Introduction to the textual criticism of the Greek New TestamentNestle, Eberhard
Religion
Introduction to the textual criticism of the Greek New Testament
Nestle, Eberhard
Bible. New Testament -- Criticism, Textual
(1.) LATIN VERSIONS BEFORE JEROME.
[Sidenote: Old Latin Texts.]
Where, when, and by whom was the New Testament, or at least were parts
of it, first translated into Latin? From the passage in Augustine quoted
above, we learn that it was done by all and sundry in the very earliest
times of the Christian faith. Rome used to be regarded as the place
where the Latin versions took their rise. But it was observed that Greek
was very commonly employed as the written language at Rome, especially
among Christians. The first Bishops of Rome have pure Greek names, and
even the first representative of the Roman Church with a Latin name, the
Clement that wrote the Epistle to the Corinthians about the year 95,
even he wrote in Greek. Moreover, when the relics of the Old Latin
Bibles began to be examined, it was observed that their language, both
in vocabulary and grammar, entirely agreed with that found in African
writers of that age, and in some things agreed with these alone.
[Sidenote: African Latin.] It is, of course, a fact that the majority of
the writers of that age known to us are African. Till quite recently,
therefore, it was held to be tolerably well made out that the birthplace
of the Latin Bible is to be found in Africa. It was regarded by many as
equally certain, that in spite of the statements of Jerome and
Augustine, and in spite too of the various forms in which the Old Latin
Bible now exists, these all proceed from a common origin, or at most
from two sources, so that it was not quite correct to speak of a
“multitude of translators” in the very earliest times. The settlement of
this question is rendered more difficult by the fact that, while the
extant copies of the pre-Jeromic Bible are undoubtedly very early, they
are few in number, and for the most part mutilated. The reason of this
is not far to seek. For, as time went on and Jerome’s new version came
to be more and more exclusively used, manuscripts of the earlier version
lost their value, and were the more frequently used for palimpsests and
book covers. One has also to take into account how liable the text of
both was to be corrupted, either by the copyist of an Old Latin Bible
inserting in the margin, or even interpolating in the text, various
passages from Jerome’s translation that seemed to him to be a decided
improvement, or conversely, by the scribe who should have written the
new rendering involuntarily permitting familiar expressions to creep in
from the old. It is estimated that we have about 8000 manuscripts of
Jerome’s recension, of which 2228 have been catalogued by Gregory.
Samuel Berger, the most thorough investigator in this field, examined
800 manuscripts in Paris alone. But on the other hand, only 38
manuscripts of the Old Latin Version of the New Testament are known to
exist. The credit of collecting the relics of these pre-Jeromic versions
of the Old and New Testament, so far as they were accessible at that
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account