Subject: tc-list Jn 19.30 in the versions

From: Jean VALENTIN <[email-masked]>
Date: Jeu, 1 Oct 98 22:46:32 +0200

Dear friends,

A few words about the interpretation of "TETELESTAI" as I notice that many versions are paraphrasing this single Greek word in similar ways.

Most of you being English-speaking, they are probably used to the quite literal translation of the KJV or other similar versions, "It is finished". That is, the verb is translated with an indefinite subject.

When I was a little boy, at school we went each week to the mass, where the Gospel was read to us in French, and we heard "Tout est consommé", that is "Everything is fulfilled". Here there is a subject, "everything". I notice now that this translation was current in the antiquity and the Middle ages. Here's a little list (probably not exhaustive) of what can be found in the versions:

The Latin vulgate and the Syriac peshitto both follow the Greek literally like the KJV, quoted above, does. Latin: "Consummatum est" (it is fulfilled) and Syriac: "Ho m'shallam" (behold, it is fulfilled).

For the moment, I have no vetus latina of John near me, and I'd be grateful to anybody who could inform me as to what it says.

--------------

Now to those who read like (or nearly like) the French versions:

Both mss of the old Syriac version are lacunose at this point. We are left to deduction from citations and secundary versions.

In Georgian, the Adysh codex has: Qoveli ve arsrulebul ars "Everything is perfected/fulfilled".
The later Georgian version of codices ABDE has: esec`a c'erili arsrulebul ars "what was written is fulfilled".

The Armenian version (Zohrab edition) has amenayn inch` katareal ê "Everything is fulfilled".

Syropalestinian: Shallam kul medem "Everything is fulfilled".

Arabic - melkite version of the XIth century: qad tumma kullu mâ qîla "Everything that was said is fulfilled"
Arabic Diatessaron : qad kumila kullu shay' "Everything has been fulfilled"
Arabic - the alexandrian version (XIIIth century) tumma al-kitâb "the Book is fulfilled" (may be this one is independent from the tradition represented by the other ones, nevertheless it feels the need to add a subject).

Dutch Diatessaron : Nu est al voldaen "Now is everything fulfilled"
Pepysian harmony (indirect discourse): Than seide he that al thing was fulfild.

----------------

Now several remarks or suggestions:

(1) This all is probably not interesting to those who focus on the history of the Greek text alone, since this translation is found only in versional witnesses. Nevertheless, it shows us that this is the way the text was understood in very early ages, since this interpretation is so widely diffused from a geographical point of view. It's not a "variant" in the way textual critics who work on the Greek text understand that term, but it is a - how should I say that - "common interpretative translation" that might help elucidate the genealogy of several versions.
(2) Remark number 1 and the fact that it is found both in Eastern and western versions make me suspect that the first one to propose this interpretation of the text was Tatian in his Diatessaron. I'd be very interested to hear the opinion - and further informations - of Dr Petersen on this text.
(3) This variant has survived in the text of the French liturgy as I remember it from my childhood, but also in the Bible of the French protestants, the version of Louis Segond, as it translates: "Tout est accompli". Even when protestant Bibles claim they are translated directly from the Greek texts, it is never possible to get rid of old, diatessaron-influenced, translations that have been popular for centuries, and such translations are still alive in the XXth century and influence the piety of thousands of people, without them being aware of it. Should we call Tatian the Father of all Gospel translators?

Thanks for any remarks

Jean Valentin - Brussels

---

From: "Ulrich Schmid" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 13:06:58 +0200

>A few words about the interpretation of "TETELESTAI" as I notice that
>many versions are paraphrasing this single Greek word in similar ways.

>Most of you being English-speaking, they are probably used to the quite
>literal translation of the KJV or other similar versions, "It is
finished". That >is, the verb is translated with an indefinite subject.

>When I was a little boy, at school we went each week to the mass, where
>the Gospel was read to us in French, and we heard "Tout est consommé",
>that is "Everything is fulfilled". Here there is a subject, "everything".
I notice >now that this translation was current in the antiquity and the
Middle ages. >Here's a little list (probably not exhaustive) of what can be
found in the >versions:

>The Latin vulgate and the Syriac peshitto both follow the Greek literally
like >the KJV, quoted above, does. Latin: "Consummatum est" (it is
fulfilled) and >Syriac: "Ho m'shallam" (behold, it is fulfilled).

>For the moment, I have no vetus latina of John near me, and I'd be
grateful >to anybody who could inform me as to what it says.

Old Latin MS n (St. Gaul) reads "omnia consummata sunt" at Jn 19.30

>Both mss of the old Syriac version are lacunose at this point. We are left
to >deduction from citations and secundary versions.

>Arabic - the alexandrian version (XIIIth century) tumma al-kitâb "the Book
is >fulfilled" (may be this one is independent from the tradition
represented by >the other ones, nevertheless it feels the need to add a
subject).

>Pepysian harmony (indirect discourse): Than seide he that al thing was

You may want to consult _T. Baarda, In Search of the Diatessaron Text;
idem, Early Transmission of Words of Jesus (edd. J. Heldermann, S.J.
Noorda), Amsterdam 1983, pp. 65-78_. Therein you find some more evidence.

>(1) This all is probably not interesting to those who focus on the history
of >the Greek text alone, since this translation is found only in versional
>witnesses. Nevertheless, it shows us that this is the way the text was
>understood in very early ages, since this interpretation is so widely
diffused >from a geographical point of view. It's not a "variant" in the
way textual >critics who work on the Greek text understand that term, but
it is a - how >should I say that - "common interpretative translation" that
might help >elucidate the genealogy of several versions.

It is interesting to cope with the various dimensions of readings that seem
to be only versional, but what do you mean by "common interpretative
translation"?   
To me the problem should be assessed along the following lines:

1) The reading under discussion is not a variant reading that is found in
the Greek textual transmission to the extend preserved and examined by now.

2) It is found in a great variety of versional sources: However, as far as
I can see all the "eastern" sources (Arabic, Armenian, Georgian) boil down
to a Syriac origin and all the "western" sources (French, Dutch, German)
boil down to a Latin origin.

3) In case we consider this reading genealogically significant (i.e.,
unlikely to occur several times independently), we have three
possibilities:
a) It was created in Syriac and directly translated into Latin.
b) It was created in Latin and directly translated into Syriac.
c) It was created in Greek and translated into both languages.
Only in a) and b) it were possibly a translational interpretation. 
In c) it were a Greek gloss that was simply taken over.

4) There is, however, reason to doubt that the reading under discussion is
indeed genealogically significant. It could very well be due to independent
harmonization to the immediate context (Jn 19.28!). 

5) Therefore, at least to me the reading is only significant when it comes
to support already well established versional genealogies (e.g., the Arabic
Diatessaron is translated from the Syriac). I would hesitate to accept it
as undisputable evidence to bridge the gulf between the Syriac and Latin
versions either directly or by means of a conjectured Greek intermediary
stage.

>(2) Remark number 1 and the fact that it is found both in Eastern and
>western versions make me suspect that the first one to propose this
>interpretation of the text was Tatian in his Diatessaron. 

Let me add that H. v. Soden (see his edition ad loc.) and D. Plooij (A
Primitive Text of the Diatessaron, Leiden 1923, p. 61) already claimed this
reading for the Diatessaron. 

Ulrich Schmid

---

From: Jean VALENTIN <[email-masked]>
Date: Mer, 7 Oct 98 00:35:17 +0200

To Ulrich Schmid and all those interested in the discussion:

First of all, thank you for the information on the reading of the old 
latin version, as well as for the bibliographical informations!

>Old Latin MS n (St. Gaul) reads "omnia consummata sunt" at Jn 19.30
This means we can add this ms to the list of the versions that add the 
subject "everything" to the sentence of Jesus.

>to be only versional, but what do you mean by "common interpretative

Sorry for this perhaps strange vocabulary. I mean by this that all these 
translations, or versions have one element in common that is not directly 
translated from Greek, and that needs some process of interpretation 
before it is laid down in their text. Somebody who finds a literal 
translation of the Greek not clear enough for his readers, had probably 
dozens of possible solutions, like adding a subject - and he had the 
choice: he could have written "All that I said to my disciples is 
fulfilled", or "the Law and the Prophets are fulfilled", or "What I came 
to do is fulfilled", or "the salvation of mankind is accomplished". In 
such a case, it is probable that every version of the Gospels would have 
a different subject here, but such is not the case: most of them added 
"everything", though nothing in their Greek text favours that solution 
more than any other. They all interpret, and thus translate or 
paraphrase, in the same way. This is what I try to describe with my 
"common interpretative translation".

When such a thing happens, it attracts my attention and I think I should 
suppose that, if these translators didn't get this directly from the 
Greek text, they nevertheless have a common source which they used in 
translating. In other words: can this coincidence, this agreement of so 
many translators, be simply accidental? Was the source they used a common 
interpretation circulating orally in the Church at that time, was it some 
popular exegesis which circulated in homilies (oral) or in commentaries 
(written)? We can't know, except if we remember that all or nearly all of 
the texts mentioned are known to have some (even far) genealogical 
connection with Tatian.

>In c) it were a Greek gloss that was simply taken over.

Until now, I follow you, though I definitely wouldn't prefer c) until one 
can show me that this gloss existed indeed in Greek. Isn't it too easy to 
hypothesize a gloss in a manuscript which nobody has seen? On the other 
hand, the versions I quoted exist, and generally their genealogical links 
with each other and with Tatian's work is accepted.

>harmonization to the immediate context (Jn 19.28!). 
I'm not very enthusiastic for this either, because this verse (Jn 19.28) 
speaks of "the Scriptures" and not of "everything". This last seems to be 
a creation ex-nihilo, or at least simply from the need of making a phrase 
with a subject other than a too indefinite one like "it".

>versions either directly or by means of a conjectured Greek intermediary

I agree with you, it's not "evidence" except when cumulated with the rest 
of the evidence, which you and the team of Dr Petersen master much more 
than I do!

>reading for the Diatessaron. 

Ulrich, thanks again for the information!

Jean V.

_________________________________________________
Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique
e-mail: [email-masked]
_________________________________________________

---

From: "Ulrich Schmid" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 17:27:35 +0200

On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Jean Valentin wrote (in part):

[quoting Schmid]

> "common interpretative translation".

Thanks for clarification. 

> the texts mentioned are known to have some (even far) genealogical 
[...]

>On the other 

> with each other and with Tatian's work is accepted.

This is to the very heart of the problem. Quite frankly I have some trouble
tracing back the exact genealogical links between the "western" witnesses
(Old Latin n, Dutch Harmonies, French Bible Translations, etc.) and
Tatian's work. In order to establish that connection much more work needs
to be done. Remember, the mentioned texts are (except for OL n) all
medieval products of the 13th century onwards. Two absolutely crucial
pieces of evidence are hitherto almost completely unexplored:
a) the history of the Latin gospel texts from the 10th century onwards and
b) the history of the Latin Harmony tradition.

As long as these studies are lacking the connection of "western" texts with
Tatian is faint. At least one thing is clear to me: The classic studies of
Vogels and Plooij that tried to establish certain connections are highly
questionable.  
 
[quoting Schmid]

> with a subject other than a too indefinite one like "it".

John 19:28 VULGATE reads: 
  postea sciens Iesus quia iam >omnia< consummata sunt ut consummaretur
scriptura dicit sitio. 
Therefore, I can't accept your point.
 
Ulrich Schmid

---

From: Jean VALENTIN <[email-masked]>
Date: Mer, 7 Oct 98 22:35:16 +0200

>Therefore, I can't accept your point.

Thanks for underlining - I think I read that text too quickly the other 
day (I must have been tired :-). So OK for the theoretical possibility of 
an independent harmonization with vs. 28, like you say. It should indeed 
be considered. I would accept it as the most likely solution were there 
only a few witnesses to it. But here, there's a massive agreement of so 
many different texts that I prefer a genealogical connection. But you are 
right to examine all the possibilities, and this is one.

Jean V.