventio of the rest of the Jewish Greek Bible.
197
Example 15: Isaiah 3:8
Ruit enim Jerusalem, et Judas concidit, quia lingua eorum et adinventiones eorum contra Dominum, ut provocarent oculos majestatis ejus.
Table 15: Adinventio in Isaiah 3:8
Source Text
1
Gryson ^ The Latin revision of Isaiah by Jerome based on the Hebrew (adinventionis S*)
H^ quia lingua eorum et adinventiones eorum contra Dominum
2
Vulgate Jerome, Comm. Isa. 2 (inventiones B Adr) Isidore of Seville, Fid. 2.10.1 (515C) Pseudo-Isidore, Adv. Jud. 33.5 (101)
quia lingua eorum et adinventiones eorum contra Dominum
3 Isidore of Seville, Fid. 1.27.2 (481A) quia lingua eorum contra dominum
4 Pseudo-Isidore, Isa. 15 (354) quia lingua eorum contra dominum loquuti sunt
5 LXX - Swete, Old Testament in Greek, Vol III, 105).
kai\ ai9 glw~ssai au)tw~n meta\ a0nomi/av
6 LXX - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 436.
O’ ai9 glw~ssai au)tw~n meta\ a0nomi/av
7
Aquila - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 436 (Euseb. Montef. post Nobilium edidit: ’A. ai9 glw~ssai au0tw~n k. t. e. Falsus est Procop., qui ait : a0nti\ de\ tou~, ai9 gl. au0tw~n, ’Aku/lav fhsi\, ta\ e0pithdeu/mata.)
’A. h9 glw~ssa au0tw~n kai\ ta\ e0pithdeu/mata au0tw~n.
8 Aquila; Symmachus - Gryson, Esaias, 117.68 a’ s’ = 710 Eus. : MT
kai (ta) epithdeumata autwn
Discussion of Example 15: Isaiah 3:8
15.1 Due to the obvious association of Isaiah with the other Prophetical books we
would expect adinventio in Isaiah to behave similarly to one or other of those
books already examined, i.e. Jeremiah, Ezekiel or one of the Minor Prophets.
68 Roger Gryson, Esaias, Vol. 12 of Vetus Latina Die Reste der Altlateinischen Bibel (Freiburg: Herder, 1987).
198
15.2 One of the key points we take away from Gryson’s edition of the Old Latin
text of Isaiah is how little (older) Latin evidence is extant for this book. This is
borne out in Isaiah 3:8 where the reading of adinventio (T15:1 and T15:2) in all
relevant witnesses better reflects the e0pith/deuma of Aquila and Symmachus
(T15:7 and T15:8) than the LXX a0nomi/a (“- lawlessness, lawless conduct;
negation of the law”) (T15:5 and T15:6). That there is no other variation even
suggesting the LXX reading is notable.69 In Isaiah it would seem that the triumph
of Jerome’s Vulgate text, based on the Jewish textual tradition(s), has been
absolute. This situation recalls recent examples from Jeremiah where the only
extant evidence has been that of the Vulgate text. However, the text of Jeremiah
would certainly seem to have some relationship to the LXX tradition, unlike Isaiah
3:8 which is certainly based on one or other of the Jewish textual traditions.
All relevant witnesses in this verse attest the same reading. This pattern of
preservation is very different to that found in Psalms where we find various Latin
lexical equivalents being attested more or less equally across the extant
witnesses. As suggested above, the homogenous textual tradition found in Isaiah
3:8 may be due to the fact that little evidence from the older Latin textual tradition
has survived. The lack of older textual witnesses in Isaiah is at odds with the
situation in Psalms. Without further examination it is difficult to say why the
preservation of the older Latin textual tradition in these books varies to such a
large degree. However, the association of Psalms with the liturgical tradition may
have played some role in the preservation of the older Latin textual traditions in
this book.
69 We might expect an allusion to the LXX reading in Jerome, Comm. Isa. but this is not forthcoming for this verse.
199
Example 16: Isaiah 3:10
Dicite iusto quoniam bene, quoniam fructum adinventionum suarum comedet
Table 16: Adinventio in Isaiah 3:10
Source Text
1
Gryson *The Latin LXX text of Isaiah according to Jerome ^ The Latin revision of Isaiah by Jerome based on the Hebrew
O* itaque fructus operum suorum comedent
H^ quoniam fructum adinventionum suarum comedet
2 Vulgate quoniam fructum adinventionum suarum comedet
3 Jerome, Comm. Isa. 1 (15.9) ideo fructum adinventionum vestrarum comedetis (-ditis B*)
4 Jerome, Comm. Isa. 2 (51.1) quoniam fructum adinventionum suarum comederunt (-det SC)
5 Jerome, Comm. Isa. 2 (51.9) quia impii labores manuum suarum comedent (-dunt W)/9/ et nunc fructus (-tum G) operum (laborum P in ras.) comedant
6 Rufinus, Hist. 2.23.15 (171.8) (Eusebius citat Hegesippi Hypomnemata)
propterea fructum operum suorum manducabunt (…toinun ta genhmata twn ergwn autwn fagontai)
7 [Abdias] 6.6 (605) propterea fructum operum suorum manducabunt
8 Hesychius, Comm. Lev. 7 (1148B)
fructus ergo laborum suorum manducabunt
9 Rusticus, Coll. Casin. (42.26) suorum laborum comedet fructus (…twn idiwn ponwn edetai touv karpouv)
10 LXX - Swete, Old Testament in Greek, Vol III, 106.
toi/nun ta\ genh/mata tw~n e1rgwn au0tw~n fa/gontai.
11 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, lac.
12 Aquila and Symmachus - Gryson, Esaias, 119. a’ s’ q’= 710 = MT
epithdeumatwn autwn
200
Discussion of Example 16: Isaiah 3:10
16.1 In Isaiah 3:10 we find adinventio (T16:2-4), operum (T16:5-7) and laborum
(T16:8-9) in parallel to one or other of the LXX e1rgwn (T16:10) or the
e0pithdeuma/twn of Aquila and Symmachus (T16:12). In the apparatus to his
edition Gryson very clearly associates operum with the e1rgwn of the LXX and
adinventio with the e0pithdeuma/twn of Aquila and Symmachus.70 We would also
suggest these associations. In relation to the lexical variant laborum Gryson
draws our attention to the Vulgate text of Psalm 127:2 Labores manuum tuarum
quia manducabis.71
Apart from Jerome, Comm. Isa. 2 (51,9), Rufinus and [Abdias] are the only
witnesses to attest the LXX inspired e1rgwn. That the text of Rufinus, the direct
inspiration for [Abdias] 72, may be a result of his translation of Eusebius rather
than from an extant Biblical tradition means that Jerome, Comm. Isa. 2 is the only
confirmed witness to this older textual tradition.
Given the fact that it was the popularity of Jerome’s Vulgate text which led to the
demise of the older Latin textual tradition, it is ironic that a version of the older
Latin textual tradition of Isaiah may be best preserved in Jerome’s Commentary
on Isaiah.
70 Gryson, Esaias, 119. 71 Gryson, Esaias. 119. 72 See Gryson, Esaias, 119 and the Vetus Latina Database Card on [Abdias] - Historiae apostolicae which suggests that [Abdias] 6 is based on Rufinus, Hist. 2.23.1-18.
201
Example 17: Isaiah 12:4 Et dicetis in die illa: Confitemini Domino et invocate nomen eius; notas facite in populis adinventiones eius; mementote quoniam excelsum est nomen eius.
Table 17: Adinventio in Isaiah 12:4
Source Text
1 Gryson ^ The Latin revision of Isaiah by Jerome based on the Hebrew
H^ notas facite in populis adinventiones eius
2 Vulgate notas facite in populis adinventiones eius;
3 Leningrad Q ms virtutes
4 Swete, Old Testament in Greek, Vol III,.
kai\ e0rei=v e0n th=| h9me/ra| e0kei/nh| 9Umnei=te Ku/ron, boa=te to\ o1noma au0tou=, a0naggei/late e0n toi=v e1qnesin ta\ e1ndoca au0tou=. mimnh/skesqe o3ti u9yw/qh to\ o1noma au0tou=.
5 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, lac.
6 Aquila and Symmachus - Gryson, Esaias, 370. a’ q’= 710 = MT
epithdeuma
Discussion of Example 17 Isaiah 12:4
17.1 In Isaiah 12:4 we find the same situation as that highlighted in our
discussion of Isaiah 3:8 and Isaiah 3:10. The Vulgate text (T17:2), confirmed by
Gryson’s H text (T17:1), attests adinventio in response to the e0pith/deuma of
Aquila and Symmachus (as preserved in Greek manuscript 710). As encountered
in Isaiah 3:8, evidence for the older Latin textual tradition is almost non-existent.
17.2 It is interesting that we find virtutes (“- manliness, manhood; moral perfection
virtuosness, virtue”) as a lexical equivalent of adinventio in the Lenigrad Q
manuscript. Gryson notes that this is one of several ancient lectionaries of the
Roman rite.73 As Gryson notes, it would seem that the virtutes of this manuscript,
while not directly reflecting the LXX Greek, is better associated with ta\ e1ndoca
than e0pith/deuma.
73 Gryson, Esaias, 11 (n. 9). According to Gryson the Lenigrad Q manuscript is one of “Plusieurs anciens lectionnaires du rit romain”.
202
Example 18: I Kingdoms (1 Sam) 25:3
Nomen autem viri illius erat Nabal. Et nomen uxoris eius Abigail: eratque mulier illa prudentissima, et speciosa: porro vir eius durus, et pessimus, et malitiosus: erat autem de génere Caleb. Table 18: e0pith/deuma in I Kingdoms 25:3
Source Text
1 Vulgate Bede, Sam. 4 (232, 567-869) Gothic Breviary (503C)
porro vir eius durus, et pessimus, et malitiosus: erat autem de genere Caleb.
Codex Legionensis (These readings are from the margin of the manuscript. See Example 5 above for more information. )
…bono sensu, et bona specie valde : et homo ille erat caninus….
Ambrose, Epist. Illa autem quae bona intellectu, et decora in aspectu valde, sicut Abigaea acquisitia sibi erat in praelio; devictis adversariis, et mortuo viro.
2 Ambrose, Explan. Ps. 37.29.1 (157.26)
Nabal malus erat et durus, quia sensus eius malitia et iniquitas obserabant. unde et Abigaeae verbum ferre non potuit,
3 LXX - Brooke, McLean and Thackeray, I and II Samuel, 5. (om kai\ no. 5 - e0pithdeu/masin Old Latin. Swete, Old Testament, Vol I, 597 - ponhro\v kai\ sklhro\v A)
kai\ o9 a!nqrwpov sklhro\v kai\ ponhro\v e0pithdeu/masin, kai\ o9 a!nqrwpov kuniko/v
4 LXX - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 1, 532.
O’ kai\ ponhro\v e0pithdeu/masi.
5 Symmachus - Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 1, 532 (Cod 108 (ad. sklhro\v), 243. Ad kuniko\v Cod. 243 in marg. sine nom.: a0naidh\v kai\ taxu\v (traxu\v) kai\ ponhro\v e0n e0pithdeu/masin.)
S. (kai\) kakognw/mwn
203
Discussion of Example 18: 1 Kingdoms (1 Samuel) 25:3
18:1 A discussion of 1 Kingdoms 25:3 has been left until now because, although
the LXX attests e0pithdeu/masin (T18:3-4), there is no evidence for any of the
lexical variants which have been highlighted in the previous discussion. That the
LXX ponhro\v e0pithdeu/masin has been transformed to the more simple
kakognw/mwn of Symmachus and the pessimus, et malitiosus of the Vulgate
suggests that the phrase, as it stood, was problematic. Indeed, in his desperation
to move away from the LXX reading Symmachus has reached for a word which is
not found elsewhere in the LXX or the Greek New Testament and is rare outside
this corpus.74 It is suggested that in both the Greek Version and the Vulgate we
are seeing a deliberate move away from the ponhro\v e0pithdeu/masin of the LXX.
This may hint at complexities in meaning associated with e0pith/deuma which are
not apparent from the standard dictionary entries. Our collection of Latin lexical
variants highlighted throughout this discussion and in previous chapters may also
suggest that the definition of e0pith/deuma is more complex than one might
otherwise be led to believe.
74 Perseus has only five examples (in three sources) of kakognw/mwn in their collection of texts http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lang=greek&lookup=kakognw%2Fmwn
204
Summary of adinventio in other books of the Jewish Greek Bible
Our discussion of adinventio and its lexical variants in other books of the Jewish
Greek Bible has highlighted many of the issues already raised in our exploration
of adinventio and its Latin lexical equivalents in previous chapters. From our very
first example, Leviticus 18:3, we are confronted with a Vulgate text whose use of
mos and consuetudo does not conform to any models of behaviour, seen before
or since. This reading is in contrast to the older Latin manuscript tradition which
recalls many elements seen before. Of these, the appearance of adfectio in Cod.
Lugd. is the most surprising as it closely parallels the use of affectio in Augustine
and Cod. Veron. in Psalms. In Judges 2:19 adfectio is again attested by Cod.
Lugd. thus securing the use of this variant outside the Psalms textual tradition.
In 3 Kingdoms 15:12 the discovery of idolum in the Vulgate text resonates
strongly with Jerome’s editorial activity in Ezekiel and confirms the influence of
the Jewish textual tradition(s) on the Vulgate text of this book.
In Judith the gulf between the Vulgate text of Jerome and the older Latin text is at
its widest. Whether this is due to the Aramaic original underlying the Vulgate text
or Jerome’s free translation cannot be said. While the Vulgate text of Judith does
not contribute to this discussion, the uniform attestation of cogitatio for
e0pith/deumain the older manuscript tradition of Judith, while raising some
questions, does align with the association of these readings in other books of the
Jewish Greek Bible.
It is in Judith that we first encounter adinventio representing a Greek word other
than e0pith/deuma. This tendency can also be found in Sapientia and Sirach where
we find adinventio being used to translate Greek words whose meanings are
more closely associated with the “invention” of adinventio.
Several examples in this Chapter attest cogitatio for e0pith/deuma. By the end of
this discussion it is apparent that we are far from understanding the role cogitatio
plays in relation to e0pith/deuma. However, the use of (ex)cogitatio for e0pi/noia
highlighted in Example 11.2 provides some insight into the use of cogitatio as a
lexical equivalent of adinventio .
205
In Sirach 35:12 we find ad inventio (sic, two words). It is possible that the De
inventione rhetorica of Cicero, or an associated rhetorical tradition, may have
been the source of ad inventionem and the later adinventio. This possibility is
suggested not just by the presence of ad inventionem several times in the text of
De inventione but also by the interest in affectio, studium and consilium
demonstrated by this text.
This discussion of adinventio in other books of the Jewish Greek Bible has raised
several questions which cannot be answered here. We are intrigued by the intra-
biblical corpus suggested by the unique Latin and Greek associations found in
Sirach and Sapientia (and Judith?). That each book of the Vulgate may reveal, by
a careful study of its vocabulary, its association with the LXX Greek, Greek
versions and/or the Hebrew text is also interesting. Finally, we are keen to more
fully explore the suggested inter-book relationships of the older Latin texts posed
by the common use of such vocabulary as adfectio / affectio.
In this examination of adinventio and its Latin lexical equivalents in other books of
the Jewish Greek Bible we have continued to demonstrate the need to treat each
book of the Jewish Greek Bible on its own merits. This examination has also
drawn attention to the lack of evidence for the older Latin textual tradition(s) in
some books. In Isaiah, for example, there is almost no evidence for the older
Latin textual tradition. Without this evidence we are left with relatively
homogenous readings which do not indicate that any variation is/was ever
apparent in the Latin textual tradition. However, this discussion has also
demonstrated thet the “slot-like” / interchangeable nature of the variation which
has characterised our discussion in Chapters Two and Three is also apparent
elsewhere in the Jewish Greek Bible. In this discussion there are several
examples which support at least three Latin lexical variants for e0pith/deuma. This
multifacted variation, distinct between books, can not be characterised by
reference to theories of variation generated in reference to the Gospel text(s).
This examination has also highlighted the curious relationship between
adinventio and the Greek textual tradition in both Sapientia and Sirach. In
Chapter Five we will explore the relationship of Sapientia and Sirach and suggest
ways in which we may capitalise on the variation in these texts to help guide our
206
study of the textual variation found elsewhere in the text of the Latin Jewish
Greek Bible.
207
208
Chapter Five: Sapientia, Sirach and Psalms –
Discovering Further Variation in the Latin Jewish Greek
Bible
In Chapter 4 on adinventio in other books of the Jewish Greek Bible it became
apparent that the use of adinventio in the Wisdom of Solomon [= Sapientia] and
the Wisdom of Sirach [= Sirach] was very different to that found elsewhere in the
Jewish Greek Bible. The most surprising difference was the fact that the Greek
text underlying adinventio in these books contained vocabulary other than
e0pith/deuma. Based on our examination of adinventio in Psalms, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets we would expect e0pith/deuma to be associated
with adinventio. Doubly surprising was the fact that adinventio actually provided a
better Latin translation of these Greek words than the expected e0pith/deuma.
Chapter Five aims to explore further the relationship between Sapientia and
Sirach suggested by this peculiar behaviour and, in turn, the relationship of this
possible mini “intra-Jewish Greek Bible” corpus with the rest of the Latin Jewish
Greek Bible.
One of the most curious aspects of the Latin versions of Sapientia and Sirach [=
Sir] is that they do not demonstrate much variation within their textual traditions.
The static nature of these texts may in part be due to the fact that they have been
less subject to revision. Unlike other texts of the Jewish Greek Bible, such as
Psalms, these books do not seem to have attracted the attention of revisers or
diligent scribes.1 This has led to the situation where compared to other books of
the Latin Jewish Greek Bible these texts tend to demonstrate a less varied textual
tradition i.e. a more static text. As a bloc, however, these books do demonstrate
certain characteristics not seen elsewhere in the Jewish Greek Bible. As noted in
our examination of adinventio, one of these characteristics concerns the
relationship of these Latin texts with their underlying Greek exemplar(s). In 1 De Bruyne is convinced that Sapientia has not attracted much revision. See D. De Bruyne, "Étude Sur Le Texte Latin De La Sagesse", Revue Bénédictine 41 (1929): 128 “Je suis convaincu que notre livre a été très peu altéré au cours des siècles, beaucoup moins que le Psautier et les Évangiles.”
209
Sapientia and Sirach we have seen that adinventio reflects Greek readings other
than e0pith/deuma. The sophisticated Greek text of both Sapientia and Sirach has
often been commented on.2 That adinventio may be used in the Latin of these
books due to a lack of other Latin lexical equivalents is possible. However, the
fact that adinventio is a better translation of the Greek terms used in Sirach and
Sapientia than e0pith/deuma suggests that something else may be at work here.
Both the static nature of the textual traditions of Sapientia and Sirach and their
tendency to behave differently from other books of the Jewish Greek Bible leads
us to wonder what has set these books apart from other books of the Jewish
Greek Bible. It is possible that we are here looking at an internal corpus of books
that are the result of influences different to those that have impacted on the rest
of the Jewish Greek Bible.
The suggestion that Sapientia and Sirach may form their own corpus within the
Latin Vulgate is not surprising given that these books are not believed to have
been revised by Jerome. The texts of Sapientia in Sirach in the Vulgate are thus
already representative of an older Latin textual tradition. To be sure of this, the
statement that Jerome did not revise Sapientia and Sirach requires further
examination.
Based on the statements of Jerome himself it seems unlikely that the books of
Sirach, Sapientia, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees were revised by Jerome. If so, this
strongly suggests that the form of these books in the Vulgate represent the older
Latin textual tradition. Jerome’s peculiar relationship with Sapientia, Sirach,
Baruch and 1 and 2 Maccabees is apparent from his prologues. In the prologue
to his revision of the three books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song
of Songs) Jerome highlights the fact that Sapientia, Sirach and 1 and 2
Maccabees
2 Regarding the Greek version of the Wisdom of Solomon see David S. Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, Vol. 43 of The Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011), 15: “...Grimm has correctly pointed out that the author’s Greek was on the whole rich and spontaneous,”.
210
(as well as Judith and Tobit) were not part of the Hebrew canon and thus, while
they may be read for the edification of the people, they should not be used for
confirming ecclesiastical dogma:
Sicut ergo Iudith et Tobi et Macchabeorum libros legit quidem Ecclesia, sed inter canonicas scripturas non recipit, sic et haec duo volumina legat ad aedificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandum.3
In his prologue to I-IV Kings (Libro Regnum) Jerome again states that Sapientia, Sirach, Judith, Tobit (and the “Pastor” of Hermas) as well as 1 and 2 Maccabees should be considered apocryphal and not part of the Canon: Hic prologus Scripturam quasi galeatum principium omnibus libris, quos de hebraeo vertimus in latinum, convenire potest, ut scire valeamus, quicquid extra hos est, inter apocrifa seponendum. Igitur Sapientia, quae vulgo Salomonis inscribitur, et Iesu filii Sirach liber et Iudith et Tobias et Pastor non sunt in canone. Macchabeorum primum librum hebraicum repperi, secundus graecus est, quod et ex ipsa frasin probari potest.4
From these two examples it is clear that Jerome did not consider these books to
be of the same status and character as the other books of the Latin Jewish Greek
Bible. While Jerome holds this position publicly, however, he was not above
referring to these works in his writings.5 Jerome’s attitude to these books is thus
more complicated than that suggested by his prologues alone. Kelly also draws
attention to Jerome’s tendency to state one thing and do another: “This was the
attitude which…he was to maintain for the rest of his life — in theory at any rate,
for in practice he continued to cite them as if they were Scripture”.6
While this discussion informs us to some degree or other about Jerome’s attitude
to these books of the Jewish Greek Bible, there is nothing in what Jerome says to
dissuade us from the possibility that he may have revised these texts. Indeed we
do know that Jerome produced a revised version of two other apocrifa. According
to Jerome he revised the Latin text of both Tobit and Judith according to the
3 Bonifatius Fischer et al., eds., Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, Vol. I (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969), 32. 4 Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, Vol I, 364. 5 According to biblindex Jerome quotes all these books relatively frequently: Sapientia x42 times; Sirach x33 times; 1 Maccabees x38 times; 2 Maccabees x18 times; and Baruch only once. 6 J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: his life, writings, and controversies, (London: Duckworth, 1975), 161.
211
Chaldean (Aramaic).7 That Jerome was reluctant to undertake these revisions is
suggested in his prologue to Tobit. Jerome emphasises that the decision to
revise Tobit was entirely due to the entreaties of Cromatius and Heliodorus.
Jerome’s reluctance would seem to stem from the fact that this book was
excluded from the Hebrew canon:
Feci satis desiderio vestro, non tamen meo studio. Arguent enim nos Hebraeoum studia et inputant nobis, contra suum canonem latinis auribus ista transferre.8 A similar attitude is expressed by Jerome in his prologue to Judith where he
notes that Judith was considered among the Agiografa of the Hebrews and that
he has acceded to the demands of his petitioners only because the Council of
Nicaea considered the book among its sacred scriptures:
Sed quia hunc librum sinodus nicena in numero Sanctarum Scriptorum Scriptuarum legitur conputasse, adquievi postulationi vestrae, immo exactioni…9
There are no such similar passages relating to Sapientia, Sirach or I and II Macc.
However, regarding Baruch, Jerome does explicitly state that he has omitted the
book from his edition of Jeremiah.10
More definitive evidence regarding the Vulgate text type of Sapientia may be
found via internal text critical examination of the textual tradition of Sapientia. A
detailed discussion of the text of Sapientia was undertaken by Walter Thiele in
his edition of the Vetus Latina text of Sapientia Salomonis.11 In his general
overview to this edition of Sapientia, Thiele confirms that the extant Latin
witnesses of Sapientia are different forms of a single ancient text type (which
goes back to Cyprian). Thiele also notes that the Vulgate attests a form of this
7 “Incipit Prologus Tobiae” in Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, Vol. I, 676: ...et quia vicina est Chaldeorum lingua.... “Incipit Prologus Iudith” in Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. Vol I, 691: Chaldeo tamen sermone conscriptus inter historias conputatur. 8 Vulgata Biblica Sacra, Vol I, 676. 9 Vulgata Biblica Sacra, Vol I, 691 10 Vulgata Biblica Sacra, Vol II, 1166: Librum autem Baruch, notarii eius, qui apud Hebraeos nec legitur nec habetur, praetermisimus. 11 Walter Thiele, Sapientia Salomonis, Vol. 11/1 of Vetus Latina; Die Reste Der Altlateinischen Bibel (Freiburg: Herder, 1977-1984).
212
ancient text.12 In his edition of the Vetus Latina text of Sirach Thiele again notes
that, despite certain changes in vocabulary and some correction of minor
inaccuracies, the Vulgate has taken over the older textual tradition of Sirach
attested by Cyprian [= CY], De laude martyrii [= PS-CY mart] and Ad Novatianum
[= PS-CY Nov]. 13 This evidence strongly suggests that the Vulgate versions of
both Sapientia and Sirach are not to be associated with the revisions of Jerome
and are indeed representative of an older Latin textual tradition, the origins of
which may be traced back to at least third-century Carthage.14
Based on the evidence from Jerome’s prologues, Thiele’s editions of the older
Latin textual traditions of Sapientia and Sirach, and our own insights gained from
our examination of adinventio, it would seem that Sirach, Sapientia (and possibly
I and II Maccabees and Baruch) form an older Latin intra-Jewish Greek Bible
corpus within the Vulgate text.
In addition to the association of Sapientia and Sirach suggested by their peculiar
use of adinventio, a hint of this corpus is also apparent in the discussion of
inventio in Chapter 4. The discussion of inventio in the Jewish Greek Bible
highlighted the fact that this term is only to be found in Sapientia 13:10, Sirach
20:9, Sirach 29:7, Sirach 35:12 and Baruch 3:18 in the Latin Vulgate – all books
which are members of this posited older Latin intra-Jewish Greek Bible corpus.
This particular example highlights our current lack of ability to search the older
Latin textual tradition / witnesses for vocabulary which may be indicative of an
earlier stage in a book’s textual history. However, the opportunity to investigate
certain vocabulary which is particular to this intra-Jewish Greek Bible corpus may
provide us with an insight into the older Latin textual tradition of the Jewish Greek
Bible.
12 Thiele, Sapientia, 11: “Mit wenigen Ausnahmen belegen die überlieferten lateinischen Texte zum Buch Sapientia nur verschiedene Formen eines einzigen alten Texttyps. Er ist in der MItte des dritten Jahrhunderts sicher nachzuweisen, weil er bei Cyprian von Karthago bezeugt wird. Auch die Vulgata gehort zu diesem Texttyp und stellt nur eine eigene Form in ihm darf.” 13 Thiele, Sirach, See p. 113 for details about K and p. 117 for details about V. 14 Thiele, Sirach, 113.
213
The methodology for pursuing this possible path into the older Latin textual
tradition is similar to that taken in our investigation of adinventio. This path is
necessarily convoluted given the limitations of our resources. By selecting
vocabulary which is distinctive to the Vulgate texts of Sirach and Sapientia15 and
then investigating the individual readings of these items of vocabulary in the text
of Sirach and Sapientia, we will be able to identify the underlying Greek
associated with these readings and any other Latin lexical equivalents for these
items of vocabulary extant in other witnesses. By identifying verses in the Jewish
Greek Bible (using Hatch and Redpath) which use the identified Greek we then
gain access to further possible examples of this particular vocabulary in the Latin
Jewish Greek Bible. If any Latin lexical equivalents have been identified within
the text of Sapientia and Sirach we will be able to search the Vulgate text (using
VulSearch) for verses containing these items of vocabulary. Access to the older
Latin textual tradition in all these examples is facilitated by the Vetus Latina
Database. As there are a large number of unique Greek words in the text of
Sapientia and Sirach we must be aware that this may have influenced the range
of Latin vocabulary in these books. Also, any interesting Latin vocabulary which is
associated with an underlying Greek word which is only attested within our
suggested intra-Jewish Greek Bible corpus will not be useful for this discussion. It
must also be acknowledged that any results which arise from such an
examination need to be treated as potentially indicative and subject to further
research. Indeed, the example of inventio demonstrates some of the pitfalls
associated with this examination. In the Jewish Greek Bible eu3rema is attested in
Sirach 20:9, Sirach 29:4, Sirach 29:7, Jeremiah 38:2 and Jeremiah 45:5 only.
Three of these examples are included in the discussion of inventio in Chapter 4. It
is interesting that in the two examples from Jeremiah we do not find inventio in
the Vulgate text. It is unfortunate that there is no additional evidence for these
verses from Jeremiah in the Vetus Latina Database. Our discussion of inventio is
thus partly limited by the occurrence of eu3rema in the Jewish Greek Bible. The
example of inventio is an interesting test case but is by no means a definitive
indicator that this posited intra-Jewish Greek Bible corpus exists. Further
research must be undertaken.
15 Identified via VulSearch.
214
The text of Psalms will also play a role in this discussion. As demonstrated in
Chapter Three, the Latin text of Psalms provides evidence for several textual
traditions which are well attested within the extant witnesses. In the textual
tradition of Psalms we have evidence for several different revisions attributed to
Jerome (the Psalter Romanum, the Gallican (Vulgate) Psalter and the Psalt.
Hebr.) as well as at least one additional older Latin textual tradition (suggested by
Augustine and Cod. Veron.). Psalms, therefore, provides the perfect point of
departure for this search for additional evidence of Latin lexical equivalents within
the Latin Jewish Greek Bible. This examination is only possible because of the
“slot-like” variation / interchangeable nature of vocabulary apparent throughout
the Latin textual tradition.
215
Insensatus in the Latin text of Sapientia, Sirach and Psalms
A collection of lexical equivalents associated with insensatus (“-irrational” (eccl.
lat.); insensatae, “-foolishly”) demonstrates a situation very similar to that found
previously in our examination of adinventio.
Table 1: Insensatus in Sapientia16
Verse Latin (variation) Greek (variation)
1 3:12 insensatae a\!fronev (senseless; crazed, frantic; silly, foolish )
2 5:4 insensati (stulti ? - Rufinus)
a!fronev
3 12:24 insensatorum a0fro/nwn
4 15:5 insensato a!frosin (a!froni)
5 5:21 insensatos para/fronav (= wandering from reason, senseless; out of one’s wits, deranged)
6 11:16 insensatis
a0sune/twn (void of understanding, witless; not able to understand; not to be understood, unintelligible)
7 12:23 insensate a0frosu/nh (folly, thoughtlessness)
8 12:25 insensatorum
a0logi/stoiv (inconsiderate, thoughtless; irrational, foolish, unthinking; incalculable, indefinite; not toe be counted, vile)
9 15:18 insensata a)noi/a| (want of understanding, folly; to be a great fool)
16 All the detail in this table is taken from Walter Thiele, Sapientia Salomonis, Vol. 11/1 of Vetus Latina; Die Reste Der Altlateinischen Bibel (Freiburg: Herder, 1977-1984).
216
Table 2: Insensatus in Sirach17
Verse Latin (variation) Greek (variation)
1 16:20 insensatum (sensatum sR*
insinuatum X) lac.
2 21:21 (= LXX 21:18)
insensati = Vulgate (Grk) (sensati pl. mss; Pseudo-Augustine, Spec.= sunetou [inprudentia] inprudentis 171 non intelligentium ? - Epiphanius Scholasticus)
a0sune/tou (sunetou)
3 22:14 (= LXX 24:13)
insensato (sensato sR2)
a0su/neton
4 27:13 (= LXX 27:12)
insensatorum (in sensatorum Vulgate (Hetzenauer) sensatorum - Cod. Amiat., Pseudo-Augustine, Spec. 51)
a0sune/twn
5 34:1 (= LXX 31:1) insensato a0sune/tw|
6 25:4 (= LXX 25:2) insensatum sune/sei?
7 42:8 insensati a)noh/tou
In the Vulgate text of the Jewish Greek Bible we find insensatus widely attested
in Sapientia (nine times) and Sirach (seven times). insensatus is also attested
once in 2 Maccabees 11:13 and Galatians 3:1. The presence of insensatus in
Sapientia, Sirach and 2 Maccabees is suggestive of our proposed Latin intra-
Jewish Greek Bible corpus.
Greek vorlage of insensatus
In Sapientia four out of nine examples of insensatus are readings of a!frwn (“-
senseless; crazed, frantic; silly, foolish”)(see Table 1). As a!frwn is found many
times in the Jewish Greek Bible we may conclude that its usage is not particular
to Sapientia.18 A different scenario is presented in Sirach where we find
insensatus representing a0su/netov (“- void of understanding, witless”) four out of
seven times. a0su/netov is not as well attested in the Jewish Greek Bible as
a!frwn, being found in the Jewish Greek Bible only in Deuteronomy 32:21, Job
13:2, Psalm 75:5, Psalm 91:6, Sapientia 1:5, Sapientia 11:15, Sirach 15:7, Sirach
17 All the detail in this table is taken from Walter Thiele, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Vol. 11/2 of Vetus Latina; Die Reste Der Altlateinischen Bibel (Freiburg: Herder, 1987-2005). 18 Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint, Volume I, 186.
217
21:18, Sirach 22:15, Sirach 27:12 and Sirach 31:1.19 While a0su/netov and a!frwn
are not the only Greek vocabulary underlying insensatus in Sirach and Sapientia
respectively, they are the most significant and we will limit our current
examination to these two words.
While the Latin versions of Sapientia and Sirach display unity in their joint use of
insensatus this solidarity is not matched in their respective Greek versions.
Before moving on to a study of a0su/netov and a!frwn and their Latin equivalents
elsewhere in the Latin Jewish Greek Bible we must ensure we are familiar with all
the relevant examples from Sapientia and Sirach.
19 Hatch, and Redpath, Concordance to the Septuagint, Volume I, 174. (see also Aquila: Psalm 72:22, Proverbs 1:22, Psalm 30:2; Aquila and Symacchus: Psalm 91:7; Symmachus: 2 Kings 15:31; Theodotion: Pr overbs 17:12)
218
a!frwn in Sapientia and Sirach
According to Hatch and Redpath a!frwn may be found in Sapientia in 1:3, 3:2,
3:12, 5:4, 12:24, 14:11, 15:5 and 15:14. The examples underlined have already
been presented in Table 1. However, Hatch and Redpath have informed us of an
additional four examples in Sapientia where alternative Latin vocabulary has
been used to express the Greek a!frwn. In each of these examples a!frwn is
represented by insipiens (“- unwise, senseless, foolish (class.)”).20
Table 3: Latin lexical equivalents of a!frwn in Sirach
Reference in
Sirach Latin Greek
1 16:23 inprudens a!frwn
2 19:20 (= LXX 19:23)
insipiens (stultus - Ambrose?)
a!frwn
3 20:7, inprudens a!frwn
4 20:14, insipienties (fatui - Pseudo-Augustine, Spec.)
a!fronov
5 20:24 (= LXX 20:22 )
inprudenti a!fronov (lhyewv)
6 21:26 (= LXX 21:23)
stultus Z V inprudens 171
a!frwn
7 22:14 (= LXX 22:13)
stulto V inprudente[m] 171
a!fronov Thiele suggests a link between fronimov(“-showing presence of mind; sensible, prudent”) and afrwn darial (see p. 614)
a!frwn is found seven times in the Greek text of Sirach (see Table 3).21 However,
as noted previously we do not find insensatus for a!frwn in Sirach. Instead we
find inprudens (imprudens) (“- not foreseeing, not anticipating or expecting;
without knowing, unaware, ignorant, inconsiderate, inadvertent, imprudent”) and
stultus (“- foolish, simple, silly, fatuous”) as the Latin equivalents of a!frwn.
20 See Thiele, Sapientia 1:3 a!fronav insipientes; Sapientia 3:2 a)fro/nwn insipientium; Sapientia 14:11 a)fro/nwn insipientium; Sapientia 15:14 a)frone/statoi insipientes. 21 a!frwn is found in Sirach 16:23, 19:23, 20:7, 20:14, 20:22, 21:23, 22:13, 27:11, 31(34).1, 34(31).7, 34(31).30. See Table 3 for more details.
219
By examining the translational equivalents of a!frwn in Sapientia and Sirach we
have identified several Latin lexical items relevant to this discussion of
insensatus, including insipiens, imprudens and stultus.
a)su/netov in Sapientia and Sirach
Before considering these new items of Latin vocabulary more fully we should
identify any further Latin vocabulary associated with a)su/netov in Sapientia and
Sirach. As well as Sapientia 11:16 (T1:6) and Sirach 21:21 (T2:2), Sirach 22:14
(T2:3), Sirach 27:13 (T2:4) and Sirach 34:1, a)su/netov is also to be found in
Sapientia 1:5 (T4:1), Sirach 15:7 (T4:2) and Sirach 22:18 (T4:3) in the Jewish
Greek Bible (see Table 4).
In Sapientia 1:5 we find the convoluted quae sunt sine intellectu(m) for a0sune/twn.
In Jerome we find this lengthy phrase replaced by stultis. Indeed, while Jerome’s
version of Sapientia 1:5 reflects some elements of the older Latin textual tradition
as it is found in the Vulgate, the introduction of such elements as stultis and
dolum (for fictum / do/lon) suggests that Jerome may be actively revising
Sapientia to the Greek as required.22
Quodvultdeus, in De symbolo sermones, includes the Vulgate text of Sapientia
1:5 in his lemma but then goes on to gloss this phrase with perversis.
In Sirach 15:7 we find stulti for a)su/netoi. This reading aligns with that proposed
by Jerome in relation to Sapientia 1:5: In Sirach 22:18 we find imprudentem for
a)su/neton.
22 Thiele, Sapientia, 253: Vulgate: sanctus enim spiritus disciplinae effugiet fictum et auferet se a cogitationibus quae sunt sine intellectu… cf Jerome, Ap. Ruf. 1.17 (411C): spiritus enim sanctus eruditionis fugiet dolum et recedet a cog itationibus stultis; Jerome, Comm. Isa.17 (728.77): sanctus enim spiritus disciplinae fugiet dolum et recedet a cogitationibus stultis /ls 63.11.
220
Table 4: Lexical equivalents of a)su/netov in Sapientia and Sirach (excepting insensatus)
Source Latin Greek
1 Sapientia 1:5
quae sunt sine intellectu(m) quae sine deo sunt ? - Pseudo-Ambrose, Trin.? Jerome23 {perversis ? Quodvultdeaus, Sym.com1/3, cf com1/3}: cf 1.3
a0sune/twn
2 Sirach 15:7
stulti a)su/netoi
3
Sirach 22:18 (= LXX 22:15)
imprudentem
a)su/neton afrona Sacra Parallela (Var: Antonius): cf (orgh) afronov in simili loco Proverbs 27:3
Summary of a!frwn and a)su/netov in Sapientia and Sirach
From Tables 3 and 4 we are able to establish that a!frwn inspires slightly
different behaviour in the Latin texts of Sapientia and Sirach. In Sapientia the
Latin lexical equivalents of a!frwn are limited to insensatus and insipiens.24
However, in Sirach we find insipiens, imprudens and stultus for a!frwn but not
insensatus. In Sirach insensatus is associated only with a)su/netov. In Sapientia
too we have one example (Sapientia 11:16) where insensatus has been used in
association with a)su/netov. The additional examples of a)su/netov in Sapientia and
Sirach (see Table 4) seem to have inspired a ragtag bunch of Latin equivalents.
In Sirach these recall the Latin lexical equivalents of a!frwn in that text (stultus
and imprudens). However, in Sapientia 1:5 we find the interesting but longwinded
quae sunt sine intellectu which almost seems to be an avoidance of the other
Latin lexical equivalents.
In an attempt to explore the ramifications of these discoveries we will turn to an
examination of a!frwn elsewhere in the Latin Jewish Greek Bible. This may help
to determine whether insensatus or any of its lexical equivalents may be
representative of an older Latin textual tradition. The limitation of this further
study to the text of Psalms allows us to pursue this question within a manageable
23 Jerome, Ap. Ruf.1.17 (411C): spiritus enim sanctus eruditionis fugiet dolum et recedet a cogitationibus stultis. 24 VulSearch confirms that neither stultus nor imprudens are apparent in the Vulgate text of Sapientia.
221
corpus which we know provides some insight into both the older Latin textual
tradition and the later Hieronymian revisions.
a!frwn and its Latin lexical equivalents in the text of Psalms
a!frwn is found in the Greek text of Psalms in verses 13:1, 38:9, 48:10, 52:1,
73:18, 73:22, 91:6 and 93:8 (See Table 5).25 A quick scan of the Latin lexical
equivalents of a!frwn in Table 5 confirms that, as indicated by VulSearch,
insensatus does not occur in the Vulgate text of Psalms. Nor does it appear,
however, in any of the other Latin evidence associated with these verses.
Insipiens for a!frwn is found throughout Psalms (see Table 5), but is particularly
associated with the textual traditions preserved by the Vulgate and the Latin
Psalters.
We also find stultus in Psalms (see Table 5), but its use is less widespread than
insipiens. There is a definite association of stultus with the Psalt. Hebr. and we
also find stultus attested by Cod. Casin. The peculiar association of Cod. Casin.
and the Psalt. Hebr. highlighted in Chapter 3 would seem to be continuing here.
The most interesting aspect of Table 5 is the use of imprudens apparent in
Augustine’s Enarrations on Psalms [= Augustine, Enarrat. Ps.] and the Codex
Veronensis [= Cod. Veron.]. In four out of the seven examples listed in Table 5,
Augustine, Enarrat. Ps and Cod. Veron. attest imprudens. In an additional two
examples Augustine attests imprudens independently of the Cod. Veron. which
reads insipiens in these verses. The association of Cod. Veron. and Augustine,
Enarrat. Ps demonstrated in these examples confirms the association of these
witnesses already suggested by their joint reading of affectio for e0pith/deuma in
the text of Psalms (as discussed in Chapter 3). The reading of imprudens for
a!frwn in Augustine, Enarrat. Ps and Cod. Veron. also clearly recalls the same
alliance of Greek and Latin vocabulary found in Sirach 16:23 (T3:1), 20:7 (T3:3),
25 This list is taken Hatch and Redpath. Concordance to the Septuagint, Vol I, 186 -187. The verse numbers differ slightly between Hatch and Redpath and Rahlfs (and the Vulgate). Hatch and Redpath list 13:1, 38:8, 48:10, 52:1, 73:18, 73:22, 91:6 and 93:8.
222
20:24 (T3:5), Sirach 34:1 and Sirach 31:30.26 A search for imprudens in the text
of the Vulgate reveals that the use of this word is limited to Proverbs (six times),
Ecclesiastes 7:26, Sirach (ten times), Isaiah 56:11, and in the New Testament in
Mark 7:18, Ephesians 5:17 and 1 Peter 2:15. As for affectio, the limited use of
imprudens in the Vulgate Jewish Greek Bible (outside Proverbs and Sirach) may
suggest that the use of this term was not favoured by Jerome. The use of
imprudens is also apparent in the texts of Cicero, including De inventione
rhetorica. 27 In our discussion of affectio in the texts of Augustine, Enarrat. Ps and
Cod. Veron. it was suggested that the use of affectio in these texts may reflect
influence from Cicero or an associated rhetorical tradition. In our discussion of
imprudens we have again identified an item of vocabulary specific to Augustine,
Enarrat. Ps and Cod. Veron. which may suggest that Cicero or an associated
rhetorical tradition has somehow influenced the text of the Latin Jewish Greek
Bible. That Sirach also witnesses imprudens suggests that this book may have
been exposed to the same textual influences as Augustine, Enarrat. Ps and Cod.
Veron.28 However, the lack of any reference to imprudens in Sapientia again
suggests that Sapientia and Sirach may not belong to the same textual
tradition.29
Insipiens is regularly attested throughout the later half of the Vulgate Jewish
Greek Bible but is particularly prominent in Psalms (14 times), Proverbs (10
times), Sapientia (five times), Sirach (five times) and in certain books of the New
Testament, including Romans (five times) and 2 Corinthians (eight times). It is
interesting that in the Latin text of Sapientia and Sirach we find vocabulary such
as insipiens which is attested across multiple books of the Jewish Greek Bible
26 See also the text of Sirach 21:26 (inprudens) and Sirach 22:14 (inprudente[m]) in manuscript 171. 27 The Perseus Digital Library frequency tool informs us that imprudens may be found in Cicero’s Orationes, Pro Sex. Roscio, De imperio Cn. Pompei, Pro Cluentio, In Catilinam, Pro Murena, Pro Caelio (eight times), De Inventione (six times), Orationes, Divinatio in Q. Caecilium, In C. Verrem (six times), De Oratore (four times), Orationes, Cum Senatui gratias egit, Cum populo gratias egit, De domo sua, De haruspicum responso, Pro Sestio, In Vatinium, De provinciis consularibus, Pro Balbo (five times), Topica (three times), De Partitione Oratoria (three times) etc. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lookup=imprudens&lang=la&sort=max 28 See also the use of ad inventionem in Sirach discussed in Chapter 4. 29 De Bruyne also suggests that “La Sagesse et l'Ecclésiastique ne sont pas du même traducteur”. De Bruyne, Sagesse, 125.
223
224
(Psalms, Proverbs etc.) side by side with Latin vocabulary such as insensatus
which is specific to our proposed Latin intra-Jewish Greek Bible corpus.
It is clear from this discussion that insensatus is not associated with a!frwn in the
extant witnesses of the Latin version of Psalms. Instead we find stultus, insipiens
and imprudens attested variously. While we do find insensatus for a!frwn in
Sapientia, a!frwn in Sirach is associated with the same range of lexical Latin
equivalents as those witnessed in Psalms i.e. stultus, insipiens and imprudens
(see Table 3). When we do find insensatus in Sirach it is associated with
a)su/netov rather than a!frwn.
This examination of insensatus in in Sirach, Sapientia and Psalms has managed
to engage directly with the lexical variation apparent in the text of the Latin
Jewish Greek Bible. The identification of unusual vocabulary in Sapientia and
Sirach has led us directly to a wealth of variation in the text of Psalms. This
discussion has also highlighted the complex textual situations apparent in the
books of Sirach and Sapientia. Indeed, this discussion has highlighted the
differences as well as the similarities between the textual traditions of these two
books. While the differences between these two texts must be acknowledged the
strength of their association, when compared with other books of the Jewish
Greek Bible, cannot be denied.
Table 5: Latin lexical equivalents for a!frwn in Psalms (pages 225 -228)
Psalm Vulgate Jerome Psalt. Hebr.
Jerome Other
Psalters30 Augustine MSS31
Other witnesses Greek LXX
1 13:1 insipiens stultus stultus (Isa.) insipiens (Ps.)
insipiens insipiens (Civ., Lib., Praed., Trin.) stultus (Epist., C. litt. Petil., Enarrat. Ps., Serm., Serm. (Dolbeau)) imprudens (Enarrat. Ps) impius (Enarrat. Ps.)
stultus (Cod. Casin.) imprudens (Cod. Veron.)
insipiens (Psuedo-Athanasius, Luc.; Ambrose; Cassiodorus; Fulgentius; Hilary of Poitiers, Tract. Ps.; Julian of Eclanum; Quodvultdeus; Rufinus) stultus (Chromatius; [Hilary of Poitiers])
a!frwn Aquila a)porre/wn Symmachus u9pe/laben (s. e0no/misen))… Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 105.
30 The Psalters included in this table are the Psalters Romanum, Ambrosian, Sangermanensis and Mozarabic. Any variation is included in brackets after the majority reading. 31 The only direct manuscript traditions referred to are the Codex Casinensis and the Codex Veronensis. If the word listed is without association it is attested in both manuscripts.
225
Psalm Vulgate Jerome Psalt. Hebr.
Jerome Other
Psalters30 Augustine MSS31
Other witnesses Greek LXX
2 38:9 insipienti stulto [cf Bede, Ps.]
insipienti (Sangerm., Ambros., Mozarab., Roman)
insipienti (Enarrat. Ps.)
insipienti (Cod. Casin. & Cod. Veron.)
insipienti (Ambrose; Cassiodorus ; [Rufinus])
a!froni [Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis = Papyrus Bodmer 24 a[f]rosi] Aquila a)porre/pnti Symmachus & E’ a)froni Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 149.
3 48:11 insipiens et stultus
insipiens et indoctus
insipiens et stultus (Sangerm., Ambros., Mozarab., Roman)
imprudens et insipiens (Enarrat. Ps.)
insipiens et stultus (Cod. Casin.) imprudens et insipiens (Cod. Veron.)
insipiens et stultus (Ambrose; Cassiodorus; Rufinus)
a!frwn kai\ a!nouv [Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, = Papyrus Bodmer 24] [Rahlfs ~ in B = Vaticanus] Symmachus a)no/htov kai\ a)maqh\v* *see use in Josephus! Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 170
226
Psalm Vulgate Jerome Psalt. Hebr.
Jerome Other
Psalters30 Augustine MSS31
Other witnesses Greek LXX
4 52:1
(=
LXX
52:2)
insipiens stultus insipiens (Sangerm., Ambros., Mozarab., Romanum)
insipiens (Lib., Trin.) imprudens (Enarrat. Ps.)
stultus (Cod. Casin.) imprudens (Cod. Veron.)
stultus (Hilary of Poitiers, Tract. Ps. 52 (118.3); Julian of Eclanum) insipiens (Ambrose; Cassiodorus; Hilary of Poitiers, Tract. Ps. (118.24); Quodvultdeus; Rufinus)
a!frwn [Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, = Papyrus Bodmer 24] Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 176 - lacking the relevant reading.
5 73:18 insipiens insipiens insipiens (Sangerm., Ambros., Mozarab., Romanum)
imprudens (Enarrat. Ps.)
insipiens (Cod. Casin.& Cod. Veron.)
insipiens (Cassiodorus; Rufinus)
a!frwn [Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, = Papyrus Bodmer 24] Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 218 – lacking the relevant reading.
6 73:22 insipiente insipiente insipiente (Epist.)
insipientes (Sangerm., Ambros., Mozarab., Romanum)
imprudente (Enarrat. Ps.)
stulte (Cod. Casin.) insipientibus(Cod. Veron.)
insipiente (Cassiodorus)
a!fronov [Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, = Bod. 24 = Symmachus (Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 219.)]
227
228
Psalm Vulgate Jerome Psalt. Hebr.
Jerome Other
Psalters30 Augustine MSS31
Other witnesses Greek LXX
7 91:7 insipiens… stultus
insipiens… stultus
insipiens… stultus (Hom. Ps.)
insipiens… stultus (Ambros., Mozarab., Romanum) insipiens… sensatus (Sangerm.)
imprudens… stultus (Enarrat. Ps., Cons., Serm.)
insipiens… inprudens (Cod. Casin.) imprudens…stultus (Cod. Veron.)
insipiens… stultus (Ambrose; Cassiodorus; Julian of Eclanum) imprudens… stultus (Quodvultdeus)
a!frwn… a)su/netov [Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, = Papyrus Bodmer 24] Symmachus a!frwn] a)no/htov Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 250.
8 93:8 insipientes… stulti
stulti… insipientes
insipientes…stulti (Hom. Ps.)
insipientes…stulti (Sangerm., Ambros., Mozarab., Romanum)
insipientes… stulti (Epist., Tract. Ev. Jo., C. du. ep. Pelag., Enarrat. Ps., Serm., Serm. (Dolbeau), Serm. (Fragments), Trin.) stulti… insipientes (Spec.)
insipientes…stulti (Cod. Casin.& Cod. Veron.)
insipientes… stulti (Ambrose; Cassiodorus; Quodvultdeus)
a!fronev… mwroi/ [Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, = Papyrus Bodmer 24 (afro‘/nev moroi)] Symmachus a!fronev] a)noh/toi Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 251.
Reverentia in the text of Sapientia, Sirach and Psalms
Reverentia (“- timidity arising from respect or (more rarely) fear; respect, regard,
fear, awe, reverence (not frequent till after post-Aug); shyness, shame, fear”)
provides a second example allowing us to test the integrity of our proposed Latin
intra-Jewish Greek Bible corpus. A search of the Clementine Vulgate revels that
reverentia may be found in the Jewish Greek Bible in Psalm 34:26, Psalm 68:20,
Sapientia 2:19, Sapientia 12:18, Sirach 29:23, Sirach 32:9, Sirach 32:14, Sirach
41:20 and Sirach 45:29, and in the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 15:34,
Hebrews 5:7 and Hebrews 12:28.32 Before we move on to an examination of
reverentia in Psalms we will again focus on the use of this word in Sapientia and
Sirach.
Reverentia in the text of Sapientia and Sir
The use of reverentia in Sapientia and Sirach is difficult to evaluate (see Table 6).
In Sapientia 2:19 (T6:1) we find reverentia aligned with e0piei/keia (“-
reasonableness; equity; reasonableness, fairness of persons; also goodness,
virtuousness”). However, in Sapientia 12:18 (T6:2) reverentia is associated with
feidw/ (“-sparing; thrifty, sparing”). Based on the difference in definitions between
the Greek and Latin vocabulary, the association of these Greek words with
reverentia would seem tenuous. Hatch and Redpath inform us that the use of
both these words in the Jewish Greek Bible is limited mainly to our proposed
intra-Jewish Greek Bible corpus. These items of Greek vocabulary do not
therefore provide us with any textual links to the rest of the Latin Jewish Greek
Bible and will not be further discussed here.33
Out of the five occurrences of reverentia in Sirach, suggested by our search of
the Vulgate text, only two of these may be securely associated with an underlying
Greek text (Sirach 41:20 and Sirach 45:29). This situation highlights the
complexity of the textual traditions of Sirach in both Latin and Greek.
32 Search done using VulSearch. 33 We find e0piei/keia only in Sapientia 2:19, Sapientia 12:18, Baruch 2:27, Daniel (LXX / Th) 3:42, Daniel (LXX) 4:24, 2 Maccabees 2:22, 2 Maccabees 10:4, 3 Maccabees 3:15 and 3 Maccabees 7:6. (Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, Vol I, 519). feidw/ is found only in Es.3:13 and Sapientia 12:18. Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, Vol II, 1426.
229
In Sirach 41:20 (T6:7) we find reverentiam as a translation of ai0sxu/nh (“- shame,
disgrace, dishonour; shame for an ill deed”). This reading may shed some light
on the use of reverentia in Sirach 32:14. In Sirach 32:14 we are unable to identify
the Greek text underlying reverentia in this verse. Instead it would seem that the
use of reverentia is part of a double reading peculiar to the Latin textual tradition:
et ante verecundiam praeibit gratia, et pro reverentia accedet tibi bona gratia.
While the second part of this verse is not apparent in the Greek textual tradition
we are able to determine that the reading of verecundiam (“- the natural feeling of
shame, by whatever cause produced, shamefacedness, bashfulness, shyness,
modesty etc.; respect for, reverence (not. freq. till after the Aug. period)”) is
associated with ai0sxunthro/v (cf. ai0sxunthlo/v “- bashful, modest; of things
shameful”). The use of ai0sxunthro/v, a cognate of ai0sxu/nh, leads us to wonder
whether, based on the association of reverentia and ai0sxu/nh in Sirach 41:20,
reverentia may indeed have been inspired by this Greek text.
230
Table 6: reverentia in Sapientia and Sirach
Source Latin Greek
1 Sapientia 2:19
reverentiam e0piei/keian
2 Sapientia 12:18
reverentia feidou=v
3 Sirach 29:23
reverentiam omit. LXX [?] = 29:14 LXX?
4
Sirach 32:9 (= LXX lac?)
[reverentia only attested by VulSearch]
5
Sirach 32:14 (= LXX 35:10)
verecundiam ai0sxunthrou=
6
Sirach 32:14 (= LXX 35:10)
reverentia = doublette of verecundiam?
7
Sirach 41:20 (= LXX 41:16)
reverentiam observare ai0sxu/nhn diafula/cai
8
Sirach 45:29 (= LXX 45:23)
reverentia
troph=| ( entroph] 155 Latin (reverentia) Ethiopic; epitroph 547C 755; ira (= orgh) Sahidic)
In Sirach 45:29 (T6:8) we find reverentia as a translation of troph/ (“- turn,
turning; turn, change – turn for the better; routing of an enemy”) or e0ntroph/ (“-
turning towards: only metaph. respect for one; modesty; humiliation (LXX Psalm
34:26 al.)”).34 In his apparatus Ziegler associates the Latin reverentia with the
e0ntroph of manuscript 155 and the Ethiopic text.35 The meaning of reverentia
would certainly seem better aligned with that of e0ntroph, as opposed to both
ai0sxu/nh and troph/.
The evidence from Sirach suggests that ai0sxunthro/v, ai0sxu/nh, troph/ and/or
e0ntroph may be associated with the use of reverentia in the Latin Jewish Greek
34 e0ntroph/ is only attested by 155 in the Greek. See Ziegler, Sirach, 340. 35 Ziegler, Sirach, 340.
231
Bible. We find ai0sxunthro/v, ai0sxu/nh, troph/ and e0ntroph employed to varying
degrees in the Jewish Greek Bible. ai0sxunthro/v is only found in Sirach 26:15,
35(32):10 and 42:1. However, its cognate ai0sxu/nh is found many times in the
Jewish Greek Bible.36 Interestingly, the use of e0ntroph in the Jewish Greek Bible
is mostly limited to Psalms37 while the use of troph/ is sprinkled across several
books of the Jewish Greek Bible, but is not attested in Psalms.38
An examination of the Latin lexical equivalents of ai0sxu/nh and e0ntroph in Psalms
(see Table 7) further illuminates the use of reverentia in the Latin Jewish Greek
Bible. In the examples from Psalms we often find ai0sxu/nh and e0ntroph attested
within the same verse. Indeed five out of the nine examples from Psalms present
a text which includes both ai0sxu/nh and e0ntroph/ (see Psalms 34:26 (T7:2), 43:16
(T7:3), 68:20 (T7:5), 70:13 (T7:6) and 108:29 (T7:8)). A discussion of those
examples witnessing both ai0sxu/nh and e0ntroph will be better informed by an
understanding of the Latin lexical equivalents found in association with these
elements of Greek vocabulary in verses where they are individually attested.
Psalm 68:8 (T7:4) is the only example which attests e0ntroph/ without ai0sxu/nh. In
this verse we find reverentia (irreverentia) and confusio (“-a mingling, mixing,
uniting, combining (rare); a confounding, confusion, disorder; a reddening”) in
association with e0ntroph/. In Psalm 68:8 we find reverentia for e0ntroph/ in the text
of the Psalters, Cod. Veron. and Hilary of Poitiers. Unusually, Augustine, Enarrat.
Ps. departs from its close association with the Cod. Veron. to attest irreverentia in
this verse.39 All other Latin witnesses, including the Vulgate, attest confusio for
e0ntroph/. The alliance of confusio with the Hieronymian textual tradition,
suggested by the presence of this word in the Vulgate, Psalt. Hebr. and Jerome’s 36 We will be particulary interested in Sirach 4:21, 5:14, 6:1, 20:22, 20:23, 20:26, 22:3, 25:22, 29:14 and 41:16. and also Psalms 34:26, 39:15(16), 43:16, 68:19, 70:13, 88:45(46), 108:29 and 131:18. Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, Vol I, 37. 37 e0ntroph may be found in Job 20:3 and Psalms 34:26, 43:15, 68:7, 68:19, 70:13 and 108:29. There are also several attestations of e0ntroph in the Greek versions (mainly in Ezekiel) but these will not be treated here. Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, Vol I, 481. 38 troph/ may be found in Exodus 32:18, Deuteronomy 33:14, 3 Kingdoms 22:35, Job 38:33, Sapientia 7:18, Sirach 45:23, Jeremiah 30:10 (49:32), 1 Maccabees 4:35, 1 Maccabees 5:61, 2 Maccabees 12:27 and 2 Maccabees 12:37. Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, Vol I, 1375. 39 According to VulSearch and the Perseus Digital Library, irreverentia, -ae is only found in the Latin Jewish Greek Bible in Sirach 25:29. 26:14 and 27:15. This is another interesting association of Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. and Sirach (cf above the use of imprudens).
232
Commentary on Abdias, may indicate that this lexical element was introduced
into the Latin textual tradition at this point by Jerome. While the introduction of
confusio may have been an attempt by Jerome to better circumscribe the
meaning of e0ntroph/ it may also have been a response to the presence of
a0sxhmo/nhsiv (cf a0sxhmosu/nh “- want of form, ungracefulness; in a moral sense,
indecorum; obscene or disgraceful conduct”) in the text of Symmachus.40 The
fact that the Psalt. Hebr., Cod. Casin. and Julian of Eclanum also read confusio
supports the association of this reading and the text of Symmachus (or the
underlying Hebrew). We have noted previously that the peculiar alliance of Cod.
Casin. and the Psalt. Hebr. would seem to be inspired by their joint familiarity with
the Jewish textual tradition(s). It has also been demonstrated that Julian of
Eclanum is familiar with the text of Symmachus. That these witnesses join the
Vulgate to attest confusio strongly suggests that a text other than the LXX is
inspiring this Latin variation. It is notable that, in this verse, reverentia is
associated with the older Latin textual tradition as attested by Cod. Veron. and
the Latin Psalters.
We find ai0sxu/nh, without e0ntroph/, in Psalms 39:16 (T7:2), 88:46 (T7:7) and
131:8 (T7:9). The overwhelming association of confusio with ai0sxu/nh is
suggested by the fact that there is very little Latin lexical variation associated with
ai0sxu/nh in these verses. The exception to this is the reading of ignominia
(sepiterna) in the Psalt. Hebr. in Psalm 88:46. However, it is likely that this
reading is either based directly on the Hebrew, or a non-extant Greek version,
and does not contribute to a discussion of the older Latin textual tradition.
The fact that confusio is closely associated with ai0sxu/nh and reverentia with
e0ntroph/, at least in the older Latin textual tradition, should inform our discussion
of the examples from Psalms which contain both these elements.
When we turn to an examination of those verses in Psalms which contain both
ai0sxu/nh and e0ntroph/ we do generally find both confusione and reverentia
attested by one or more witnesses. However, we also find verecundia and/or
40 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 205.
233
pudor (“-shame, a sense of shame, shamefacedness, shyness; modesty,
decency, good manners, propriety, etc.”) attested in these verses.
In Psalm 34:26 (T7:1) the Greek ai0sxu/nhn kai\ e0ntroph\n is translated by the
Vulgate text as confusione et reverentia. This association of ai0sxu/nhn and
confusione and e0ntroph\n and reverentia clearly parallels the same association of
vocabulary apparent in our discussion of the individual readings of ai0sxu/nh and
e0ntroph/ in the older Latin textual tradition. Several other interesting readings are
also apparent in this verse. In Augustine, Enarrat. Ps., the Psalt. Sangal. and the
Psalt. Hebr. we find confusione et verecundia for the Greek ai0sxu/nhn kai\
e0ntroph\n. While we are not surprised to find the Psalt. Sangal. and Augustine,
Enarrat. Ps. supporting the same reading the fact that these texts are joined by
the Psalt. Hebr. is curious. The presence of verecundia in Psalm 34:26 confirms
that this word may act as a Latin lexical equivalent of reverentia and ai0sxu/nhn.
In Psalm 34:26 we also find the phrase pudore(m) et confusione in Cod. Casin.
and John Cassian’s Conlationes Patrum [= John Cassian, Con. Part.]. The use of
pudor is found in several examples in Table 7. However, its presence in the
Vulgate text of the Jewish Greek Bible is extremely limited.41 Out of the four
examples of pudor in the Vulgate text two of these are found in Psalms (T7:6 and
T7:8), one in Sirach 26:19 and one in Job 6:20. Use of this word would not
therefore seem to be attributable to Jerome. It is also interesting to note that,
based on the extant Greek text and our previous discussion, we would expect
confusio to be aligned with ai0sxu/nhn rather than pudor. In both the Cod. Casin.
and John Cassian, however, this is not the case. The issue of determining the
true association of the Latin lexical equivalents is made more difficult by what
would seem to be the flexible way in which the Greek word order has been
reproduced in some Latin witnesses.
In Psalm 43:16 (T7:3) we find verecundia…confusio for the LXX
e0ntroph/…ai0sxu/nh attested across most witnesses. The only exceptions to this
41 According to VulSearch pudor is only attested in Job 6:20, Psalm 70:13, Psalm 108:29 and Sirach 26:19.
234
reading are found in the Cod. Casin. (confusio…pudor) and the Psalt. Hebr.
(confusio…ignominia). The ignominia (“- disgrace, dishonour, ignominy”) of the
Psalt. Hebr. would certainly seem to have been inspired by the kataisxummo\v (“-
shaming, disgrace”) of Symmachus. Indeed the a0sxhmo/nhsi/v…kataisxummo\v of
Symmachus also explains the word order apparent in the Psalt. Hebr. It is also
possible, and not unexpected, that the text of Symmachus has also influenced
the reading of the Cod. Casin.
Psalm 43:16 is the only verse where we find verecundia in the Vulgate text of
Psalms. Like pudor, the use of verecundia in the Vulgate Jewish Greek Bible is
rather limited. Apart from Psalm 43:16, verecundia is only attested in the Vulgate
text of the Jewish Greek Bible in Sirach 7:21, Sirach 32:14 (T6:5-6), Jeremiah
13:22, Ezekiel 22:10, 2 Maccabees 15:12, and in the Vulgate New Testament in
1 Corinthians 6:5 and 1 Timothy 2:9.42
In Psalm 68:20 the Vulgate again attests confusionem…reverentiam for the LXX
ai0sxu/nhn…e0ntroph/n. This reading is supported by the Psalt. Sangerm. and
Rufinus. However, most other witnesses attest confusionem…verecundiam. The
Psalt. Hebr. and the Cod. Casin. again attest a different text. In the Psalt. Hebr.
the reading confusionem…ignominiam clearly recalls the reading of this text in
Psalm 43:16 (T7:3). We do not have any Greek variation extant for Psalm 68:20,
but the reading of the Psalt. Hebr. in this verse certainly suggests that at some
point Greek variation, similar to that found in the text of Symmachus in Psalm
43:16, did exist. The reading of the Cod. Casin. in this verse leaves us baffled. As
in Psalm 34:26 the word order of this text does not match that of the extant
Greek. Also Cod. Casin. is the only text to attest pudorem in this verse.
While the use of verecundia and reverentia is limited to a few witnesses in Psalm
70:13 (T7:6), confusione…pudore is attested throughout the Latin textual
tradition. The Vulgate, Psalt. Romanum, Psalt. Ambros., Psalt. Sangerm.,
Cassiodorus and Rufinus all attest pudore for e0ntroph\n. The Cod. Casin. also
continues to attest pudorem for e0ntroph\n but instead of confusione we find
42 According to VulSearch 4.6.
235
inproperium attested in this manuscript. In the Psalt. Hebr. we find the reading
obprobrio…confusione. While the use of obprobrio may be associated with the
inproperium of the Cod. Casin., the use of confusione for e0ntroph\n, while
unexpected, does recall a similar association of vocabulary apparent in the
Vulgate text of Psalm 68:8 (T7:4).
In Psalm 70:13 Augustine, Enarrat. Ps., the Cod. Veron. and some manuscripts
of the Psalt. Romanum attest confusione(m)…verecundia(m) for ai0sxu/nhn kai\
e0ntroph\n. The regular association of verecundia with e0ntroph/ is apparent
throughout the text of Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. (except Psalm 108:29). As for
imprudens and affectio Cod. Veron. generally supports Augustine, Enarrat. Ps.in
its use of verecundia.
In our final example from Psalms we once again find the use of pudore in several
Latin witnesses. The Vulgate pudore…confusione is supported by Jerome, Hom.
Ps., Psalt. Anglosax., Prosper of Aquitaine and Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. (!). An
alternative to the Vulgate reading may be found in the reverentia…confusione of
the Psalt. Romanum, Psalt. Ambros., Psalt. Sangerm., Cod. Veron., Hesychius,
Comm. Lev. and Cassiodorus. The presence of this reading in the Psalt.
Romanum, Cod. Veron. and Hesychius certainly supports the suggestion that the
reading reverentia…confusione may be attributed to the older Latin textual
tradition.43 As pudor is not well attested in the Vulgate the presence of this term
in Psalm 108:29 may suggest that the Vulgate text of Psalm 108:29 has som
association with an older Latin textual tradition.
e
Several general statements may be made regarding our examination of
reverentia in the Latin text of Psalms.
Augustine would seem to avoid the use of reverentia. Apart from Psalm 108:29,
where we find pudorem for e0ntroph/, and Psalm 68:8, where the lone reading of
43 The revereantur…confusionem of the Cod. Casin. also supports this reading.
236
e0ntroph/ is associated with irreverentia44, the text of Augustine, Enarrat. Ps.
reads verecundia for e0ntroph/. Cod. Veron. also attests verecundia in several o
our examples from Psalms.
f
nd
45 That Cod. Veron. and Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. attest
the same reading is not unexpected given our previous discussion of affectio a
imprudens in the text of Psalms.
The use of reverentia and verecundia is avoided by both the Psalt. Heb.46 and
Cod. Casin.47 Pudor is often found in the text of Cod. Casin. but never in the text
of the Psalt. Hebr. The Psalt. Hebr., however, is the sole witness to ignominia.
This reading is most likely a response to the Greek text of Symmachus.48 The
individual elements found in the Psalt. Hebr. and Cod. Casin. again display the
independent nature of these texts.
The role of pudor in this discussion is not at all clear. Based on these examples
from Psalms, pudor would seem to be associated with e0ntroph. This association
is confirmed when one realises that pudor is usually used as a Latin lexical
equivalent for reverentia or verecundia, often partnering with confusio.49 The use
of pudor in the Vulgate is limited to Job 6:20, Psalm 70:13, Psalm 108:29 and
Sirach 26:19. Based on the association of pudor with the textual tradition of Cod.
Casin. and its absence from the Vulgate it would be tempting to suggest that this
reading is late. However, its occasional presence in the textual tradition of the
Psalters (T7:1 and 6) and its strong attestation in Psalm 108:29 (T7:8: pudor is
attested by the Vulgate, Jerome, Hom. Ps., Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. and Prosper
of Aquitane) means we cannot determine the true nature of this reading.
44 According to the Vetus Latina Database Repertorium the citations of Augustine, Spec. have been significantly impacted by the Vulgate text. “…der Bibeltext wurde in der Überlieferung durch Vulgata ersetzt, nur wenige Spuren des altlateinischen Textes von AU sind geblieben;…” http://apps.brepolis.net/vld/repertorium/work.cfm?action=fiche&work_id=2361 45 Cod. Veron. attests verecundia in Psalm 43:16 (with all Latin wtinessses except the Psalt. Hebr.), Psalm 68:20 (with the majority of Psalters, Hilary, Cassian etc) and Psalm 70:13 (alone with Augustine and some manuscripts of the Psalter Romanum). However, the unity between Cod. Veron. And Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. noted elsewhere in this discussion is not as apparent here. 46 The exception to this is Psalm 34:26 where we find confusione et verecundia attested. 47 The exception to this is Psalm 108:29 where we find revereantur…confusionem in Cod. Casin. 48 Opprobrium is paralleled by improperium in Cod. Casin. (see T7:6 = Psalm 70:13) 49 The attestation of pudor and reverentia in the Psalters Ambros., Mozarab. and Romanum in Psalm 34:26 is the one exception.
237
238
That reverentia and verecundia may be treated as lexical equivalents is strongly
suggested by their behaviour in the Latin textual tradition of Psalms.
Table 7: Latin lexical equivalents of ai0sxu/nh and e0ntroph in Psalms (pages 239 – 242)
Psalm Vulgate Jerome iuxta Hebr
Jerome (other)
Psalters50 Augustine MSS51
Other witnesses
Greek LXX
1 34:26 confusione et reverentia
confusione et verecundia
pudore et reverentia (Ambros., Mozarab., Romanum) confusionem et reverentiam (Sangerm.)
confusione et verecundia (Enarrat. Ps.)
pudorem et confusionem (Cod. Casin.) confusionem et reverentiam (Cod. Veron.)
pudore et confusione (John Cassian, Con. Part.) confusione et verecundia (Cod. Sangal.)
e0ntroph/ Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, 133 ai0sxu/nhn kai\ e0ntroph\n (Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 142 – lacking relevant reading)
2 39:16 confusionem confusionem confusionem (Sangerm., Mozarab., Romanum) confusione (Ambros.)
confusionem (Enarrat. Ps.)
confusionis (Cod. Casin.) confusionem (Cod. Veron.)
ai0sxu/nh Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, 145 ai0sxu/nh (Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 152 O’. ai0sxu/nhn 0A. ai0sxu/nhv)
50 The Psalters included are the Romanum, Ambrosian, Sangermanensis and Mozarabic. Any variation will be included in brackets after the majority reading.
239
51 The only direct manuscript traditions referred to are the Cod. Casin. & Cod. Veron. If the word listed is without association it is attested both mss.
Psalm Vulgate Jerome iuxta Hebr
Jerome (other)
Psalters50 Augustine MSS51
Other witnesses
Greek LXX
3 43:16 verecundia… confusio
confusio… ignominia
verecundia… confusio (Sangerm., Anglosax., Tiron., Ambros., Mozarab., Romanum)
verecundia… confusio (Enarrat. Ps.)
confusio… pudor (Cod. Casin.) verecundia… confusio (Cod. Veron.)
verecundia… confusio (Cassiodorus; Ambrose, Explan. Ps. [ refers to Symmachus]; Rufinus)
e0ntroph/ Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, 151 e0ntroph/… ai0sxu/nh (Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 159 O’. e0ntroph/ ( 2Allov. a0sxhmosu/nh Chrysost.)…ai0sxu/nh S. a0sxhmo/nhsi/v… kataisxummo\v Euseb. Nobil.)
4 68:8 confusio confusio confusio (Abd)
reverentia (Sangerm., Ambros., Mozarab., Romanum)
irreverentia (Enarrat. Ps.) confusio (Spec.)
confusio (Cod. Casin.) reverentia (Cod. Veron.)
reverentia (Hilary of Poitiers, Tract. Ps.) confussio (Julian of Eclanum)
e0ntroph/ Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, 193 e0ntroph\ (Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 205. O’. e0ntroph\ S.a0sxhmo/nhsiv Euseb.)
240
Psalm Vulgate Jerome iuxta Hebr
Jerome (other)
Psalters50 Augustine MSS51
Other witnesses
Greek LXX
5 68:20 confusionem …reverentiam
confusionem… ignominiam
confusionem …verecundiam (Ambros., Anglosax., Mozarab., Romanum, Gothic Breviary) confusionem… reverentiam (Sangerm., Tiron., Gothic Breviary)
confusionem… verecundiam (Enarrat. Ps.)
pudorem… confusionem (Cod. Casin.) confusionem… verecundiam (Cod. Veron.)
confusionem … verecundiam (Cassiodorus; Hilary of Poitiers, Tract. Ps.: [Julian of Eclanum, Ps.]) confusionem …reverentiam (Rufinus)
e0ntroph/ Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, 194 ai0sxu/nhn… e0ntroph/n (Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 206 – lacking relevant variation)
6 70:13 confusione… pudore
obprobrio… confusione
confusione… pudore (Sangerm., Ambros., Anglosaxon., Romanum, Tiron.) [confusione… verecundia (Romanum mss)] pudore… confusione (Mozarab.)
confusionem… verecundiam (Enarrat. Ps.)
inproperium… pudorem (Cod. Casin.) confusione… verecundia (Cod. Veron.)
confusione… pudore (Cassiodorus; Rufinus) confusione… reverentia (Glosa Ps.)
e0ntroph/ Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, 198 ai0sxu/nhn kai\ e0ntroph\n (Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 209 – lacking relevant variation)
241
242
Psalm Vulgate Jerome iuxta Hebr
Jerome (other)
Psalters50 Augustine MSS51
Other witnesses
Greek LXX
7 88:46 confusione ignominia sepiterna
confusionem(Hom. Ps.)
confusione (Sangerm., Ambros., Mozarab., Romanum)
confusione (Civ.; Enarrat. Ps.)
confusionem (Cod. Casin.) confusione (Cod. Veron.)
confusionem (Rufinus, Hist.)
ai0sxu/nh Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, 236 ai0sxu/nh (Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 244 – lacking relevant variation)
8 108:29 pudore… confusione
confusione…confusione
pudore… confusionem(Hom. Ps.)
pudore… confusione (Anglosax., Tiron.) reverentia… confusione (Romanum Ambros Moz Sangerm)
pudorem confusionem (Enarrat. Ps.)
revereantur…confusionem (Cod. Casin.) reverentiam…confusionem (Cod. Veron.)
pudore… confusione (Glosa Ps.; Prosper of Aquitane) reverentiam… confusione (Cassiodorus, Expos. Ps.) reverentia (Hesychius, Comm. Lev.)
e0ntroph/ Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, 276 e0ntroph\n… ai0sxu/nhn (Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 266 – lacking relevant variation)
9 131:18 confusione confusione confusionem (Sangerm., Ambros., Mozarab., Romanum)
confusione (Tract. Ev. Jo., Serm., Serm. (Guelf)) confusionem (Serm. (Denis))
confusionem confusionem (Hilary of Poitiers, Tract. Ps.) confusione (Julian of Eclanum; Prosper)
ai0sxu/nh Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, 314 ai0sxu/nhn (Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, 288 – lacking relevant variation)
Summary
There are several interesting issues which have been raised by our discussion of
reverentia and insensatus in Sapientia and Sirach. That the Vulgate text of both
Sapientia and Sirach attests the older Latin textual tradition, rather than a text
influenced by Jerome, already suggests that these two texts should have more in
common with each other than they do with the rest of the Jewish Greek Bible.
There are certainly some common elements apparent in the Latin texts of
Sapientia and Sirach. Their joint use of uncommon vocabulary such as inventio,
insensatus and reverentia certainly suggests that these two texts share a certain
bond. However, while both texts attest familiarity with certain vocabulary their use
of this vocabulary is often within different contexts. We find adinventio attested
once in the Vulgate text of Sapientia 14:12 (C4:E12) where the Greek underlying
this reading is eu3resiv. In Sirach 35:12 we find ad inventio for eu3rhma (C4:E13)
and in Sirach 40:2 we find adinventio for e0pi/noia (C4:E14). It is notable that
adinventio is associated with three different Greek words in these examples and
that none of these Greek words is the expected e0pith/deuma. While eu3resiv and
eu3rhma demonstrate familial association e0pi/noia is unrelated to either of these
words. This situation repeats itself for insensatus. In Sapientia we find insensatus
in association with a!frwn in four out of nine examples. However, in Sirach we
find insensatus closely associated with a0su/netov. While one explanation for this
difference might be thought to be the absence of a!frwn in the text of Sirach this
is manifestly not the case as a!frwn is found seven times in the text of Sirach.52
While the situation is more complicated for reverentia we are still able to note that
for the four examples in Sapientia and Sirach we have four different items of
Greek vocabulary. This brief survey confirms the situation suggested by
adinventio – that while Sapientia and Sirach attest similar uncommon Latin
vocabulary, this vocabulary relates differently to the underlying Greek text of each
book.
52 Assocated with different vocabualry (see Table 3).
243
244
By extending our examination of insensatus and reverentia to the text of Psalms
we have uncovered several interesting, yet familiar, issues. Particularly
interesting is the use of imprudens and verecundia in Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. and
the Cod. Veron. When we put these two items of vocabulary together with our
discussion of affectio in Chapter Three a definite pattern begins to emerge. This
Latin textual tradition, peculiar to Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. and Cod. Veron. (and
possibly the older Latin Patristic authors), has embraced certain items of
vocabulary which would not have been out of place in a rhetorical school such as
that represented by the Ciceronian corpus.
This examination has also again highlighted the peculiar readings apparent in
both the Cod. Casin. and the Psalt. Hebr.
It is difficult to determine whether the use of reverentia and insensatus
demonstrated by Sapientia, Sirach and Psalms is indeed indicative of a Latin
intra-Jewish Greek Bible corpus. Some difference between the text of Sirach and
Sapientia should be expected given the individual character of other books of the
Jewish Greek Bible, as highlighted in Chapters Two through Four. Indeed, the
distinctive features shared by Sapientia and Sirach still argue for some form of
association.
By using Sapientia and Sirach as a quarry for unusual Latin vocabulary and then
tracing the use of this vocabulary (its associated Greek readings and Latin lexical
equivalents) in the text of Psalms we were again able to highlight and examine
lexical variation within the text of the Jewish Greek Bible. By engaging directly
with the Latin evidence in Sapientia, Sirach and Psalms we highlighted the
complexity of this variation and avoided the pitfalls associated with simplistic
theories of textual variation.
Chapter Six: Variation in the Latin Patristic tradition of the Jewish
Greek Bible - Jerome and Augustine
Most of the examples discussed in Chapters Two through Five include evidence
from one or more of the Latin Church Fathers. Indeed, some of these examples
witness multiple, distinct, readings from the same Church Father. The value of
patristic citations for the investigation of the Latin textual tradition can not be
overestimated. Indeed, it is only via these citations that we have access to
information about where and when a Latin textual tradition was in use. The use of
patristic citations carries with it many of the caveats associated with the study of
the manuscript tradition. For example error and/or deliberate change may affect
the manuscript traditions of the Church Fathers in much the same way as it has
impacted the manuscript traditions of the Jewish Greek Bible. After all, biblical
manuscripts and copies of a commentary by Jerome are subject to the
vicissitudes of copying in a similar way. This Chapter aims to explore the
variation found within the works of certain Church Fathers, Jerome and Augustine
in particular.
Before we turn to the specific texts of Jerome and Augustine, a general survey of
their attitude to the pre-existing Latin textual tradition is required.1 Both Augustine
and Jerome demonstrate a lack of respect for the older Latin textual tradition.
Jerome’s opinion of the extant textual tradition of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible is
more guarded however than the way he expresses his opinion of the older Latin
textual tradition of the Gospels.2 In his Prologue to Judith, Jerome does refer to
1 For a detailed listing of much of the evidence from the Latin Fathers regarding their opinon of the older Latin textual tradition(s) see: Leo Ziegler Die lateinischen Bibelübersetzungen vor Hieronymus und die Itala des Augustinus (München: Literarisch-artistische anstalt (T. Riedel), 1879). 2 In his Preface to the Gospels Jerome mocks the multiplicitous nature of the extant textual tradition(s) of the Latin New Testament saying that if “faith is administered by the Latin version, they might respond by which, for they are nearly as many as the books!” (For this translation see http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_gospels.htm but for the Latin see Jerome’s Preface to the Gospels in Fischer, Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, Vol. II, 1515: si enim latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondeant quibus; tot sunt paene quot codices. This phrase has been shortened to “tot exemplaria quot codices” in Henry B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (New York: KTAV, 1969) 89. Jerome continues to disparage the older Latin textual tradition of the New Testament describing it as a vitiosis interpretibus male edita, vel a presumptoribus imperitis emendata perversius, vel a librariis dormitantibus aut addita sunt aut mutata corrigimus (“Preface to the Gospels”, Biblia Sacra, Vol II, 1515).
245
the “excessively error-ridden panoply of the many codices”.3 In this example
Jerome is more concerned with the “error” of the scribes than with the number of
extant versions. In addition to this the frequent mention of the Septuagint and
Hebrew text in his prologues and prefaces suggests that Jerome is more
focussed on the texts which underlie the Latin textual tradition than the Latin
textual tradition(s) itself/themselves. Jerome’s use of “error” to characterise the
practices of scribes carries with it a sense of accidental change. However, we
should not believe the impression Jerome is (deliberately?) trying to convey.
Indeed one gets the general impression that the Latin codices were carefully
written on the whole, but that they were quite diverse mostly because of
deliberate change.
Augustine is much more vocal regarding the endless variety (infinita varietas) of
the older Latin textual tradition.4 Augustine attributes this infinite variety to the
haphazard process of translation of the scriptures followed by the first
Christians.5 One may also infer from his use of aliquantulum facultatis (litt
that Augustine’s opinion of these translations was not hig
le skill)
h.
Jerome’s enthusiasm for the Jewish Greek versions and finally for the Hebrew
veritas6 is not mirrored by Augustine. Augustine in De civitate Dei acknowledges
the existence of the Jewish Greek versions but draws attention to the primacy of
the Septuagint (LXX) as the only version the Church has received: hanc tamen,
quae Septuaginta est, tamquam sola esset, sic recepit Ecclesia.7 In Epistle 82
Augustine acknowledges that he has been convinced of the benefits of Jerome’s
translation from the Jewish textual tradition in order that those things which have
3 “Inicipit Prologus Iudith”, Biblia Sacra I, 691: Multorem codicum varietatem vitiosissimam amputavi... 4 Augustine, Doctr. chr. 11:16 …si quam dubitationem attulerit latinorum interpretum infinita varietas. 5 Augustine, Doctr. chr. 11:16 Ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex graecus et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguae habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari. 6 Jerome, "CVI. Ad Sunnia Et Fretelam," in Saint Jerome Lettres, ed. Jerome Labourt, Tome V (Paris: Societe d'edition "Les Belles Lettres", 1955) 104: Hebraicam quaereret ueritatem..., 105: ad Hebraicam confugimus ueritatem; 108: ...Hebraica veritate, 7 Augustine, Civ., Book 43 : Nam cum fuerint et alii interpretes, qui ex hebraea lingua in graecam sacra illa eloquia transtulerunt, sicut Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion; sicut etiam illa est interpretatio, cuius auctor non apparet et ob hoc sine nomine interpretis quinta editio nuncupatur: hanc tamen, quae Septuaginta est, tamquam sola esset, sic recepit Ecclesia, eaque utuntur Graeci populi Christiani, quorum plerique utrum alia sit aliqua ignorant.
246
been omitted or perverted by the Jews may come to light.8 Yet within the same
paragraph we find Augustine asking Jerome to send him his edition of the Latin
according to the LXX version: Deinde nobis mittas, obsecro, interpretationem
tuam de Septuaginta, quam te edidisse nesciebam.9
From this brief survey it is clear that both Jerome and Augustine had differing
attitudes to the older Latin textual tradition of the Jewish Greek Bible. While
Jerome tried to improve the Latin text first by revision in light of the LXX and then
by revision and/or translation of the Hexapla and Hebrew texts, Augustine was
content to use the extant Latin textual tradition(s) but was a vigorous supporter of
the primacy of the Greek LXX. These different attitudes to the Latin text are
evident in the biblical quotations of both authors.
We should always bear in mind that the LXX was more diverse than Augustine
realised or wished to allow, just as the Hebrew, which Augustine chose to ignore,
was more diverse than Jerome realised or wished to allow.
8 Augustine, Epist. 82, 5.34: De interpretatione tua iam mihi persuasisti, qua utilitate Scripturas volueris transferre de Hebraeis, ut scilicet ea, quae a Iudaeis praetermissa, vel corrupta sunt, proferres in medium. 9 Augustine, Epist. 82, 5.34.
247
Part I: Jerome and Variation in the Latin Jewish Greek Bible
Much of the variation in the Jewish Greek Bible text of the Latin Fathers
encountered in our previous examinations may be attributed to the revisions of
Jerome. The impact of the Hieronymian revisions on the Latin textual tradition
was considerable. However, the fluidity with which Jerome has moved from one
philosophy of translation to the next, combined with a lack of evidence, makes it
difficult to define clearly the actual process Jerome is pursing in a specific edition
of a book of the Jewish Greek Bible. In his prefaces and prologues to his
revisions of the biblical books, his commentaries and his letters, Jerome says
much about his process of revision and translation. While these texts are
invaluable for establishing Jerome’s intentions, one must also investigate the
actual texts to confirm Jerome’s process of revision/translation. The non-biblical
works of Jerome are also not without their own ambiguities. In particular, the
definition of key terms (such as e9caploi=v,10 hexaplorum,11 Septuaginta,12 Graece 13 Koinh/14, and Hebraicam15) are often ambiguous. By concentrating on the
biblical citations of Jerome which have been raised within the context of our
previous discussion, it is hoped that we may be able to contribute some
observations regarding the revisions of Jerome and also Jerome’s attitude to the
older Latin textual tradition(s).
Jerome and the Vulgate Text
While the Vulgate text is not strictly to be considered as part of the patristic
tradition, there are countless references to this text in the lemma of Jerome’s
commentaries on various books. Additionally, an understanding of the Vulgate
text provides a sound basis from which we can better understand the role of other
textual traditions found throughout the works of Jerome.
10 Jerome, "Ad Sunnia et Fretelam," 105. 11 Jerome, "Ad Sunnia et Fretelam," 125. 12 Jerome, "Ad Sunnia et Fretelam," 105. 13 Jerome, "Ad Sunnia et Fretelam," 106. 14 Jerome, "Ad Sunnia et Fretelam," 105. 15 Jerome, "Ad Sunnia et Fretelam," 105.
248
The Vulgate Text of Ezekiel
One of the most unmistakable examples of Hieronymian revision may be found in
the Vulgate text of Ezekiel.
We first encountered the use of idolum as the Latin lexical equivalent of
e0pith/deuma in our examination of the Vulgate text of Ezekiel 20:7 (Chapter 2,
Example 8 [= C2:E8]). This initially surprising association is mitigated when we
look at the extant text of the Jewish Greek versions in this verse. Here, we find
ei1dwlon attested in Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. There is no doubt that
Jerome is here relying on one or other of these Greek versions, or one or other
version of the Hebrew, as inspiration for his Vulgate text.
The Vulgate text of Ezekiel 20:39a (C2:E10) also attests idola. As for Ezekiel
20:7 we find e)pithdeu/mata in the LXX text. Both Symmachus and Aquila,
however, attest various forms of ei1dwlon in this verse.16 Again, there would seem
to be little doubt that Jerome is here relying on the Jewish textual tradition(s)
rather than the LXX Greek text.17
In Ezekiel 36:19 (C2:E11) we find adinventio attested in the Vulgate text. Here
too the LXX a(marti/a would not seem to have inspired Jerome’s Vulgate text.
According to Ziegler, the alternative reading of e0pith/deuma may be found in the
text of L’ and Theodoret (= Masoretic Text) in this verse.18 The use of e0pith/deuma
in these witnesses aligns well with the Vulgate adinventio. Unfortunately, we do
not have direct evidence for the Jewish Greek versions in this verse. However, in
other verses the text of Theodoret does attest direct references to readings from
the three Jewish Greek versions. These readings may be found throughout
Field’s Hexapla.19 That we find e0pith/deuma in the text of Theodoret may suggest
16 Field, Hexapla, Vol 2, 820: S. e3kastov toi=v ei0dw/loiv (’A. ei1dwla) au0tou a0pelqo/ntev latreu/ete, 17 Other verses in Ezekiel where extant non-LXX Greek evidence, most likely attributable to the Jewish textual traditions, support the reading of idola found in the Vulgate include: 18:6, 20:31, 23:30, 18:15. 18 Ziegler, Ezechiel, 264. 19 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Vol 2, (Psalms) where Field makes use of Theodoretus in Psalmus. Specific exmples include Ps 4:1 or 7:7 where we find references to Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotian in Theodoret.
249
that this Greek reading is suggestive of a (now lost) text of Aquila, Symmachus
and/or Theodotion.
In Ezekiel 20:7 and 20:39a it is almost certain that Jerome’s Vulgate text has
been inspired by the Jewish textual traditions of the Greek versions and/or the
Hebrew. This would also seem to have been the case for Ezekiel 36:19.
Jerome’s Prologue to Ezekiel does not inform us further regarding the particular
philosophy of translation/revision pursued by Jerome in the production of this
book. However, this Prologue does provide an opportunity to engage with
Jerome’s discussion of the vulgata and hebraico texts. In his Prologue Jerome
notes:
Sed et vulgata editio non multum distat ab hebraico. Unde satis miror quid causae extiteret, ut si eosdem in universis libris habemus interpretes, in aliis eadem, in aliis diversa transtulerint. The reference to vulgata here may relate to Jerome’s use of this term to refer to the revision of the Greek text by Eusebius and Pamphilas: aliam esse editionem quam Origenes et Caesariensis Eusebius omnesque Graeciae tractatores (koinh/n) (id est communem) appellant atque vulgatem.
According to Swete this koinh/n or vulgatem was “a mischievous mixture of the
Alexandrian version with the versions of Aquila and Theodotion”.20 Swete also
notes that while the original version did include the Hexaplaric signs “there was a
natural tendency on the part of scribes to omit them, when their purpose was no
longer manifest”.21 It is interesting that Jerome in his Prologue to Ezekiel
suggests that there is a closeness between the Greek of the vulgata and the
“Hebrew”. Indeed, this fact has caused Jerome some concern as he goes on to
wonder why, if the translation of the Greek vulgata was indeed produced by the
same interpreters, there are some books (like Ezekiel) which demonstrate little
variation (to the Hebrew) while others demonstrate much variation. From this
passage we derive the impression that Jerome is equating the vulgata with the
20 Henry Barclay Swete, H. St J. Thackeray and Richard Rusden Ottley. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (New York: KTAV, 1968), 78. 21 Swete, Old Testament, 78.
250
text of the Septuagint (LXX) – the inspired translation of the Hebrew Bible in
Alexandria attributed to seventy (or seventy-two) Jewish elders.22 Jerome’s use
of the “Hebrew” text to assess the value of the LXX informs us that by the time he
is producing this edition of Ezekiel Jerome has begun to embrace the Jewish
textual tradition over that of the LXX.
Jerome’s Prologue to Ezekiel suggests that the text of the vulgata and the
“Hebrew” are very similar. However, the reading of the LXX e0pith/deuma and
ei1dwlon of the Greek versions in Ezekiel 20:7, and 20:39a, and the LXX a(marti/a
and the e0pith/deuma of the Greek versions in Ezekiel 36:19 do not seem to reflect
the closeness suggested by Jerome. There are several explanations for these
anomalous readings. It is possible that these readings may just be a few
exceptions to an otherwise homogenous textual tradition attested by both the
LXX and the Hebrew text. Alternatively, Jerome’s vulgata may refer to a Greek
text other than the one we now identify with the LXX textual tradition. In particular
it is possible that Jerome takes “the Three” Jewish Greek versions as
representative of the Hebrew, which they might be, but not necessarily of the
Hebrew with which we are familiar.
It is notable that Jerome’s Prologue to Ezekiel, while extremely interesting and
relevant to further discussion of the Greek textual traditions accessible to Jerome,
only gives us a very oblique indication of Jerome’s preference for the “Hebrew”
textual tradition. Without recourse to the actual readings of Ezekiel preserved in
the Vulgate text we would otherwise not be able to form a clear picture of the
revisional tendencies of Jerome in this text. However, it is clear from our
examination that the Vulgate text of Ezekiel has been greatly influenced by one
or other of the Jewish textual traditions.
A similar textual situation to that found in Ezekiel may also be found in the
Vulgate text of Isaiah. In the three examples from Isaiah discussed in Chapter
Four, the presence of adinventio in the Vulgate text is mirrored by the presence
of e0pith/deuma in two or more of the Jewish Greek versions. In each of these
22 Swete, Old Testament, 9-10.
251
verses the LXX attests a reading which has no direct association with adinventio
or e0pith/deuma.23 The inconsistency of the LXX text in these examples is
particularly curious given the sense of unity suggested by the aligned readings of
the Jewish textual traditions. In his Prologue to Isaiah Jerome suggests that the
LXX text of Isaiah did not faithfully represent the Hebrew text he was familiar
with.24 Given this statement we might suggest that the LXX text in our verses
from Isaiah reflect the anomalous LXX text of Jerome.
In 3 Kingdoms 15:12 we again find the use of idolorum. This reading reflects the
ei1dwla of Symmachus. This reading again demonstrates the influence of the
Jewish textual tradition on the Vulgate text of Jerome.
It is impossible to determine from our examples whether Jerome is truly
representing the Hebrew text or is reliant on the Jewish Greek versions for
access to the Jewish textual tradition. We can say for certain, however, that in
Ezekiel, Isaiah and 3 Kingdoms the Jewish textual tradition (of Aquila,
Symmachus, Theodotion and/or the Hebrew) has greatly influenced Jerome’s
Vulgate text.
The Vulgate Text of Judith
A different philosophy of translation is apparent in the Vulgate text of Judith. In
his Prologue to this text Jerome tells us that his Latin version is based on the
original Chaldean (Aramaic) version.25 We are also aware that the Vulgate text of
Tobit is based on an Aramaic exemplar. In his Prologue to Tobit Jerome informs
us that access to the Aramaic original of this book was provided via a Hebrew
(speaking?) intermediary.26 There is no mention of a Hebrew intermediary in the
Prologue to Judith. However, it would seem unlikely that Jerome achieved
sufficiency in Aramaic in the time between his translation of Tobit and Judith. It is
therefore likely that Jerome’s translation of Judith was also based on a Hebrew 23 In Isaiah 3.8 we find a0nomi/av. In Isaiah 3.10 we find e1rgwn. In Isaiah 12:4 we find e2ndoca. 24 “For this reason I suppose the Seventy interpreters to have been unwilling at that that time to set forth clearly for the gentiles the sacraments of their faith, not throwing holy things to dogs or pearls to swine,2 which things, when you will have read this edition, you will note were hidden by them.” Translated by K. P. Edgecomb http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_isaiah.htm 25 Biblia Sacra I, 690. 26 Biblia Sacra I, 676.
252
translation (whether spoken or written) of the Aramaic original. Jerome also
informs us that his translation of the book of Judith was “according to sense
rather than verbatim”.27
The Vulgate text of Judith, in our examples (C4:E8), certainly does not
demonstrate any association with the older Latin textual tradition. Despite Kelly’s
suggestion that the Vulgate of Judith is strongly influenced by the older Latin
textual tradition, there is little evidence for this in our few examples.28 While some
similarities are apparent at the beginning of each verse these semblances are not
maintained much beyond the first few words. It is almost as if Jerome started
each verse by glancing at the older Latin tradition but then turned his attention
exclusively to the Aramaic / Hebrew.
Vulgate text of Psalms (the Gallican Psalter)
The Vulgate text of the book of Psalms is that of Jerome’s second revision of the
Psalter. This text, known as the Gallican Psalter due to its early association with
the western region outside of Rome, gradually triumphed over Jerome’s later
translation of the Psalms from Hebrew.29
In his Prologue to the Vulgate / Gallican Psalter, Jerome notes his introduction of
signs within the edition of his text to indicate the relationship of certain readings
to either the LXX translators (translatoribus), the Hebrew books / scrolls (hebraeis
voluminibus), and/or Theodotion.30 It is unclear from this Preface whether the
introduction of the signs is the work of Jerome or the signs are to be found in
Jerome’s source text(s). However the statement Haec ego et vobis et studiose
cuique fecisse me sciens found towards the end of the passage does suggest
that the introduction of these signs was Jerome’s own work. Such compilation
and translation required access to the text of the Hexapla and it is believed
27 Biblia Sacra I, 690. 28 Kelly, Jerome, 285: “Both translations [of Tobit and Judith] were closely dependant on the existing Old Latin version...”. 29 Kelly, Jerome, 158. 30 Biblia Sacra I, 767: Notet sibi unusquisque vel iacentem lineam vel signa radiantia, id est obelos vel astericos, et ubicumque virgulam viderit praecedentem, ab ea usque ad duo puncta quae inpressimus sciat Septuaginta translatoribus plus haberi; ubi autem stellae similitudinem perspexerit, de hebraeis volumnibus additum noverit, aeque usque ad duo puncta, iuxta Theodotionis dumtaxat edition qui simplicitate sermonis a Septuaginta interpretibus non discordat. Haec ego et vobis et studiose cuique fecisse me sciens…
253
Jerome had access to this text from at least 387 CE.31 As the production of the
Gallican Psalter occurred between 386 and 392 CE it is likely that Jerome had
access to the text of the Hexapla during the composition of this text.32
In our examination of adinventio in the text of Psalms in Chapter Three there was
no suggestion that any text, other than the LXX Greek (as presented in Rahlfs’
edition), was the inspiration for the Gallican text of the Psalter. While several of
the examples attested readings from Aquila and Symmachus, these readings
have not had any impact on the text of the Gallican Psalter. It would thus seem
that the base text for Jerome’s Gallican Psalter was the LXX text itself. It is
therefore proposed that the influence of the Jewish textual tradition within the text
of the Gallican Psalter was limited to those readings where Jerome made
additions to the text. Also, the Jewish textual traditions preserved in the Hexapla
may have provided inspiration for the placement of Jerome’s text critical signs
indicating those passages which had been added or should be subtracted from
the LXX text. Further study of the Gallican Psalter needs to be undertaken to
determine whether this text does indeed display any affiliation with the Jewish
Greek versions or if this text is based purely on the LXX text, despite Jerome’s
own suggestion otherwise.
31 Kelly, Jerome, 135. 32 Kelly, Jerome, 158.
254
The Vulgate text of Jerome - Summary
Based on this brief survey of the Vulgate texts of Jerome it is clear that different
philosophies of translation and revision have influenced these texts. The impact
of the Jewish textual tradition on the Vulgate text of Ezekiel, Isaiah and 3
Kingdoms cannot be denied. However, there is no sense whatsoever (within the
examples from Chapter Three) that the Jewish textual tradition has influenced the
Vulgate / Gallican text of Psalms. Finally, the Vulgate text of Judith does not
display any of the textual affinities found in Ezekiel, Isaiah, 3 Kingdoms and
Psalms. This fluid text would certainly seem to be the result of a free translation
from the Aramaic (via the Hebrew?) as suggested by Jerome in his Prologue to
this book.
Psalter Romanum – Is it a product of Hieronymian revision?
There is some doubt regarding the association of the Psalter Romanum with
Jerome’s edition of the Psalms undertaken in Rome prior to his edition of the
Gallican Psalter. Estin notes that there is nothing other than Jerome’s own
statement, made in the Preface to his second edition of the Book of Psalms (the
Gallican Psalter), to support the existence of this text: Not long ago while located
in Rome, I emended the Psalter, and had corrected it, though cursorily, for the
most part according to the (version of the) Seventy interpreters”.33 Arguments by
De Bruyne (and others – see Estin) have now led to the cautious statement that
the Psalter Romanum is not the work of Jerome but may best represent the text
on which Jerome’s version was based.34
33 Translation according to K. P. Edgecomb http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_psalms_lxx.htm 34 Kelly, Jerome, 89. See also Estin’s discussion of the work of De Bruyne in Collette Estin, Les Psautiers De Jérôme a La Lumière Des Traductions Juives Antérieures. Vol. XV of Collectanea Biblica Latina (Rome: San Girolamo, 1984), 25-28.
255
Psalter Romanum and the other non-Hieronymian Psalters
From our examination of adinventio in the text of Psalms in Chapter Three it is
clear that there is a close association between the Psalter Romanum and the rest
of the older Psalter traditions (particularly the Ambrosian, Anglosaxon and
Mozarabic Psalters and the Psalter Sangermanenesis). The influence of the
Vulgate, however, may be seen on several of the later Psalter traditions (e.g. the
Psalter Tironianum). Several readings preserved within the Psalt. Romanum and
the Psalt. Ambrosian would seem to indicate some association with the older
Latin textual tradition. The most striking fact regarding the readings of the
Psalters Romanum, Ambrosian and Sangermanensis is the total absence of
adinventio in these texts in our examples. Indeed we also do not find cogitatio
attested in any of our examples in these texts. Instead we find a decided
preference for studium and for variants which are not attested by the Vulgate or
the extant older Latin manuscript tradition(s) attested by Cod. Veron and Cod.
Casin.
Psalter Romanum and other Latin witnesses
By focusing on the readings peculiar to the Psalter Romanum in our examples
from Chapter Three we are able to demonstrate connections between this text
and other Latin witnesses.
There is an obvious association between Cassiodorus’ Expositio Psalmorum [=
Cassiodorus, Expos. Ps.] and the Psalter Romanum. In every example from
Chapter Three where Cassiodorus, Expos. Ps. is extant the lemma of this text
supports the text of the Psalter Romanum. The late date of Cassiodorus (circa
485 – 585 CE) does not provide a concrete association with the older Latin
textual tradition. However, the fact that the Psalter Romanum is being cited by
Cassiodorus, rather than the Gallican (Vulgate) Psalter, is intriguing and may be
due to the association of the Psalter Romanum and Cassiodorus with Rome and
Italy.
The De non conveniendo cum haereticis of Lucifer of Cagliari [= Lucifer, Con.]
attests studiorum for e0pith/deuma along with the Psalter Romanum in Psalm 27:4
(C3:E6). This reading is in opposition to the adinventionum of the Vulgate /
256
Gallican Psalter. As the text of Lucifer, Con. (356 CE) predates the textual
revisions of Jerome we may suggest that the reading of his text, and the Psalter
Romanum, reflects an older Latin textual tradition in this verse.
We may also note that the text of the Psalter in Bede’s In primam partem
Samuhelis reflects that of the Psalter Romanum. However, this is not surprising
considering the very close relationship of the Psalter Anglosaxon with the Psalter
Romanum and Bede’s relationship with the Psalter Anglosaxon.
The reference to the Psalter Romanum in Cassiodorus and Bede suggests that,
despite the wide-ranging influence of the Gallican Psalter, use of the Psalter
Romanum continued well into the eighth century CE.
257
The Psalter Romanum and the Gallican (Vulgate) Psalter
An examination of the readings of the Gallican Psalter and the Psalter Romanum
in the examples from Chapter Three highlights the differences between these two
textual traditions (see Table 1).
Table 1: The Hieronymian revisions of Psalms
Ps Jerome Psalt. Hebr. Vulgate (Gallican Psalter) Psalter Romanum Other 1
9:12 cogitationes studia mirabilia studia (Julian of Eclanum, Ps.)
2
13:1 studiose studiis voluntatibus
studiis (Julian of Eclanum, Ps.) operibus (Psuedo-Athanasius, Luc.)
3 27:4 adinventionem adinventionem studiorum
studiorum (Lucifer, Con.)
4 55:6 cogitationes cogitationes consilia
consilia (Julian of Eclanum, Ps.)
5 76:13 adinventiones adinventionibus observationibus
observationibus (Julian of Eclanum, Ps.)
6 77:7 cogitationum operum operum
operum (Julian of Eclanum, Ps.)
7
77:11 commutationum benefactorum benefactorum
beneficiis (Tertullian, Adv. Jud. x2) benefactorum (Julian of Eclanum, Ps.)
8 80:13a pravitate desideria desideria 9 80:13b consiliis adinventionibus voluntatibus 10
98:8 commutationibus adinventiones studia studia (Julian of Eclanum, Ps.)
11 102:7 cogitationes voluntates voluntates
voluntates |(Paulinus of Nola, Epist.)
12 104:1 cogitationes opera opera 13
105:29 studiis adinventionibus studiis studiis (Julian of Eclanum, Ps.)
14 105:39 studiis adinventionibus observationibus
The rendering of e0pith/deuma in the text of the Gallican and Roman Psalters is
quite different. Not once do these texts render e0pith/deuma by the same Latin
lexical equivalent.35 However, in several readings where the underlying Greek is
different from e0pith/deuma (see T3:4, T3:6-7, T3:11-12) their readings do generally
coincide.36 It would seem that in his Gallican revision Jerome is either not
referring to the Psalter Romanum (i.e. he is translating directly from the LXX) or
he is deliberately avoiding the vocabulary of the Psalter Romanum. This variation
in vocabulary would seem to be particularly associated with the Latin lexical
equivalents of e0pith/deuma.
35 The reading of desideria in the Gallican and Romanum Psalters in Psalm 80:13a is most likely not a rendering of e0pith/deuma. 36 The exception to this is Psalm 55:6. The LXX reading is dialogismo\v and there are no attested variants.
258
The text of Julian of Eclanum would seem to represent some sort of half way
point between the Romanum and the Gallican Psalters. Julian’s translation of
Theodori Mopsuesteni expositio in Psalmos interpretante [=Julian of Eclanum,
Ps.] contains a strange admixture of readings from both the Gallican and the
Romanum Psalters. Some key readings, such as observatio in Psalm 76:13
(T3:5) and consilium in Psalm 55:6 (T3:4), suggest that Julian of Eclanum is
familiar with the same Latin textual tradition as that preserved in the Psalter
Romanum. However, there are also two verses, Psalm 9:12 (T3:1) and Psalm
13:1 (T3:2), where Julian of Eclanum, Ps. follows the Gallican reading against
that of the Psalter Romanum. It is possible that the mixed text of Julian of
Eclanum better represents Jerome’s first revision of the text of Psalms than the
Psalter Romanum. Further examination of the biblical citations of Julian of
Eclanum, Ps. is required before more can be said regarding this possibility..
Jerome’s Psalt. Hebr. – Greek or Hebrew?
While the Psalter Gallican demonstrates Jerome’s relationship with the LXX, the
peculiar text of his translation of Psalms according to the Hebrew tradition (Psalt.
Hebr.) demonstrates his move towards the Hebrew veritas.
Jerome’s purpose for translating the Psalt. Hebr. is outlined in his Preface to this
work. While debating with a Jew, Jerome’s friend, Sophronius, had become
aware that there were significant differences in the texts on which they were
basing their respective arguments. 37 Indeed, it would seem that one of the main
rhetorical devices of Sophronius’ opponent was to proclaim that nearly every one
of the words found in Sophronius’ text was not to be found in the Hebrew. As a
result of these discrepancies Sophronius appealed to Jerome to provide him with
a new translation based on Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion.38 It is notable
that Sophronius requests a translation based on these three Jewish Greek
37 “Incipit Alia Eiusdem Praefatio”, in Biblia Sacra I, 768. One of the most interesting questions raised by this Prologue is “What language was this debate held in?” Given Sophronius’ offer to translate this work into Greek, mentioned later in the same Prologue, we might assume that Greek was the language of this debate. However, Sophronius’ familiarity with Latin and the suggested familiarity of his opponent with Hebrew raises several questions which cannot be answered here. 38 “Incipit Alia Eiusdem Praefatio”, in Biblia Sacra I, 768: ut post Aquilam, Symmachum et Theodotionem novam editionem latino sermone transferrem.
259
versions rather than the Hebrew. Nowhere in this Preface does Jerome negate
the suggestion that these versions are the basis for his translation. Estin also
asserts that the text of the Psalt. Hebr. is a translation inspired by the Jewish
Greek versions rather than the Hebrew text.39 Based on a quantitative study
which compared the vocabulary choices of the Gallican Psalter and the Psalt.
Hebr. with the fragments of the Hexapla of Psalms published by Mercati,40 Estin
was able to determine that the text of the Psalt. Hebr. was most sensitive to the
readings of Symmachus.41
In our examination of adinventio in Psalms we did not find a clear association
between the text of the Psalt. Hebr. and the texts of Aquila and/or Symmachus as
presented in Field. While the lack of evidence for the Jewish Greek versions in
several verses hinders our examination,42 even in those verses where readings
from Symmachus and Aquila are extant we are not confident of association
between the Psalt. Hebr. and the underlying Jewish Greek textual traditions. A
possible exception to this is the reading of boulai=v in Symmachus and
bouleu/masin in Aquila in Ps 80:13b, either of which may have inspired the
consiliis of the Psalt. Hebr. (C3:E3).
Adinventio occurs in the text of Psalm 27:4 (C3:E6) and Psalm 76:13 (C3:E7) in
the Psalt. Hebr. It seems likely that both these readings have been heavily
influenced by the Gallican Psalter. While evidence from the Jewish Greek
versions is not extant for Psalm 27:4 the text of Psalm 76:13 in Symmachus is
preserved in Eusebius and Nobilius:
39 Estin, Les Psautiers, 29-30: "La vérité Hébraïque est en fait une vérité grecque deuxième manière, transmise par plusieurs témoins, dont les versions ne s'accordent pas nécessairement entre elles." See also 37: "Jerome lui-meme connait cette verite par une ou plusieurs versions de l'original, par la transcription du texte trouvee dans les Hexaples et par les differentes traductions grecques." 40 G. Mercati, Psalterii Hexapli Reliquiae (Rome, 1958). Estin, Les Psautiers, 42. 41 Estin, Les Psautiers, 49: "Comparons enfin les résultats concernant Aquila et Symmaque dans HE. Etant donné Ie caractère réduit du total des cas, nous hésitons à en extraire des pourcentages, mais if apparaît malgré tout assez nettement qu'a l'encontre des options semantiques de Jérôme, c'est ici l'influence de Symmaque qui est la plus sensible… " 42 Field attests evidence from Aquila in six out of the thirteen examples while evidence from Symmachus is attested nine times.
260
Psalm 76:13
Vulgate: et meditabor in omnibus operibus tuis,
et in adinventionibus tuis exercebor.
Psalt. Hebr.: et meditabor in omni opere tuo,
et adinventiones tuas loquar.
LXX: kai\ meleth/sw e0n pa~si toi=v e1rgoiv sou,
kai\ e0n toi=v e0pithdeu/masi/ sou a)dolesxh/sw.
Symmachus: kai\ diemele/twn pa/sav ta\v pra/ceiv sou,
kai\ ta\ mhxanh/mata/ sou dihgou/mhn. (Eusebius, Nobilius)43
The use of adinventio in both the Vulgate and the Psalt. Hebr. in this verse
suggests that Jerome has chosen to disregard the reading of mhxanh/mata/ in
Symmachus.44 Without further extant evidence for this verse we are left unable to
determine whether the adinventio of the Psalt. Hebr. has here been inspired by
Aquila, the LXX or the text of the Gallican Psalter.45 In all other aspects the text
of the Psalt. Hebr. is not inconsistent with the text of Symmachus.
Jerome, Psalt. Hebr. and Codex Casinensis
A similarly unique text is to be found in the Codex Casinensis [= Cod. Casin.]
Both the Psalt. Hebr. and the Cod. Casin. display texts which would seem to be
independent reactions to similar phenomena. As suggested by Estin, the Psalt.
Hebr. was influenced, to some degree or other, by the Jewish Greek versions.
One might then wonder whether the textual tradition of Cod. Casin. has also been
subject to the influence of one or other of these Greek versions. Indeed, Amelli in
his edition of Cod. Casin. suggests this.46 Amelli posits that the text of the Cod.
Casin. probably represents an older Latin textual tradition (associated with
Cyprian, Tertullian, Augustine and others) which has undergone three stages of
43 Field, Hexapla, Vol II, 324. 44 Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, Vol II, 925: mhxa/nhma is only found in the LXX in 1 Maccabees 13 and 4 Maccabees 7:4; in Symmachus in Psalms 65(66):5 and 76(77):13; and in other Greek in Psalm 9:12 (see C3:9 where we find commutationes in Jerome, Comm. Ps. 9 and cogitationes in Jerome, Psalt. Hebr.) 45 It is worth noting that the Hebrew text of Psalms 27.4 and 76.13 present different readings: galee-lah in Psalm 76.13 (77.12) and mah-galahl in Psalm 27(28).4 46 Ambrosio Amelli, Liber Psalmorum Iuxta Antiquissimam Latinam Versionem Nunc Primum Ex Casinensi Cod. 557, Vol. I of Collectanea Biblica Latina (Romae: Pustet, 1912), 21.
261
revision.47 While the greater part of the manuscript represents a translation
based on the LXX, the second phase of revision was the result of a rough
correction according to the Hebrew text while the last phase of revision was
inspired by the Greek versions of the Hexapla. 48 In his discussion of this final
phase of revision Amelli suggests that while the Cod. Casin. reveals the influen
of Aquila and Symmachus there is little evidence of the influence of Theodotion
and Quinta on this text: in qua potissimum Aquilae et Symmachi, raro autem
Theodotionis et Quintae Editionis lectio praevalere videtur.
ce
o a similar conclusion:
49 Estin in her
evaluation of the text of the Psalt. Hebr. comes t
“C'est pourquoi, lorsqu'il arrive à Jérôme de s'appuyer sur Théodotion, comme sur la Quinta, on peut supposer, soit que c'est par inadvertance, soit au contraire qu'il a une raison toute particulière de le faire. Au point de vue quantitatif également nous pensons que les résultats concernant Théodotion seraient du même ordre que ceux donnés pour la Quinta: sa traduction figurerait dans de nombreux cas unie à la LXX hexaplaire, mais presque jamais seule."50
That both the Cod. Casin. and the Psalt. Hebr. attest the same philosophy in
regard to their use of the Greek versions of the Hexapla is beyond coincidence. It
is more likely that their use of Theodotion and Quinta reflects the limited
presence of these texts in the Hexapla of Psalms.51
Jerome and the “Hebrew” Text – Changing attitudes
The association of the Psalt. Hebr. with the Greek Jewish versions, rather than
the Hebrew, may also be suggested by Jerome’s own hand. In our examination
of Psalm 9:12 (C3:E9) we discussed the text of Jerome, Comm. Ps. 9 where
Jerome draws attention to the fact that the Hebrew (hebraeo) text has
commutationes for adinventiones. Given that the Psalt. Hebr. attests cogitationes
in this verse there would seem to be some disparity between the two “Hebrew”
readings of Jerome. It is believed that the Psalt. Hebr. was produced in 392 CE52
47 Amelli, Liber Psalmorum, 21 & 33. Amelli’s suggestion that Rufinus was responsible for one or other of these revisions is pure speculation. 48 Amelli, Liber Psalmorum, XXII. 49 Amelli, Liber Psalmorum, XXIII. 50 Estin, Les Psautiers, 46. 51 Jerome refers to a reading of Quinta Septuaginta interpretes, et Theodotion, et Quinta, et Sexta, et Aquila, et ipsum Hebraicum. Symacchus has his own reading. Jerome, "Ad Sunnia et Fretelam," 113. 52 Estin, Les Psautiers, 29.
262
or shortly before and that the Commentary on Psalms [= Jerome, Comm. Ps.]
was composed between 392 and 401 CE.53 The difference in Jerome’s Hebrew
text in these two works may suggest that by the time Jerome is composing his
Commentariolus on Psalm 9 he has moved away from the Jewish Greek
traditions (associated with the Psalt. Hebr.) towards the Hebrew text and is keen
to embrace the biblical text in what he believes is its least adulterated form.
Jerome’s engagement with the Hebrew text is fully realised in his Letter to Sunnia
and Fretela which is securely dated after the production of the Psalt. Hebr.54 In
Example 4 of this Letter Jerome refers to the text of the Septuagint, Aquila,
Symmachus, Theodotion and the Hebrew:
Quod nec Septuaginta habent, nec Aquila, nec Symmachus, nec Theodotio; sed sola koinh/ editio. Denique et in Hebraeo ita scriptum repperi “oser laphanoi darchach”.55
It is significant that Jerome mentions Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion
independently of the Hebrew text in this verse. The subsequent citation of the
Hebrew in Latin transliteration also highlights Jerome’s engagement with the
Hebrew text.
Jerome’s discussion of Psalm 31:2 in this Letter provides further evidence of his
engagement with the Hebrew textual tradition. In this passage Jerome notes that
the Latin “in ore eius” is associated with the reading of Symmachus while the
Septuaginta interpretes, et Theodotion, et Quinta, et Sexta, et Aquila, et ipsum
Hebraicum, « in spiritu eius », habet, quod Hebraice dicitur « brucho ».56 The
differentiation between the Jewish Greek Versions and the Hebrew text is again
explicit in this passage.57
53 For the Vetus Latina Database card see http://apps.brepolis.net/vld/repertorium/work.cfm?action=fiche&work_id=397 54 Kelly dates this letter to around 404/405. See Kelly, Jerome, 285. 55 Jerome, "Sunnia et Fretelam", 107. 56 Jerome, "Sunnia et Fretelam", 113. In ore eius is attested by the older Latin textual tradition (Cod. Veron., Psalt. Sangerm., Psalt. Ambros., Psalt. Romanum et al. cf. the Vetus Latina Database). This reminds us of the association of these witnesses with Symmachus in Psalm 80.13b (C3:E3). 57 Jerome, Psalt. Hebr. supports the reading of the Hebrew in this verse as does the Vulgate (Vetus Latina Database).
263
Somewhere between Jerome’s translation of the Psalt. Hebr. and the Letter to
Sunnia and Fretela, if not in his Comentary on Psalms, Jerome began to
distinguish between the Greek Jewish textual tradition, which was contained in
the Greek versions found in the Hexapla, and the priority of the Hebrew textual
tradition. The examples from the Letter to Sunnia and Fretela discussed above as
well as the Hebrew words in transliteration which abound throughout this letter
support the suggestion that, by the date of composition of this letter, Jerome had
fully embraced the Hebrew Veritas.58
The Text of Jerome’s Commentaries
Jerome produced several commentaries on various books of the Jewish Greek
Bible and the New Testament. In our examination of adinventio we came across
many examples where the commentaries of Jerome have preserved different
elements of the textual tradition of the Jewish Greek Bible. However, the text
which holds priority within these works is always that of Jerome’s Vulgate. It is
notable that without fail the lemmata of these commentaries reflect the text of
Jerome. Indeed the unanimity of the readings would seem too perfect. This fact
has also been noted by Brown who suggests that Jerome was fastidious in his
reference to his own works.59
In addition to his citation of the Vulgate text, Jerome uses certain technical tools
in his commentaries to refer overtly to different readings within the Latin textual
tradition.
58 The extent to which Jerome was able to engage with this tradition will not be disussed here. 59 Dennis Brown, Vir Trilinguis: A Study in the Biblical Exegesis of Saint Jerome, (Kampen: Kok, 1992).
264
265
“LXX” in the text of Jerome’s Commentaries
In the text of Jerome’s commentaries certain readings are preceded by the letters
“LXX”. This abbreviation, which we still use today, is an obvious reference to the
Greek Septuagint. However, it is unclear whether the readings marked by this
sign are Jerome’s direct translation of the LXX into Latin or represent the older
Latin textual tradition. The best way to determine which of these paths Jerome
has pursued is to examine the Latin LXX readings of Jerome in concert with
those of the older Latin textual tradition. Table 2 lists the key vocabulary from the
Latin LXX text as specified in Jerome’s commentaries and the older Latin
manuscript tradition(s), where it is present.60
In the Minor Prophets we find quite striking similarities between the extant
manuscript tradition and Jerome’s Latin LXX readings. The affinity between the
Latin LXX text of Micah, Zephaniah and Zechariah and the extant manuscript
tradition (T2:7-9 and T2:11-13) supports the suggestion that Jerome does indeed
use “LXX” to refer to an older Latin textual tradition (which in turn is based on the
LXX Greek). Kelly outlines the process followed by Jerome when composing
these commentaries: “For each verse or group of verses a double translation was
(generally) provided, from the Hebrew and from the Septuagint”.61 As Kelly notes
earlier, this is the “Septuagint-based Old Latin” and the evidence from our
examples agrees with Kelly’s assessment of the situation.62
In Jeremiah and Ezekiel the situation is reversed. While we find a similar range of
manuscripts extant for these verses the text of these manuscripts, in Jeremiah
and Ezekiel, does not reflect the Latin LXX text of Jerome (T2:1-5).63 We must
surmise that, in these books, Jerome had access to a different older Latin textual
tradition or chose to introduce his own Latin translation of the Greek LXX into
these commentaries.
60 Evidence from the older Latin Church Fathers is generally absent for these examples. However we do find the following examples: Jeremiah 17:10 studiorum in Augustine, Faust. 13.11; Zephaniah 3:11 adinventionibus in Rufinus, Orig. Comm. Cant. 2 (104C and 109A) and Augustine, Civ. 18 (33; 319.7); Isaiah 3:10 operum in Rufinus, Hist. 2.23.15 (171.8). 61 Kelly, Jerome, 291. 62 Kelly, Jerome, 165. 63 It is interesting to note that in the Minor Prophets the manuscript tradition supports the use of adinventio. However, in Jeremiah and Ezechiel, the manuscript tradition does not attest adinventio at all instead preferring cogitatio and studium.
Table 2: LXX and Jerome
Text Vulgate Jerome LXX Older Latin MSS
1 Jeremiah 17:10 (C2:E1)
adinventionum adinventionum cogitationum (Cod. Sangall.)
2 Ezekiel 20:7 (C2:E8)
idolis adinventionibus (Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 6.20 (7))
studiis (Fr. Turic.)
3 Ezekiel 14:6 (C2:E9)
idolis adinventionibus (Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 4.14)
studiis (Fr. Sang.)
4 Ezekiel 20:39 (C2:E10)
idola adinventiones (Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 6.20)
studia (Fr. Sang; Fr. Weing.)
5 Ezekiel 24:14 (C2:E12)
adinventiones adinventiones (Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 7.24)
cogitationes (Cod. Wirc; Fr. Sang.)
6 Hosea 7:2 (C2:E17)
adinventiones
cogitationes (Jerome, Comm. Os. 2.7; Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 5.16 Jerome, Comm. Isa. 18.66)
n/a
7 Micah 2:9 (C2:E18)
lac. adinventiones (Jerome, Comm. Mich. 1)
adinventiones. (Fr. Weing.)
8 Micah 2:7 (C2:E19a)
cogitationes adinventiones (Jerome, Comm. Mich. 1)
adinventiones (Fr. Weing.)
9 Micah 7:13 (C2:E19b)
cogitationum adinventionum (Jerome, Comm. Mich. 2)
adinventionum (Fr. Sang.)
10 Micah 3:4 (C2:E20)
adinventionibus adinventionibus (Jerome, Comm. Mich. 1 (1179A))
n/a
11 Zephaniah 3:11 (C2:E21)
adinventionibus adinventionibus adinventionibus (Fr. Sang.)
12 Zechariah 1:6 (C2:E22)
adinventiones adinventiones (Jerome Comm. Zach. 1 (1421B))
adinventiones (Fr. Sang.)
13 Zechariah 1:4 (C2:E23)
cogitationibus adinventionibus (Jerome Comm. Zach. 1 (1420A))
inventionibus (Fr. Sang.)
14 Isaiah 3:10 (C4:E16)
adinventionum operum n/a
266
267
Table 3: Sive and Jerome
Text Jerome older Latin MSS Older Latin Fathers
1 Jeremiah 4:4 (C2:E3)
et succendatur et non sit, qui extinguat propter malitiam cogitationum – sive adinventionum – vestarum (Jerome, Comm. Jer. 1.70 (1))
et exardiscat a faciae malitiae et non aeret qui extinguat adinventionem vestrarum. (Cod. Veron.)
n/a
2 Jeremiah 4:4 (C2:E3)
propter malitiam cogitationum sive adinventionum nostrum. (Jerome, Comm. Jer. 1.70 (4)
et exardiscat a faciae malitiae et non aeret qui extinguat adinventionem vestrarum. (Cod. Veron.)
n/a
3 Ezekiel 36:19 (C2:E11)
juxta vias eorum, et adinventiones (sive peccata) eorum judicavi eos (Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 11.36)
n/a
secundum vias eorum et secundum peccata eorum iudicavi eos. (Tyconius, Reg. 4 32.21 Augustine, Doctr. chr. 3 (34,48) Pseudo-Cyprian, Novat.10 (omit. secundum vias eorum))
4 Ezekiel 23:7 (C2:E14a)
[in] immunditiis (sive adinventionibus) polluta est. (Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 7 (208D))
n/a n/a
5 Ezekiel 23:37 (C2:E14b)
et cum idolis (sive adinventionibus) suis fornicatae sunt; (Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 7 (222A))
et sanguis in manibus earum cogitationibus suis moechabantur (Fr. Sang.)
n/a
6 Hosea 7:2 (C2:E17)
inquit dicant in cordibus suis et ostendam illis adinventiones suas, sive cogitationes (Jerome, Comm. Os. 2 (873C)
n/a
LXX: nunc circumdederunt eos cogitationes suae, (Jerome, Comm. Os. 2.7 (873B) Jerome, Comm. Ezech. 5.16 (151B) Jerome, Comm. Isa. 18.66 (693B))
Sive in the text of Jerome’s Commentaries
As well as referring to the reading of the LXX text in his commentaries Jerome
also occasionally notes individual Latin lexical variants within his citation of the
biblical text. Jerome introduces these variants with the term sive (“- or if”). In our
examination of adinventio six examples of sive may be found in Jeremiah,
Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets (see Table 3). In Jer 4:4 Jerome refers to
cogitationum – sive adinventionum - twice in his Commentary on Jeremiah. The
reading adinventio, indicated here by sive, may be found in the older Latin
manuscript tradition in Cod. Veron. (adinventionem) (T3:1-2). In Ezekiel 36:19 we
find Jerome’s Commentary on Ezekiel [= Jerome, Comm. Ezech.] referring to
adinventiones (sive peccata). In this verse we are fortunate to have evidence
from Tyconius, Reg., Augustine, Doctr. chr. 3 (34,48)) and Pseudo-Cyprian,
Novat. 10 and these older witnesses support the use of peccata in this verse.
In Comm. Ezech. Jerome uses sive to indicate the alternative use of adinventio in
Ezekiel 23:37:…idolis (sive adinventionibus)…. This reading is not supported by
any of the extant Greek or Hebrew witnesses. In the LXX text of Ezekiel 23:37 we
find e0nqu/mhma. If we accept that adinventio assumes a reading of e0pith/deuma we
may suggest that this reading was once attested somewhere within the Greek
textual tradition in this verse.
In Ezekiel 23:7 we also find the presence of adinventio introduced by sive. In this
verse we find e0pith/deuma attested solely by Greek manuscript 967. The lone
attestation of e0pith/deuma in manuscript 967 in Ezekiel 23:7 demonstrates how
random are the survival of certain readings. Without the evidence from 967 in
Ezekiel 23:7 we would be left assuming the possible existence of e0pith/deuma as
the underlying Greek for Jerome’s alternative reading of adinventio. In fact, this is
the exact situation we find ourselves in regarding the text of Ezekiel 23:37.
From these few examples we may deduce that the use of sive in the
commentaries of Jerome is a strong indicator that the indicated reading is present
268
somewhere in the older Latin textual tradition, and may represent an underlying
Greek text which is different to the text of the LXX.
When we combine the evidence from our discussion of the Latin LXX readings
and the use of sive it would seem that there is much fodder for further
investigation of the older Latin textual tradition preserved within the
commentaries of Jerome.
Allusions in Micah
As noted above the text of Jerome’s commentaries present us with several
interesting readings. Many of these are indicated overtly via the use of “LXX” or
sive. However, we may also propose that Jerome has a tendency to include Latin
lexical equivalents elsewhere within the text of his commentary. This propensity
is particularly apparent in Jerome’s Commentary on Micah [=Jerome, Comm.
Mich.] where we find several familiar Latin lexical equivalents throughout
Jerome’s text.
In Micah 2:9 (C2:E18) Jerome’s Vulgate text omits adinventio. However, we do
find adinventio in the Latin LXX text of Jerome, Comm. Mich. In addition to these
two readings we also find reference to propter malas adinventiones suas et
eiiciendi propter malas cogitationes et opera sua in the text of Jerome’s
commentary. While the first part of this verse reflects Jerome’s Latin LXX text the
second part would seem to be a gloss of Jerome’s Latin LXX reading. We thus
find three familiar Latin lexical equivalents (adinventio, cogitatio and opera)
referred to in this commentary on Micah 2:9.
269
In Micah 3:4 we find adinventionibus attested in the Vulgate and Latin LXX text of
Jerome. However, we also find several additional Latin lexical equivalents in
Jerome’s commentary. In what would seem to be clear allusions to the Latin LXX
and Vulgate text we find studium, voluptas and scelus all attested in Jerome’s
discussion of Micah 3:4:
Vulgate sicut nequiter egerunt in
adinventionibus suis.
Jerome, Comm. Mich. 1 (1179A) LXX: eo quod pessime egerunt in
adinventionibus suis.
Jerome, Comm. Mich. 1 (1179C) quia pessime egerunt in studiis et
voluptatibus suis
Jerome, Comm. Mich. 1 (1178C) quia nequiter egerint in sceleribus
suis
There would seem to be little doubt about the association of the Latin lexical
variants scattered throughout Jerome, Comm. Mich. 3:4. adinventio, studium,
voluptas and scelus have all appeared previously in our discussion of adinventio.
We are left wondering whether Jerome is introducing this variation into his
discussion as a personal preference or is actually alluding to alternative Latin
textual traditions. Whichever scenario, we can state, as we can for Augustine in
relation to his discussion of Psalm 105:39, that Jerome was fully aware of the
Latin lexical variation surrounding adinventio.64
Individual readings of Jerome
There are two places in our discussion of adinventio where the Vulgate text of
Jerome does not seem to suggest any relationship with the extant Greek, Latin or
Hebrew textual traditions.
In Ezekiel 23:7 (C2:E14) we find immunditia (“- uncleanness, impurity, filth”)
attested in the Vulgate text and the lemma of Jerome’s Commentary on Ezekiel.
64 It is interesting that Jerome’s discussion includes scelus and studium. These words are not acknowledged by Augustine. However, Jerome nowhere acknowleges the affectio / affectatio of Augustine.
270
In Chapter Two we suggested that this reading may be associated with a
negative reading of the Greek variant e0piqu/mhma (“- object of desire; yearning
desire”). However, this association is tenuous. This reading is also not aligned
with the Hebrew “idols” attested by the Jerusalem Bible.65
In Leviticus 18:3 (C4:E1) the Vulgate text attests juxta consuetudinem terrae
AEgypti… et juxta morem regionis Chanaan. The reading of both consuetudinem
and morem in this verse is unique and does not reflect the LXX e0pith/deuma nor
the Greek variant e1rgon.
We are unable to answer the puzzle posed by these three unique readings in the
Vulgate text of Jerome.
65 Jerusalem Bible Reader’s Edition, 1197.
271
Part II: Augustine and Variation in the Latin Jewish Greek Bible
Latin textual tradition(s) in the writings of Augustine
In our discussion of adinventio in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets, Psalms
and other books of the Jewish Greek Bible we came across several citations from
Augustine. These citations were sourced from several different works. A further
examination of these citations will help elucidate the relationship between
Augustine and the contemporary Latin textual tradition(s). It must be
acknowledged, however, that the evidence from the works of Augustine in no way
matches the plethora of evidence associated with the biblical revisions and works
of Jerome.
Within our examples the works of Augustine may be divided into those which
witness a biblical lemma that has been influenced by the Vulgate at the time of
composition, those where the biblical readings of Augustine have been
supplanted by those of the Vulgate and those which contain readings which
suggest an older Latin textual tradition.
According to the Vetus Latina Database Repertorium the biblical citations of the
Liber qui appellatur Speculum [= Augustine, Spec.] have been replaced with
readings from the Vulgate text. 66 As the text of Jeremiah 23:22 (C2:E5) Jeremiah
25:5 (C2:E6), Jeremiah 23:2 (C2:E7) and Proverbs 20:11 (C4:E10) in Augustine,
Spec. are all identical to that found in the Vulgate, these examples support the
statement of the Vetus Latina Database Repertorium.
In Jeremiah 17:10 (C2:E1) we find the Contra Faustum Manichaeum of
Augustine [= Augustine, Faust.67], along with the Liber de divinis scripturis sive
Speculum quod fertur S. Augustini of Pseudo-Augustine [= Pseudo-Augustine,
66 See the Vetus Latina Database Repertorium http://apps.brepolis.net/vld/repertorium/work.cfm?action=fiche&&work_id=2361: “der Bibeltext wurde in der Überlieferung durch Vulgata ersetzt, nur wenige Spuren des altlateinischen Textes von AU sind geblieben”. 67 400/402 CE
272
Spec.68] and the Contra Varimadum (Marivadum) Arianum of Pseudo-Vigilius of
Thapsus [= Pseudo-Vigilius of Thapsus, Varim.]69, attesting ut dem unicuique
secundum vias eius et secundum fructum studiorum eius. This reading is in
contrast to the Vulgate qui do unicuique juxta viam suam, et iuxta fructum
adinventionum suarum.70 In addition to the Vulgate adinventionum and the
studiorum of Augustine, Faust., we also find cogitationum attested by the Codex
Sangallensis 912 [= Cod. Sangall.] in this verse. 71 While an older Latin textual
tradition, represented by Cod. Sangall., attests cogitationum it may be that the
studiorum of Augustine, Faust. is representative of an alternative older Latin
textual tradition. In his Commentary on Jeremiah, Jerome asserts that the LXX
reading for this text is adinventionum. The use of adinventio in Jerome’s LXX text
suggests that this word too may be representative of an older Latin textual
tradition. It is therefore possible that there are at least three different older Latin
textual traditions preserved in the extant witnesses of Jeremiah 17:10. These
textual traditions are represented by cogitatio (Cod. Sangall.), studium
(Augustine, Faust.) and adinventio (Jerome, Comm. Jer. LXX).
In Ezekiel 37:19 (C2:E11) the older Latin textual tradition is preserved in the De
doctrina christiana of Augustine [= Augustine, Doctr. chr.], the Liber regularum of
Tyconius [= Tyconius, Reg.72], Pseudo-Cyprian’s Ad Novatianum [= Pseudo-
Cyprian, Novat.73] and the LXX text of Jerome, Comm. Ezech.: secundum vias
eorum et secundum peccata eorum iudicavi eos. The association of Augustine,
Doctr. chr. with Tyconius, Reg. and Pseudo-Cyprian, Novat. supports the
antiquity of the reading found in this group of witnesses. The inclusion of this
reading in the LXX text of Jerome, Comm. Ezech. again supports the proposition
that the LXX text of Jerome’s commentaries is evidence for an older Latin textual
tradition.
68 Beginning of the fifth century CE in Italy. 69 445-480 CE in Africa. 70 Jerome’s LXX text of his Commentary on Jeremiah [= Jerome, Comm. Jer.] also attests adinventionum. 71 Francis Crawford Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala. With an Appendix Containing the Text of the S. Gallen Palimpsest of Jeremiah (Cambridge: University Press, 1896), 86. 72 380 CE 73 After 253/7 CE.
273
Several quotes from Augustine’s De Civitate Dei [= Augustine, Civ.] may also be
found in various examples from Chapters Two and Four. In Zephaniah 3:11
(C2:E21) we found Augustine, Civ. 18, along with the Fragmenta Sagallensia [ =
Fr. Sang.] and Jerome’s Commentary on Zephaniah, attesting ex omnibus
adinventionibus tuis. While the Vulgate and Augustine, Civ. both attest
adinventionibus this is the only similarity between the two texts.74 The alignment
of Augustine, Civ. with the Fr. Sang. suggests that Augustine is again
demonstrating familiarity with an older Latin textual tradition.
In 1 Kingdoms 2:3 (C4:E4) Augustine, Civ. 17 attests Quoniam Deus scientarum
Dominus, et Deus praeparans adinventiones suas with the Cod. Paris and other
witnesses. In this example the use of adinventiones in Augustine, Civ. clearly
differentiates this text from the Vulgate cogitationes and suggests that adinventio
may be part of the older Latin textual tradition.
In Wisom of Solomon 9:14 (C4:E11) we find Augustine, Civ. 12 joining with John
Chrysostom to attest adinventio instead of the Vulgate providentiae. In Chapter
Five it was established that the Vulgate text of the Wisdom of Solomon is actually
representative of the older Latin textual tradition. As the adinventio of Augustine,
Civ. is without support from the older Latin textual tradition we are thus unable to
determine whether or not this reading has any association with a different old
Latin textual tradition.
It is surprising that we find adinventio in the text of Augustine, Civ. In Augustine,
Enarrat. Ps. (Psalms) there was a definite association between affectio and
e0pith/deuma. However, in both Zephaniah 3:11 and 1 Kingdoms 2:3 we find
e0pith/deuma being translated by adinventio rather than affectio in Augustine, Civ.
In all these examples (except Wisdom of Solomn 9:14) the text of Augustine is
supported by extant manuscript evidence. It seems likely that Augustine was
reliant on Latin manuscripts for his biblical text and that the variety between these
manuscripts accounts for the differences apparent in Augustine’s texts. Unless
one was to concern one’s self with the underlying Greek text there would be
74 The Vulgate reads super cunctis adinventionibus tuis.
274
nothing within the Latin textual tradition to suggest that the reading of adinventio
in one book was equivalent to the reading of affectio in another. It was only when
the Latin textual tradition within a book (verse) displayed variation that this would
become apparent and might require an appeal to the underlying Greek text.75
The text of Psalm 80:13 provides us with a wealth of information regarding the
different Latin versions of Psalms known to Augustine. The works of Augustine
provide us with three distinct versions of this text.
In Augustine, Praed. and Augustine, Grat. the use of desideria and voluntatibus
in Psalm 80:13 is supported by a large number of witnesses including the Latin
Psalters (Romanum, Ambrosian Psalter, etc.).76 As discussed in Chapter Three
the use of desideria and voluntas recalls Greek readings which are not preserved
within the mainstream LXX tradition. While desideria is associated with the
e0piqu/mhma of Papyrus Bodmer 24 and the Sahidic text, voluntas would seem to
better reflect the boulh/ of Symmachus than any other extant Greek text.
Augustine, Serm. 119.8 also refers to Psalm 80:13.77 In this sermon the use of
affectiones and voluptatibus, also found in the text of Quodvultdeus’ De
accedentibus ad gratiam sermones 2 [= Quodvultdeus, Grat.], recalls the text of
Augustine, Praed. and Augustine, Grat. Indeed it is possible that the voluptas of
Augustine, Serm. is a misreading of the voluntas of Augustine, Praed. and
Augustine, Grat. The use of affectio instead of desideria in the text of Augustine,
Serm., however, suggests that this text is independent of Augustine, Praed. and
Augustine, Grat. It is possible that the oral context of this text has meant that
Augustine is relying on memory rather than on manuscript evidence for his
75 As has occurred with Psalm 105:39 in Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 105. 76 Psalter Romanum, Psalter Ambrosian, Psalter Anglosaxon, Psalter Sangallesnis, Psalter Sangermanensis, Autpert Ambrose, Apoc. 10 (858.10), Bede, Sam. 2 (72.191), Cassiodorus, Expos. Ps. 80,12-13 (754.245), Cassiodorus, Expos. Ps. 80, 12-13 (754.251), Epiphanius of Seville, Evang. 52 (130.27), Fulgentius, Praed. 11 (850D) and Gregory the Great, Moral. 26.18.33 (368B). 77 418 CE
275
citation of Psalm 80:13, thus accounting for the mixed text and inaccurate
quotation.78
A final reference to Psalm 80:13 may be found in Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. This
text, in conjunction with the Codex Veronensis, displays the now familiar affectio
in both parts of this verse. Unlike the other citations of Psalm 80:13 in the writings
of Augustine this is the only example which clearly recalls the LXX text. The
double use of affectio in this verse clearly parallels that of e0pith/deuma in the
extant LXX. That affectio may be a Latin rendering of e0pith/deuma is suggested by
Augustine himself in his passage from Enarrat. Ps. 105:39.
In the writings of Augustine we find the text of Psalm 80:13 in three different Latin
versions: one represented by Augustine, Praed. and Augustine, Grat.; one by
Augustine, Serm.; and one by Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. While the text of Psalm
80:13 in Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. recalls the LXX, the text of this verse in
Augustine, Praed. and Augustine, Grat. suggests an underlying Greek which is
no longer extant except for separate elements present in Papyrus Bodmer 24, the
Sahidic and the text of Symmachus. The text of Augustine, Serm. is anomalous
and would not seem to be directly linked to a manuscript tradition. It is unclear
from this examination how we end up with so much variation within one author.
In the examples from Psalms discussed in Chapter Three there is a clear
association between Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. and the Codex Veronensis [=
Cod. Veron.]. This relationship is characterised by their common attestation of
affectio for e0pith/deuma in all examples from Psalms (except for Psalm 105:29
and105:39). This use of affectio is not found in any other witnesses in Psalms. In
his discussion of Psalms, Capelle suggests that certain passages from
Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. represent the liturgical text of Augustine’s seat of Hippo.
Capelle also notes that the text of Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. demonstrates a clear
affinity with the Cod. Veron. Capelle believes that together these two witnesses
are the best evidence for the text of the North African Psalter prior to the
78 Possibly a mix up betweeen the texts of Augustine, Praed. and Grat. and Augustine, Enarrat. Ps.?
276
domination of the Vulgate text.79 This combined text may be associated with a
significant revision of the Psalter which occurred in North Africa around 350 CE
or it may be associated with the older Latin textual tradition of North Africa.80
It is likely then that the reading of affectio in Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. and the Cod.
Veron. reflects an older Latin textual tradition.
In addition to the presence of this term in Psalms, affectio / adfectata for
e0pith/deuma or adinventio may also be found in Leviticus 18:3 (adfectata x2) and
Judges 2:19 in the Codex Lugdunensis [= Cod. Lugd.]. The presence of affectio /
adfectata in the Cod. Lugd. suggests that this manuscript belongs to the same
textual tradition as that witnessed by Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. and Cod. Veron.
Billen informs us that in Leviticus, the Cod. Lugd. represents the older manuscript
tradition. However, in Judges this manuscript displays a “confusing mixture of
early and late forms”.
Affectio / adfectatio for e0pith/deuma is also found in the text of Jeremiah 25:5
(adfectatio) and Ezekiel 8:15 (adfectationes / affectationes). In Jerermiah 25:5 we
find adfectatio for e0pith/deuma in Cyprian, Test. 1,281 and Lactantius, Inst. 4,11,4.
The fact that we find adfectatio in Cyprian (and Lactantius) suggests that the
association of adfectatio for e0pith/deuma pre-dates Capelle’s proposed revision of
the Psalter (350CE).
In Ezekiel 8:15 we find adfectationes / affectationes in the text of Tertullian, Adv.
Jud. (310,13). Despite some concern regarding the authenticity of the biblical
citations in this text, as expressed by the Vetus Latina Database, the association
of this reading with a (late 3rd century?) textual tradition supports the proposition
that affectio for e0pith/deuma may be traced back to the earliest extant Latin textual
tradition of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible.
79 Paul Capelle, Le Texte Du Psautier Latin En Afrique. Vol. IV of Collectanea Biblica Latina (Rome: Pustet, 1913), 180. 80 Capelle, Le Texte Du Psautier, 180. 81 Affectionibus in manuscript B.
277
Jerome does not use affectio in his version(s) of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible.
Indeed the use of this term in the Vulgate is limited to the Pauline epistles.
However, if, as suggested by Kelly , Jerome did not revise the Latin text of the
Pauline epistles there is no evidence for the use of affectio in any of the texts of
the Hieronymian Vulgate.82 It is unclear whether Jerome’s avoidance of affectio is
deliberate. It is possible that Jerome was not aware of the use of affectio for
e0pith/deuma. However, the fact that this word does not appear at all in the
Hieronymian Latin Vulgate does seem significant.
In his examination of the African version(s) of Psalms, Capelle associates the text
of Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. (except for the text of 16 Psalms which Capelle
suggests were composed at a later date) with the liturgical text of the Church of
Hippo and advances the opinion that this text contains the remains of the ancient
Cyprianic Psalter.83 Capelle also notes that the Veronese Psalter (= Cod. Veron.)
witnesses the same text as that found in Augustine, Enarrat. Ps.84 The
association of Augustine, Cod. Veron., Cyprian, Lactantius, Tertullian and the
Cod. Lugd. suggested by their use of affectio (affectatio) for e0pith/deuma also
supports Capelle’s suggestion that the liturgical text of Hippo (attested by
Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. and Cod. Veron.) contains remnants of the ancient
African Psalter.
It is notable that our limited examination has managed to provide the same
insight into the complexities of the older Latin textual tradition in Africa, as that
provided by Capelle. This suggests that the results of this study, while
necessarily limited, have been able to engage with core aspects of lexical
variation within the Latin textual tradition of Psalms including the slot-like
82 Kelly, Jerome, 88. 83 Capelle, Le Texte Du Psautier, 180: “A l'époque où nous reprenons notre histoire, S. AUGUSTIN (354 - 430) a paru (1), Ses "Enarrationes in psalmos " nous livrent un psautier complet et ce psautier, si nous en exceptons 16 psaumes dont le grand docteur dicta l'explication vers la fin de sa carrière (vers 415), n'est autre que le texte Iiturgique de l'Eglise d'Hippone. Quoi qu'on en ait dit, quoi qu'on ait voulu démontrer, ce texte est essentiellement africain (2); les vestiges de l'ancien psautier cyprianique s'y rencontrent à chaque pas, attestant aussi clairement que possible leur antique origine (3).” 84 Capelle, Le Texte Du Psautier, 80:” Jamais rapports plus étroits n'ont existé entre des textes aux destinées si différentes (5) et c'est précieux: Dans le rapprochement de ces deux psautiers, nous découvrons la seule physionomie intacte et intégrale de psautier africain que nous ait gardée le poussiéreux trésor des bibliothèques.”
278
character of the lexical variation, the alignment of Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. and
Cod. Veron. and the rhetorical character of the vocabulary within the Psalms text
of these (and other) witnesses.
In Chapter Five we undertook a further examination of other interesting
vocabulary in the Wisdom of Solomon [= Sapientia], The Wisdom of Sirach [=
Sirach] and Psalms. In the examples from Psalms it again became apparent that
the text of Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. and Cod. Veron presented a different Latin
textual tradition to that found in the Vulgate. Unlike affectio, the use of imprudens
and verecundia is not limited to Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. and Cod. Veron. Indeed,
we find these readings in several other texts. Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. and Cod.
Veron., however, are the only regular witnesses to these readings. It is notable
that these words were highlighted in a discussion of other interesting vocabulary
suggested by the text of Sapientia and Sirach. While Sapientia does not attest
either imprudens or verecundia (for e)ntroph/) we do find these items of
vocabulary in the text of Sirach. This suggests that the text of Sirach may also
have been influenced by a textual tradition not unlike that found in Augustine,
Enarrat. Ps. and Cod. Veron. The text of Sapientia, however, does not share this
same affiliation with the text of Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. and Cod. Veron.
In a case similar to that found in Psalm 80:13b, the works of Augustine also attest
a range of Latin lexical variants in association with imprudens in Psalm 13:1 (see
Table 4). In Chapter Five our discussion highlighted the variable use of insipiens,
stultus and imprudens for a!frwn in the Latin textual tradition of Psalms. It was
particularly apparent from our examination (see Table 5 in Chapter Five) that the
use of imprudens for a!frwn was closely associated with the text of Augustine,
Enarrat. Ps. and Cod. Veron. In Psalm 13:1, however, several works of Augustine
(including Augustine, Enarrat. Ps.) may be found supporting either insipiens or
stultus instead of imprudens.
279
Table 4: Lexical equivalents of imprudens in Psalm 13:1 in the works of Augustine
Text Reference Latin 1 Vulgate Dixit insipiens in corde suo: Non est Deus. 2 Augustine, Civ. 5.9 Dixit insipiens in corde suo: Non est Deus 3 Augustine, Lib. 2.13 dixit insipiens in corde suo: non est deus
4 Augustine, Lib. 2.180 adversus opiniones inpiae stultiae qua dicit insipiens in corde suo: Non est deus
5 Augustine, Praed. 24 dixit insipiens in corde suo, Non est Deus?
6 Augustine, Trin. 13.2 si non sunt ex numero nimis insipientium qui dicunt in corde suo: Non est deus
7 Augustine, Epist. 184A.6 stultus, qui vel in corde suo (-) Non est deus.
8 Augustine, C. litt. Petil. 3.25
dixit stultus in corde suo: non est deus ?
9 Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 31 en 2.25.23
dixit enim stultus in corde suo: Non est deus
10 Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 73.25.44 (1022)
et adhuc dicit stultus in corde suo: Non est deus
11 Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 74.9.19
Unde in alio psalmo dicitur: Dixit stultus in corde suo: Non est Deus. Dixit stultus;
12 Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 87.12.7
ut dicat stultus in corde suo: Non est Deus
13 Augustine, Serm. 67.2 Dixit stultus in corde suo, Non est Deus; 14 Augustine, Serm. 69.3 Dixit stultus in corde suo, Non est Deus.
15 Augustine, Serm. (Dolbeau) 17.9
Dixit stultus in corde suo: Non est deus…in corde suo dixit
16 Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 13.2 (86.2) imprudens] insipiens b
Dixit imprudens in corde suo: Non est Deus
17 Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 13.2 (86.9)
ut possit etiam dicere imprudens in corde suo: Non est Deus.
18 Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 13.3.6 (86)
Dixit imprudens in corde suo: Non est Deus, et cetera./
19 Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 31 en 2.25.27
Non est Deus; hoc dicit impius
20 Augustine, Serm. 162.1 Dixit impius in corde suo, Non est Deus:
In Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. we find imprudens, stultus and impius associated with
a!frwn in the text of Psalm 13:1. In his discussion of the text of the Latin Psalter
in Africa Capelle suggests that the text of Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. was not a
homogenous composition and that several stages, dating to different periods of
Augustine’s life, may be identified within this text.85 Without undertaking a full
exploration of the text of Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. we are able to say that the
variation apparent in the reading of Psalm 13:1 in Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. may
reflect Augustine’s relationship with different Latin textual traditions of the Jewish
85 Capelle, Le Texte Du Psautier, 131.
280
Greek Bible over the period of his life.86 However, we must also acknowledge the
possibility, particularly in those passages where there is a clear citation of the
biblical text, that the readings of other textual traditions may have been
introduced into the text of Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. and thus the preserved text
may not represent the actual text of Augustine. It is notable that the Vulgate
insipiens is not found in the text of Psalm 13:1 in Augustine, Enarrat. Ps.
Outside of Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. we also find several references to Psalm 13:1
in the works of Augustine. However, none of these works attest imprudens for
a!frwn. In Augustine, Civ., Lib, Praed. and Trin. we find insipiens for a!frwn, and
in Augustine, Epist. 184A, C. litt. Petil., Serm. 67, Serm. 69 and Serm (Dolbeau)
we find stultus for a!frwn.87 In Augustine, Serm. 162 we also find a clear
reference to Psalm 13:1 which attests impius for a!frwn.88 It is surprising that the
works of Augustine preserve the full gamut of textual variation extant for the Latin
text of Psalm 13:1. Augustine’s familiarity with a range of textual traditions of the
Latin Jewish Greek Bible is suggested by his passage on adinventio and
e0pith/deuma in Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 105:39 and is further supported by the
various versions of Psalm 13:1 which are listed in Table 4. The variation
demonstrated in both these examples suggests that Augustine does not prefer a
particular Latin textual tradition. This ambivalence may by explained by
Augustine’s relationship with the Greek LXX text. Augustine refers several times
to the divine authority of the LXX and his works contain passages which argue
strongly for the inspired character of the LXX, thus setting it on the same footing
as the Hebrew. In his discussion of adinventio Augustine clearly notes that it is
the Greek e0pith/deuma which is underlying the variation found in the Latin text.
Indeed Augustine does not specify a preference for one or other of the Latin
words listed in this passage.
86 In Psalm 13:1 imprudens is attested by Cod. Veron.; stultus is attested by Chromatius, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, Comm. Isa., Jerome, Psalt. Hebr. and Cod. Casin. Insipiens (which is not found in the text of Augustine, Enarrat. Ps.) is attested by the Vulgate, the Psalters, Psuedo-Athanasius, Luc., Ambrose of Milan et al; (see Chapter 5 table 5) 87 F. Dolbeau, "Les sermons de saint Augustin découverts à Mayence. Un premier bilan", in Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. Comptes rendus des séances de l’année 1993, (Paris: 1993), 153-171. 88 The only other witness to this reading is Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 31 en 2.25.27: Non est Deus; hoc dicit impius.
281
In his Letter to Jerome (optat Hieronymi interpretationem de LXX) Augustine
longs for a copy of Jerome’s Septuaginta. Augustine believes that this translation
will be a welcome relief from the tanta latinorum interpretum, qui qualescumque
hoc ausi sunt, quantum possumus imperitia careamus.89 This letter demonstrates
the fact that Augustine is not concerned so much with the Latin but with the LXX
Greek. An acknowledgement of this fact is essential for an understanding of
Augustine’s relationship with the Latin Jewish Greek Bible.
Augustine’s attitude to the Latin textual tradition is also demonstrated in the
passage from Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 105 (see Figure 1) which discusses
adinventio and its Latin lexical equivalents. This passage was presented in
Chapter One where it was noted that the discussion of variation in this passage
was one of the reasons why adinventio was selected for further study.
89 Augustine, Epistle 82, 1.3.
282
Figure 1: Adinventio and e)pith/deuma in Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 105:39
Et fornicati sunt in adinuentionibus suis. Has dicit adinuentiones, quas Graeci e0pithdeu/mata appellant: nam hoc uerbum est in codicibus graecis et hoc loco, et superius, ubi dictum est, Irritaverunt eum in adinventionibus suis;90 cum et illic et hic eas dicat adinuentiones, in quibus alios imitati sunt. Non itaque sic dictas arbitremur adinuentiones, quasi ab ipsis institutas, nullo in aliis praecedente quod imitarentur exemplo. Unde alii interpretes nostri non adinuentiones, sed studia; alii vero affectiones, vel affectationes, alii voluptates dicere maluerunt: et iidem ipsi qui dixerunt adinuentiones, alio loco studia posuerunt. Hoc commemorare volui, ne quaestionem faceret nomen adinuentionis in ea re, quam non a seipsis excogitaverunt, sed alios imitati sunt.
By inventions are meant what the Greeks call e0pithdeu/mata: for this word doth occur in the Greek copies both in this and a former passage, where it is said, “They provoked Him to anger with their own inventions;” “inventions” in both instances signifying what they had initiated others in. Let no man therefore suppose inventions to mean what they had of themselves instituted, without any example before them to imitate. Whence other translators in the Latin tongue have preferred pursuits, affections, imitations, pleasures, to inventions: and the very same who here write inventions, have elsewhere written pursuits. I chose to mention this, lest the word inventions, applied to what they had not invented, but imitated from others, might raise a difficulty.91
After our examination of adinventio and other interesting vocabulary in the Latin
Jewish Greek Bible several statements can now be made in relation to this
passage. The fact that Augustine introduces the Greek e)pith/deuma at the very
start of his discussion of adinventio suggests the pre-eminent position held by the
LXX Greek in Augustine’s relationship with the biblical text. In addition to noting
the presence of e)pith/deuma in Psalm 105:39 Augustine also draws attention to
the fact that e)pith/deuma is attested in Psalm 105:29 where the Latin reads
Irritaverunt eum in adinventionibus suis. The rest of the passage from Augustine,
Enarrat. Ps. would seem to be an attempt by Augustine to sanitise the meaning
of adinventio, the significance of which has already been partly undermined by
90 See Psalm 105:29. 91 Augustine and A. Cleveland Coxe (ed.)., Expositions on the Book of Psalms. By Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, Translated, Edited, with Brief Annotations, and Condensed from the Six Volumes of the Oxford Translation, Volume 8 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886), (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.html).
283
the reference to the Greek e)pith/deuma. Augustine proceeds to a definition of
adinventio which is characterised by a statement of the negative: “Let no man
therefore suppose adinventio to mean what they had of themselves instituted,
without any example before them to imitate”.92 This statement is an obvious
reaction against those who did say such things. Augustine then moves on to list
the known Latin lexical equivalents of adinventio thus providing alternative
readings for adinventio and further undermining the presence of this word in the
Latin text. At the end of the passage Augustine again defines adinventio i.e. not
invention but rather imitation. The polemical nature of this passage is obvious. A
context for this polemic, however, is lacking. That adinventio may be found
throughout the Vulgate text suggests that Jerome was not hindered by the same
concerns expressed by Augustine.
It is notable that the collection of Latin lexical variants in Augustine, Enarrat. Ps.
105:39 closely parallels those uncovered in our examination of adinventio in the
text of Psalms (see Chapter Three). adinventio, studium, affectio (and affectatio)
and voluptas are all found in the Latin textual tradition of Psalms. However, we do
not find the voluntas (from Psalm 80:13b and Psalm 13:1) listed in Augustine,
Enarrat. Ps. 105:39. The absence of voluntas from this list may be explained by
the posited association of this term with boulh/ rather than e)pith/deuma. That the
list in Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 105:39 is specific to the text of Psalms is suggested
by the omission of cogitatio (associated occasionally with e)pith/deuma in the Latin
textual tradition of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets) and the inclusion of
voluptas which is not widely attested outside Psalms. The importance of studium,
as seen in our discussion of adinventio, is also alluded to by Augustine who
mentions this word twice. studium is listed second after adinventio in Augustine’s
list of Latin lexical equivalents. Additionally, Augustine also notes that in some
manuscripts / textual traditions (et iidem) while adinventio may be read in some
places studium may be found in others: et iidem ipsi qui dixerunt adinventiones,
alio loco studia posuerunt. This variability in the selection of vocabulary within a
manuscript tradition has also been demonstrated in our discussion of
92 Augustine, Expositions on the Book of Psalms, 105:39.
284
adinventio.93 That adinventio and studium display a closer relationship than the
other Latin lexical variants is suggested particularly in the text of Jeremiah,
Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets.
93 For example see the text of Fr. Sang. which attests studium in Ezekiel and adinventio in the Minor Prophets.
285
Chapter Summary
In the works of Jerome we find much variation which is attributable to the
influence of various Latin textual traditions. In the commentaries of Jerome,
especially, we find reference to the Vulgate text (in Jerome’s lemmata), the older
Latin textual tradition (indicated by LXX) and other miscellaneous textual
traditions (introduced by sive). The works of Augustine also provide us with
readings which represent various Latin textual traditions.
It is surprising that both Augustine and Jerome preserve so many readings from
the older Latin textual traditions. The reason for this may lie in their mutual
respect for the underlying text(s) of the Latin rather than the Latin textual tradition
itself. Both Jerome’s own statements (in his letters, prefaces, prologues and
commentaries) and the text of his revisions confirm that Jerome is concerned
more with (initially) the Jewish Greek versions, as preserved in the Hexapla, and
the Hebrew than with the Latin textual tradition of the Jewish Greek Bible. The
impetus Jerome feels to preserve the Latin textual tradition may seem
anachronous but is not so peculiar when we remember that Jerome is nothing if
not a product of his own upbringing and social context. Brown also draws
attention to this fact when he notes that at the very end of his life Jerome is
preaching sermons based on the LXX text (rather than the Jewish textual
traditions).94 Whether the use of the LXX was necessitated by his congregation
or by personal preference cannot be determined, but it is not surprising that th
same motivating forces we find influencing Jerome later in his life are also
apparent throughout his life (and works).
e
Augustine too is more concerned with the divine authority of the LXX than with
the need for a single Latin textual tradition. Augustine’s use of various Latin
textual traditions in his citations of Psalm 13:1 and Psalm 80:13 would suggest
that Augustine was rather flexible about which Latin textual tradition he included
in his writings. In Epistle 82, Augustine asks Jerome to send him his version of
94 Brown, Vir Trilinguis, 61: “Right to the end of his life, Jerome continued to cite the text of the LXX alongside that of the Hebrew in his commentaries...Jerome mentions that the sermons he preached and the instructions he gave in the monastery at Bethlehem were based on the LXX.”
286
the Latin based on the Septuagint. Augustine certainly seems willing to embrace
another new Latin translation as long as it is based on the LXX text. The fact
Jerome chooses to base his later revisions/translations on the Jewish textual
tradition causes Augustine much concern and this too must stem from
Augustine’s belief in the divine inspiration of the LXX.
We may wonder whether all fourth and fifth century Latin speaking Christians
shared the same reliance on the Greek (and Hebrew) textual traditions displayed
by Augustine and Jerome. Without further research into the citation habits of
other Latin Fathers this question is impossible to answer. However, the social
status of each of these authors may not be representative of all turn of the era
fifth century Christians. Both Jerome and Augustine received an upper class
education which would certainly have included familiarisation with Greek culture
and language. Additionally, Jerome was a voracious scholar and pursued further
study of the Greek language in Caesarea of his own accord. Augustine too,
before his conversion, was a teacher of Rhetoric and would also have been very
familiar with Greek philosophical language and concepts. However, Augustine’s
familiarity with the Greek language must have been rather less formidable than
Jerome’s, as is suggested by Augustine’s request for a copy of Jerome’s Latin
version of the LXX text.
It would seem likely that both Augustine and Jerome were predisposed to accept
the primacy of the Greek Christian textual tradition. This possibility, in
combination with the fact that it was believed that the original language of the
Church was Greek and that much of the Christian world still practised a Greek
liturgy and read a Greek Bible, may have encouraged them both to engage with
these traditions as much as they were able.
287
288
Chapter 7: A New Paradigm?
The aim of this thesis was to identify lexical variation within the text of the Latin
Jewish Greek Bible and to explore the context of the variation. The evidence
presented in Chapters Two through Six demonstrates that there is a surprisingly
large amount of variation preserved within the witnesses of the Latin Jewish
Greek Bible. The fact that so much variation has survived the ravages of time,
despite the later dominance of the Vulgate text, suggests that much more
variation may once have existed, but whether so or not that this variation is very
well entrenched in the tradition. The variation that we now see is only the tip of
icebergs.
Previous paradigms
Two important decisions were made at the beginning of this examination. One of
these was to limit this study to the text of the Jewish Greek Bible and the second
was the decision not to engage directly with the Latin New Testament theory of
African and European text types. We began this discussion by suggesting that
the text of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible needed to be treated independently from
that of the Latin New Testament. While variation is apparent within the text of the
Latin New Testament, an examination of the text of the Jewish Greek Bible was
required to determine whether variation was also apparent within this corpus. The
separation of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible and the New Testament texts has
allowed us to engage with the evidence from the Jewish Greek Bible without any
pre-conceptions. This has encouraged a treatment of the variation which is not
preoccupied with a dual (i.e. African and European) interpretation of the
evidence.
Slot variation
Lexical variation is a prominent characteristic of the textual tradition of the Latin
Jewish Greek Bible. In fact it characterises it. However, this lexical variation does
demonstrate a specific character. Within the textual tradition of the Latin Jewish
Greek Bible we find word groupings which may be identified by their mutual
association with a single underlying item of Greek vocabulary. This phenomenon
289
is well demonstrated by, but certainly not limited to, the Latin lexical equivalents
of e0pith/deuma.
This type of lexical variation would seem to be especially characteristic of the
Latin textual tradition. While variant readings are certainly present within other
versions of the Jewish Greek Bible this variation does not seem to be dominated
by variation in vocabulary. The “slot” variation found within the Latin textual
tradition has some features in common with the Jewish Greek textual traditions of
Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. In these witnesses too we often find the
same verse attesting much the same reading differentiated by distinct items of
vocabulary.1 These alternative renderings occupying the same slot are more or
less synonymous.
With so much evidence for lexical variation in the Latin Jewish Greek Bible what
is most striking is the regular nature of the variation which is now apparent. While
there are vast differences between the texts of some witnesses, what we
generally find are relatively static readings which contain some lexical items
which have attracted variation. Additionally, when we do find variation this
variation is not endless but a circumscribed group of mainly three or four Latin
lexical equivalents. This situation may suggest that the translation and revision of
the Latin textual tradition has not been as unstructured or as random as has often
been suggested, and in fact as Augustine especially, but also Jerome, preferred
to believe.
New Testament theory of lexical variation
Discussion of the variation apparent in the older textual tradition of the Latin New
Testament is characterised by the terms African and European. Cyprian is the
key witness of the African text while those readings which are apparent in later
Latin Fathers, such as Ambrose, are characterised as European. While we are
able to establish the antiquity of the African readings, because of their
1 That the variation apparent in the Jewish Greek versions in some way parallels the variation apparent in the Latin textual tradition may suggest that both these texts are the product of the same textual process. We are aware that the Greek versions are a translation of the Hebrew that has been strongly influenced by the earlier LXX text. Is it possible that the variation in the Latin textual tradition also suggests a similar process i.e. subsequent “translations” of the Greek text which have been made with an eye to the original Latin translation.
290
association with Cyprian, the European readings are necessarily late dated
because of their association with more recent Church Fathers.
There are several problems associated with the discussion of the Latin African
and European text types which are generally not satisfactorily addressed. The
first concerns the dearth of Latin (Jewish) Christian evidence from the first
through to the early fifth century. It is true that Tertullian and Cyprian provide us
with Christian Latin evidence from the third and fourth centuries. However, the
lack of other contemporary evidence means that we are unable to form anything
but the most rudimentary impression about the use of (Jewish) Christian Latin
and the Latin Bible outside Africa in the first through to the fourth centuries.2
Book to book variation
This study has also highlighted the diversity evident between the Latin textual
traditions of the individual books of the Jewish Greek Bible. While we are able to
identify reasons for some of these differences, others elude us still. We may
suggest that the relatively homogenous textual traditions of the Wisdom of
Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach are due to the fact that these books have not
been subject to revision by Jerome. Also, these books do not seem to have
attracted the attention of revisers. This situation contrasts with that demonstrated
in Psalms. In this book we find multiple textual traditions, including several
associated with Jerome. This book-to-book variation is not only illustrated by the
variation in the number of associated textual traditions but also in the evidence
found within each book. While we find evidence for lexical variation in several
books of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible the composition of these lexical variants
changes. In Psalms we find adinventio, affectio, studium, voluptas and voluntas
for e0pith/deuma. This selection of vocabulary contrasts with the adinventio,
studium and cogitatio of Jeremiah.
While cross book variation dominates this discussion there are also examples of
cross book similarities. This phenomenon is best demonstrated by the use of
affectio in the Latin textual tradition of Psalms, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Leviticus and
Judges. While the attestation of affectio (or its cognates) may not dominate these
2 Christine Mohrmann attempted to engage with this issue. See for example Christine Mohrmann, "Les Origines De La Latinite Chretienne a Rome (Suite)", VC 3/3 (Jul, 1949): 163-183.
291
textual traditions the use of this unusual word across books is a significant
indicator of some sort of association, possibly a similar context of revision, or
even a shared origin.
Reasons for lexical variation in the Latin Jewish Greek Bible
Throughout this examination we have attempted, where possible, to indicate
reasons for the lexical variation apparent in the Latin Jewish Greek Bible.
Deliberate and accidental change
In Chapter One we posited that lexical variation may be the result of both
accidental and deliberate change. In this examination there have not been many
places where variation would seem to be due to accidental change. Indeed, the
very slot-like character of lexical variation is suggestive of deliberate emendation.
In Psalms it was suggested in passing that voluptas or voluntas may be the result
of accidental scribal error. However, given the association of voluntas with boulh/
and the mention of voluptas in Augustine’s passage on Psalm 105:39 this
suggestion was dismissed.
Lexical versus theological change
The slot-like character of the lexical variation discussed in this study suggests
deliberate change and this in turn infers that there is a reason for this change. In
our examination it has been difficult to determine the exact reason why Latin
lexical variation is associated with e0pith/deuma. However the avoidance of affectio
in the Hieronymian revisions certainly suggests that this term was problematic for
Jerome. In turn, the passage on adinventio in Psalm 105:39 in Augustine’s
Enarrations on Psalms is an attempt to undermine the use of adinventio. Both
these vocabulary choices would seem to be driven by some external motivation,
whether theological, polemical or other.
292
Influence of the Vorlage
The influence of the Greek textual traditions on the textual traditions of the Latin
Jewish Greek Bible can be seen throughout our examples. This influence may be
felt at the point of original translation or at any stage of a texts existence.
Deliberate revision according to one or other of the Greek traditions (e.g. various
versions of the LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) explains some of the
variation within the Latin textual tradition of the Jewish Greek Bible. Certain
revisions of Jerome demonstrate the influence of the Jewish Greek versions
(Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) on the Latin textual tradition. Additionally,
there are several individual readings within the textual traditions of the Latin
Jewish Greek Bible which support readings from Greek witnesses which are not
considered to be representative of the Greek LXX text. It is difficult to determine
whether these individual readings are the result of ad hoc revision or whether
they may actually be remnants of an earlier (the earliest?) stage of the Latin
textual tradition.
Fernández Marcos has suggested that “Many of the Old Latin singular
readings…are inner Latin developments going from the Greek tradition but
without connection with the Hebrew and, as a matter of fact, with the Vulgate”.3
This situation is also confirmed by various examples highlighted in this
discussion. However, there are also several individual examples from the older
Latin textual tradition which would seem to have been influenced by the Jewish
Greek versions, if not the Hebrew text directly. Fernández Marcos draws
attention to the “Hebraisms” apparent in the older Latin textual tradition but is
inclined to think that the Jewish influence has made its way into the Latin textual
tradition via a Greek intermediary.4 This opinion also accords with what we have
seen in this examination.
3 Natalio Fernández Marcos, Scribes and Translators: Septuagint and Old Latin in the Books of Kings, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994). 4 Fernández Marcos, Scribes and Translators, 87: “I am inclined to think that the Old Latin is certainly rooted in the Hebrew. But in all probability, some of the so-called Old Latin "Hebraisms" came to the translators through their Greek Vorlage while others were the result of continuous revisions of the Old Latin according to the different texts of the Septuagint that were circulating in the different regions, in the same way that the Septuagint was revised in accordance with the Hebrew text available. In addition, the influence of the three younger translators (Aquila-Symmachus-Theodotion) on the Old Latin is apparent, be it via Hexapla, or prior to the composition of the Hexapla. The Old Latin translators had access to many more Greek texts than
293
Blondheim also argues that the Jewish Greek textual tradition has influenced the
text of the older Latin textual tradition of the Jewish Greek Bible. However, while
Fernández Marcos is content to allow that this influence to have occurred within a
Christian context, Blondheim actively argues that aspects of, if not the actual
original, translation of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible may have been associated
with Latin speaking Judaism. Blondheim reviews much historical evidence in an
effort to establish the likelihood of Jewish Latin speaking communities. However,
while the circumstantial evidence is convincing there is nothing definitive which
Blondheim can point to in order to support his argument.5
Over the years various scenarios have been posited regarding the possibility of a
Jewish Latin translation of the Biblical tradition. Cassuto posits an oral Jewish
Latin version of the Biblical tradition which remained partly preserved in the Italio-
Jewish tradition until the modern era.6 Michael Stone also embraces the
possibility that Jewish Bible translations into Latin did exist but suggests that
“Isolated linguistic or exegetic points of contact with Jewish idioms or targumic
renderings do not necessarily prove a direct connection between the ol [Old
Latin], or its early sections, and Jewish traditions”.7 This cautious statement
affirms the need for such variation to be collected together in an effort to try and
understand the wider Jewish influence on the Latin textual tradition of the Latin
Jewish Greek Bible.
those we know through the extant manuscripts, those being texts that could contain the inherited "Hebraisms".” 5 D. S. Blondheim, Les Parlers Judéo-Romans et la Vetus Latina; Étude sur les Rapports Entre les Traductions Bibliques en Langue Romane des Juifs au Moyen Âge et les Anciennes Versions (Paris: É. Champion, 1925), X: “Les premiers traducteurs chretiens etaient peut-etre ou des Juifs convertis, ou des eleves de maitres juifs. Le deuxieme objet de cette introduction est par consequent d’etablir les probabilites d’une influence linguistique de la synagogue sur l’Eglise latine naissante.” 6 U. Cassuto, "The Jewish Translations of the Bible into Latin and Its Importance for the Study of the Greek and Aramaic Versions." Biblical and Oriental Studies 1 (1973): 285-299. 7 Michael E. Stone, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, CRINT, Section 2 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984). Other authors who have engaged with the possible Jewish origins of the Old Latin include A. Baumstark, "Neue Orientalische Probleme Biblischer Textgeschichte," ZDMG 89 (1935): 89-118. H.F.D. Sparks, "The Latin Bible." in The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions, ed. H.W. Robinson (1954): 100-127. J. Schildenberger, Die Altlateinische Texte Des Proverbienbuch (Beuron, 1941).
294
Preservation of witnesses
We cannot ignore the fact that much of the evidence for the older Latin textual
tradition of the Jewish Greek Bible has been lost to the ravages of time. However,
the extant witnesses do allow us to engage, to a greater or lesser degree, with
the older Latin textual tradition. It is surprising that the commentaries of Jerome
provide so much evidence for this older tradition.
The problems associated with a lack of witnesses are best demonstrated by the
Latin text of Isaiah. Gryson comments on the paucity of manuscript evidence for
this book and we may also note that our examination of lexical variation in this
dissertation in Chapter Four did not allow much engagement with the older Latin
textual tradition.8
Importance of the citations
This thesis has demonstrated the importance of patristic citations for a study of
lexical variation in the text of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible. Without these
witnesses this study would often have been limited to an examination of the
Vulgate text. While the use of citations is imperative for a study such as this,
caution must also be exercised when using these citations. We have encountered
several witnesses whose biblical lemma would seem to have been “corrected” to
the Vulgate text. These include the lemma of Augustine, Spec., Arnobius the
Younger and also, to a lesser extent, Augustine, Civ.
8 See Roger Gryson, Esaias, vol. 12 of Vetus Latina Die Reste Der Altlateinischen Bibel (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1987), 10. Gryson’s edition of Isaiah was discussed more fully in Chapter One.
295
Implications for the study of the texts of Augustine and Jerome
A study of the Latin lexical variation in the works of both Augustine and Jerome
has revealed an unexpected inconsistency. While these authors may
demonstrate a preference for certain lexical elements, these preferences are
never to the exclusion of other possible readings.
This flexible relationship with the Latin textual tradition most likely stems from
their joint predilection for the Vorlage of the Latin textual tradition. While
Augustine exhibits a strong preference for the Greek LXX text Jerome is
preoccupied with the Jewish Greek versions and then the Hebrew text. Augustine
too is aware of the Jewish Greek versions but does not embrace them in the
same way as Jerome. While Jerome demonstrates a changeable relationship
with the LXX, Jewish Greek and Hebrew versions, he does not ever fully
renounce any of these texts. Jerome’s relationship with the Latin textual tradition
would also seem to be complicated. The texts of Jerome’s commentaries best
demonstrate this tendency to embrace the older Latin textual traditions (through
the use of LXX and sive to indicate variant readings) even if the Vulgate lemma is
to be preferred.
One of the most remarkable facts uncovered during this examination is the role
Jerome has played in both undermining and preserving the older Latin textual
tradition. While the popularity of Jerome’s Vulgate text undermined the older Latin
textual traditions, it is often the commentaries of Jerome which have preserved
the best evidence for the older Latin textual tradition.9
Another issue worth contemplating is the fact that all books of the Latin Jewish
Greek Bible would seem to have a textual history prior to the revisions of Jerome.
All the books discussed in this thesis demonstrate at least one older Latin textual
tradition. This situation draws attention to the fact the Jerome has not translated
any of the Biblical books from scratch. No matter what philosophy of
translation/revision Jerome has used he has always had access to at least one
older Latin text tradition if required.
9 This is particularly evident in the Book of Isaiah. See Gryson, Esaias, 1.
296
Where to from here?
In Chapter Five a methodology for identifying associated Latin lexical elements in
the Latin Jewish Greek Bible was proposed. It is only through the further study of
this variation that we will be able to better understand the forces at work on the
textual tradition(s) of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible. While this proposed study is
necessarily complicated it is hoped that patterns of lexical usage within (and
across) books may help us to begin to build up a more complete picture of the
Latin textual tradition of the Jewish Greek Bible.
Advances in technology have made this study possible and effort should also be
made to develop further these tools for the study of the Latin textual tradition.
This examination of lexical variation in the Latin Jewish Greek Bible has touched
on a wealth of issues relevant to further study of the Latin Jewish Greek Bible.
Evidence from the older Latin textual tradition has been vital for this study.
However, access to this evidence has been via the Vetus Latina Database and
the older editions of these manuscripts. Many of these manuscripts would benefit
from a re-editing using modern techniques and re-publication (preferably in an
electronic format) These manuscripts include, but are not limited to, the
fragments of Prophets edited by Dold10 and the Codex Casinensis edited by
Amelli.11 Additionally, the development of tools which allow searchable access to
the older Latin textual tradition (manuscripts and citations) are also desperately
needed.
As well as a re-edition of the manuscript a new examination of the text of the
Codex Casinensis is also warranted. This manuscript provides us with many
independent readings which may be aligned with the older Latin textual tradition
or may indeed display some form of relationship with the Hebrew tradition (via the
Jewish Greek versions and/or the Hebrew). A better understanding of the
character of these readings will inform future research into lexical variation in the
10 Alban Dold, Konstanzer Altlateinische Propheten – und Evangelien – Bruchstücke mit Glossen, Heft 7-9 in Texte und Arbeiten (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1923). 11 Ambrosio Amelli, Liber Psalmorum iuxta Antiquissimam Latinam Versionem Nunc Primum ex Casinensi Cod. 557. Vol. I Collectanea Biblica Latina (Romae: Pustet, 1912).
297
Latin textual tradition and may also provide some insight into the text of the
Hexapla.
This examination has highlighted the relationship of Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. and
Codex Veronensis. Further exploration of this older Latin textual tradition should
be pursued. Capelle laid the basis for this examination in his volume on the
African text of Psalms.12 In this study we have highlighted the use of affectio for
e0pith/deuma in Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. and Codex Casinensis in Psalms, but have
also encountered affectio (and its cognates) outside the text of Psalms. The fact
that the text type apparent in Augustine, Enarrat. Ps.and Codex Veronensis may
not be limited to the book of Psalms requires further exploration.
This study has not provided much opportunity for interaction with the texts of
Cyprian and Tertullian. A study of variation in the Jewish Greek Bible, inspired by
the quotations of Cyprian and Tertullian, would provide a wonderful opportunity to
explore lexical variation within the full gamut of extant Latin evidence.
From this study it has become apparent that the texts of Jerome are extremely
important for several different fields of study. The Vulgate text, in some books, as
well as the text of Jerome’s Commentaries and the Psalt. Hebr. provide us with
access to the Jewish Greek versions, the value of which would seem to have
been underestimated (or ignored). In the Commentaries, Jerome’s LXX text may
provide us with access to an older Latin textual tradition which has otherwise not
been preserved. The opportunities for further illumination of the Jewish Greek
versions and the older Latin textual tradition(s) provided by the text of Jerome
needs to be acknowledged
In our examination of Psalm 80:13 we encountered some readings in the older
Latin textual tradition which may have been inspired by a text other than that
found in the extant LXX. Jerome, in his Letter to Sunnia and Fretela, also
mentioned a reading in the older Latin textual tradition which he attributed to
Symmachus. These few readings are intriguing and deserve further
consideration. Indeed, a detailed re-examination of the text of Sunnia and Fretela
12 Paul Capelle, Le Texte Du Psautier Latin En Afrique. Volume IV of Collectanea Biblica Latina (Rome: Pustet, 1913).
298
may also provide interesting results for both the study of the older Latin textual
tradition and for the study of the Jewish textual traditions in general.
A reconsideration of the arguments of Blondheim should also be undertaken in
an effort to determine whether Jewish influence, at the stage of translation or
later, has impacted on the textual tradition of the Jewish Greek Bible.
299
300
Bibliography Kurt Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testament, English edition (New York:
United Bible Societies, 1983). Ambrosio Amelli, Liber Psalmorum iuxta Antiquissimam Latinam Versionem Nunc
Primum ex Casinensi Cod. 557, vol. I of Collectanea Biblica Latina (Romae: Fridericus Pustet, 1912).
Augustine, Expositions on the Book of Psalms. By Saint Augustine, Bishop of
Hippo, Translated, Edited, with Brief Annotations, and Condensed from the Six Volumes of the Oxford Translation, ed. A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. VIII of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886).
A. Baumstark, "Neue orientalische Probleme biblischer Textgeschichte",
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft (ZDMG) 89 (1935): 89-118.
Theodore A. Bergren and Alfred Schmoller, A Latin-Greek Index of the Vulgate
New Testament: Based on Alfred Schmoller's Handkonkordanz zum Griechishen Neuen Testament: With an Index of Latin Equivalences Characteristic Of "African" and "European" Old Latin Versions of the New Testament, No. 26 of Resources for Biblical Study (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991).
Albert V. Billen, The Old Latin Texts of the Heptateuch (Cambridge: The
University Press, 1927). D. S. Blondheim, Les Parlers Judéo-Romans et la Vetus Latina; Étude sur les
Rapports Entre les Traductions Bibliques en Langue Romane des Juifs au Moyen Âge et les Anciennes Versions (Paris: É. Champion, 1925).
Alan E. Brooke, Norman McLean and H. St J. Thackeray, eds., The Old
Testament in Greek according to the text of Codex Vaticanus, supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint, 8 volumes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1906 - 1935).
Dennis Brown, Vir Trilinguis: A Study in the Biblical Exegesis of Saint Jerome
(Kampen: Kok, 1992). E.A. Wallis Budge, The Earliest Known Coptic Psalter. The Text, in the Dialect of
Upper Egypt, Edited from the Unique Papyrus Codex Oriental 5000 in the British Museum (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. Ltd, 1898).
301
Francis Crawford Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala. With an Appendix Containing the Text of the S. Gallen Palimpsest of Jeremiah (Cambridge: University Press, 1896).
Philip Burton, The Old Latin Gospels: A Study of Their Texts and Language, in
Oxford Early Christian Studies, eds., Gillian Clark and Andrew Louth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Reprint, 2002).
Paul Capelle, Le Texte du Psautier Latin en Afrique, vol. IV of Collectanea Biblica
Latina (Rome: F. Pustet, 1913). U. Cassuto, "The Jewish Translations of the Bible into Latin and its Importance
for the Study of the Greek and Aramaic Versions," Biblical and Oriental Studies 1 (1973): 285-299.
James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. (London:
Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983). Leopold Cohn, "An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria", The Jewish
Quarterly Review 10:2 (1898): 277-332. W. E. Crum, A Coptic Dictionary Compiled with the Help of Many Scholars
(Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1939). D. De Bruyne, "Étude sur le Texte Latin de la Sagesse", Revue Bénédictine 41
(1929): 101-133. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin and Bayerische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Leipzig: Teubner, 1900). F. Dolbeau, "Les sermons de saint Augustin découverts à Mayence. Un premier
bilan", in Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. Comptes rendus des séances de l’année 1993, (Paris: 1993), 153-171.
Alban Dold, Konstanzer Altlateinische Propheten - und Evangelienbruchstücke
mit Glossen, nebst Zugehörigen Prophetentexten aus Zürich und St. Gallen; Teils Neu Teils Erstmals Herausgegeben und Bearbeitet, in Texte und Arbeiten, eds., Erzabtei Beuron (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1923).
Collette Estin, Les Psautiers de Jérôme a la Lumière des Traductions Juives
Antérieures, vol. XV of Collectanea Biblica Latina (Rome: San Girolamo, 1984).
Natalio Fernández Marcos, Scribes and Translators: Septuagint and Old Latin in
the Books of Kings, in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum (Leiden: Brill, 1994).
Frederick Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae Supersunt sive Veterum Interpretum Graecum in Totum Vetus Testamenta Fragmenta, 2 vols., reprint 1964 (Hildesheim: Olms, 1875).
302
Bonifatius Fischer, "Das Neue Testament in Lateinischer Sprache", in Die Alten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments: Die Kirchenvärterzitate und Lektionare; Der Gegenwärtige Stand ihrer Erforschung und ihre Bedeutung für die Griechische Textgeschichte, ed. K. Aland (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1972), 1-92.
Bonifatius Fischer et al., eds., Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, 2 vols.
(Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969). Roger Gryson, Esaias, vol. 12 of Vetus Latina Die Reste der Altlateinischen Bibel
(Freiburg: Herder, 1987). Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the
Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books), 2 vols. (Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1975).
Hensley Henson et al., eds., Criticism of the New Testament (Glasgow:
Scribner's Sons, 1902). Jerome, "cvi: Ad Sunnia Et Fretelam" in Saint Jérôme: Lettres, Tome V, ed.
Jérôme Labourt (Paris: Société d'edition "Les Belles Lettres", 1955). Zbigniew S. Izydorczyk, The Medieval Gospel of Nicodemus: Texts, Intertexts,
and Contexts in Western Europe, in Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies (Tempe: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1997).
Howard Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum, with Latin Text and English Translation, in Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums (Leiden: Brill, 1996).
M. R. James, The Biblical Antiquities of Philo. Now First Translated from the Old
Latin Version, in Translations of Early Documents, Series I: Palestinian Jewish Texts (Pre-Rabbinic), (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917.
Adolf Jülicher, Itala; Das Neue Testament in Altlateinischer Überlieferung, 4
volumes (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1972). Werner Kappler and Robert Hanhart, Maccabaeorum Liber I-IV, Vol. 9/1 of
Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum, Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis Editum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976).
Rodolphe Kasser and Michel Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer XXIV, Psaumes XVII –
CXVIII (Cologny-Genève: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1967). J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London: Duckworth,
1975).
303
H.A.A. Kennedy, "The Old Latin Versions", vol. 3 of A Dictionary of the Bible, ed., James Hastings (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1911), 47-62.
Gerhard Kittel and Geoffrey William Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977). R. E. Latham et al., Revised Medieval Latin Word-List from British and Irish
Sources (London: Oxford University Press, 1965). Michael C. Leff, "The Topics of Argumentative Invention in Latin Rhetorical
Theory from Cicero to Boethius", no. 1/1 of Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric 1/1 (1983): 23 - 44.
Charlton Thomas Lewis et al., eds., A Latin Dictionary: Founded on Andrews'
Edition of Freund's Latin Dictionary, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951). Henry George Liddell et al., eds., A Greek-English Lexicon, New edition, (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1961). G. Mercati, Psalterii Hexapli Reliquiae (Rome, 1958). Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament Its Transmission, Corruption,
and Restoration (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964). Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin,
Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977). Christine Mohrmann, "Les Origines de la Latinité Chrétienne à Rome (Suite)",
Vigiliae Christianae 3/3 (Jul 1949): 163-183. W. F.Moulton, A. S. Geden, and H. K. Moulton, eds., A Concordance to the
Greek Testament, According to the Texts of Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf and the English Revisers, 4th edition (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975).
Carroll D. Osburn, "Methodology in Identifying Patristic Citations in NT Textual
Criticism", Novum Testamentum 47/4 (2005): 313 - 343. Albert Pietersma, "The Edited Text of P. Bodmer XXIV", Bulletin of the American
Society of Papyrologists 17/1-2 (1980): 67-79. Pseudo-Philo, Les Antiquités Bibliques, 2 vols, eds., Daniel J. Harrington et al.,
Sources Chrétiennes (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1976). Alfred Rahlfs, Psalmi Cum Odis, vol. X of Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum
Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979).
304
Joseph Reider and Nigel Turner, An Index to Aquila, Greek, Hebrew, Hebrew-Greek, Latin-Hebrew with the Syriac and Armenian Evidence, by the Late Joseph Reider. Completed and Revised by Nigel Turner (Leiden: Brill, 1966).
C. Morano Rodriguez, Glosas Marginales de Vetus Latina en las Biblias Vulgatas
Espanolas, 1-2 Samuel, (Madrid, 1989). Hermann Rönsch, Itala und Vulgata, (Marburg: N.G. Elwert, 1875). Jerome, Hieremiam Prophetam Libri VI, vol. LXXIV, Pars I, Opera Exegetica 3 of
Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, ed., Siegfried Reiter (Turnholt: Brepols, 1960).
Jerome, Commentariorum in Hiezechielem Libri XIV, vol. LXXV, Pars I, Opera
Exegetica 4 of Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, ed., Francisco Glorie (Turnholt: Brepols, 1964).
Jerome, Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis, ed. Michael Hetzenauer (Oeniponte:
Sumtibus Librariae Academicae Wagnerianae, 1906). P. Sabatier and Vincent de La Rue, Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones
Antiquæ, Seu Vetus Italica, Et Cæteræ Quæcunque in Codicibus Mss. & Antiquorum Libris Reperiri Potuerunt: Quæ cum Vulgata Latina, & cum Textu Græco Comparantur. Accedunt Præfationes, Observationes, ac Notæ, Indexque Novus ad Vulgatam è Regione Editam, Idemque Locupletissimus (Remis: apud Reginaldum Florentain, 1743).
W. Sanday, Relation of K to the Biblical Text of Cyprian in St Matthew, in Portions
of the Gospels According to St Mark and St Matthew from the Bobbio Ms. (K), Now Numbered G. VII. 15 in the National Library at Turin, Together with Other Fragments of the Gospels from Six Mss. in the Libraries of St. Gall., Coire, Milan and Berne (usually cited as N, O, P, A2, S and T), No. II of Old-Latin Biblical Texts, eds., John Wordsworth, W. Sanday and H. J. White (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886), xliii - lxvii.
Giuseppe Scarpat, Libro Della Sapienza Testo, Traduzione e Commento, 3
volumes, (Brescia: Paideia, 1999). J. Schildenberger, Die Altlateinische Texte des Proverbienbuch, (Beuron, 1941). M. G. Schwartze, Psalterium in Dialectum Copticae Linguae Memphiticam
Translatum (Lipsiae: Ioh. Ambros. Barthii., 1843). H.F.D. Sparks, The Latin Bible, in The Bible in its Ancient and English Versions,
ed., H.W. Robinson (1954), 100-127.
305
Michael E. Stone, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus - Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Section 2 of Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984).
Henry Barclay Swete, The Old Testament in Greek, According to the Septuagint,
3 volumes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907). Henry Barclay Swete, H. St J. Thackeray, and Richard Rusden Ottley, An
Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, (New York: KTAV, 1968). Walter Thiele, Sapientia Salomonis, Bd. 11/1 of Vetus Latina; Die Reste der
Altlateinischen Bibel (Freiburg: Herder, 1977-1984). Walter Thiele, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). Bd. 11/2 of Vetus Latina; Die Reste der
Altlateinischen Bibel (Freiburg: Herder, 1987-2005). Ph. Thielmann, "Die Lateinische Übersetzung des Buches der Weisheit", Archiv
für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 8 (1893): 235–277. E. Ulrich, The Characteristics and Limitations of the Old Latin Translation of the
Septuagint, in La Septuaginta en la Investigación Contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS), ed., Natalio Fernández Marcos (Madrid: Instituto "Arias Montano", C.S.I.C., 1985), 67-80.
David S. Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon. Vol. 43 of The Anchor Yale Bible
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011). Harry Clinton York, "The Latin Versions of First Esdras", The American Journal of
Semitic Languages and Literatures 26/4 (Jul.) (1910): 253-302. Joseph Ziegler, Duodecim Prophetae, Bd XIII of Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum
Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967).
Joseph Ziegler, Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae, Bd. XV of
Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976).
Joseph Ziegler, Ezechiel, Bd. XVI, pars 1 of Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum
Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977).
Joseph Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, Bd. XII, pars 2 of Septuaginta Vetus
Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977).
306
307
Joseph Zeigler, Sapientia Solomonis, Bd. XII, pars 1 of Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962).
Leo Ziegler, Die Lateinischen Bibelübersetzungen vor Hieronymus und Die Itala
des Augustinus (München: Literarisch-artistische Anstalt (T. Riedel), 1879).
