The epistle to the hebrews



Download 3.68 Mb.
Page7/102
Date27.05.2021
Size3.68 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   102
d (Cod. Clarom.), the Latin Version of D2; of which e (Cod. Sangerm.) is a copy with a few corrections.

The Greek text represented by d corresponds for the most part with D2 (e.g., Heb. 1:7; 2:14; 4:11, 16; 6:10, 20; 7:1 f., 20; 9:9, 10, 11, 18; 10:1, 3, 6, 7, 26, (33,) 38; 11:23; 12:22, 23, 26, 29; 13:17); but in many places it differs from it (e.g., 1:9; 2:4, 6, 8; 3:1, 13; 4:12, 13; 5:6, 7, 11; 6:1, 2, 18, 19; 7:11, 13, 27; 8:9; 9:23; 11:13, 32; 13:2, 20). In some of these cases the difference may be due to errors in the transcription of D2 (e.g., 1:9; 3:1, (13); 4:12, 13; 6:1, (18); 8:9, c but elsewhere the difference points to a variation in a Greek text anterior to the archetype of D2 (e.g., 2:4, 6, 8; 5:6, (7,) 11; 6:2; 7:11, 27; 9:23; 11:13) and even to a misreading of it (6:10; 13:2).

The text of d has been given by Delarue [under Sabatier's name] in Bibl. Lat. Vers. Ant. 111. (but far less accurately than by Tischendorf in his edition of Cod. Clarom., 1852) with the variations of e, and a large collection of Patristic quotations; but the genealogy of the early Latin texts has still to be determined with the help of a fuller apparatus.

Where it differs from the Vulgate d most frequently witnesses to an older Greek text (e.g., 1:12; 2:4, 8; 3:9, 13; 6:2, 7; 8:2, 11; 9:11; 10:9; 11:3), yet not always (e.g., 1:7; 3:17; 7:23; 8:12; 9:2; 11:4). See also 6:17; 7:20; 8:10; 9:10; 10:28, 38; 11:18, 32; 12:3, 26.

The Latin versions of the Epistle offer a subject for most instructive study, which has not yet been adequately dealt with. The earliest specimen is found in the quotation of Heb. 6:4-8 given by Tertullian (de Pudic. 20). This is equally distinct from the Old Latin of d and e and from the Vulgate text (e.g., v. 4 participaverunt spiritum sanctum. v. 5 verbum Dei dulce, occidente jam aevo. v. 6 cum exciderint, refigentes cruci in semetipsos, dedecorantes. v. 7 humorem, peperit herbam. v. 8 exustionem). The next important specimen of the Old Latin is a quotation of 3:5-4:13 in Lucifer of Cagliari († 371 A.D.) which agrees substantially with the texts of d and e, the variations not being more than might be found in secondary copies of the same writing (de non convers. c. hoeret. 10). The quotations of Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Hilary & c. indicate the currency of a variety of texts in the 4th and 5th centuries, but these have not been classified.

The text of d and e in this Epistle is singularly corrupt. The scribe of d was evidently ignorant of Latin forms and words (1:4 facto, 7 angelus; 2:10 dicebat, per quo; 4:15 habet; v. 9 operantibus; 6:5 uirtutis futuri saecula, 15 petitus, 17 inmobilem nobilatis suae; 7:25 accendentes, 26 caelestis; 10:2 purgari [mundati], 27 horribis quidam execratio indici, 30 vindicas; 11:5 inveniebamur, 28 ne que subastabat; 12:3 pectoribus; 13:10 herere [edere], 11 alium [animalium]. His deficiency becomes conspicuously manifest because he had to transcribe in this book a text which had already been corrected, and in many cases he has confused together two readings so as to produce an unintelligible result (e.g., 2:14 similiter et ipse participes factus est eorumdem passione ut per mortem mortem destrueret qui imperium... 4:2 sed non fuit prode illis verbum auditus illos non temperatos fidem auditorum; 12 scrutatur animi et cogitationis et cogitationis cordis; 5:11 et laboriosa quae interpraetatio est; 6:16 et omnique controversia eorum novissimum in observationem; 8:12 malitiae eorum et peccati illorum et injustis eorum; 9:1 prior eius justitia constitutionis cultura; 10:2 nam necessansent offerri. See also 2:3, 6; 4:16; 5:7; 6:1, 7, 10; 7:19, 20; 8:3; 9:9; 10:2, 27, 33, 39; 11:6, 31; 12:1, 25).

The scribe of e seems to have known a little Latin (he was ignorant of Greek) and he has corrected rightly some obvious blunders (2:12 pro (per) quo; 3:18 introituros (-rus); 5:14 exercitatas (-tus); 6:16 et omni (om. que); 7:25 accedentes (accend-): 26 caelis (caelestis); 28 jurisjurandi (-ndo); 8:7 secundus inquireretur (-das, -rere); 10:33 taliter (et aliter) & c.). Sometimes however his corrections are inadequate (e.g., 9:24 apparuit per se for per soe) and sometimes they are wrong (e.g., 8:1 sedet for sedit); and he has left untouched the gravest corruptions (4:2, 13; 6:5, 17; 9:1, 8 f. & c.), and many simple mistakes (2:9; 3:10; 5:1; 10:2 & c.). It is evident that in this Epistle he had no other text to guide his work.

In spite of the wretched form in which the version has come down to us, it shews traces of freedom and vigour, and in particular it has often preserved the absolute participial constructions which are characteristic of the Epistle (e.g., 1:2 etiam fecit, 3 purificatione peccatorum facta, 14 qui mittuntur propter possessuros... 2:8 subjiciendo autem... 2:18; 5:7 lacrimis oblatis; 6:11 relicto igitur initii Christi verbum (-0); 10:12 oblata hostia, 14 nos sanctificans; 11:31 exceptis exploratoribus; 12:28 regno immobili suscepto).

The important Harleian MS. (B.M. Harl. 1772) contains many traces of another early version, especially in the later chapters, as Griesbach (Symb. Crit. 1.327) and Bentley before him noticed. Other MSS. also contain numerous old renderings. Among these one of the most interesting is Bentley's S (comp. Dict. of Bible, Vulgate, p. 1713), in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (B. 10. 5, saec. IX.). This gives in agreement with d and e
Heb. 1:7 ignem urentem.

:3 in nobis.






Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   102




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page