Subject: Re: tc-list History of transmission

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 05:00:39 -0800 (PST)

Ulrich Schmiud wrote:
   Matthew Johnson wrote:
>>Actually, the Vulgate has surprising links with what could be the
>>original text.  This is because the Vulgate didn't really take over as
>>the standard until several centuries after it was written.  In the
>>meantime, people continued to copy the Old Latin version, even mixing
>>it with the Vulgate.

>This goes too fast for me to make sense.

Really? I can't see why, unless you are trying very hard to
read between the lines and see some claim I did not make.

>  Besides, what do you mean by
>  several centuries?

There is nothing unclear here.  Several centuries IS the time between
that when Jerome finished his work on the Vulgate (whether he really
did do only the OT and Gospels or not) and the time it finally took
over as the official text of the Roman Church.  It was not until Trent
that Pope and Council proclaimed it official, and not until Bacon's
time that he [Roger Bacon] could get away with saying that Jerome's
Vulgate was the true text of the church, which must not be tampered
with.

> When consulting _B. Fischer, Die Lateinischen Evangelien
>bis zum 10. Jahrhundert (4 vols.), 1988-1991_ I find 21 Mss counted among
>the Old Latin type(s), while around 430 are counted among the Vg Mss.

But what does this really mean?  These numbers tell us next to nothing
about which text was predominant when.  Nor do these numbers tell us
anything about Old Latin readings surviving in Vulgate manuscripts,
nor about Old Latin manuscripts harmonized to the Vulgate.  Both
phenomena were common enough.

>Though it is true that virtually every Vg Ms has some sort of Old Latin
>tincture, nevertheless your statement seems to be too unsubtle. BTW-- We
>know virtually nothing about the later history of the Vulgate from the 10th
>to the 15th centuries.

This may be true, but it would have little bearing on the application
of the knowledge of the history of the Vulgate text to understanding
the Old Latin & therefore the Western text, since for this we are by
far more concerned with the Vulgate in an earlier period, for which we
know the history better.

>Part of the NT Vulgate, for example the Pauline Epistles, most likely
>wasn't even the work of Jerome.

Now how _would_ you tell the difference between this claim and the
scenario I described, that:
>>Besides, much of the New Testament, even in Jerome's Vulgate, was
>>copied almost unmodified from the Old Latin.  Perhaps the Pope was
>>putting pressure on Jerome to finish.

In either case, the Vulgate NT outside the Gospels remains mostly Old
Latin.  So now it is my turn to ask you: what is the point _you_ are
trying to make?

The point I am trying to make is not that subtle or mysterious. It is
that the previous poster seems to be dismissing the Vulgate text as
irrelevant to finding original readings. But because of the close
relation between the Old Latin and the Western text, this dismissal is
uncalled for.

But I am not arguing for unique original readings in the Vulgate. In
fact, I am not aware of any (although I would not be surprised if a very
small handful of such existed). What I am arguing for is its relevance
to the history of the text, and to the process of establishing which
reading best explains the others.

Since in a slightly earlier post you referred to Metzger's handling of
the longer ending of Mark, it seems appropriate to remind you that
Metzger gave a copule examples of this very process (using the Old
Latin) in handling this very passage, as well as in handling Luke's
"Glory to God in the highest...".  In both cases, the absence of one
variant in the Old Latin serves as a "tie-breaker", so that external
evidence alone may establish which reading is earlier.

He also points out that from the Vulgate (and Jerome's comments on his
translation process), we knew that the longer ending of Mark was
present in the Greek manuscript tradition, even though no such
manuscript was catalogued until W was discovered.

Matthew Johnson
Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our 
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).

---

From: "Glen Thompson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 08:55:47 -0600

> Vulgate was the true text of the church, which must not be tampered

The question, as I see it, is not when the Vulgate became the 
"official" text of the Roman church, but when it became the 
predominant text among Latin-using Christians.  While Old Latin 
influences certainly survived for several centuries, the Vulgate 
seems to have become the predominant text long before Bacon or 
Trent.

> >>putting pressure on Jerome to finish.

Damasus of Rome was a friend of Jerome and he was the pope who 
(according to Jerome) asked or suggested that he work on a new 
translation.  Damasus died shortly after that request was made and 
his successor, Siricius, was anything but friendly to Jerome, one 
cause for the latter's departure from the capital and journey to the 
East.  Thus I doubt whether Siuricius or his successors would try or 
succeed in influencing what Jerome did.  On the other hand, one need 
only look at Jerome's bibilical commentaries to see that he was, for 
the most part, a collector and editor rather than an original 
scholar.  With this in mind, one might argue that at least in some 
sections of the Vulgate he decided to edit from previoius versions 
rather than translate anew.

Glen L. Thompson