Editing the Gospel of John

August 5, 2009

Getting started

Filed under: Uncategorized — igntp @ 11:44 am
Tags:

Now that the IGNTP edition of John for the Editio critica maior is getting towards the final stages when the editorial decisions are made, I am starting this blog so that people can see what we are doing.

Today I started assessing what Greek variants should be included in our edition of the Old Latin for the Vetus Latina Institut. The edition will, like all the others, contain a line of Greek text with variants underneath which are likely to be the source of variants in the Latin text. So I went through our evidence for the first 11 verse of Chapter 18. ten or eleven variants might be relevant. But some may have arisen in the Latin independently.

So how likely is the variant in verse 4 itaque/ergo/autem likely to come from the Greek variant ουν/δε ? What about word order? In verse 10 I think that it is possible that there is a correlation between του αρχιερεωϲ δουλον/δουλον του αρχιερεωϲ and pontificis seruum (Vulgate) /seruum principis sacerdotum (most VL MSS), but seruum pontificis (30) is a corruption of pontificis seruum, and so an inner Latin reading.

Advertisements

5 Comments »

  1. “the IGNTP edition of John for the Editio critica maior is getting towards the final stages”

    Sounds great!
    What does “final stages” mean?
    Did you already make the textual decisions?
    Does the text deviate from NA? Where?
    How many pages?
    Publication date?

    Comment by Wieland Willker — August 6, 2009 @ 4:47 pm | Reply

    • Bearing in mind that this project began in 1987, final means we have only five years to go. We need to finish transcribing the minuscule MSS, finish off the versions, and put it all together. Then we need to make a provisional text and go through a process of assessing our results. Then we can publish it.

      Comment by igntp — August 10, 2009 @ 2:00 pm | Reply

  2. I would agree that seruum pontificis looks likely to be a corruption of pontificis seruum.

    Checking the other occurrences of ‘pontifex’ is quite interesting for the grouping of manuscripts. In many places (as here) it appears to be characteristic of the Vulgate and so is presumably an innovation.

    However, at 7:45, 18:3, 18:26, 18:35 and 19:6 it’s in VL2 (part of the variety of Codex Palatinus, or Vg influence? The latter seems less likely given the sporadic nature (not in 18:10, 13, 15, 16, 19, 22, 24 or 19:15, 35) unless a pericope was read covering 18:26-19:6 from an antegraph which had been altered in these verses.)

    As for Group 2A, VL11 often goes against the other members of Group 2A (7:45; 11:47; 11:49 (with VL6)); by contrast only VL6 has it in 18:15 (first occurrence; inconsistent with the second) and 18:22; only VL8 in 18:19; only VL4 in 19:15.
    However, all of Group 2A have pontifex in 11:51 and 18:13 (two verses closely related, with the phrase ‘pontifex anni illius’), and 18:16, 18:24, 18:26 (yet princeps sacerdotum in 18:35 and 19:6).

    What do we make of this? Group 2A as a pre-Vulgate stage anticipating some later changes, or sporadically and divergently influenced by the Vulgate at certain points? The coincidence on the phrase ‘pontifex anni illius’ twice is interesting (and presumably isn’t a reminiscence of Christian pontifices, whose term of office was usually longer).

    Comment by Hugh — August 6, 2009 @ 4:56 pm | Reply

    • Thanks Hugh. I am trying to remember some work I did on this ages ago. Could it be an example of inconsistency in rendering at an early stage of the Latin versions, but with a preference for ‘princeps sacerdotum’ giving way slowly to the domination of ‘pontifex’. As I understand it this word seems originally more specific than ‘princeps sacerdotum’, and perhaps it took some time for it to lose that connotation as Roman became ever more Christianised.

      Comment by igntp — August 10, 2009 @ 2:11 pm | Reply

      • Boismard considers precisely this variant in his article on Palatinus in “Philologia Sacra” vol.1 (ed Gryson), 1993, p.234-5.
        His position is that VL2 was revised against the text-type of VL3 in certain passages (particularly John 10-12). The original African translation of ἀρχιερευς was pontifex (as shown by the sole citation in Cyprian, John 18:22), which is kept by Palatinus except in the passages where it has been altered in conjunction with this revision.
        It will be interesting to see how this holds up with the other patristic data, but there is further very strong evidence that pontifex was the primitive African rendering which I will present in my paper at SBL this November.

        Comment by Hugh — August 30, 2009 @ 1:08 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: